"I'm sorry for my inability to let unimportant things go, for my inability to hold on to the important things." --Jonathan Safran Foer
I read an interesting blog article over at My Face is On Fire about a recent interview with Jonathan Foer. I tried to listen to this interview. But in all honestly, and I am not saying this to be snarky, at all for a change, and I mean that seriously, but I find it really difficult to understand what Erik Marcus is saying with so much of the agribusiness industry's ass in his mouth. Honestly. I'm really not sure what to think of these 'animal advocates' who think that we can sabotage the boots of the oppressor with our tongues.
In the Twitterverse (a phrase I don't like but will use anyhow), I�ve been surprised by some of the jackbooted demands of movement figures that vegans should all gush over Jonathan Foer�s book (Eating Animals -- I can say already that I don't like the title). Criticism is sloughed off with ridiculously silly rhetorical claims or not responded to at all. It's a shame to see prominent advocates bully high school and college students who have thoughtful questions, but that's what goes these days.
But, back to Foer. I don�t have any personal feelings about Foer, haven't read his books, don�t know him, etc. Yes, I live in a cave. I just know that Foer doesn�t endorse veganism, and so, I don�t endorse Foer. Those who have defended Foer have argued a standard line: that he raises consciousness about factory farming. There are several problems to this view. First, if he raises consciousness and then tells people to do the wrong thing (continue eating and enslaving animals) that�s probably even worse than if he said nothing.
Certainly, Foer's not telling anyone anything particularly new insofar as he proposes that we can resolve our moral duties to nonhuman animals by continuing to use and kill them, just do so more 'gently'. For decades, the regulated use movement has promoted better treatment. It hasn't worked, which is why, desperately, some advocates are praising Foer's work as a potential break through. it won't be.
Second, insofar as the regulationist movement proposes �consciousness raising� about how we treat animals to be critically important, this seems to be predicated on a sense that nonvegans don�t know that they are using animal products when they use animal products. Of course they do. They see the bodies of the dead, sanguine and dismembered, every time they go to the grocery store in the extensive meat section. They just don�t see the moral problem with animal use; neither does Jonathan Foer, and neither does most of the animal advocacy movement.
Furthermore, �they treated me like an animal!� is a melodramatic clich� in the English language entirely because the way we treat animals (horribly) is so well known and understood that it is a colloquialism. The Humane Society of the United States takes in hundreds of millions of dollars every year on the pretext of fighting cruelty to nonhuman animals. And if that weren't enough, the �humane� animal products movement is an industry that involves hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars every year and promoted actively and aggressively by agribusinesses and animal welfare businesses like HSUS and the RSPCA alike.
If violence towards animals is a secret, then it�s the worst-kept secret in human history.
Let�s pull the thumb of wishful thinking out of our mouths and accept some unpleasant realities, shall we? Let�s do it for animals. We claim to take them seriously, and if we do, let�s think about what�s good for them. Animal use is not a secret; that we treat many of the animals we use horribly is not a secret. There is no need to raise consciousness of those facts. People may not fully comprehend just exactly what it is that nonhuman animals suffer on factory farms, but lots of people watch Earthlings and other films and just keep right on using animals. And even if there were a need to raise consciousness about those facts, that doesn't mean we should endorse nonveganism in doing so. A trip to a slaughterhouse might also drive some people vegan, but it doesn't follow from this that vegans should endorse slaughterhouses. What is necessary is to educate people about the moral need to go vegan and why that is important.
So, for animals, Jonathan Foer�s book is not good news at all. Insofar as Foer advocates killing and eating animals, he�s not helping animals, he�s making their lives worse and continuing to affirm that they are our slaves. Those who promote Foer are not helping animals. Veganism is straightforward and simple, and if there is any consciousness that requires raising, it is about this fact.
Let�s start with a definition, the Vegan Association�s historical definition of veganism. Vegan lifestyles are: �ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.� Not an especially complicated proposal, and there are hundreds and hundreds of plant-based alternatives for food, clothing and entertainment these days.
