A word before we launch into it. I realize not everyone feels the way I do about history and the kinds of things that can be demonstrated and displayed at a site. I realize that people can be squeamish, uncomfortable, offended, and angry over a topic like this. The bottom line to me is that in order for me to live, something has to die. Your food comes at a price. The bag of boneless, skinless chicken breasts in the freezer at your local grocery store was once a living thing. So were the chickpeas that were harvested to make your hummus. Whether chicken or chickpea, something must give for me to live. I acknowledge there is a quality of life issue about how we raise chickens now-a-days but I am choosing to focus on what I saw.
I don't like the word 'butcher'; it often has a negative connotation, I am simply referring to the established systematic manner of processing an animal for food and am not placing a moral judgment on the practice. I am not going to go into the details about the whole process of dressing a chicken but I felt that the topic in general should be addressed. A rooster that had a free-ranging lifestyle, as well as having access to plenty of food and water on a daily basis was selected to be consumed. It was selected, as far as I know, because it was the closest. The site chose to butcher a rooster in order to reduce crowding in the hen house as there were too many roosters and provide an educational program.The harvested meet from the rooster was later used in food-ways programs at the site.
First of all, all visitors on the farm site were notified on what was going to take place so there were no surprises and anyone who wasn't interested could leave. Those who wished to view were invited behind the coop so that anyone who wandered up wasn't surprised by the scene. The process was described to educate about the manner of getting chicken for food on a farm was made clear to them and what they could expect once the chicken was dispatched. Then the rooster was dispatched quickly and efficiently. After, the chicken was wet plucked by dipping in hot water to loosen the skin and make the feathers easier to come out.
As the rooster was being prepared for food, my interpreter colleague described what she was doing and why. The process of removing the organs opened opportunities for discussion on biology of birds and people, similarities and differences and what can and cannot be eaten. Remember not just the muscle (meat) is edible. The visitors seemed to enjoy the demonstration. I spoke to a woman who was arriving with her child, cautioning her that we were butchering and dressing a rooster and she was very interested in seeing. She said, "That's so cool, I've never seen what happens to chickens when they do that." She stuck around for a bit to look but her child was more interested in looking around and exploring. The impression that I got from the visitors from this demonstration indicated that this is something that they've never seen done before. Maybe it is because we are trying too hard to veil this aspect of history because we are so used to violence on TV or perhaps a traumatic experience in the visitors' lives would make them uncomfortable. Many of the curious spectators would ask what a certain organ looked like. Our interpreter asked what a certain organ does to see if the visitors knew. Overall, I felt that the demonstration was sensitive to different responses to butchering, explained in a manner that was educational, and handled in a professional manner that took the subject seriously.
So what I am getting at is whether the butchery demonstration is a good idea for historical site or not. I think it is important to demonstrate the connection between animals on a farm and the food that we eat. Since we are demonstrating a 1900 farm, the meat didn't come from a store in plastic wrap and a label. This was a essential part of farm life. We explain this in a soft manner to visitors in that we generally don't name the animals. Names bring emotional attachment and would make it harder to butcher an animal for us to eat if we had an attachment to that animal. I don't think that advertising a demonstration butchery is necessarily a good thing, but it might be tested out first to see what the reaction might be. Making a show of it might get unwanted attention by animal rights activist groups or a similar organizations, then obviously no, it is probably not a good idea to advertise it. Nor do I think every historical site should include animal butchery and dressing for consumption. On one hand I think the connection needs to be made, but on the other, I don't think it necessarily needs to be advertised on brochures or happen every day. I do think it needs to be handled delicately, professionally, and seriously. The visitor should be notified that it is going to happen, yet be given every opportunity to decide against viewing or participating if it does not suit them. This way we can be respectful to those among us that have a sensitivity to this because of age, maturity, group dynamics, and morals or beliefs. Being funny or taking a humorous approach about this will probably not turn out well, while being callous and nonchalant about it could be perceived differently, and not letting visitors know what you are about to do in the middle of the place for all to see whether the want to or not should probably always avoided. Freeman Tilden, the grand-daddy of Interpretation stated in his book, Interpreting Our Heritage, stated that the chief aim of Interpretation is not instruction, but provocation. This topic definitely has the potential to provoke, but is it something we want to provoke? Its certainly gutsy. Like a few people stated, they had never seen anything like it before. Perhaps the connection that we wish to make between the animals we have on the farms and the food we eat is brought into a sharper view by means of the butchery demonstrated, that we see why we can't name our animals, that the privilege to live another day has a cost, and that perhaps through death we can appreciate life a little more.
No comments:
Post a Comment