Chefs Fight For Songbird Language Analysis

The articles “Chefs Fight for Songbird” from the New York Times, “Cyprus jobless turn to illegal songbird trapping” from USA Today, and the book Medium Raw by Anthony Bourdain, are all about types of birds that are illegal to hunt. The differences between the four pieces come when the portrayal of those who want to keep hunting the birds is in play. On one side are the French, who wish to continue the trapping of the ortolan; an extravagant and traditional delicacy. On the other side are the Cypriots, whose financial struggles lead them to hunt down migrating songbirds in order to make a living. Essentially, because of the high status of French cuisine, some of the articles and the book display a sympathy towards the ortolan hunters, while the Cypriots are seen as criminal in a different article. What the authors of these literary pieces choose to include in their writing and the way they write emphasize the bias for French cuisine.
In the New York Times “Chefs Fight for Songbird” article, the chefs who are featured are clearly not on the side of the bird activists. These chefs, “…Mr. Guerard and three other celebrity chefs who hail from southwest France—Alain Ducasse, Jean Coussau, Alain Dutournier—are trying to engineer a public
comeback for the ortolan…” As celebrities, they want the attention and revere that comes with obtaining and preparing the illegal bird. However, although the article briefly addresses this point, the article is mostly written as if the chefs want a tradition to be brought back. For example, one of the chefs says: “‘We want to be able to do this so as not to lose all the beautiful things that make up the history and the DNA of French cooking” The culinary weight that French cuisine has on the rest of the world is significant. The fact that the ortolan happens to have a huge influence on French cuisine allows for the chefs to be viewed with more sympathy. In addition, the article is written in a way where most of the arguments are being made to bring the bird back. One example is when a chef says, “‘…and to eat the flesh, the fat…is like being taken to another dimension.’” This positive description again gives the impression that these French chefs are in the right.
The ortolan is portrayed as an important traditional dish that should not be denied to anyone, regardless of its extravagance. In fact for more support for the return of the ortolan, the article includes a “…unpublished Canadian, ornithological study indicating that the ortolan population in Northern Europe is around 30 million” cited by one of the chefs. The inclusion of this study in the article seems odd, and the information from this supposed study is ultimately invalid. In fact, because the author chose to include the study displays further support for the chefs’ cause. Normally, information such as the unpublished study is not included as valid evidence. Despite this, the study is included as support for the chefs’ cause. Essentially, because of the high standard and regard for French cooking, there is a bias held. The article continuously sympathizes with the chefs, even when evidence included in the same article, such as “the ortolan population fell by more than 40 percent…about 30,000 wild ortolans are still being culled illegally in the South of France every summer, while the police look the other way…” describes a true environmental problem. In the USA Today article “Cyprus jobless turn to illegal songbird trapping”, the bias that was present in favor of the chefs in the “Chefs Fight” article is not present here. Despite the fact that the Cypriots are fighting for something that “…was widely considered an ingrained part of local culture, one so lucrative that is sustained entire livelihoods and put countless kids through college”, the Cypriots do not get the same sympathetic treatment as the French chefs do. In addition, it would seem that the Cypriots would be the ones who would garner sympathy because of their countries recent difficulty. In Cyprus the “…economic crisis is luring many out-of-work Cypriots back into the centuries old trade…but they say it’s their only way to make ends meet” The chefs in France are “fighting” for the ortolan to come back because of French tradition and extravagance. On the other hand, Cypriots are fighting not only for tradition, but a way to bring money and food to the table. However, the article is a lot harsher towards them. One example is when the article says, “Trappers were cast as greedy villains out to line their pockets…” The people who live in the current economic crisis need another source of income, which is why they turn to the illegal trapping. Yet the Cypriots still receive backlash from the environmentalists quoted in the article and, apparently, from law enforcement.