But many advocates who promote regulated animal use who call themselves �vegan� have a tremendous inability to determine what vegans should and shouldn�t do. In general, the regulationist movement is deeply confused. What do they want? Liberation or slavery? You cannot work to continue slavery by regulating use and to further emancipation simultaneously. What do we want? I can�t blame Foer entirely for his views, since most �vegans� are falling all over him to tell him how awesome he is. I can blame him even less considering just how deluded many regulationists are. Some examples:
The (in)Humane Society of the United States: half a billion dollars in revenues, not a penny on abolition (but about $20 million in 2008 on fundraising). Wayne Pacelle leads an organization that has drawn in approximately half a billion dollars in revenues since 2005 ostensibly to help nonhuman animals. Yet, Pacelle has agreed on Agritalk that it's not his or HSUS' intent to shut down the livestock industry, and that he's not in favor of the rights of animals. Pacelle further claims that �No one can reasonably claim that our work is moving in the direction of eliminating animal agriculture." Now there are accusations floating around about lying and deceit in HSUS fundraising appeals. The animals thank you for that, Wayne.
Peta has killed 17,000 adoptable nonhuman animals since 1998 according to Newsweek. Ingrid Newkirk has described euthanasia "as the kindest gift to a dog or cat unwanted and unloved.� Replace dog or cat with boy or girl and you�ll get a sense of just how deeply, deeply disturbing this kind of proposal is. Newkirk has also proposed eating road kill and eating whales. Promoting whale meat and road kill undoubtedly contributes to animal suffering and exploitation. This doesn�t include the sexism, racism and classism and speciesism of PeTA�s campaigns, many of which harm animal interests (human and non).
Erik Marcus, an enthusiastic support of the BK Vegggie. In 2004, Erik Marcus declared that he "had been an enthusiastic supporter of the BK Veggie since its launch in March of 2002," even though the product contained �dairy products.� Marcus seems to think that products with animal ingredients are vegan. I guess he's the kind of guy who never got hooked on phonics and never bothered to look up the word 'vegan' to see what it mean before using it. In fairness to Erik, he did eventually stop promoting the BK Veggie, but he still continues to praise and promote aggressive exploiters of nonhuman animals and their product offerings. Vegans do not use dairy products and promoting nonvegan products contributes to animal suffering and exploitation. Marcus has also recently praised Chipotle�s new veg*n menu item, saying �if you�re not excited, you must not have a pulse.� I�m not excited. I�m sickened on behalf of nonhuman animals by this kind of pathetic sycophancy.
Finally, Matt Ball and Jack Norris of �Vegan� Outreach don't seem to know that bees are animals. On VO's Web site, they ask: "So is honey vegan? Our best answer is �We don�t know.�� So, bees have brains. They have a memory. They live in remarkably complex social order. They're animals, and they're the particular animals who make honey (honey doesn't make itself). Hunh. A puzzler, eh! (Here�s a hint: bees are animals, honey is an animal product, vegans don't use animal products, and so, vegans don't use honey; it doesn�t depend on your definition of �vegan� it depends on knowing what the definition of "vegan" actually is). This doesn�t even include their active promotion of nonveganism, if it reduces suffering. Strange for a group that claims to focus on veganism to promote nonveganism, but that's the animal regulationist movement.
If we take the definition of veganism seriously, as avoiding what contributes to animal suffering and exploitation, what do their actions say about these �vegans�? So long as there is money on the table, opponents of the rights of nonhuman animals will delude themselves into whatever intellectually and morally anemic rationalization is required that allows them to profit by blathering just about anything about animal ethics. It's not clear that they care if what they say is truthful, accurate, thoughtful, or if it helps or harms other animals. I'm sure it's just dumb luck that these ravings coincide with a growing market of people who want to ease their consciences about animal use while continuing to use nonhuman animals.
So, I can�t blame Foer all that much when he doesn�t promote veganism (he should, though, and he should go vegan himself). So much of the animal advocacy movement is willing to throw veganism under the bus to advance their careers or because they�ve been taken in by some cultish nonsense. I�m glad to say that I�m vegan, and I�m opposed to the use of animals. Call me absolutist. Say I take an all or nothing approach. I feel the same way about pedophilia, pogroms, and lynching -- I'm against them all, no matter how 'gentle'. And I am uncompromisingly opposed to slavery (human and non), to anti-Semitism, to sexism, to heterosexism, to racism and to other forms of irrational and violent behaviour.
Thankfully, if you want to take animals seriously, it�s simple and straightforward: go vegan. If you�re not vegan yet, go vegan today. If you�re not an abolitionist, but are interested in the approach, you can read my other articles or visit www.abolitionistapproach.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment