Quote Sarah Woodcook:
Matt Johnson,
I am 100% opposed to single issue campaigns as well. When people ask
why, I share the following with them in the hopes they will commit to
"striking at the root" with creative nonviolent vegan education:
<Here is some information on single issue campaigns and why they are terrible for animals:
1) With limited people, time, energy, and resources, every unit spent on a single issue campaign is a unit not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And *only* creative nonviolent vegan education will fundamentally change the way people think about animals. One hour spent on a single issue campaign is one hour not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And when we make a vegan, we have a new advocate. This is a much better long-term strategy.
2) Single issue campaigns are how animal advocates are divided and conquered. We must unite behind the banner of veganism.
3) They mislead the public into thinking one type of exploitation is worse than another type of exploitation.
4) They tout false victories. Even if -- even if -- a "victory" is achieved, it is *only* for one type of exploitation, and it oftentimes does not last. And again, with limited time, energy, and resources, we can't waste time on single issue campaigns.
5) They are often racist (think anti-dolphin slaughter campaigns and anti-dog/cat eating campaigns) and often sexist (think anti-fur campaigns whereas there are no anti-leather campaigns).
Here is some information on single issue campaigns:
Excellent podcast:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/commentary-16-responding-to-questions
Excellent podcast:
http://ia600801.us.archive.org/34/items/NzVeganPodcastEpisodes/NZVeganPodcastEpisode75.mp3
Essays:
2/1/10
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-in-human-nonhuman-contexts
2/3/10
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/is-every-campaign-a-single-issue-campaign
4/17/10
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-short-note-on-abolitionist-veganism-as-a-single-issue-campaign
3/15/11
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/why-veganism-must-be-the-baseline
11/18/12
http://www.farmedanimalfriends.org/1/post/2012/11/why-i-became-an-abolitionist-vegan.html>
<Here is some information on single issue campaigns and why they are terrible for animals:
1) With limited people, time, energy, and resources, every unit spent on a single issue campaign is a unit not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And *only* creative nonviolent vegan education will fundamentally change the way people think about animals. One hour spent on a single issue campaign is one hour not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And when we make a vegan, we have a new advocate. This is a much better long-term strategy.
2) Single issue campaigns are how animal advocates are divided and conquered. We must unite behind the banner of veganism.
3) They mislead the public into thinking one type of exploitation is worse than another type of exploitation.
4) They tout false victories. Even if -- even if -- a "victory" is achieved, it is *only* for one type of exploitation, and it oftentimes does not last. And again, with limited time, energy, and resources, we can't waste time on single issue campaigns.
5) They are often racist (think anti-dolphin slaughter campaigns and anti-dog/cat eating campaigns) and often sexist (think anti-fur campaigns whereas there are no anti-leather campaigns).
Here is some information on single issue campaigns:
Excellent podcast:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/commentary-16-responding-to-questions
Excellent podcast:
http://ia600801.us.archive.org/34/items/NzVeganPodcastEpisodes/NZVeganPodcastEpisode75.mp3
Essays:
2/1/10
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-in-human-nonhuman-contexts
2/3/10
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/is-every-campaign-a-single-issue-campaign
4/17/10
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-short-note-on-abolitionist-veganism-as-a-single-issue-campaign
3/15/11
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/why-veganism-must-be-the-baseline
11/18/12
http://www.farmedanimalfriends.org/1/post/2012/11/why-i-became-an-abolitionist-vegan.html>
My latest comment about it:
Overall animal exploitation has never been reduced due to single-issue campaigns.
But if we create a vegan revolution, which is easy if many vegans engage in educating people they meet, it has a big effect.
We need to teach people like this: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle.
What do you think of this?:
With limited people, time, energy, and resources, every unit spent on a single issue campaign is a unit not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And *only* creative nonviolent vegan education will fundamentally change the way people think about animals. One hour spent on a single issue campaign is one hour not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And when we make a vegan, we have a new advocate. This is a much better long-term strategy.
Arguments why single-issue campaigns are counter-productive:http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html
For a total end of all animal use - a vegan world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Gary Francione:
ON SINGLE-ISSUE CAMPAIGNS AND THE PROMOTION OF ADOPTING/FOSTERING HOMELESS ANIMALS
A question I received:
"I have seen some people claiming that whilst you criticise single-issue campaigns, your promoting adoption and fostering is a single-issue campaign. What is your view?"
My response:
Such a claim is wrong and indicative that that those making the claim do not understand what a single-issue campaign (SIC) is.
