The love of a horse is also eating.
The love of horse(s) is never “simple” (is always simple)
Is always.
I then make a little short film I call HORSE MEAT
THIS IS A VIDEO I MADE, ABOUT HORSES:
(CLICK ON THE LINK)
horses and death and world on Vimeo
THIS IS A VIDEO I MADE, ABOUT HORSES:
(CLICK ON THE LINK)
I read in a book by Elsbeth probyn again:
EATING THE OCEAN
HOWEVER, THIS ONE IS ABOUT THE SEA ACTUALLY...
Eating the ocean: We do it every day, often without knowing it. Humans have eaten the ocean for as long as we’ve been around. Until relatively re[1]cently we thought that we could eat it with impunity. Now we are at risk of eating it up, devouring it until there’s nothing left except the not- so[1]apocryphal jellyfish- and- chips. “We” are, of course, di≠erently positioned in this scenario. This book is an intervention into the current politics of food, although they are still by and large concerned with terrestrial production of food. Along with others, I’d say that some of the academic debates and media discussions about alternative food practices have tended to become rather simplified, especially when they are fixated on urban localism.
NOT VERY RELEVANT FOR ME, SO MAYBE...
Food, as many have pointed out, is far from simple. The rhetoric of helping people to eat better is drenched in condescension. Julie Guth[1]man’s (2007) trenchant critiques highlight the ways in which the mantra of “bringing good food to others” and the appeal to the inherent good of organic food forgets how historically organic food production was wedded to eugenic desires for racial and nutritional purity. In the context of the United States, Guthman also notes that localism, the bedrock of alternative food rhetoric, can be xenophobic and historically blind. For many, “the local” was not a romantic ideal: It was where people of color or people marked by class were scrutinized and shamed. This scrutiny often contin[1]ues in the snide glances directed at working- class women with shopping carts loaded with cheap carbohydrates to fill up families on a meager wage or pension.
IOFS VILL GÄRNA SKRIVA NGT OM HÄSTKÖTT OCH LASAGNESKANDALEN…
// IOFS WOULD LIKE TO WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT HORSE MEAT AND THE LASAGNE SCANDAL...
My point is simple: There is no innocent place in which to escape the food politics of human- fish entanglement. Another point follows from the fact that localism cannot reassure us: Human- fish entanglements are not linear. They are simultaneously global and local, regional and hemispheric, Global North and South. This means that a food politics cannot start with the fisher and follow through to the consumer.
JAG VILL SKRIVA OM FOOD O EMOTIONS
Ethology studies “the compositions of relations or capacities among dif[1]ferent things” (Deleuze 1992, 628). This is central to Eating the Ocean. As I’ve argued before, we eat and are eaten (Probyn 2000). There is no priv[1]ileging the inside or the outside of any individual body. If one eats bluefin tuna, one eats at the top of the trophic system, ingesting the heavy metals the tuna has eaten across its history.
Fish eat the microplastics used in daily skin care; humans eat the fish and the microplastics; and fish and human bodies inter mingle. And of course that “we” gets eaten up too, di≠erentiated, fragmented, and fractured. Moira Gatens argues that we need to add historical depth to Deleuze’s ethology. What is the genealogy of how bodies come to be figured in certain ways? As she writes, “Given that on the ethological view nature, bodies, and materiality itself, is active, dynamic, and has a history, then past compositions will a≠ect the present and future possibilities of what we may become” (Gatens 1996, 12). This raises the question of how gendered and classed bodies have been erased not only in the histories of fishing but also in the current theories of the more- than- human.
In their articulation of what they call “a wet ontology,” Kimberly Peters and Phillip Steinberg ask, “How can one write about so ‘slippery’ a sub[1]ject[,] . . . how can one write about the ocean as something to think not only with but from without reducing it to a metaphor?” (2015). Fish for me are not, and cannot be, metaphorical. Fish are the very principle of relat[1]edness that holds this book together. But they are, after all, often below the surface. This is why I insist on an embodied and dialogic ethnography that is attuned to listening to stories and relaying them, to trying to capture a≠ective spaces through various forms of description, and to reaching for the depth of history that informs tacit knowledge embodied in individuals’ ways of being and ways of recounting.
