Vegan Musings It’s because almost everyone can easily agree with “better treatment” as they can then continue to exploit nonhuman animals as always. The groups/organisations that sell “animal abuse” within animal exploitation businesses and institutions, as if their use is not abuse itself; “welfare reforms” (as if a business would sacrifice its profits for the welfare of what is considered property); “better treatment”; and “humane products” keep the public happy that they are doing all they can for nonhuman animals by donating to their campaigns and they don’t need to change a thing in their own lives.
As you said, this ‘welfare’ trend is and has turned against animal rights, the right of nonhuman animals not to be exploited, killed, and in any other way abused by humans, their right not to be property. A ‘right’ way to abuse someone legitimises the abuse of course. By advocating real animal rights nowadays is seen as extreme and even against the interests of the ones subjected to the injustice of not having rights! Instead people try to find all sorts of excuses so as to continue to use nonhuman animals and are blind and insensitive to their being regarded as property, exploited, and killed.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where most people very much prefer to build a ‘happy wall’ around them with pictures from unreality; play up a CD that tells them they are wonderful, the world is perfect, and not to worry about anyone else but themselves; look down on anyone who is not like them while thinking they are ‘compassionate’ and ‘generous’ for showing they are bothered at all about them for some seconds, instead of awakening themselves on what’s so deeply wrong and do the very least for it which is to be vegan. Hopefully, awareness on the truth will prevail in the end, humans will follow the call of justice and respect, and the different, innocent, and vulnerable will not be taken advantage of anymore.
From https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsPicturesPoems
Visar inlägg med etikett abolitionist. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett abolitionist. Visa alla inlägg
lördag 21 juni 2014
onsdag 14 maj 2014
Why is animal use is increasing?
Good status from a friend:
"With veganism being entirely beneficial to animals, people, and the environment, why does it seem like animal use is increasing?
In answer to that, I'd like to share what I have been learning:
When we demonstrate for single animal issues, the loud and clear message we give and reinforce is that some animal uses are OK (just not the one we are demonstrating about) and that some species of animals are more worthwhile than others.
I've also been learning that when we support welfare actions, we are totally reinforcing and giving our “OK” to the belief that using animals, as long they appear to be getting treated “humanely”, is fine.
It does not matter that neither of these outcomes are our intent; they are what is perceived regardless, and that is all that matters. Supporting these actions gives the green light to consume animals and animal products as long as they can somehow be viewed as “humane.”
It's time to promote veganism only if we want to see change. It's time to spread the unequivocal message that all animal exploitation needs to end. Welfare actions have been taking place for a couple hundred years, and like it was noted in the question, animal use seems to be increasing. Time for a new approach. Promote veganism only and require it as the moral baseline or society, in general, will continue to not take justice and equality for nonhuman animals seriously."
Written by Rhonda A.
More to read:
"With veganism being entirely beneficial to animals, people, and the environment, why does it seem like animal use is increasing?
In answer to that, I'd like to share what I have been learning:
When we demonstrate for single animal issues, the loud and clear message we give and reinforce is that some animal uses are OK (just not the one we are demonstrating about) and that some species of animals are more worthwhile than others.
I've also been learning that when we support welfare actions, we are totally reinforcing and giving our “OK” to the belief that using animals, as long they appear to be getting treated “humanely”, is fine.
It does not matter that neither of these outcomes are our intent; they are what is perceived regardless, and that is all that matters. Supporting these actions gives the green light to consume animals and animal products as long as they can somehow be viewed as “humane.”
It's time to promote veganism only if we want to see change. It's time to spread the unequivocal message that all animal exploitation needs to end. Welfare actions have been taking place for a couple hundred years, and like it was noted in the question, animal use seems to be increasing. Time for a new approach. Promote veganism only and require it as the moral baseline or society, in general, will continue to not take justice and equality for nonhuman animals seriously."
Written by Rhonda A.