Although all welfarist campaigns can be characterized as SICs, that term is usually applied to campaigns that at least appear to seek to abolish or prohibit, and not just regulate, certain animal uses, such as the use of animals for fur, or for meat (or for certain kinds of meat), the use of wild animals in circuses, particular sorts of blood sports, such as bullfighting, the use of horses in the carriage-horse trade, hunting (or particular sorts of hunting or the hunting of particular species), etc.
I have at least four problems with SICs.
First, SICs convey the idea that some forms of exploitation are worse than other forms of exploitation. In a culture in which animal exploitation is pervasive, that necessarily means that the target of the campaign is seen as being morally more objectionable than what is not focused on, which is seen as being morally "better" or even morally acceptable.
So if most people think that eating meat and dairy and eggs is "natural" and raises no moral problem, focusing on meat necessarily conveys the idea that dairy and eggs are different and that their consumption is morally acceptable or, at least, morally distinguishable, and not as morally objectionable as consuming meat.
A campaign focused on foie gras treats that particular product as morally distinguishable from other animal products, such as fried chicken or hamburgers. It tells people that it's morally better to eat chicken and hamburgers because foie gras is morally distinguishable and morally worse. A campaign that focuses on fur implies that wool and leather are morally "better" than fur.
I reject that sort of thinking in favor of promoting the idea that veganism is the *only* rational response to the recognition that animals have moral value. I do not believe that there is a coherent moral distinction between meat and dairy/eggs or between foie gras and beef, chicken, or fish or between fur and leather or wool. It's all morally unacceptable. I think that it confuses matters seriously to promote the idea that there are moral distinctions where there are none.
I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-in-human-nonhuman-contexts/#.UbbwetiAraG
Second, SICs simply cannot work as a practical matter. They are seen as arbitrary and they make no sense to people who consume animal foods. Think about it. Those who consume animal products think it’s morally acceptable to impose suffering and death on animals for the trivial reason of palate pleasure and they participate in this animal use every day, several times a day. Why would they think that hunting is wrong when they go to the supermarket and buy products made from animals who have suffered every bit as much, if not more, than animals who are hunted? Why would they think that using animals for other trivial reasons is morally unacceptable?
I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/why-veganism-must-be-the-baseline/#.UbcCUtiAraE
Third, many single-issue campaigns encourage speciesism. Campaigns that focus on dolphins, elephants, and nonhuman primates maintain that these animals are supposedly more "like us" in terms of their intelligence and, therefore, they have greater moral value. That sort of thinking assumes that human characteristics are the measure of moral value and that human-like interests count for more. For the purposes of determining who can be used as a replaceable resource, assuming that human and human-like characteristics count for more is speciesist.
I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/our_hypocrisy-newscientist.pdf
Fourth, some single-issue campaigns often promote other forms of human discrimination. For example, the anti-fur campaign has had decidedly sexist overtones from its inception decades ago. Campaigns against eating dogs and cats are often and usually accompanied by anti-Asian rhetoric. Campaigns against kosher and halal slaughter have expressed anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sentiment.
I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-lost-opportunity/#.UbcCudiAraE
A central part of the abolitionist approach is that domestication is inherently wrong and that we should stop producing domesticated animals for human use. I do, however, maintain that we have a moral obligation to care for those domesticated animals now in existence. I maintain that we should offer homes to nonhuman refugees of *any* species. I do not limit it to dogs and cats. I am very explicit in saying that there is no "responsible" breeding of domesticated animals.
Here are some additional thoughts on domestication: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/#.UbcDBdiAraE
I am not saying that some form of exploitation is morally better than another form of exploitation. I am not suggesting that we replace one form of exploitation with another form of exploitation. I am not, for example, claiming that we should adopt/foster animals and then train them for use in circuses.
I am saying that we have a problem that we have created: we have many domesticated animals who are in existence now and need homes now. We have no other morally acceptable choice but to care for those animals when we have the opportunity to do so. I have stressed that caring for domesticated animals is not without moral dilemmas. For example, some cats apparently cannot exist without eating meat. I maintain that feeding meats to cats is not morally justifiable but it may be excusable in some circumstances.
Finally, I always couple *any* discussion of adoption/fostering and my rejection of domestication with the other central part of the abolitionist message: veganism as the only rational response to the recognition that animals have moral value.
In sum, promoting the adoption/fostering of homeless animals is clearly not a single-issue campaign. Caring for the domesticated nonhumans of all species is a moral obligation that is central to the abolitionist approach to animal rights.
I hope that this has clarified any confusion.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
----------
What do the animal use industries want? They want some of us to focus on animals used for food, some of us to focus on animals used for clothing, some of us to focus on animals used for entertainment, some of us to focus on animals used for testing, and some of us to be scattered elsewhere. They want us to agree to wrestle them so they can tire us and delude us into thinking they are making positive changes for animals -- changes they would make anyways for industry survival as humans go through a moral awakening. They do not, under any circumstance, want us to unite behind the banner of veganism and call for an end to animal use altogether.
