- Order the book straight from the fine folks at the University of North Carolina Press.
- While you are over at the UNC Press site, feel free to take a look at my author's page.
- You can also pre-order at Amazon (available in hardcover and as an e-book).
- Add The Vegetarian Crusade at Goodreads.
Tuesday
Some Book Related Links
Just a few links to share surrounding the upcoming release of The Vegetarian Crusade (coming in October 2013!).
Thursday
So...are you a vegetarian?
With apologies for the lack of updates. Between having an infant and a book on the way, free time has been at a minimum. As we lead up to the book release in Fall 2013, I do promise to add more to the site.
I did, however, want to take the opportunity to explore (what I find, at least) an interesting aspect of working on vegetarian history. Inevitably whenever I talk about my research (both formally and informally) someone asks whether or not I am a vegetarian. It is remarkable just how frequently I have been asked this question and in most instances it is the first question asked. On one hand I imagine that it is just a product of general curiosity, especially since many people seem genuinely intrigued by the notion that there is an American vegetarian history that stretches back to the nineteenth century. And this is surely a good thing.
On the other hand, I do wonder if it is a question that many other scholars are asked, regarding their personal connection to a given topic. If not, I am curious as to why vegetarianism as a historical subject leads to this particular question? Is there concern that I have a particular bias as a vegetarian? In the reverse, if I was not a vegetarian, would there be worry about my approach to the topic? I also wonder if this is a particular question asked of any historians researching a movement or phenomena rooted within a particular time period that is still salient in current times? For example, I can't imagine someone being asked if they are a phrenologist because of a research interest in the topic? Or is this perhaps something particular to those of us researching food? Lastly, are there implications to be gleaned about vegetarianism and its relationship with culture from this question's omnipresence?
Thoughts from any interested scholars out there? Anyone with similar experiences with their topic?
I did, however, want to take the opportunity to explore (what I find, at least) an interesting aspect of working on vegetarian history. Inevitably whenever I talk about my research (both formally and informally) someone asks whether or not I am a vegetarian. It is remarkable just how frequently I have been asked this question and in most instances it is the first question asked. On one hand I imagine that it is just a product of general curiosity, especially since many people seem genuinely intrigued by the notion that there is an American vegetarian history that stretches back to the nineteenth century. And this is surely a good thing.
In my seven years as a vegetarian, I have yet to think anything was a chicken.
On the other hand, I do wonder if it is a question that many other scholars are asked, regarding their personal connection to a given topic. If not, I am curious as to why vegetarianism as a historical subject leads to this particular question? Is there concern that I have a particular bias as a vegetarian? In the reverse, if I was not a vegetarian, would there be worry about my approach to the topic? I also wonder if this is a particular question asked of any historians researching a movement or phenomena rooted within a particular time period that is still salient in current times? For example, I can't imagine someone being asked if they are a phrenologist because of a research interest in the topic? Or is this perhaps something particular to those of us researching food? Lastly, are there implications to be gleaned about vegetarianism and its relationship with culture from this question's omnipresence?
Thoughts from any interested scholars out there? Anyone with similar experiences with their topic?
Wednesday
Big Announcement!
Am so very excited and proud to announce that my book manuscript will, in fact, be going forward with the University of North Carolina Press. More details forthcoming as they sort out, but needless to say am very excited by this development and to place the book with a press that produces such interesting, compelling and unique scholarship!
Sunday
Journal Article in Food, Culture and Society
Am happy to announce and link to my new article on the development of Protose and vegetarian meat substitutes appearing in the current issue of Food, Culture and Society. The article is accessible if you sign up for a free preview. Just received the print edition, which is full of fascinating articles, most of which deal with the issue of food, identity and definition. Good stuff.
Thursday
On Jourdon Anderson
Update (4:27 PM): One other thing that I would like to note...it is interesting that the letter is being promoted as somehow recently or newly discovered, when it actually appears in many recent histories of slavery (as well as some textbooks and primary source readers).
Update (3:04 PM): Also of note, the letter was reprinted in Lydia Maria Child's The Freedman's Book, a compilation of short stories, poems and abolitionist essays aimed at inspiring recently freed slaves by illustrating the accomplishments of African-Americans. It seems as if Anderson was serving as an inspiration even back in the nineteenth century.
Update (2:41 PM): Worth mentioning is that The Liberator mentions the author as being "George Anderson" though I am not sure this change the equation much. If interested, the citation is George Anderson, "Letter from a Freedman to His Old Master"The Liberator 35, 1 September 1865: 140.
Original Post:
This is entirely unrelated to my usual blog content, however it was an issue that I wanted to chime in on. The Huffington Post yesterday had an article referencing a letter written by an ex-slave to his former master. The letter is remarkable in its restraint, while effective in its total take down of the former slave master. However, what struck me was (despite a link to an image of the article in the New York Tribune) a thread of comments doubting the veracity or existence of the letter (the original article notes that Anderson dictated his thoughts which were accurately reflected in the letter). I was interested to find out more. What I did find is that the article was reprinted throughout the northern press, including The Liberator, but also throughout the daily press of places stretching from Maine to Ohio.
