Today, I received an invitation to join a Facebook group condemning an entire country and its people because of a particular form of animal exploitation that takes place there. Included in the fiery language was the phrase "barbaric sadists" to describe an entire nation of people.
I know that some animal activists believe that all rules of civility and fairness go out the window when defending animals. After all, these people did not care about civility and fairness when it comes to the animals. But there are problems with that belief:
- It is wrong to condemn an entire group of people when only certain members of that group are involved. Instead of focusing on an entire nation, culture or community, focus on the acts of animal cruelty.
- Even if we assume that every person in that culture or community engages in the exploitative behavior, if we look at all the animal suffering and exploitation that goes on in the U.S., how can we call the people of another country or culture "barbaric sadists" because they engage in a different form of animal exploitation? This type of rhetoric is designed to demonize a group of people for being different from Americans; it has nothing to do with animal rights.
- Rules of civility and fairness should never go out the window. Attacking someone because of their race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, sexual orientation, religion or disability is wrong. Even if that person is eating a rabbit while taking a carriage horse ride and wearing a mink coat.
I've noticed in various social justice movements that it's easy to demonize disempowered groups or groups that are considered "other." Whether the cause is human rights, environmental protection or animal rights, it's always easy to get some people to agree with you by reinforcing their prejudices against "those people" or "these people."
These prejudices aren't always obvious or even conscious. I'm sure the thousands of people who joined a Facebook group condemning the "barbaric sadists" would say that they are just taking a stand against animal cruelty. But would they have been so quick to click "Join this Group" if the description had said that all Americans are barbaric sadists for eating veal?
I've noticed that campaigns that demonize a group of people frequently target people of color, both within the U.S. and internationally. I've heard quite a few animal activists argue that various ethnic groups just don't care about animals, and they're almost always talking about people of color. I have also heard activists claim that some people of color live more in harmony with nature, but even positive stereotypes are offensive and harmful.
Don't get me wrong - I believe in being honest and harsh when criticizing animal exploiters for their actions. But that criticism has to be justified and fair. Demonizing a group might win some supporters in the short run, but it sets back all social justice movements when we should be working together.
Suggested Reading:
- PETA Offends Women
- It Doesn't Take Much for the Racism to Come Out from the Vegans of Color blog
- Gender Policing Has No Place in the AR/Vegan Movements from the Vegans of Color blog
- Don't Use Classism and Anti-Sex Worker Rhetoric to Protest Fur from the Vegans of Color blog
Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter
Comments
Doris, thank you for providing a truly thought-provoking post. You’re right — we’re very quick to demonize an entire country when it’s the behaviors and actions of a specific few that are the real issue.
For may years, I’ve said I’d never go to Thailand or support any policies that help that nation because I am appalled at the child-trafficking that occurs there; a Ms. article about sex tourists purchasing, raping and abusing, and then either abandoning or killing girls horrified me.
But by cutting off all ties with Thailand economically and politically, we would increase the likelihood that more children would be sold into sex slavery because of poverty. Intervention, and not abandonment, will change what’s going on in the long run.
It took your post to help me see the larger issue. Thank you.
I agree with the sentiments of this article.
However, I have one question regarding this sentence:
“Attacking someone because of their race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, sexual orientation, religion or disability is wrong.”
What is wrong with judging others based on religious belief? It an ideology that often serves to promote inequality and oppression.
To clarify my sentence above:
What is wrong with judging others based on their religious beliefs? It is an ideology that often serves to promote inequality and oppression.
I also want to add that I’m atheist.
Hi, Brandon,
Thanks for your comment. I agree that if someone uses their religion as an excuse to exploit animals, we have to call them out on it.
What I’m saying is that we shouldn’t say that followers of a particular religion are bad people because they believe X, Y and Z about nonhuman animals or other people. Not every follower of that religion believes the same thing, or applies those beliefs in the same way.
We can criticize individuals, but we shouldn’t attack an entire religious group or criticize an individual based on their religion.
