Human slaves vs. animal slaves and how to abolish slavery

Regarding the discussion of human slaves vs animal slaves:

There are many humans who are enslaved production say clothes, food, etc.? Should we buy their products from them, or should we buy products coming from people who are not enslaved? Should we legitimize the slavery by buying products from the slaves? Should we create a demand for products from slavery by buying products from the slave? Should we negotiate with the human exploited and demand that they give the slaves 9 lashes instead of 10 lashes per day? Should we demand that they have to work 15,5 hours instead of 16 hours per day? Should we legitimize the slavery by encouraging the slave owners to continue to own slaves, but do it more “humanely”?

Should we convince the slave owners that they should reform the regulations of their business and increase their production efficiency by administering fewer lashes per day? Should we legitimize slavery by creating reforms that say: “We demand that slave owners only administer 9 lashes instead of 10. These are reforms that legitimize slavery because what you are saying by signing such a reform is: ‘The slave trade is an acceptable institution. It is morally acceptable to own slaves; to treat humans as property. You can continue to own slaves; but we demand the government to regulate it, so that you have a legal obligation to “only” administer 9 lashes per day instead of 10.” Should we tell our friends who buy produce from slave owners that they should sign this reform that legitimizes that humans are property and slaves?
Should we get into a partnership with the slave owners and the sellers of the products from the slave owners and create a new label which comes from slaves that got 9 lashes per day instead of 10 lashes?
Or should we promote products that don’t involve any slavery work at all? Should we fight for human rights and unequivocally speak to the public that we have to abolish slavery, and that you participate in exploitation by buying the products from slave labor? Should we speak out to the slave owners and say that no slave trade at all can be justified regardless of how “humanely” you treat the slaves?

I am glad that the Abolitionists against humane slavery didn’t compromise and don’t compromise their message, and didn’t and don’t legitimize the slave trade by advocating “Human welfare” reforms and promoting products that were “certified humane”. I am glad that they didn’t and don’t sign letters celebrating the slave owners for being “pioneers” and creating a demand for products that are “certified humane”, just like all big “Animal welfare”-organizations are doing today.

More reading: 

• Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

Slavery involved in producing electronical products and clothes

This is a very important video clip about the slave work involved in the electronics that we use:

"We must rid our lives of unnecessary violence. Animal products and all other animal use are out, and there is more we can do...such as only buying what we need, buying second hand whenever possible, and buying non-slave made whenever possible." Quote Sarah

So if you are contemplating just buying or using some electronical product, or other product (most products, including most clothes involve slavery work somewhere in the product chain), and many food items (a big amount of the cocoa and sugar produced in the world is produced by slaves - see the documentary 'The Dark Side of Chocolate') just for entertainment or pleasure, please ask yourself if this can be justified given the slavery, death and violence involved in making the product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd1SOhlTyos&feature=youtu.be

Moral truths and ethics about the consumption of animal foods and other animal exploitation

Start with this article: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

My reply to a person
You have from the outset taken the position that you will believe that morality is subjective until the opposite can be scientifically be proven, which per definition of the limitations of the scientific paradigm is impossible.

Then you use your position “conveniently” to exploit and harm other animals for trivial ‘palate pleasure’, and to be indifferent of their unnecessary suffering and death. If you care the slightest of nonhuman animals, then the case for veganism is crystal clear, as explained earlier. And as long as you permit people exploiting animals for the “pleasure”/convenience of food, and participate in this yourself, you are a part of the animal abuse (and also guilty of the most horrendous parts of the abuse, which you enable by endorsing the property status of animals), instead of a part of the solution.

For some clarity I recommend: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/clarifying-the-meaning-of-a-right/#.Ua0CHpxc18E

It is an objective fact that the property status and domestication of animals is causing them horrendous amounts of suffering, e.g. enabling the industrialized animal abuse depicted in this video: http://www.earthlings.com/

Without the domestication that started 10000 years ago, and that is perpetuated by each non-vegan choice, 58 billion land animals wouldn’t yearly be exploited, many of them living a life of constant torture.
Your position also harms other people, since the animal industry is causing lots of environmental damage, poverty, starvation, etc.: http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/expert_testimonies_oppenlander.htm

Furthermore, the enslavement of animals, the domestication, also has resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. It is covered in this book that I want to read: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook

Regardless of what you believe about moral truths, all that it takes to become a vegan is love and compassion, caring more about the animals, their interests of not suffering and interest of continued existence, than frivolous ‘taste experience’/convenience/social peer pressure.

