Is Abolishing Animals’ “Property Status” The First Step To Liberation?
Print This Post
This is part 1 in a series. Go here for part 2, and go here for part 3.
Once again there is a heated internet debate regarding Gary Francione’s version of abolitionism and those he paints as “new welfarists.”
In one corner we have Bob Torres, author of Vegan Freak and Making a Killing, who says, with hostility:
“Francione argues that there is no way to guarantee any significant protection for animals as long as they are property. As long as animals are property, Francione argues, the interests of the property holder will always override the interests of the property. Thus, until we can overcome this barrier of the property status of animals, any reforms we make will ultimately fail to accord animals any true recognition as persons in the long run. This [is a] fundamental point that sits at the center of abolitionist theory[...]” (link)
In the other corner we have Ryan McReynolds, who thinks highly of Francione and defends Francione here, yet Ryan says:
“Promoting the right not to be property is absolutely in the interests of beings currently held as property. But it is not the only thing in their interests, and it is not necessary to ignore all of these other interests in the single-minded pursuit of that one.” (link)
I am not the referee. I have chosen sides; I agree with McReynolds. Here’s why:
1. First, a reminder:
The “property status” of humans has been legally abolished all over the world. Yet there are more slaves now than ever before. Clearly, “property status” is not the only barrier to freedom.
The website Free The Slaves says, “For most slave holders, actually legally ‘owning’ the slave is an inconvenience since they already exert total control over the individuals labor and profits. Who needs a legal document that could at some point be used against the slave holder?” Here are Some Facts About Modern Human Slavery:
- There are 27,000,000 human slaves in the world today, more people in slavery today than at any other time in human history,
- At least 14,500 human slaves are trafficked into the US each year,
- 50% of human slaves in the US work in agriculture (as well as domestic service and manufacturing),
- The average human slave costs $90 (for comparison, an average slave in the American South in the year 1850 cost the equivalent of $40,000 in today’s money).
Some of the issues at play in the problem of human slavery are similar to the problems facing animal liberation:
- greed
- corruption
- domination: force and coercion
“Property status” is not the only barrier to freedom, nor is it necessarily the one, essential battle for human and animal advocates to fight. So long as greedy, corrupt people can dominate others with impunity, human and animal slavery will exist. Here is your reminder to choose “fair trade” items over conventional items and vegan items over nonvegan items, but your consumption practices are NOT enough to liberate either humans or animals. Your consumption practices are within your control and they are nonviolent, practical actions you can take to improve the lives of others. Indeed, veganism is one of the most powerful things individuals can do to help animals, the planet, and other people. But make no mistake: so long as greed, corruption, and domination exist unchecked, humans and animals will be exploited.
2. Next, a thought experiment:
Which human is more likely to recognize the personhood of animals: Samantha the animal exploiter, who treats animals as nonthinking, nonfeeling things or Roberta the welfarist, who treats animals as thinking, feeling beings?
Samantha runs a hog farm where she confines sows to gestation crates. Samantha doesn’t give them access to sunlight, grass, or mud. She chops off their tails and forcefully impregnates them. While the piglets are still young and relatively small, she takes them away from their mothers and she fattens them up and slaughters them in a cruel manner.
Roberta runs a hog farm where the pigs spend all day outdoors running and playing. Mothers and babies stay together. All pigs live long, full lives. When they are killed, the killing is done in a relatively pain-free manner.
Hopefully, you said Roberta is more likely to recognize the personhood of animals. She might still use animals as comodities (exploit and kill animals), but her thinking is closer to a vegan’s thinking than Samatha’s thinking. Thus welfare reforms can encourage humans to recognize the personhood of animals. Welfare reforms can be stepping stones on the path to abolition.
3. Lastly, the reality:
The large organizations that encourage welfare reforms (PETA, the HSUS, etc.) are not going away any time soon. Individual animal advocates like us must decide how best to respond to them. We can choose to participate, ignore, criticize, condemn, attack, or reframe.
We can participate, for example, we can contribute money or volunteer hours to an HSUS campaign like Prop 2. Or we can ignore the campaign entirely and do our own thing, for example start a vegan blog. Or we can criticize the campaign. We can do that publicly or privately. And then we can choose to participate or condemn the campaign based on how the “welfarists” react to the criticism. Or we can condemn the campaign from the outset. We can do that as a stand-alone condemnation or we can redirect other advocates towards different, better campaigns, for example, tell people to do vegan outreach rather than gather signatures for a welfarist ballot initiative. Or we can attack the campaign and work to end it, as Francione did by encouraging people to vote No on Prop 2 (thus he detracted attention from different, better campaigns). Or we can reframe the campaign to pursue different, better goals, for example, instead of saying “Help the hens, buy free-range eggs” we say “Help the hens, buy fewer eggs.”