Linda, thanks for your post. It speaks so clearly to the importance of exploring the historical and contemporary interplay between race and critical animal studies. I invite you and your readers to check out my blog, chocolate & arugula. I talk about animals & veganism quite a bit. I would also love to interview you about your work on animals
Moreover, these kinds of attacks make AR supporters look like wackjobs – never the reputation we want to create – or give the impression that only privileged white Westerners care about animal cruelty, which is not the case.
I agree with Doris’s comments. I am white, female, & a lawyer. I read the same blogs and was very distressed by the large number of comments with explicitly racist content, the invocations of jingoistic slogans from WWII, and the demonizing of Asian and Japanese people was to me extremely offensive. I’ve yet to see any individual white AR leaders or groups with white leadership denounce these comments and the sentiment behind them, which also concerns me.
Implicit in these comments being tolerated on these many blogs is that there is a private audience reading them- and presumes non-participation by Asians in the AR movement, or a complete lack of concern as to whether anyone will be offended.
I also must mention that in the overall scheme of things, which is the worse crime against humanity- the dropping of 2 atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, which incinerated 300,000 people (anyone have the stats on how many animals & fish died?), and the permanent irradiation of part of Japan, the “gift that keeps on giving”. The second bomb, according to Michio Kaku, was done as an experiment, to see what effect a different fissionable material would have on a civilian populace. Even Mengele could not have topped this.
Yet nowhere do Japanese activists denounce all Americans or all white people as “barbaric”. To me, the Japanese people have been the best “sports” in history for their restraint.
I think that this is a case of people living in glass houses, & ours is the size of Buckingham Palace. How can any American activists use the term “barbaric” without including Hiroshima & Nagasaki? The very exclusion of this from the scope of AR activists’ consideration is a form of rewriting (or merely failing to study) history.
This needs to be addressed. The AR leadership needs to delete racist comments from these blogs, & issue a disavowal of these comments & refuse to post any with racist and offensive content.
Hi Doris you make some very good points.
This is an international problem though, not just confined to the US. If something is on Facebook the people joining are from all over the world.
I am in Australia, and I am reading your blog and sometimes it is easy to get the impression that Americans think the world of opinions begins and ends in the US.
If you only mention Americans, it sort of puts up a bit of a wall, so that anyone not American becomes ‘other’, in the same way that feminist philosophers argue that in a world where the male way of doing things is considered normal – then women become the ‘other’.
I hope that makes sense. Thanks for your writing.
Rgds Trish
There really seem to be a need for animal welfare legislation, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) seems a bit concerned it to be proposed in Thailand . Though the bill is pending but Thailand legislation has not yet been approved, it does show that there is a trend of heightening awareness on animal rights in Thailand. There are also other grass roots organizations in Thailand that focus on efforts on behalf of animals, such as PhaNgan Animal Care, Dog Rescue Center Samui (DRCS), and SCAD in Bangkok.
>> What is wrong with judging others based on their religious beliefs? It is an ideology that often serves to promote inequality and oppression.
rather than focusing on the negative parts of a person’s religion it’s better to research which arguments will support your viewpoints. simply telling them their religion is wrong or evil is not going to change their viewpoints.
example: a lot of christians believe the bible says “animals don’t have souls”. i decided to read the bible cover to cover, it doesn’t say that anywhere. book of leviticus refers to animals’ blood and that the blood is it’s soul (http://www.tntrevealed.org/qanda.cfm?c=16). garden of eden there was no meat eating. these arguments are a lot more effective then telling them their religion is oppressive.
thanks for posting this (and also the sexism piece). not sure why activists think making racist or sexist remarks and offending people will somehow further the cause of animal and create converts amongst the people they’re attacking.
A well-written, lucid piece and very good arguments.
However, I too have a problem with the judgment based on religion bit.
Islam specifically suggests halal which is a cruel and more torturous form of slaughter. Judaism advocates kosher meat. Many Hindu temples still allow animal sacrifice on the alter. In Luke 8:33, Christ allows the drowning of pigs. Despite the governments’ best efforts (eg. stunning animals before slaughter in the UK) religion becomes an antagonistic device that urges followers to be cruel.