More to read:
måndag 12 maj 2014
Why I don't sign petitions against dog meat in China
By Jonathan Hughes:Urgh. Woke up to find an invite to sign a petition asking the
Chinese Government (via Barack Obama and José Barroso) to stop the
slaughter of dogs in China for meat. Suffice to say, it's not a petition
I will be signing, nor endorsing. A personal point of note since I live with two cats and love them dearly… if this was about cats, I still wouldn't sign. Here's why:
1) It's speciesist. Clearly. If this needs spelling out - it's just about dogs. No mention of the way any other animals are killed (for food or any other use) – they *may* also be skinned alive and treated terribly. But this petition *only* cares about the dogs. Speciesism is everywhere and is pervasive – setting up one animal to be more worthy of saving than others deflects attention away from the countless billions of 'less worthy' species. The actual text of this petition includes the following: 'The DOG is always considered, by all civilizations, man's best friend and it never hesitated to sacrifice its life for men.'
Speciesism in a sentence, right there (and and an unhealthy dose of misogyny/sexism and turning dogs into an object/non-person with 'it'). The creation of petitions like this just furthers the idea that 'some lives matter more than others'. I do not subscribe to the view that *any* awareness of animal suffering is a good thing. Quite the contrary – this just says that dogs suffer and will do nothing for a reduction in non-human suffering…. see point 2.
2) Let's say it works – let's just pretend for one moment that this will actually work – what then? Will the Chinese dog-eaters switch to Tofu instead? Or, is it more likely that they will eat pigs, chickens, cats, sheep etc instead? How is that a win? Great for the dogs but no good for any other non-human. Net suffering remains the same – the slaughter is just moved to another species and if we see ALL sentient beings as equally morally important, how can this ever be considered a win? It simply can't. Pushing slaughter from one species to another isn't a win. It's a step nowhere.
3) It's xenophobic. Clearly. Why ask 'Race X' to stop eating 'Species Y'? How is 'Race X' any different to every other race in the world? Over a trillion animals are slaughtered every year – EVERY race is involved in this. Why single out one? Because they are 'worse'? Tell that to every fish that dies gasping for breath on board a boat deck.
4) There is no mention of veganism - no mention at all. There's no mention of reduced consumption of animal products at all - just an urge to not use dogs. Non-human suffering will not (effectively) end without veganism. More vegans = less animal suffering. How about we try and create vegans instead?
PLEASE just take a step back and *think* about what you sign.
There are numerous other reasons why I won't sign a petition like this...
Find out more here:
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/picking-the-low-hanging-fruit-what-is-wrong-with-single-issue-campaigns/
1) It's speciesist. Clearly. If this needs spelling out - it's just about dogs. No mention of the way any other animals are killed (for food or any other use) – they *may* also be skinned alive and treated terribly. But this petition *only* cares about the dogs. Speciesism is everywhere and is pervasive – setting up one animal to be more worthy of saving than others deflects attention away from the countless billions of 'less worthy' species. The actual text of this petition includes the following: 'The DOG is always considered, by all civilizations, man's best friend and it never hesitated to sacrifice its life for men.'
Speciesism in a sentence, right there (and and an unhealthy dose of misogyny/sexism and turning dogs into an object/non-person with 'it'). The creation of petitions like this just furthers the idea that 'some lives matter more than others'. I do not subscribe to the view that *any* awareness of animal suffering is a good thing. Quite the contrary – this just says that dogs suffer and will do nothing for a reduction in non-human suffering…. see point 2.
2) Let's say it works – let's just pretend for one moment that this will actually work – what then? Will the Chinese dog-eaters switch to Tofu instead? Or, is it more likely that they will eat pigs, chickens, cats, sheep etc instead? How is that a win? Great for the dogs but no good for any other non-human. Net suffering remains the same – the slaughter is just moved to another species and if we see ALL sentient beings as equally morally important, how can this ever be considered a win? It simply can't. Pushing slaughter from one species to another isn't a win. It's a step nowhere.
3) It's xenophobic. Clearly. Why ask 'Race X' to stop eating 'Species Y'? How is 'Race X' any different to every other race in the world? Over a trillion animals are slaughtered every year – EVERY race is involved in this. Why single out one? Because they are 'worse'? Tell that to every fish that dies gasping for breath on board a boat deck.
4) There is no mention of veganism - no mention at all. There's no mention of reduced consumption of animal products at all - just an urge to not use dogs. Non-human suffering will not (effectively) end without veganism. More vegans = less animal suffering. How about we try and create vegans instead?
PLEASE just take a step back and *think* about what you sign.
There are numerous other reasons why I won't sign a petition like this...