SÖKTE PÅ EMOTION:
As I have argued elsewhere, we need to foreground the role of emotion to frame an a≠ective habitus (Probyn 2004a, 2005a). This is to turn Bourdieu’s attention to the bodily imbrica[1]tion of societal structures and extend it to the forms of a≠ect and emotion that the body registers in the incorporation of the social. As I’ve put it else[1]where, the body eats into the social as our bodies are simultaneously eaten by practices that are the instantiation of class, gender, ethnicity, and so forth (Probyn 2000).
As I have touched on above, the ocean summons up di≠use a≠ects, for which we do not always have the right words. From his fieldwork with Icelandic fishers, Pálsson’s use of seasickness points to the physical and connotative upheavals that being on the sea can occasion: “Icelanders implicitly recognize the relationship between knowledge and practice, and the unity of emotion and cognition, body and mind. For them, ‘seasickness’ (sjoveiki) not only recalls the bodily state of nausea sometimes caused by the lack of practical knowledge, the unexpected rocking move[1]ments of the world, but it is also used as a metaphor for learning in the company of others” (1994, 901)
SÖKTE PÅ HORSE:
The story of bluefin tuna’s rise in value is one of technology and taste. In the early twentieth century they were called “horse mackerel” and were seen as a pest for fishers because they would follow smaller fish, eat them, and then tear through the fishing nets.
The town is littered with their toys—or replicas thereof, in the case of the racehorse Makybe Diva. Her statue stands proudly on the green foreshore. She is owned by Tony Šantic´, who named her by taking the first two letters of the names of his five employees—Maureen, Kylie, Belinda, Diane, and Vanessa. Makybe Diva won the Melbourne Cup three times, and by the time she retired she had made her owner fourteen million dollars. Šantic´, like all the tuna families, is Croatian. The tuna trade had been split ethnically, with the Italians running the east coast of Australia and the Croatians—all from the little island of Kali—taking South Austra[1]lia. The famous Puglisi family straddled the two, and Joe and Mick Puglisi sailed from the east to cash in on the tuna trade in 1968. Joe sold his quota for 180 million dollars in the 1980s. Now all the tuna action is in Port Lincoln and, with the exception of Hagen Stehr, it is all in the hands of the Croats. They are a flamboyant crew. Šantic´ owns Tony’s Tuna International. The logo for his company is a cartoon of him as a long- haired dude with sunglasses sitting in a boat with a fish on the hook.
For instance, Joe Puglisi’s story was common: “Conditions onboard were hard. Before it was lost, Joe’s home for seven years was a cramped bunk on the St Michael. He went to sea at 13, he slept on a horse- hair mattress, his worldly possessions fitted into a single drawer. And when it rained, he wore his waterproofs to bed.”
Shutting the door after the horse had bolted, the government introduced individual transferable quotas (itqs), which, as we’ve seen, often serve to privatize the commons. In Power’s words, “‘Ownership’ of resources does not necessarily mean conservation” (2005, 103). More specifically, as we saw in the case of the tuna licenses, it translates into the concentration of quotas in a few hands; often men who do not even live in the local commu[1]nities
VET INTE OM KOMMER ANVÄNDA ALLS MEN ÄNDÅ SOM REFERENS… DON'T KNOW IF WILL USE AT ALL BUT STILL FOR REFERENCE...
Upp till 100 procent hästkött i Findus lasagne | SVT Nyheter
I Storbritannien har bland annat miljoner hamburgare återkallats av stora kedjor som Burger King sedan analyser visat att nötköttet var hästkött.
Findus lät därför testa prover i ett tyskt laboratorium och på fredagen kom svaret – rikligt med häst-dna. Findus bekräftar för SVT att deras frysta portionslasagne innehåller mellan 60 och 100 procent hästkött.
Findus kallade även tillbaka produkter från England och Frankrike. Enligt uppgifter till nyhetsbyrån AFP kommer hästköttet från ett rumänskt slakteri, via ett franskt kötthanteringsföretag till den luxemburgska producenten Comigel.