We are walking the animals to the slaughterhouse door by wasting time, money, and energy on single issue campaigns. And we are at a critical point in history where we must come together on creative nonviolent vegan education.
Please.
Quote: Farmed Animal Friends
-----------
A friend wrote this about one single issue campaign:
"“The problem with this siompassionate’ towards other animals, while continuing to do exactly what they do. This is the biggest problem with SICs. People clearly think it’s more cruel to wear fur than wear animal skin with no fur, wool, silk, wear other parts of animals, eat them and what they produce, go to zoos, use products tested on animals etc. In most cases they don’t think their participation in the exploitation of other animals in a critical way at all, so by criticising people wearing fur they have one more reason to continue being as they are. It is hypocritical by construction to put the shame on some in order to feel good about oneself. It normalises all other uses of nonhuman animals which are not condemned by PETA SICs, i.e. it normalises other animal use itself. If it was a step to veganism, then if you went into that club and you talked with the owner of the club as well as with the people entering it and who liked the ‘no fur’ rule about their other uses of nonhuman animals they would understand and they would want to vegan. But the most likely scenario is that they will call you a fanatic and they will get offended for being compared to ‘fur wearers’.
I wondered why the owner of the club would agree with this, PETA backed, campaign (i.e. how the campaigner convinced the club owner for this), but it became so obvious: it is definitely a more famous club now. Win-win for the club and PETA, but a usual they forgot some most important ones from their wins…”"
In sum, I think that single issue campaigns create moral confusion, while using one instance of animal abuse and enlighten persons about that there is no moral difference between all different uses of animals, brings moral clarity.
What do you say?
----------
Fact 1. Most SIC, Single-Issue Campaigns, are speciesist.
Fact 2. Speciesism is the reason we exploit nonhumans.
Conclusion: If you are against the exploitation of nonhumans, then you should be against most SIC.
Some example of these SIC include: ban orca shows in SeaWorld, fight against elephant poaching, or stop vivisection on nonhuman primates.
A question I received:
"I have seen some people claiming that whilst you criticise single-issue campaigns, your promoting adoption and fostering is a single-issue campaign. What is your view?"
My response:
Such a claim is wrong and indicative that that those making the claim do not understand what a single-issue campaign (SIC) is.
Although all welfarist campaigns can be characterized as SICs, that term is usually applied to campaigns that at least appear to seek to abolish or prohibit, and not just regulate, certain animal uses, such as the use of animals for fur, or for meat (or for certain kinds of meat), the use of wild animals in circuses, particular sorts of blood sports, such as bullfighting, the use of horses in the carriage-horse trade, hunting (or particular sorts of hunting or the hunting of particular species), etc.
I have at least four problems with SICs.
First, SICs convey the idea that some forms of exploitation are worse than other forms of exploitation. In a culture in which animal exploitation is pervasive, that necessarily means that the target of the campaign is seen as being morally more objectionable than what is not focused on, which is seen as being morally "better" or even morally acceptable.
So if most people think that eating meat and dairy and eggs is "natural" and raises no moral problem, focusing on meat necessarily conveys the idea that dairy and eggs are different and that their consumption is morally acceptable or, at least, morally distinguishable, and not as morally objectionable as consuming meat.
A campaign focused on foie gras treats that particular product as morally distinguishable from other animal products, such as fried chicken or hamburgers. It tells people that it's morally better to eat chicken and hamburgers because foie gras is morally distinguishable and morally worse. A campaign that focuses on fur implies that wool and leather are morally "better" than fur.
I reject that sort of thinking in favor of promoting the idea that veganism is the *only* rational response to the recognition that animals have moral value. I do not believe that there is a coherent moral distinction between meat and dairy/eggs or between foie gras and beef, chicken, or fish or between fur and leather or wool. It's all morally unacceptable. I think that it confuses matters seriously to promote the idea that there are moral distinctions where there are none.
I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-in-human-nonhuman-contexts/#.UbbwetiAraG
Second, SICs simply cannot work as a practical matter. They are seen as arbitrary and they make no sense to people who consume animal foods. Think about it. Those who consume animal products think it’s morally acceptable to impose suffering and death on animals for the trivial reason of palate pleasure and they participate in this animal use every day, several times a day. Why would they think that hunting is wrong when they go to the supermarket and buy products made from animals who have suffered every bit as much, if not more, than animals who are hunted? Why would they think that using animals for other trivial reasons is morally unacceptable?
