First Vegetarian Society Gathering . 2 August 1851

[patoslilas]

Hello!

I found this in the archives of The Times and I think it priceless!!

I apologize if this has been posted previously.

http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol...-1851-08-02-08

Not only it's beautiful to read about this meeting but the humour with which the article was written is worth a read!

[apersefone]

I just read the whole article and I'm impressed! In the year 1851 the Vegetarian Society had 718 members and the man preceding the reunion had been a vegetarian for 42 years already!!

Thank you for sharing this

[Alma_Animal]

.

Wow, excellent!

I like this:

"The vegetarians advocated a total abstinence from the flesh of animals, and in doing this they were aware that they addressed themselves to a flesh-eating nation, and that nothing was more difficult than to change national tastes and habits. They had to contend with their antagonists, viz.— with custom, prejudice, and appetite. These met them with the question—"Why abstain?" He (Mr. Brotherton) in his turn would ask—"Why eat?" Men ate meat because their forefathers ate it—it was a custom, but custom was every day schooled by progress and experience. ... Men who killed no animals would refrain from banding themselves together for the murder of man. This he knew was flying in the very face of custom, but custom had at all times sanctioned all absurdities, as a reference to the curiosities of the history of civilization, in all climes and ages, would amply show. Slavery, duelling, and capital punishments, had all been sanctioned by custom. The Spaniards had their bullfights, and the people in the island of Skewes, in Cornwall, ate rats smothered with onions. It was the same with frogs in France, and meat was exactly in the same case. No one would eat it raw, and the taste for it was a vicious taste. The vegetarian system, on the contrary, was sanctioned by the law of nature, for anatomy showed that we were made to eat fruit and herbs, and, if man lived according to the dictates of nature, he would live in enjoyment and health."

On the other hand, I don't particularly like this sentence:

"... and if men would perforce condescend to that animal, of which it had been observed that it was "cursed under the old law, and never be blessed under the new" (laughter)—need he say it was the pig? (great laughter)—if they would condescend to that most scrofulous and nasty animal (shouts of laughter), why they must be content to carry it in their stomachs longer than anything else."

Now that's a nasty, nasty comment to say the least, and the adjectives by which they refer to pigs, would really be suitable to men instead. But hey, they were different times, and it was better than nothing, and I'm thinking they may even have made the comment to put meat eaters off eating meat, rather than because they really thought that about pigs. Who knows.

Thanks Patoslilas!

[Alma_Animal]

And the pioneers in Quedadas!! Ha ha!! Foreros: eat your heart out, they started them!! Ha ha!

[patoslilas]

And the pioneers in Quedadas!! Ha ha!! Foreros: eat your heart out, they started them!! Ha ha!

Hahahahaha! Right on!