Naturally any vegan who cares about animal and human rights, and who is understanding that one is complicit in the exploitation if one is not educating people participating in animal exploitation, and who is understanding how efficient education is in order to change people's mindsets and actions, will try to educate you about their views. You will regard it as "imposing beliefs", and the vegan will regard it as their moral obligation. You should consider that your temporary frustration is nothing compared to the suffering of the victims (the animals) that we are trying to protect and defend.

I think this will be my last reply. Thanks for the discussion!

Good quotes about slavery and the abolition of slavery

“I have observed this in my experience of slavery, - that whenever my condition was improved, instead of its increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans to gain my freedom. I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right; and he can be brought to that only when he ceased to be a man.”
― Frederick Douglass (abolitionist), Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

General quote, which can be applied both for human rights and rights of non-human animals.
"As I told my students at the start of my courses, "You can't be neutral on a moving train." That is, the world is already moving in certain directions—many of them horrifying. Children are going hungry, people are dying in wars. To be neutral in such a situation is to collaborate with what is going on. The word "collaborator" had a deadly meaning in the Nazi era. It should have that meaning still.

"Therefore, I doubt you will find in the following pages any hint of "neutrality." -- Howard Zinn (author, historian and social activist)

Slavery of 'battery chickens”. ' and "free-range" chickens

This concept of “free range hens” is a myth actually. They can be as crammed as “battery chickens”. And there is are in almost all cases a huge difference between a human and an animal bred up for food in terms of the exploitation that they go through throughout their life.  There is no welfare in the animal exploitation industry for food.

And the animals are slave because that 99% of the citizens are paying for it. Buying animal products is putting animals into a life of slavery, exploitation, unnecessary suffering and death. We should stop paying for slavery, we should stop being slave-owners.

 

 We all claim to care about animals and to regard them as having at least some moral value. We all claim to agree that it’s wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals and--whatever disagreement we may have about when animal use is necessary—we all agree that the suffering and death of animals cannot be justified by human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. We condemn Michael Vick for dog fighting precisely because we feel strongly that any pleasure that Vick got from this activity could not possibly justify what he did.

 So how can we justify the fact that we kill many billions of land animals and fish every year for food? The best justification we have for the unimaginable amount of suffering and death that we impose on animals is that they taste good. We enjoy the taste of animal foods. But how is this any different from Michal Vick claiming that his dog fighting operation was justifiable because he enjoyed watching dogs fight? Vick liked sitting around a pit watching animals fight. We enjoy sitting around the summer barbecue pit roasting the corpses of animals who have had lives and deaths that are as bad, if not worse than, Vick’s dogs. What is the difference between Michael Vick and those of us who eat animal foods?

I recommend: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


This was a reply to Peter's post:
Peter Edwards There are battery chickens and free range chickens. Battery chickens produce more meat and eggs for lower financial outlay, but at the cost of the welfare of the animals and the quality of the food produced. Free range hens take more upkeep and you can't cram them in, but they're meat and eggs can be sold for so much better prices.

But battery or free range, all chickens end up on the table one way or another. I'm a battery human, struggling and scrabbling, living on nothing cheek by jowl with hundreds of my kind. Some of you reading this are free range humans, with space to roam, plenty to eat and all the comforts of modern 'civilisation,' but you're no less a captive than I...the only difference is you're going to be made into a marks and spencers ready meal, and I'm going for chicken nuggets.

We're meat for the table whichever way you cut it.