I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/why-veganism-must-be-the-baseline/#.UbcCUtiAraE
Third, many single-issue campaigns encourage speciesism. Campaigns that focus on dolphins, elephants, and nonhuman primates maintain that these animals are supposedly more "like us" in terms of their intelligence and, therefore, they have greater moral value. That sort of thinking assumes that human characteristics are the measure of moral value and that human-like interests count for more. For the purposes of determining who can be used as a replaceable resource, assuming that human and human-like characteristics count for more is speciesist.
I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/our_hypocrisy-newscientist.pdf
Fourth, some single-issue campaigns often promote other forms of human discrimination. For example, the anti-fur campaign has had decidedly sexist overtones from its inception decades ago. Campaigns against eating dogs and cats are often and usually accompanied by anti-Asian rhetoric. Campaigns against kosher and halal slaughter have expressed anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sentiment.
I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-lost-opportunity/#.UbcCudiAraE
A central part of the abolitionist approach is that domestication is inherently wrong and that we should stop producing domesticated animals for human use. I do, however, maintain that we have a moral obligation to care for those domesticated animals now in existence. I maintain that we should offer homes to nonhuman refugees of *any* species. I do not limit it to dogs and cats. I am very explicit in saying that there is no "responsible" breeding of domesticated animals.
Here are some additional thoughts on domestication: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/#.UbcDBdiAraE
I am not saying that some form of exploitation is morally better than another form of exploitation. I am not suggesting that we replace one form of exploitation with another form of exploitation. I am not, for example, claiming that we should adopt/foster animals and then train them for use in circuses.
I am saying that we have a problem that we have created: we have many domesticated animals who are in existence now and need homes now. We have no other morally acceptable choice but to care for those animals when we have the opportunity to do so. I have stressed that caring for domesticated animals is not without moral dilemmas. For example, some cats apparently cannot exist without eating meat. I maintain that feeding meats to cats is not morally justifiable but it may be excusable in some circumstances.
Finally, I always couple *any* discussion of adoption/fostering and my rejection of domestication with the other central part of the abolitionist message: veganism as the only rational response to the recognition that animals have moral value.
In sum, promoting the adoption/fostering of homeless animals is clearly not a single-issue campaign. Caring for the domesticated nonhumans of all species is a moral obligation that is central to the abolitionist approach to animal rights.
I hope that this has clarified any confusion.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
----------
What do the animal use industries want? They want some of us to focus on animals used for food, some of us to focus on animals used for clothing, some of us to focus on animals used for entertainment, some of us to focus on animals used for testing, and some of us to be scattered elsewhere. They want us to agree to wrestle them so they can tire us and delude us into thinking they are making positive changes for animals -- changes they would make anyways for industry survival as humans go through a moral awakening. They do not, under any circumstance, want us to unite behind the banner of veganism and call for an end to animal use altogether.
We are walking the animals to the slaughterhouse door by wasting time, money, and energy on single issue campaigns. And we are at a critical point in history where we must come together on creative nonviolent vegan education.
Please.
Quote: Farmed Animal Friends
-----------
A friend wrote this about one single issue campaign:
"“The problem with this siompassionate’ towards other animals, while continuing to do exactly what they do. This is the biggest problem with SICs. People clearly think it’s more cruel to wear fur than wear animal skin with no fur, wool, silk, wear other parts of animals, eat them and what they produce, go to zoos, use products tested on animals etc. In most cases they don’t think their participation in the exploitation of other animals in a critical way at all, so by criticising people wearing fur they have one more reason to continue being as they are. It is hypocritical by construction to put the shame on some in order to feel good about oneself. It normalises all other uses of nonhuman animals which are not condemned by PETA SICs, i.e. it normalises other animal use itself. If it was a step to veganism, then if you went into that club and you talked with the owner of the club as well as with the people entering it and who liked the ‘no fur’ rule about their other uses of nonhuman animals they would understand and they would want to vegan. But the most likely scenario is that they will call you a fanatic and they will get offended for being compared to ‘fur wearers’.
I wondered why the owner of the club would agree with this, PETA backed, campaign (i.e. how the campaigner convinced the club owner for this), but it became so obvious: it is definitely a more famous club now. Win-win for the club and PETA, but a usual they forgot some most important ones from their wins…”"
In sum, I think that single issue campaigns create moral confusion, while using one instance of animal abuse and enlighten persons about that there is no moral difference between all different uses of animals, brings moral clarity.
What do you say?
----------
Fact 1. Most SIC, Single-Issue Campaigns, are speciesist.
Fact 2. Speciesism is the reason we exploit nonhumans.
Conclusion: If you are against the exploitation of nonhumans, then you should be against most SIC.
Some example of these SIC include: ban orca shows in SeaWorld, fight against elephant poaching, or stop vivisection on nonhuman primates.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar