I send this little book out into the world, first, to aid those who, having decided to adopt a bloodless diet, are still asking how they can be nourished without flesh; second, in the hope of gaining something further to protect “the speechless ones” who, having come down through the centuries under “the dominion of man,” have in their eyes the mute, appealing look of the helpless and oppressed. Their eloquent silence should not ask our sympathy and aid in vain; they have a right, as our humble brothers, to our loving care and protection, and to demand justice and pity at our hands; and, as a part of the One Life, to— “life, which all can take but none can give; Life, which all creatures love and strive to keep; Wonderful, dear, and pleasant unto each, Even to the meanest; yea, a boon to all Where pity is, for pity makes the world Soft to the weak and noble for the strong. Unto the dumb lips of the flock he lent Sad, pleading words, showing how man, who prays For mercy to the gods, is merciless, Being as god to those; albeit all life Is linked and kin, and what we slay have given Meek tribute of their milk and wool, and set Fast trust upon the hands which murder them.” If the cruelty and injustice to animals are nothing to us, we have still another argument to offer—the brutalization of the men who slaughter that we may eat flesh. Mrs. Besant, in “Why I Am a Food Reformer,” says: “Lately I have been in the city of Chicago—one of the greatest slaughter-houses of the world—where the slaughter-men, who are employed from early morn till late at night in the killing of thousands of these hapless creatures, are made a class practically apart from their fellow-men; they are marked out “If I may not appeal to you in the name of the animals—if under mistaken views you regard animals as not sharing your kind of life—then I appeal to you in the name of human brotherhood, and remind you of your duty to your fellow-men, your duty to your nation, which must be built up partly of the children of those who slaughter—who physically inherit the very signs of this brutalizing occupation. I ask you to recognize your duty as men and women who should raise the Race, not That flesh-eating is not necessary to the perfect health of man is attested by many scientists. The following testimonies from some very prominent physiologists and anatomists may prove interesting: Sir Charles Bell, F. R. S.: “It is, I think, not going too far to say that every fact connected with the human organization goes to prove that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal. This opinion is principally derived from the formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs.” Sylvester Graham, M. D.: “Comparative anatomy proves that man is naturally a frugivorous animal, formed to subsist upon fruits, seeds, and farinaceous vegetables.” Professor Wm. Lawrence, F. R. S.: “The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of carnivorous animals; and, whether we consider the teeth, jaws, or digestive organs, the human structure closely resembles that of the frugivorous animals.” Dr. Jozef Drzewiecki: “There is no doubt that fruit and vegetable food purifies the blood, while meat inflames and is the source of many diseases, which are the punishment for breaking the natural law and command.” Professor Vogt: “The vegetarian diet is the most beneficial and agreeable to our organs, as it contains the greatest amount of carbon hydrates and the best proportion of albumen.” Sir Henry Thompson, M. D., F. R. C. S.: “It is a vulgar error to regard meat in any form as necessary to life. All that is necessary to the human body can be supplied by the vegetable kingdom.... The vegetarian can extract from his food all the principles necessary for the growth and support of the body, as well as for the production of heat and force. It must The following special cablegram from London to the New York “Sun,” July 3d, 1898, contains a practical illustration of the superiority of a vegetable diet: “The vegetarians are making a great ado over the triumph of their theory in the long-distance test of walking endurance, seventy miles, in Germany, this week. The twenty-two starters included eight vegetarians. The distance had to be covered within eighteen hours. The first six to arrive were vegetarians, the first finishing in 14¼ hours, the second in 14½, the third in 15½, the fourth in 16, the fifth in 16½, and the sixth in 17½. The last two vegetarians missed their way and walked five miles more. All reached the goal in splendid condition. Not till one hour after the last vegetarian did the first meat-eater appear, completely exhausted. He was the only one. Others dropped off after thirty-five miles.” There is no question of the great economy of vegetarianism. Dr. Alcott, in “Arguments for Vegetarianism,” says: “Twenty-two acres of land are needed to sustain one man on fresh meat. Under wheat that land will feed forty-two people; under oats, eighty-eight; under potatoes, maize, or rice, one hundred and seventy-six; under the banana, over six thousand. The crowded nations of the future must abandon flesh-eating for a diet that will feed more than tenfold people by the same soil, expense and labor. How rich men will be when they cease to toll for flesh-meat, alcohol, drugs, sickness, and war!” “Suffer the ox to plough, and impute his death to age and Nature's hand. Let the sheep continue to yield us sheltering wool, and the goats the produce of their loaded udders. Banish from among you nets and snares and painful artifices, Conspire no longer against the birds, nor scare the meek deer, nor hide with fraud the crooked hook;.... But let your mouths be empty of blood, and satisfied with pure and natural repasts.”[1] |