The connection between animal slavery and exploitation for food and slavery of humans

This is a great article covering the connection between animal slavery and human slavery, and how our violence against the animals is enslaving us: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/

He is also the author of one of my favourite books World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle. Have you read it?
http://www.worldpeacediet.org/ .He also has some very interesting lectures on his website, like this one: http://vimeo.com/17538152

The enslavement of animals, the domestication, also has resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. It is covered in this book that I want to read: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook

Honey bees, domestication and slavery

Domestication is wrong. Animal slavery is morally wrong. Stealing from animals is morally wrong. The honey industry includes both animal slavery and stealing from animals. We are certainly hurting them by taking of what they work so much with to produce.

Some quotes I agree with:
“Speciesism and human slavery are similar in that in all cases animals and enslaved humans have a basic interest in not being treated as things and yet are treated as things on the basis of morally irrelevant criteria. To deny animals this basic right simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race. The argument used to support slavery and the argument used to support animal exploitation are structurally similar: we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community. The animals rights position maintains that if we believe that animals have moral significance, the principle of equal consideration requires that we stop treating them as things.” – Gary Francione
"The central position of my rights theory is that we have no justification for treating animals as our property just as we had no justification for treating other humans as slaves. We have abolished human chattel slavery in most parts of the world; similarly, we should abolish animal slavery."
More information here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/#.UY90ispafh4

Ahimsa, nonviolence and compassison to all animals

Presenting a logical argument, and arguing for that our love, compassion and nonviolence must extend to all living beings is not being “passive aggressive”.

Standing for Ahimsa (non-violence and compassion to all living beings) requires us standing up against injustices and violence against other sentient beings, regardless if they happen to be humans, fish, cats, dogs or of any other species. Standing silent only perpetuates the status quo of injustices, violence and slavery perpetuated on a massive scale against innocent sentient beings; and makes the bystander guilty for not standing up and defending the defenseless and oppressed.
Only a spiritual awakening to the so simple fact that all beings are consciousness (fish, dogs, cats, humans and all other beings) and that all equally has the same right to live as humans, and that all should be treated with love, compassion and nonviolence, will transform our violent culture that is so filled of injustices, oppression, slavery and suffering.
I recommend this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-religion-of-non-violence/#.UY6v48pafh4

Promoting veganism and end of animal exploitation vs. promoting animal welfare reform

An email I received:

"If we stop promoting welfare reform and just promote veganism, then the reforms will not happen and animals will be deprived of the benefits that they can receive now as we move towards veganism. What is your reply?"

My reply:

"First of all, you are obviously completely unfamiliar with my work, which addresses these and related questions. If you are interested in these issues, perhaps you should read some of that work and you can start with the essays and materials available on my website: www.abolitionistapproach.com. There are no "donate" buttons on the site so you might be confused at first and think it's not an animal site but do read on!

Second, you are assuming that animal welfare reforms provide significant welfare benefits. They don't for the most part. And most are phased in over a period of years anyway.

Third, most of these "reforms" actually increase production efficiency--they lower the costs of producing animal products--and would be adopted eventually by industry anyway in the ordinary course.

Fourth, you assume that welfare reforms will lead us toward veganism. Wrong. Welfare reforms make people more comfortable about continuing to consume animals. Consider the "happy" exploitation movement that is fast becoming the new "animal movement."

Fourth, if we had a significant vegan movement that promoted veganism as a moral baseline and did not promote welfare reforms, single-issue campaigns, "happy" exploitation, etc., industry would, as a matter of economic necessity, respond with welfare reforms and all sorts of measures that were designed to make the public continue to consume animal products.

That is, if we had a clear, strong, unequivocal vegan movement, industry would respond by making welfare reforms that would probably be more significant than than the welfare reforms now promoted by these large animal groups.

The most important difference would be that we would have a movement that stood for a clear and coherent moral message: if animals matter morally, we cannot eat, wear, or use them. Period.

That is, we would have an animal rights movement and not the pathetic partnership between "animal people" and institutional exploiters we have now.