Find out more here:
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/picking-the-low-hanging-fruit-what-is-wrong-with-single-issue-campaigns/
söndag 9 juni 2013
Problems with petitions against e.g. live cooking of lobster
I
think such petitions are problematic, since they send are either sending the implicit
message/often interpreted to mean by the readers that there is a difference between animal cruelty of different
countries, and difference between animal cruelty of different species,
and also only condemning one sort of animal cruelty against this species
(the campaigns sends the implict message that the problem is the "live
cooking", the problem is not ALL killing). I think those petitions
confuse many non-vegans, making them think they are helping animals
without challenging their speciecism and their non-vegan habits of
animal cruelty against other species for food. Here are some more
problems:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html
I think we should focus our time on this kind of education: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-fordomer-vi-djurplageri-men.html [in English, see instead: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights ] - i.e. showing non-vegans that all animal exploitation is inherently wrong and showing that they already agree with the basic premise, which will they cause them to go vegan if they just follow what they believe.
What do you think?
------------------
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html
I think we should focus our time on this kind of education: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-fordomer-vi-djurplageri-men.html [in English, see instead: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights ] - i.e. showing non-vegans that all animal exploitation is inherently wrong and showing that they already agree with the basic premise, which will they cause them to go vegan if they just follow what they believe.
What do you think?
------------------
--
Seagull
LivingStone: <The cruelty of Asian cultures towards animals is
infamous> I would suggest that Asian culture has no monopoly here.
Several minutes ago, I received an email saying that "We don't skin
animals alive the way Orientals do." Putting aside
that rugs may be "Oriental" but people are Asian, anyone who would say
such an ignorant thing has never been in a US slaughterhouse, where
animals are often alive when being cut and skinned. Indeed, the
Washington Post did an article on this several years back. Have you ever
seen the way animals are slaughtered here in the "humane" US? In any
event, to say that Asians deserve special mention here is, indeed, both
racist and xenophobic and I would ask that you not make those comments
here. Thank you for your cooperation.
---Vincent Guihan I think it's vitally important for animal advocates to unpack the inherent racism (sexism, classism, ableism, etc.) in many welfare-oriented, single-issue oriented campaigns. Not only is this a moral duty, in practical terms, it marginalizes animal advocacy as a 'whites only, middle class only, patriarchs only' venture.
It doesn't help that leading proponents of engaging 'other communities' in the welfare/SIC/MDA community engage in a practice that shows a serious disconnect between their nominal view that people of colour, the poor, women, etc., should feel welcome in animal advocacy, unless they're Asians, Latinos, slaughterhouse workers, scientists or waiters, women, etc., since animal advocacy groups tend to vilify these groups when there's a nickel on the table to do so.
(Although I think the notion of engaging 'other communities' often tends to be benevolently misguided when it amounts to a tacit assertion that people of colour, the poor, etc., are not already part of the advocacy community, which it often is. They are; my understanding is that they often just aren't explicitly interested in engaging with advocates who trade on racist, sexist, classist and ableist ideologies in order to promote an advocacy that could not reasonably achieve positive impact or outcomes for animals -- that is, they have the same critique of mainstream animal advocacy that anyone who is not drowning in welfare ideologies has).
-----
Which is to say, it's not that veganism is 'too white', 'too male', 'too middle class' for segments of society that are not white, middle class and male -- as some suggest; it's that the proponents of welfare and SICs -- at almost every turn -- alienate these groups but also show that they operate under magical thinking about the relationship between work done and results achieved.
If there's anything that someone who is not white, not male or not middle class (not overtly privileged) in North America understands, it's that you can't waste time, effort and resources on things that won't achieve the results you hope they might.
When advocacy groups don't align these things, they signal their privilege (off the backs of nonhuman animals and marginalized groups) -- that they have all the resources in the world to engage in ridiculous frivolities. No one who's endured anything remotely like a serious social challenge can look easily at a group like that and say "awesome, where do I sign-up?? I see myself here."
---
Which is to say, it's not that veganism is 'too white', 'too male', 'too middle class' for segments of society that are not white, middle class and male -- as some suggest; it's that the proponents of welfare and SICs -- at almost every turn -- alienate these groups but also show that they operate under magical thinking about the relationship between work done and results achieved.