Just as importantly, I believe that I have located Anderson in the historic record. The 1870 census lists Anderson as being born in Tennessee, living in Dayton, Ohio, and having a wife "Amanda" (named Mandy in the letter) and daughter Jane. Also interesting to note, is that Anderson is listed as being literate, able to both read and write.
To hopefully quell any doubts regarding this remarkable man's existence, I have posted the corresponding documents here. A shred of skepticism to claims of historic documents online is surely needed, however there was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction of negativity in the Huff Post article's comments.
Here is the full census:
And the lines on Anderson and his family (the two tick marks next to each other refer to ability to read and write, whereas the one on the far right denotes one male over 21 years of age living in the household):
And here is the article as it appeared in three locations, first the New Haven Daily Palladium:
Second, the Daily Cleveland Herald:
And lastly, the Boston Daily Advertiser:
Update (3:04 PM): Also of note, the letter was reprinted in Lydia Maria Child's The Freedman's Book, a compilation of short stories, poems and abolitionist essays aimed at inspiring recently freed slaves by illustrating the accomplishments of African-Americans. It seems as if Anderson was serving as an inspiration even back in the nineteenth century.
Update (2:41 PM): Worth mentioning is that The Liberator mentions the author as being "George Anderson" though I am not sure this change the equation much. If interested, the citation is George Anderson, "Letter from a Freedman to His Old Master"The Liberator 35, 1 September 1865: 140.
Original Post:
This is entirely unrelated to my usual blog content, however it was an issue that I wanted to chime in on. The Huffington Post yesterday had an article referencing a letter written by an ex-slave to his former master. The letter is remarkable in its restraint, while effective in its total take down of the former slave master. However, what struck me was (despite a link to an image of the article in the New York Tribune) a thread of comments doubting the veracity or existence of the letter (the original article notes that Anderson dictated his thoughts which were accurately reflected in the letter). I was interested to find out more. What I did find is that the article was reprinted throughout the northern press, including The Liberator, but also throughout the daily press of places stretching from Maine to Ohio.
Just as importantly, I believe that I have located Anderson in the historic record. The 1870 census lists Anderson as being born in Tennessee, living in Dayton, Ohio, and having a wife "Amanda" (named Mandy in the letter) and daughter Jane. Also interesting to note, is that Anderson is listed as being literate, able to both read and write.
To hopefully quell any doubts regarding this remarkable man's existence, I have posted the corresponding documents here. A shred of skepticism to claims of historic documents online is surely needed, however there was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction of negativity in the Huff Post article's comments.
Here is the full census:
And the lines on Anderson and his family (the two tick marks next to each other refer to ability to read and write, whereas the one on the far right denotes one male over 21 years of age living in the household):
And here is the article as it appeared in three locations, first the New Haven Daily Palladium:
Second, the Daily Cleveland Herald:
And lastly, the Boston Daily Advertiser:
Wednesday
Celebrity Endorsements
One of my favorite ads for the Battle Creek health empire's burgeoning line of fake meat products (dating to June 1899), with an endorsement from Clara Barton:
As vegetarianism became commercialized at the end of the nineteenth century, the vegetarian press and product marketers alike emphasized the dietary practices of celebrities and other prominent individuals as a means to vie for social and cultural acceptance. Barton herself was a some time vegetarian to treat bouts of illness, beginning with a visit to a health sanitarium in upstate New York in the early 1880s. Utilizing a non-doctrinal vegetarian like Barton to advocate for vegetarian products helped broaden the appeal of vegetarian eating, though at the same time helped lessen organizational vegetarianism's focus on social issues in deference to a more consumption-oriented culture.
More examples to follow...
As vegetarianism became commercialized at the end of the nineteenth century, the vegetarian press and product marketers alike emphasized the dietary practices of celebrities and other prominent individuals as a means to vie for social and cultural acceptance. Barton herself was a some time vegetarian to treat bouts of illness, beginning with a visit to a health sanitarium in upstate New York in the early 1880s. Utilizing a non-doctrinal vegetarian like Barton to advocate for vegetarian products helped broaden the appeal of vegetarian eating, though at the same time helped lessen organizational vegetarianism's focus on social issues in deference to a more consumption-oriented culture.More examples to follow...
Friday
Vegetarians, Gender, Sexuality and Song
With my standard apologies for a delay in posts...the dual time commitments of finishing a dissertation combined with venturing out on the academic job marketplace has made new posts unfortunately fall to the bottom of my priority list. However, I am happy to report that my dissertation was successfully defended and I am excitedly looking forward to the next step (whatever that may be) in my academic career.
For today's post, I wanted to highlight one of my favorite pieces of research that I came across though one that oddly enough did not find its way into my dissertation (perhaps in a future book manuscript? Fingers tightly crossed).
Vegetarianism's popularity found its way into popular culture by the mid-nineteenth century, including a mention by such prominent writers as Herman Melville whose novella Bartleby the Scrivener included a vegetarian character. The rise of vegetarianism in the era directly before the Civil War (best characterized by the founding of the American Vegetarian Society, the first national vegetarian organization) was noticed in many corners of American culture and society, celebrated by reformers and mocked by the mainstream press. The growing vegetarian movement even grabbed the attention of the American music industry.