To the extent that there are benefits from welfare reforms, they would not be lost; they would actually be increased as a reaction to a strong vegan movement that was no longer in complicity with industry and that actively, but nonviolently, promoted a vision of animal personhood.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University"

----------

Hello Mikkel,
This website is not about shouting. It is about educating.
If we study we find out that there are some counter-productive efforts that create confusion, such as meatless monday -- which causes many people to consume more diary products (instead of meat), which also causes animals suffering and death, and this is not any way to a vegan world
www.abolitionistapproach.com/vegan-mondays/

I recommend you to read or listen to some debates on the issue (animal rights vs animal welfare). There are many people just like you who thought that all approaches help the animals, but later found out that their thinking was erroneous:
www.abolitionistapproach.com/

Please also study the 'Terms of use' of this Facebook-page.

Have a great day!

.................................................A discussion about Abolitionist approach vs "Ban Live"-export campaigns and other "happy exploitation"-campaigns:

Marianne Mojohand Yet another utterly absurd single issue campaign which suggests that we "humanely" torture and murder our animals here in Australia.

13 hours ago · Like · 2

Sarah K. Woodcock Nell Alk, well, we can always learn more. To answer your question, vegans should spend their time promoting veganism -- not signing petitions or fundraising for animal welfare organizations.

13 hours ago · Like · 2

Steven Bragianis A video from AA: "Australian standards and regulations did not protect these animals from a cruel and terrifying death": 3:53. This begs the question: What's the point of banning live export?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgxdCZRjvd0

13 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Cyn Cynology I am curious-- is AA's reason for doing these types of campaigns to prevent additional suffering and stress to the animals or to gain donation dollars and keep slaughter in their own backyard to keep it a local issue for them to fight? I have an AU friend that raves about AA claiming they have made a huge difference over there -- will have to ask her to elaborate on that.

13 hours ago · Like

Sarah Patsy I am vegan and live in Australia. Yes, I promote veganism. It will not, however, happen overnight, and especially not in a country where it is considered 'un-Australian' to be vegetarian, let alone vegan. However hard I, and people like me, promote veganism, animals will continue to be slaughtered. It can either be locally, with far less travel and stress for the animal, or we continue with live exports where the animals spend weeks travelling in high stress environments by land and sea, many dying en route. As we are all animals, which would you prefer? I do not want any animals to be slaughtered, but pretending it doesn't happen will not make it stop. It is very simple to say we should be promoting nothing but veganism, but I cannot ignore the horror inflicted upon these beautiful sentient beings. Is it better to promote veganism for the next ten years and ignore the murder that is happening daily?

10 hours ago · Like · 2

Jan Vilse @Sarah Patsy,

wouldn't the best way to save Jacob be to reduce demand for animal products so that people don't want to breed and slaughter him in the first place? Wouldn't that goal be worth using every imaginable political resource available?

10 hours ago · Like · 2

Alan O'Reilly Sarah Patsy, 'It will not happen overnight' is one of the standard reasons given for supporting campaigns such as this. The fact is that it will not happen at all if vegans continue to do so instead of unequivocally advocating the abolition of animal exploitation. Although you may wish to see animals treated in a less 'cruel' manner, such treatment is still exploitation and by supporting these campaigns you are effectively approving exploitation, albeit in a different form. How much more difficult does it then become when you subsequently try to deliver the moral message and the exploiters say, quite justifiably, that 'The animal people say what we're doing is OK'?

9 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 1

Sarah Patsy @Jan, Yes, I agree, that is the point of promoting veganism, but as you said yourself, "reduce demand" which implies that animals will be bred for slaughter for food. There will always be people who will not be vegan. There will always be people who choose cruelty. I am vegan, live this, breathe this... but I cannot ignore or forget the animals such as Jacob and the unimaginable horror he and millions of others like him are enduring every day. I feel to say, well I am only focussed on veganism, is to ignore the terrible cruelty they face daily. Yes, for people to become vegan helps the Jacobs in this world in the future but does it help Jacob today?

9 hours ago · Like · 2

Sarah Patsy @ Alan, Not everyone will become vegan, sad but true. There are too many people that simply see nothing wrong with eating animals that refuse to be educated, and there are too many anti-social people that enjoy cruelty. Sad but true. If we ignore this fact and therefore do not engage in 'exploitation' of least cruelty, do we leave other animals to fend for themselves?