If there's anything that someone who is not white, not male or not middle class (not overtly privileged) in North America understands, it's that you can't waste time, effort and resources on things that won't achieve the results you hope they might.
When advocacy groups don't align these things, they signal their privilege (off the backs of nonhuman animals and marginalized groups) -- that they have all the resources in the world to engage in ridiculous frivolities. No one who's endured anything remotely like a serious social challenge can look easily at a group like that and say "awesome, where do I sign-up?? I see myself here."
------
In order to believe that petitions and other single issue campaigns will be effective as a method of animal rights activism you also have to believe that not only will they change what they intend to change but that they will also influence people's attitude so that they will not simply shift their exploitation somewhere else. Foe exaple, will those who suddenly find dog meat unavailable start eating tofu instead of another type of meat? Will those disappointed at the loss of the 'bull run' suddenly stop visiting other events where animals are exploited for entertainment? I'm afraid there is absolutely no substantive evidence to suggest this is the case, therfore no reduction in the overall burden of animal exploitation results from these campaigns.
Alan O Reily
---Vincent Guihan I think it's vitally important for animal advocates to unpack the inherent racism (sexism, classism, ableism, etc.) in many welfare-oriented, single-issue oriented campaigns. Not only is this a moral duty, in practical terms, it marginalizes animal advocacy as a 'whites only, middle class only, patriarchs only' venture.
It doesn't help that leading proponents of engaging 'other communities' in the welfare/SIC/MDA community engage in a practice that shows a serious disconnect between their nominal view that people of colour, the poor, women, etc., should feel welcome in animal advocacy, unless they're Asians, Latinos, slaughterhouse workers, scientists or waiters, women, etc., since animal advocacy groups tend to vilify these groups when there's a nickel on the table to do so.
(Although I think the notion of engaging 'other communities' often tends to be benevolently misguided when it amounts to a tacit assertion that people of colour, the poor, etc., are not already part of the advocacy community, which it often is. They are; my understanding is that they often just aren't explicitly interested in engaging with advocates who trade on racist, sexist, classist and ableist ideologies in order to promote an advocacy that could not reasonably achieve positive impact or outcomes for animals -- that is, they have the same critique of mainstream animal advocacy that anyone who is not drowning in welfare ideologies has).
-----
Which is to say, it's not that veganism is 'too white', 'too male', 'too middle class' for segments of society that are not white, middle class and male -- as some suggest; it's that the proponents of welfare and SICs -- at almost every turn -- alienate these groups but also show that they operate under magical thinking about the relationship between work done and results achieved.
If there's anything that someone who is not white, not male or not middle class (not overtly privileged) in North America understands, it's that you can't waste time, effort and resources on things that won't achieve the results you hope they might.
When advocacy groups don't align these things, they signal their privilege (off the backs of nonhuman animals and marginalized groups) -- that they have all the resources in the world to engage in ridiculous frivolities. No one who's endured anything remotely like a serious social challenge can look easily at a group like that and say "awesome, where do I sign-up?? I see myself here."
---
Which is to say, it's not that veganism is 'too white', 'too male', 'too middle class' for segments of society that are not white, middle class and male -- as some suggest; it's that the proponents of welfare and SICs -- at almost every turn -- alienate these groups but also show that they operate under magical thinking about the relationship between work done and results achieved.
If there's anything that someone who is not white, not male or not middle class (not overtly privileged) in North America understands, it's that you can't waste time, effort and resources on things that won't achieve the results you hope they might.
When advocacy groups don't align these things, they signal their privilege (off the backs of nonhuman animals and marginalized groups) -- that they have all the resources in the world to engage in ridiculous frivolities. No one who's endured anything remotely like a serious social challenge can look easily at a group like that and say "awesome, where do I sign-up?? I see myself here."
------
In order to believe that petitions and other single issue campaigns will be effective as a method of animal rights activism you also have to believe that not only will they change what they intend to change but that they will also influence people's attitude so that they will not simply shift their exploitation somewhere else. Foe exaple, will those who suddenly find dog meat unavailable start eating tofu instead of another type of meat? Will those disappointed at the loss of the 'bull run' suddenly stop visiting other events where animals are exploited for entertainment? I'm afraid there is absolutely no substantive evidence to suggest this is the case, therfore no reduction in the overall burden of animal exploitation results from these campaigns.
Alan O Reily
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)