We cannot control everything. We can only control ourselves. We choose how to react to welfarism.
My opinion on how to react well to welfarism:
- Follow your moral intuition. Some welfarist campaigns are truly stepping stones towards abolition, others are not. Trust yourself to figure out the difference. (Or if you need some guidance, I recommend this guide by pattrice jones.)
- Whenever we choose to publicly criticize or condemn a campaign, we also inadvertently promote the campaign. If we don’t just ignore the campaign, we should redirect animal advocates towards better campaigns or better actions. Just as any criticism of animal agriculture should include the call to action, “go vegan,” so too should any criticism of animal advocacy include a call to action, “go encourage people to go vegan.”
- Reframing is a great option. When PETA tells people to buy Canada KFC’s vegetarian chick’n thing, instead of hating on PETA and KFC, we should tell people where else they can get vegan food (hint: try searching Happy Cow and Veg Guide).
—
More on the topic of effective animal advocacy:
I’m happy I could provoke some conversation. I do wish this wasn’t necessarily characterized as some sort of fight between myself and Bob (particularly since we’ve engaged in no direct conversation about it at all — I think our respective posts speak for themselves). I know most of those I call fundamentalists see people who advocate some “welfare” reforms as enemies of their brand of abolitionism, but the feeling isn’t mutual — the actual work of vegan education and abolitionist activism engaged in by fundamentalists is spot-on and crucial, not only in actually converting vegans but also in pushing the margins of animal rights discourse towards liberation.
~ Recent blog post: Why Gary Francione Is Right ~
I appreciate your hope that this won’t be seen as a fight, however, I read Bob Torres’s post. It was unusually mean-spirited. He essentially argues that if you haven’t written a book (published under the same name as the one you use to blog) then you don’t deserve to take part in the conversation. Torres’s intro:
That said, I have to be honest: I think some of my own animosity towards Torres is rearing its ugly head. I like his podcast and think overall he’s doing a good thing by creating, encouraging, and supporting a vegan community. However, I strongly disagree with him on some points and I’m often extremely frustrated by him.
For example, in the last podcast he and Jen answer a question about their favorite vegan restaurants. They answered NONVEGAN restaurants. They live in upstate New York. There’s no reason for them to not have been to vegan restaurants in NYC or Philly. And the response wasn’t along the lines of “even if you live in BFE you can find vegan food,” it was simply the first thing that came to the top of their heads. They don’t bother researching or preparing for the podcast at all.
Better example: someone asked what they could do about their school cafeteria not serving vegan food. Bob and Jen hate PETA so much that they didn’t know/ didn’t care that PETA offers TONS of support in this area: http://www.peta.org/feat/flunk/veganize.html and http://www.peta2.com/COLLEGE/cyc-veganize.asp
And they didn’t mention the campaign to get vegan options in public schools across the nation. Instead of offering real, practical advice, they offered empty emotional support.
It’s like Bob is more interested in getting into heated arguments about philosophy with vegans he doesn’t know than about actually working towards a vegan future.
(Bleh, sorry such a long rant. It’s got little to do with you, Ryan. I’m sorry I dragged you into it. I might edit this post above to reflect this conversation…)
You are certainly welcome to your misguided opinions, Elaine, but I would like to correct your misrepresentations of my positions and the things that we have said on our show, at least in your comment. If I’m bored enough later, I might take the time to respond to your blog entry.
First, I do not believe that one need have published a book or have a Ph.D. to make a contribution on these issues. I don’t hammer Ryan for his not having published a book; I hammer him for not having read one. That said, I do, however, believe that academic training encourages habits of reflection, thought, and analysis that tend to produce more rigorous discourse. I realize that this is anathema in the animal rights movement, but that also probably partly explains why we’re so deep in the mess that we’re in.
Second, you completely distort what we said on the show — in all seriousness, I wonder if you are a native speaker of English if you can misunderstand us this badly. I went back and listened, to be sure, and anyone else can go do the same: in show 106, it is at about 1 hour and 11 minutes in. Recall that the questions were from Twitter, so they are live during the time we are recording. We were not asked about our favorite VEGAN restaurants, we were asked about our favorite restaurants. The question was “What is your favorite restaurant, both local and global?” To that, we responded that locally, we had few options, but that we could be accommodated even by two local establishments, even where we lived. We then went on to mention Thai Cuisine in Ithaca, NY, which has accommodated us well as vegans. We then discussed our favorite restaurants outside of our area, during which time we suggested TWO vegan restaurants in Philadelphia, Su Xing House and Singapore. We said that we could not remember the names of the places we had been in NYC, but that we had eaten well there. Anyone else can go back and listen if there’s any doubt. What you say, Elaine, is a total distortion.
