Monday, 1 August 2016

Would you eat elephant meat?

Source background
In "Kangaroo meat puts commercial industry and animal welfare groups into conflict," Kim Arlington says that whether the meat from the iconic Australian kangaroo should be eaten or not is causing considerable controversy between different groups (2016). Farmers would like to get rid of kangaroos, which compete for the grass their sheep and other livestock eat; the kangaroo industry sees the meat as a profitable business; but animal welfare groups object to the killing of this native animal, especially the often brutal treatment of joeys whose mothers are killed for meat. According to Arlington, those in favour of eating kangaroo meat argue that this is the best way to make the animals valuable so that they will be killed more humanely by farmers and meat producers, who will treat an animal with commercial value more carefully than one with no value that is only a pest.

_______________________________________ 

My Yes/No question is:
Would you eat elephant meat?

My answer is:
Yes, I would but not today.

The Australian coat of arms.
Both national symbols, the kangaroo
and the emu, are on Australian menus.
The more obvious question was whether you would eat kangaroo meat, but for a Thai audience, I thought that the elephant question was stronger. Just as the kangaroo is a symbol of Australia, so is the elephant a symbol of Thailand. I have no idea whether Thais have ever eaten elephants or not, but as Arlington's article points out, Australians do eat kangaroo. I usually have some kangaroo steak on my visits, and would agree that it's a tasty meat. I don't know about the health claims, but it does seem less fatty than other commonly eaten meats.

The first thing I thought of while reading the article in The Sydney Morning Herald was that this issue is an extremely emotional one. People often have strong feelings on these sorts of issues, but that's not a reason to refuse to discuss the issues. On the contrary, it's a very good reason to apply some critical thinking, which is one thing that Arlington tries to do in his article, while he admits the strong emotions that people have.

No elephant recipes in
modern editions
Another reason I made my Yes/No question about elephants is that some people have  definitely eaten (do eat?) elephant meat. As I read Arlington's article, I was reminded of one of my prized books, an old edition of the classic cook book Larousse Gastronomique, which contains a recipe for elephant trunk soup. In later editions, this recipe has disappeared: I guess it isn't easy to find the main ingredient these days.

But why do people who eagerly eat many kinds of meat, ordering and paying for killing on a massive scale every day for no better reason than to enjoy the taste of animal flesh, object to other people eating different animals? Another obvious example is dog meat, which I've enjoyed on visits to Chiang Rai, where it seems popular. The first time was an accident: my brother and I were in a small town restaurant and thought the waiter was recommending duck. Although it was tasty, it was obvious that what arrived on the pate was not duck. A few questions clarified that the waiter had not been saying "duck" but "dog." We had already eaten a bit so continued. Why eat cow, pig, sheep and duck, but not dog, kangaroo or elephant?

I would not eat elephant today because they are under threat, but that objection does not apply to either kangaroos or dogs. And the French are rather fond of horse. This also brings up some interesting questions related to the readings in chapter 1 of Quest 2: can a cultural prejudice make something right or wrong? I don't think so. The cultural background makes prejudices understandable, but that's not the same as making them either right or wrong. Slavery was never morally OK just because many cultures traditionally accepted it. Or am I wrong?

___________
Reference
Arlington, K. (2016, July 31). Kangaroo meat puts commercial industry and animal welfare groups into conflict. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/kangaroo-meat-puts-commercial-industry-and-animal-welfare-groups-into-conflict-20160721-gqadyg.html

7 comments:

  1. What is the important difference between my reference citation for the source I cite in this blog post and the one in my last blog post, just below?
    What is the same? (These are just a couple of language questions to think about in addition to the ideas.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. In my opinion, the majority of Thai people would say no to eat elephant meat. First, elephant is consider as a royal animal, so it is very high thing in our perception. Second, the population of natural elephant in Thailand is constantly decreasing. If we chase it for food, it will become extinct very soon. Third, elephant is considered as a big-size creature, according to Buddhism, killing one of it brings about a seriously bad karma. Thus, elephant would be the very last choice of meat that most of Thai people will choose to consume.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't Buddhism actually teach in its First Precept to abstain from causing death?
      Eating pork causes death. If I order steak for lunch, I'm ordering and paying someone else to kill an animal for me. I think that means I am the cause of the killing.

      Delete
  3. My answer is no. In Thai people's point of view, elephant is not just an ordinary type of animal such as dog, pig or cattle. Instead, it's some kind of a symbol which is very much related to royal family in Thai history, especially the king in the ancient time. Elephant was mounted by the king to fight against the enemy in the old days. So it's seen as a glorious and respectful creature. It could also be seen as a symbol of nation. In my opinion, eating elephant meat may be a very strange idea for Thai people. Some might even be offended by such idea.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't eat elephant because that's so strange. By the way, If elephant meat is delicious and is promoted to eat as industrial food or livestock, the elephant can be ordinary meat like pig or fish. In my opinion, Human can eat every meat if them taste delicious such as, in northeast of Thailand, somebody eats dog but in Bangkok most of people aren't eat it. I think it's perception what we can eat or not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Ken, Mieng and Pat(Acamsiri). No, I would not eat elephant meat, I think the most Thai people can't eat elephant meat. The elephant has very importance for Thai people and Thailand for long times. It was used to vehicle of king for war. It is a symbol of Thailand which you told in your blog. I think it is faith of Thai people for elephant we can't eat them they like our friends. We should respect them more than bring for eating. This is traditional culture of Thailand the elephant is high thing for every Thai people. We can eat other meat such as fish, pig, duck and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I haven't eaten elephant meat and I don't prefer to eat it. Because elephant is the most important animal of Thailand in which Thai's history used elephants in wars, or to journey other places. And also the number of elephants in Thailand are not very much. I think that we have a lot of choices (except elephants, dogs, and kangaroos) to find meats which you would like to eat.

    ReplyDelete

Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.

A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.