Oh! Wasn't she fond of her greens! was a musical composition first published in 1860 by the New York based firm H. De Marsan and subsequent compositions were published until at least 1869 (keep in mind that the music industry at this point relied upon the sale of sheet music rather than any actual recordings in a pre-phonograph era). The composition's lyrics (unfortunately I have not been able to track down any remaining sheet music in the historical record) are fascinating in its consideration of vegetarianism and its connections to gender roles.
The song relays a story of courtship, told from the perspective of the male courtier. The narrator seeks the affections of a young woman named Jane Bell who surpassed all other women in the courtier's eyes. Unfortunately, he also came to find out, she was a vegetarian. The song notes the peculiarity of the situation:
The song continues by noting the peculiarity of the couple's courtship, filled with picnics of garden sorrel (a green, leafy herb) and breakfasts of watercress. However, the last verse exposes the complex relationship between vegetarianism and gender as well as sexual norms and roles:
The song is clear in its implications and double entendre. On one hand now that the woman has been tamed and settled, she no longer adheres to her vegetarian identity and diet, long associated with radical politics including women's rights and suffrage. Now a respectable married woman the "old gal behaves very kind" including disassociation from her political past. Further, there is of course the sexual implication of the married woman having "taken to meat" in marriage, and who "by the way of a treat. . .has a little fat meat with her greens." Having been corralled by the courtier, the wife--previously obstinate in her politics and presumably chastity (the courtier's amazement at the woman's ability to "exist without meat")--was now apt to enjoy meat in all of its various forms.
The sexual component may seem speculative, however, the cultural history of vegetarianism during this time period associated meat with male virility and sexuality. Conversely, male vegetarians often had their masculinity questioned, portrayed in the popular press as both sexually and socially impotent. The sexual component of the lyrics were undoubtedly apparent to fans of the song. As with everything else connected to the nineteenth century debate about vegetarianism, it was about far more than just greens.
For today's post, I wanted to highlight one of my favorite pieces of research that I came across though one that oddly enough did not find its way into my dissertation (perhaps in a future book manuscript? Fingers tightly crossed).
Vegetarianism's popularity found its way into popular culture by the mid-nineteenth century, including a mention by such prominent writers as Herman Melville whose novella Bartleby the Scrivener included a vegetarian character. The rise of vegetarianism in the era directly before the Civil War (best characterized by the founding of the American Vegetarian Society, the first national vegetarian organization) was noticed in many corners of American culture and society, celebrated by reformers and mocked by the mainstream press. The growing vegetarian movement even grabbed the attention of the American music industry.
Oh! Wasn't she fond of her greens! was a musical composition first published in 1860 by the New York based firm H. De Marsan and subsequent compositions were published until at least 1869 (keep in mind that the music industry at this point relied upon the sale of sheet music rather than any actual recordings in a pre-phonograph era). The composition's lyrics (unfortunately I have not been able to track down any remaining sheet music in the historical record) are fascinating in its consideration of vegetarianism and its connections to gender roles.
The song relays a story of courtship, told from the perspective of the male courtier. The narrator seeks the affections of a young woman named Jane Bell who surpassed all other women in the courtier's eyes. Unfortunately, he also came to find out, she was a vegetarian. The song notes the peculiarity of the situation:
A vegetarian she's been, for some years;
No animals food would she eat;
How wonderful strange it appears
That she could exist without meat!
No animals food would she eat;
How wonderful strange it appears
That she could exist without meat!
The song continues by noting the peculiarity of the couple's courtship, filled with picnics of garden sorrel (a green, leafy herb) and breakfasts of watercress. However, the last verse exposes the complex relationship between vegetarianism and gender as well as sexual norms and roles:
Now, we are married, and settled in life, The old gal behaves very kind;
And, when I go home of a night, There plenty of greens I can find.
Since marriage, she's taken to meat..How wonderful strange it seems!
And sometimes, by the way of a treat, She has a little fat meat with her greens.
And, when I go home of a night, There plenty of greens I can find.
Since marriage, she's taken to meat..How wonderful strange it seems!
And sometimes, by the way of a treat, She has a little fat meat with her greens.
The song is clear in its implications and double entendre. On one hand now that the woman has been tamed and settled, she no longer adheres to her vegetarian identity and diet, long associated with radical politics including women's rights and suffrage. Now a respectable married woman the "old gal behaves very kind" including disassociation from her political past. Further, there is of course the sexual implication of the married woman having "taken to meat" in marriage, and who "by the way of a treat. . .has a little fat meat with her greens." Having been corralled by the courtier, the wife--previously obstinate in her politics and presumably chastity (the courtier's amazement at the woman's ability to "exist without meat")--was now apt to enjoy meat in all of its various forms.
The sexual component may seem speculative, however, the cultural history of vegetarianism during this time period associated meat with male virility and sexuality. Conversely, male vegetarians often had their masculinity questioned, portrayed in the popular press as both sexually and socially impotent. The sexual component of the lyrics were undoubtedly apparent to fans of the song. As with everything else connected to the nineteenth century debate about vegetarianism, it was about far more than just greens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