Third, there’s no one on our show called “Jen,” so I’m not sure to whom you are referring, but if you mean Jenna, then yes, Jenna and I did answer a question from someone about getting vegan options in her college dining hall. Having successfully worked to get vegan options in a college dining hall myself, I told her what worked for us: going to the top, using parents for leverage, and persistence. Vegan options in public grade schools are irrelevant to the question, as this is a college. And PETA is not an organization we support, for many reasons we’ve laid out in many places, so there’s no reason that we would be as inconsistent as to suggest that anyone consult their materials.
Fourth, you claim that we don’t bother “researching or preparing for the podcast at all,” which is a ridiculous claim, especially when you are talking about live questions taken while we are recording the show for which we could not possibly have prepared. One would begin to get the impression that you skimmed through the show just to find a few points to attack us on, Elaine. You wouldn’t be so unkind as to do that, now, would you? In all honesty, there is no way in which one could seriously suggest that we were not prepared for the show. Listen to the interview. It is edited carefully, and the questions show that we did our homework on their latest album. Check the parts where we talk about news pieces. And listen to the voicemails. All of that requires research and preparation.
If you want to attack us, Elaine, have the moral fortitude to do it correctly, by attacking our positions for what they actually are, not for the distortions that you imagine them to be. One might begin to get the sense that cheap shots are the only way for you to attack us, and frankly, that makes you look worse than us.
~ Recent blog post: Of Straw Men and Feckless Thinking: Misunderstanding Abolitionism ~
Since when were recorded voicemails live?
And since when did “rigorous discourse” include so many personal attacks on my intelligence? If you’re arguing points, argue points. There’s no need to be insulting about it.
You have said to me:
For the record, I listen to the entire show every time it comes out. I don’t skim it. This show, in particular, I shared with my husband because he’s a big Propagandhi fan and together we listened to the entire show.
Please, Bob, learn what it means to interpret someone charitably before you start lecturing others on how to do it.
PS – Apologies to Jenna for calling her Jen.
I never wrote a book, and have been vegan for a short eight months, I have read some “Francione” and feel I understand (but not necessarily agree) to some extent what his message is, I read through a portion of McReynolds blog to get a sense of his problem with Franciones position, here’s where I stand and please forgive (or not) this upstart jumping in.
The problem as I see it with abolition applied as the only tool to establish personhood and ultimately freedoom for animals is that we live in a world full of greedy, self involved, non compassionate people and it will always be that way, I don’t ever visualise a time when all non humans will forever live free from human use/abuse…tell me if you feel I’m wrong (that’s an open question) e.g. slavery exists, murder exists, child labour exists, they haven’t been eradicated despite it being morally abhorrent and illegal, (maybe slavery is given the nod in some cultures) welfarism and abolition have their own inherrant failings, no one here needs me to reiterate them.
So helping others to become vegan is to say at the least ‘viral’, (forgive the terminology, I know it’s overused) in the short time I’ve been vegan I have influenced several of my social circle to considerably reduce their non human consumption, using a straight edge (my term) abolitionist approach would likely have distanced every one of them, heck they don’t know their welfarist from their abolitionist!, so let me see, there are the eight I have influenced directly, then those that they in turn influence, welfarism works with abolition as the position to aspire to, go ahead tell me I’m wrong, Francione’s position, and that of Bob and Jenna’s are unsustainable if there isn’t a leaning on welfarism, and please don’t sit on the fence and tell me, oh I’m abolitionist but I see how welfarism might help sometimes, or are you frightened of being knocked off your ’straight edge’ abolitionist position as the only way forward by the “never the twain shall meet” mentality, don’t just think outside the box, don’t just apply critical thinking, don’t just assume you’ve reached the evolutionary pinnacle of reasoning relative to non humans, and by saying something contrary to something you may have said in the past you might seem as though you floundered or changed course and oh my goddess I am no longer going to be taken seriously.
ok so did that sound like a personal attack?, yep it did, however hard talk is the least of it, thrashing out the best way forward will bruise egos, so shed them, forge alliances and battle the beast that is empathy and greed, the real enemies of liberation, if we thrive we have the voting numbers for a mandate for political upheavel relative to non humans.
Wow. I had some input to this conversation, but then I read a post over at Bob Torres’s blog.
It’s clear this debate, as far as Bob is concerned, is not about ideas, but about keeping the flock in line and maintaining the power structure within the movement. So I have nothing to add.
