Polemics

Many years ago I was instinctively anti hare-coursing. It seemed cruel to kill hares as a sport and there was plenty of polemic literature to reinforce my prejudice.

I’d never been coursing, of course, so was in no position to judge but that didn’t stop me. When I did eventually go coursing, I went to the final running of The Waterloo Cup in 2005. The contest had been founded in 1836 by The Earl of Sefton and the family continued their interest attested by the 7th Earl winning the cup in 1971 with So Clever. I’d thought the point of coursing was for greyhounds to chase hares and kill them, sometimes rather slowly and ineptly. This is what is done illegally today by a subset of the population that brings Romani gypsies and pikeys into disrepute.

In a properly conducted coursing match two greyhounds chase a hare. Greyhounds run faster than a hare (except at a greyhound stadium when a brown ball of fluff is powered by electricity) but a hare can change direction with greater celerity. (Digression: “celerity” has only appeared once before on this website, in December 2016, a post in which the Earl of Sefton features in a comment.)

The greyhound that makes the hare turn wins points, getting most points for the first turn. The hare might turn two or three times before reaching the end of the coursing ground, marked by a small ditch and a lot of long grass and bushes. Ideally the hare hops into this cover and the greyhounds look at each other, concluding “game over”.

What is less than ideal is if the coursing ground has not been properly prepared and the ground is too hard, or worse, has ruts. Then the hare may stumble and be killed either by the dogs or, more likely, humanely by a steward. So hares do get killed sometimes at a coursing match but it’s not the intention. A lot of hares are needed for a big match like The Waterloo Cup. Hares are a protected species for coursing enthusiasts and there used to be huge populations in areas where there were coursing contests.

Recent posts have been about the Sackler family and palm oil – both have been the subject of polemics. Empire of Pain, The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty by Patrick Radden Keefe (2021) dishes the dirt on the Sacklers – a review in The Guardian gives a flavour. Is it a fair appraisal? I have no idea but I have found these sort of books should be treated with some scepticism.

Planet Palm is something I do know a bit about but, if I read her book, I will know more. She delves into the dubious history of palm oil in Africa and is critical of deforestation and corruption in Indonesia and other countries. The past tense “endangered” is apt. There are many things done yesterday that would not be countenanced today: children sweeping chimneys, conditions in coal mines in England, smoking prescribed for lung disease, mercury for syphilis and so on.

I wonder if she reflects on the need for edible oils? She says they make us fat but the populations of countries in Asia aspire to to tubbiness – India and China are the largest markets for palm oil. Substitutes for palm are other edible oils: soya, rape, sunflower, linseed … They are crops planted annually. They have a much lower yield per hectare. The environmental impact of machinery planting and harvesting every year is worth consideration. Palm oil is productive for twenty years, so in a well-run plantation 5% of the palm oil is replanted annually. It is harvested manually every day of the year providing employment. So why is palm oil so bashed? I saw in a French supermarket products labelled palm oil free. Do the soya bean growers get any stick? Yes, here’s another polemic that like all polemics is OTT.

“Industrial soybean crops need large amounts of acid-neutralizing lime, as well as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, all of which are creating an environmental hazard. Toxic chemicals from soy production contaminate the forest, poison rivers, destroy wildlife and cause birth defects in humans.” (Food Unfolded)

Here’s something to cheer you up.