1970
Head Waiter: (Michael Palin) Fine. I’m the head waiter. This is a vegetarian restaurant only, we serve no animal flesh of any kind. We’re not only proud of that, we’re smug about it. So if you were to come in here asking me to rip open a small defenseless chicken, so you could chew its skin and eat its intestines, then I’m afraid I’d have to ask you to leave.
…….
‘Non-Brits’ born after 1960 may have difficulty fully comprehending this video. I fondly remember seeing it when it was first aired in 1970 – I was aged 9. This is vegetarian history of the silliest type. It is very far indeed from being PC etc….
……but if you are thick-skinned and like a giggle, & some 1970s flashbacks – ……then carry on.
SERIOUS WARNING –
SOME FOLK WILL FIND THIS VIDEO OFFENSIVE
1970 in the UK – a deeply silly time – Prime Minister – Harold Wilson (Labour) (until 19 June), Edward Heath (Conservative) (starting 19 June).
Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Season 1 Episode 13 – aired 11 January 1970
The entire script transcribed – here.
An attempt to explain it –
From the book – Monty Python’s Flying Circus: An Utterly Complete,
Thoroughly Unillustrated, Absolutely Unauthorized Guide to Possibly All the References
: from Arthur “Two-Sheds” Jackson to Zambesi – by – Darl Larsen – Rowman & Littlefield, 2008 – p186
…….
1897
Henry S. Salt discussing cannibalism in 1897.
Salt’s truly visionary section, where he is predicting / discussing our modern day veganism, I have taken the liberty of highlighting in green.
Plus, we can enjoy a dose of Salt’s truly exemplary sarcasm!
The book in full – here.
Superior Person: How or where does the moral phase of food-taking enter the science of dietetics?
Vegetarian: At a good many points, I think. One of them is the question of cannibalism. Allow me to read you a passage from the “Encyclopaedia Britannica”: “Man being by nature [?] carnivorous as well as frugivorous, and human flesh being not unfit for human food, the question arises why mankind generally have not only avoided it, but have looked with horror on exceptional individuals and races addicted to cannibalism. It is evident on consideration that both emotional and religious motives must have contributed to bring about this prevailing state of mind.”
Superior Person: Of course. Why read me all that?
Vegetarian: To show you that what you call ” the moral phase of food-taking ” has undoubtedly affected our diet. The very thought of eating human flesh is revolting to you. Yet human flesh is chemically identical with animal flesh, and if it be true that to boil an egg is the same thing as to roast an ox, it follows that to butcher an ox is the same thing as to murder a man. Such is the logical position in which you have placed yourself by ignoring the fact that all life is not equally valuable, but that the higher the life the greater the responsibility incurred by those who destroy it.
Or it may be that the superior person, instead of denying that morals affect dietetics, himself poses as so austere a moralist as to scorn the wretched half-measure of merely abstaining from flesh food while still using animal products. The result is in either case the same.
The all-or-nothing argument is sometimes put forward in this fashion:
Superior Person: Well, as far as the right or wrong of the question is concerned, I would not care to be a vegetarian at all, unless I were a thorough one. What can be the good of forswearing animal food in one form if you take it in another?
Vegetarian: But surely it is rational to deal with the worst abuses first. To insist on an all-or-nothing policy would be fatal to any reform whatsoever. Improvements never come in the mass, but always by instalment; and it is only reactionists who deny that half a loaf is better than no bread.