Those practicing the illegal hunting receive “The threat of a maximum €17,000 ($22,500) fine, [and] a 3-year jail term…” This threat only emphasizes that bias towards what the French consider tradition. This is because while the poaching is strictly enforced in Cyprus, the “Chefs Fight” article mentions that law enforcement seems to turn a blind eye to essentially the same kind of poaching. Even those in Cyprus who are against songbird hunting understand the circumstances: “Andreas Antoniou, the head of the special police anti-poaching unit said songbirds…have been at the center of a surge in illegal hunting island-wide that he blames on the economic crisis” Despite this, the Cypriots are still more penalized and even more demonized then the French chefs who support the same illegal actions. The people who advocate for the downfall of songbird trapping on Cyprus show up repeatedly in the “Cyprus jobless” article. Yet the French chefs from “Chefs Fight” dominate the conversation and essentially garner the article’s support for their cause. No matter how similar the situations are between the French and the Cypriots, the Cypriots seem to get the shorter end of the stick. The author of the article seems to combine their views in the final sentences:
Alex Hirschfield spokesman for the Committee against Bird Slaughter…scoffs at the idea that tradition justifies the culling of endangered birds. ‘I come from an area in Germany where they used to burn witches,’ said Hirschfield. ‘Maybe it’s time for these traditions in Cyprus to go away as well’
The illegal hunting of songbirds in this article is compared to burning witches while the “Chefs Fight” article emphasizes how important and delicious ortolan are. The bias towards the French is continued with Anthony Bourdain’s Medium Raw in which he further emphasizes the overwhelming flavor and experience of eating the ortolan. As he claims enthusiastically: “This is it. The grand slam of rare and forbidden meals…This is a once-in-a-fucking-lifetime meal…” (xiii). He is overwhelmed by the meal he is about to have simply because the coveted ortolan is on the menu. His crude yet revealing statement truly shows the significance of the ortolan to French cuisine. Bourdain defends the hunting of the ortolan by shooting down the methods in which they are caught. For example, he says, “…the birds are trapped in nets, then blinded by having their eyes poked out…I have no doubt that at various times in history this was true…A simple blanket or a towel draped over the cage has long since replaced the cruel means of tricking the ortolan…” (xiv). Here, Bourdain denies the notion that the ortolan is in any way treated inhumanely when trapped. He continues on this track by claiming: “It is claimed that the birds are literally drowned in Armagnac—but this too, is not the case. A simple whiff of the stuff is enough for the now morbidly obese ortolan to keel over stone-dead” (xiv). Essentially, Bourdain makes statements about how an ortolan is killed and prepared for eating without there being any proof that he has seen it happening himself. A French trained chef himself, his overall love for the rare delicacy that is such a corner-stone of French cuisine, leads him to denounce anything that could possibly be bad about it.
As a last example for his bias, Bourdain describes the moment he and his companions are finished eating the ortolan: “I undrape, and, around me, one after another, the other napkins fall to the table, too, revealing glazed, blissed out expressions, the beginnings of guilty smiles, an identical just-fucked face look on every face” (xv). To Bourdain, his eating peers, and many French citizens, the ortolan is not just a delicious bird. To them the whole culinary experience is quintessentially French. As Bourdain so mildly put in the recent quote, the ortolan eating experience is so fantastic that eyes are “glazed”. Essentially, Bourdain, the French, and all of those who love French cuisine will not want to see the continued ban of ortolan hunting in the future. With descriptions such as the ones that Bourdain gives, it is likely that pretty much everyone will be on the side of those who want to bring the bird back—so that they can taste it too.
Ultimately, the fact that the Cypriots will be regarded as criminals and the French chefs will be regarded as “heroes” will not change.
Again, because French cuisine is held to such a high standard, people such as Anthony Bourdain and those like him will always come in support of whatever traditions that French food has. Even if those traditions include the killing of thousands of birds and the possible inhumane treatment of them. Many people do not know about Cypriot cuisine. So, even though essentially the same act of hunting songbirds for food an tradition are done by both the Cypriots and the French, the Cypriots will be looked down upon. Biases such as this exist in all manners of life. This culinary based bias is just one of
them.