In the UK, millions of burgers have been recalled by major chains such as Burger King after analyses showed that the beef was horse meat.
Findus therefore had samples tested in a German laboratory and on Friday the results came back - plenty of horse DNA. Findus confirmed to SVT that their frozen portion lasagne contains between 60 and 100 per cent horse meat.
Findus also recalled products from England and France. According to the AFP news agency, the horse meat comes from a Romanian slaughterhouse, via a French meat processing company to the Luxembourg producer Comigel.
NATION!!!!!Findus lasagne blev särskilt uppmärksammad i svenska massmedier, så språkrådet tog upp ordet hästlasagne i nyordslistan för 2013.[13]
Hästkött – är gott! – Peter Kastensson (wordpress.com) Inte för att jag är någon större konsument av färdiglagat och djupfryst. Inte alls, faktiskt. Så jag struntar egentligen i vilket. Dessutom är det så – att hästkött är gott!
Tidigare fanns det åtminstone två affärer som sålde hästkött i Malmö. Vill minnas att man sålde det i gamla Saluhallen som låg på Lilla Torg. Inte den hybrid till hall som numera hyser ett lyxhotell, utan den riktiga hallen som låg i egen byggnad och upptog hela torget.
NOSTALGI… Min far var travhästägare men jag tror inte han hade några etiska problem att äta hästkött. Jag har det absolut inte. Jag har ätit hästbiff vid flera tillfällen. Det påminner om magert nötkött och det är väldigt mört. Och gott. Riktigt så kallat hamburgerkött kommer också från hästen.
Jag har levt nära travhästar i hela mitt liv och har inget emot att äta upp dom sedan dom fullgjort sitt värv på tävlingsbanan. Underförstått att dom är fria från alla medikamenter, att den kollen finns utgår jag ifrån. Oetiskt? Kan jag äta grodlår och sniglar, krokodil och struts, kan jag väl käka häst. Eller?
ATT TÄNKA VAD SOM ÄR SOM ÄR KRETSLOPP OCH TRAVLOPP OCH VILKA KROPPAR SOM SÖRJS OCH HUR HUR HUR DOM SÖRJS…
Not that I'm a big consumer of pre-cooked and frozen food. Not at all, actually. So I don't really care which one. Besides, it's true - horse meat is good!
There used to be at least two shops selling horse meat in Malmö. I remember that they sold it in the old Saluhallen on Lilla Torg. Not the hybrid hall that now houses a luxury hotel, but the real hall that was in its own building and occupied the entire square.
NOSTALGI... My father was a racehorse owner but I don't think he had any ethical problems eating horse meat. I certainly don't. I have eaten horse steak on several occasions. It reminds me of lean beef and it is very tender. And tasty. Real so-called hamburger meat also comes from the horse.
I've lived close to racehorses all my life and don't mind eating them after they've done their job on the racetrack. It is understood that they are free of all drugs, I assume that this check is available. Unethical? If I can eat frog legs and snails, crocodile and ostrich, I can eat horse. Or?
TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IS THE CYCLE AND THE RACE AND WHICH BODIES ARE MOURNED AND HOW THEY ARE MOURNED...
Ooo.
The Horse is also. Not a Donkey.
The horse
As
A
Privileged
Position etc…
I read. The write, about a poem.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE TEXT ”UT UR (eller in i) ÅSNANS (eller hästens) MUN” IN SWEDISH with the cyborg translation of the Internetz poetics.
SO I TRY TO END THIS CHAOS FEELING HORSEHORSEHOSRE HOW TO KNOW WHERE IS THE END, QUOTE:
can poetry be a place, can it hurt in a reasonably
reasonable direction, can it eat hay and oats, can it eat calibanic, can I carry the narrative in a sound
which is not a word, can that non-word save without saving, be afraid without god, be sad. Of
sadness. Writing out of sadness. Wanting to say sorry. And yes:
There is a path between heart and brain
but everything has become a donkey inside the donkey.
/ a horse inside a donkey, a donkey inside the Trojan horse, a furry mule inside man,
inside, outside, the direction of words in the mouth, in time, in space, carrying it
MAKE THE DONKEY A GIRL…
O.
