Readers write: Meat meaning, and rereading ‘Mockingbird’

Meat meaning

I love the Monitor articles about the environment, wildlife, and animal welfare. I read with interest “Why farmers have a beef with alternative ‘meat’ ” in the Feb. 18 issue.

One definition of meat, from the Webster’s New World dictionary, is “the flesh of animals used as food.” But another archaic meaning is “food of any kind, nourishment, sustenance, the edible part of anything.”

It is not difficult to understand why ranchers and farmers desire a monopoly on the word meat using the first definition. But for the well-being of our planet, as well as our own, we all should consider moving toward the adoption of the non-animal definition of meat.

This could lead to more environmentally sustainable and compassionate consumption and leave a gentler footprint on our world.

Tempie Stahlin

Dexter, Michigan

Rereading ‘Mockingbird’

Sara Miller Llana’s March 25 article “To shelve a ‘Mockingbird’: Is it time for Scout and Atticus to retire?” was very interesting – especially the way it developed a growing controversy between the way Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” was told in 1960 and the way it would be told today.

The fact that “Mockingbird” has been popular for nearly 60 years shows that it is a relevant book. And the fact that there are arguments against using it now in classrooms and theaters shows that the world has, in fact, changed during those years.

As a teacher, I believe that the best way to use “Mockingbird” is to read it, and then read a newer book written on a similar topic. Questions will come up about the differences between the two, and that will generate a dialog that clarifies where we were before 1960, where we are now, and where we need to go.

That is a solid foundation for building critical thinking skills, something we sorely lack in this nation. 

Jim Martin

Vancouver, Washington