Vegans of Color

Because we don’t have the luxury of being single-issue

Cattle, Mavericks, and McCain October 7, 2008

Filed under: vegan — Joselle @ 12:57 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

A very interesting article in today’s New York Times on the origin of the word “maverick,” and why the Maverick family would like McCain and Palin to stop bandying about a term they have no business claiming:

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it, Ms. Maverick said; unbranded cattle, then, were called “Maverick’s.” The name came to mean anyone who didn’t bear another’s brand…

It should come as no surprise that Ms. Maverick insists that John McCain, who has voted so often with his party, “is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase…

“He’s a Republican,” she said. “He’s branded.”

It’s also no surprise that the desperate McCain/Palin ticket, which has co-opted the language and ideals of the Obama/Biden campaign while continuing to mudsling and kick up racist and anti-Muslim sentiments, would appropriate and misuse a term that stands for progressive politics. While Palin “promotes the brutal and unethical aerial hunting of wolves and other wildlife,” she and McCain steal a term that signifies a group of animals that, while not free by any stretch of the imagination, were at least not mutilated.

I’m just hoping the McCain campaign continues to tank. This small article is one more example of why they should. They are all hate and subterfuge and no substance.

Advertisements
 

obama “cares about animal rights very much” January 25, 2008

This is probably old news to lots of folks — I’ve been trying to limit my consumption of election news, for my sanity — but the AP had a story on January 16 called “Obama Pledges Support for Animal Rights.” It’s a short article, but here is the relevant chunk:

Obama responded that he cares about animal rights very much, “not only because I have a 9-year-old and 6-year-old who want a dog.” He said he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state Senate and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society.

“I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other,” he said. “And it’s very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals.”

Sounds decent at first, especially considering we’ve lost Dennis Kucinich again, & Clinton has ties to corporate agriculture.

But what does Obama mean? How far is he really willing to go on behalf of animals (& on a personal level, does he eat meat or dairy)? The Humane Society is definitely an animal welfare group — as opposed to animal rights (ie. “happy meat” is okay, even though the animal still dies unnecessarily). Hm, maybe that’s what Obama means — he’s interested in supporting small farmers who slaughter sentient beings, & not large corporate factory farms. Great. Unfortunately, the “cruelty perpetrated on animals” doesn’t stop when you give them access to the outdoors & feed them grass, instead of making them cannibals… & then still kill them at the end.

(And I hope, that if his children do persuade him to add a dog to their household, that he doesn’t buy one from a pet store — & better yet, that he adopts one that already needs a home.)