8 hours ago · Like · 2

Alan O'Reilly Sarah, <Not everyone will become vegan, sad but true.> That is an opinion (not a fact) with which I do not concur. I also totally reject the notion that humans have any right whatsoever to arbitrarily decide on behalf of other sentient beings which forms of abuse are acceptable and which are not.

7 hours ago · Like · 1

Claudia Ferri Banning live export is a START

6 hours ago via mobile · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: You seem to be ignoring that these of campaigns make the public more comfortable about consuming animals who have been "happily" exploited. You seem not to be concerned that "animal advocates" are deciding which forms of exploitation are "compassionate." But I appreciate that people with your perspective are often unable to see this problem. That is how corporations like Animals Australia get lots and lots of donations.

6 hours ago · Like · 4

Sarah Patsy @Alan Yes it is an opinion that not everyone will become vegan. I'm interested in your opinion that everyone will. Why, and how do you think that will happen?

6 hours ago · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Massimo Viggiani: That's like saying that we ought to have dog shows because they will help some people to recognize the moral significance of animals. In fact, I have met people who have told me that their becoming vegan was the result of their being involved in the world of show dogs. So let's promote dog shows. That's where your "logic" leads.

6 hours ago · Like · 1

Sarah Patsy @Gary, I understand your point, but I don't think the public are comfortable with 'happy exploitation' at all. In my experience the public don't want to think about animals being slaughtered for their food and find it very easy to draw a distinction between the animals they share their lives with such as dogs and cats, and the pieces of packaged meat they pick up at the supermarket. I am not at all comfortable with 'happy exploitation' but is the promotion of veganism enough to prevent this torture?

6 hours ago · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: What you are saying is that it's okay for an "animal group" to promote more "compassionate" ways to exploit. If that's what you think, great. I regard it as a fundamental betrayal of animal rights. That sort of thinking is what is responsible for all the "happy" exploitation labels being promoted by all of the large groups. If you think that's a good idea, you are confused.

6 hours ago · Like · 4

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Massimo Viggiani: Such campaigns are fundamentally in conflict with an abolitionist approach.

6 hours ago · Like · 5

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: I agree that people aren't comfortable and that is precisely WHY we should be making clear that the distinctions they draw don't make any sense. I think that what groups like AA do is terrible because they are intentionally encouraging people not to examine their incoherent distinctions.

6 hours ago · Like · 3

Sarah Patsy @Gary, No, that's not what I'm saying. I have clearly stated I do not believe in 'happy' exploitation or 'compassionate' ways to exploit animals. And I can assure you I am not confused. The exploitation of animals revolts me, but so does their being butchered in an abattoir.

6 hours ago · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: It's not a question of what you believe. It's a question of what these campaigns do and what message they send. And do you *really* believe that that sort of crap does not go on every day in Aussie abattoirs? If you do, you are very wrong. Massimo Viggiani: You are being naive. And the UK got rid of live trade in the 1890s, only to have it come back. You cannot compare single issue campaigns like this with the anti-slavery movement of he 18th-19th centuries.

5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 4

Sarah Patsy @Gary, Yes, that is a good point. AA are probably one of the largest and most powerful groups here but sadly do not promote the vegan message for fear of alienating their largely non-vegan support base. Thank you for some interesting dialogue tonight.

6 hours ago · Like · 2

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Sarah Patsy: You are most welcome!

6 hours ago · Like · 2

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Massimo Viggiani: You are just spouting the new welfarist line that I have been hearing for 30 years now and have refuted in my work. If you want to promote new welfarism, go to one of the trillion sites that celebrate that approach. Please not here. Thanks for your cooperation.

5 hours ago · Like · 5

Sarah K. Woodcock General observation: One of the things I have learned from The Abolitionist Approach is that animal *rights* advocates are faaaaaaar away from single issue campaigns because they understand that we need a paradigm shift faaaaaaar away from how humanity currently regards animals. It is totally apparent that the "Ban Live Export" single issue campaign is a "Kill them here, not there" campaign which could not be closer to how humanity currently regards animals and which is why there is so much nonvegan support for it.

5 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Sarah K. Woodcock Admin Note: When you say you "admire Francione's work" and also support speciesist, racist single issue campaigns, it is very clear you know nothing about "Francione's work."