~ Recent blog post: Are You Cheating Preflop? ~
I’d love to hear what you have to add
Gee, it’s nice to know that it’s not just feminists that get into blog wars. Good to see that vegans can be assholes, too.
I just need to quit labelling myself, I guess.
I do have one quibble with your post. Talking about personhood for animals. Animals aren’t humans. I, personally, think they are better than people. Besides, we don’t have the best track record with human rights, anyway.
I think the human species is a lost cause, frankly. I’m just glad I didn’t bring any children into the world to suffer, and I’m just biding my time, laying low, flying under the radar, and waiting for death.
~ Recent blog post: Another reason why civilization is evil ~
The term personhood is a useful term in that it helps a person have something identifiably in common with our non human primate cousins(I read your blog), and it helps with other non humans in the same way, it’s a psyche thing to some extent, most people wouldn’t want to make burgers or shoes out of other people, it helps put us all on an even playing field, as for the human species being a lost cause, there’s hope in these words “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has” -Margaret Mead-
I have also never written a book, nor do I have a PhD, but I can say with certainty that the impeccable logic and intelligence displayed in the following quotation is brilliant:
“As I understand it, meat eating hasn’t increased. What has increased is a) the population of meat eaters and b) the amount of meat those people eat.”
– Elaine Vigneault
I highly recommend that everyone pass it along to see what a bright mind you have.
L.,
A charitable interpretation of my statement would help one realize that the proportion of meat-eaters to vegans is what I was getting at, not the actual numbers. Because it’s ALSO true that veganism has increased.
Francione’s claims rely on the assumption that the proportion of meat-eaters has increased, but that’s not supported by fact. Sure, he can quote this or that exvegan, but the reality is, meat-eating is on the decline. We can ride that wave and encourage more people to go vegan (or we can spend all our energy attacking each other).
I am appalled at the personal attacks here, by Bob Torres. I can personally attest that Elaine listens to Vegan Freak regularly – she tried to interest me in doing the same, but I was turned off by the attacks on PETA and others (I am no fan of much of what PETA does myself but that doesn’t mean I throw that baby out with the bathwater). It looks like you, Bob, don’t give her work the same attention.
I am sorry to see such dissent in a community that needs all its members, but there is no reason for us all to walk in synch, anyway. Diversity is a kind of power, too. I would just like the conversation to stick to the specific issues raised, which is what I believe Elaine is trying to do here.
I admit to prejudice in that Elaine is my daughter but I think a reasonable vegan is going to find in her favor – not necessarily in favor of her specific views (although I personally share them) but in favor of her approach. And her research.
I agree Judith. Bob Torres and his little minion of followers think that they are the ultimate and only true vegans. Those who dream of this little vegan world they foresee in the future, yet push away all of those that do not subscribe to their exact thoughts, views, and opinions. How is anyone going to get to the very world they’d like to see when they can’t even get along with others who are already vegan? Who continue to cast blame as to why they are failing miserably on everyone who does not agree with them 100%!
Maybe, just maybe, they’ll one day remember that they too were the very same as all the welfarists they lash out at. How many of them went from McDonald’s munching omnivores to becoming abolitionists overnight? ZERO! How can one expect the typical SAD munching moron to not only become vegan, but to become an abolitionist when they do everything they can to make those that don’t kiss his or Gary’s ass feel as if they are beneath them? It’s not like Bob or Gary and their minion of followers reach out to those who have not found the light yet, they do everything they can to make them feel as if they are not welcome to their exclusive little club.
Blame, Blame, Blame the welfarists over and over is all I see, read, and hear from them. Perhaps sticking out an olive branch of hope and in peace would be a better approach…
PS – Apologies to Bob for suggesting that he isn’t interested in working towards a vegan future. It’s clear he IS interested in that goal.
He and I simply have some differences in opinion regarding how best to achieve that goal.
No need to apologize to Bob or GF. It’s their way or the highway. Yet they both fight back by making others feel as though they are “beneath” them when it comes to AR if you dare to question them.
Bob?! You listening? Stop treating others like sh*t. I bet it feels good having others blow smoke up you a**.
Hey! Try this. Write a book that others will read that actually NEED to learn about this issue. Try not to be so judgmental towards others that were just like YOU once were before you knew any better. Did you forget when YOU yourself chomped on flesh? From everything I ever read from you these days, I think you have.
You’re FAR from being perfect. In fact, you treat others like crap. Sad you just don’t see it. You treat EV here like crap. You do. Are you MORE vegan compared to how SHE lives her life? Are you? If you think you are, that’s sad.
You attack others that don’t agree with you, even when they are vegan. I could copy and paste so much from you where you attack others that are already vegan. You know I could.
Please step back and take a deep deep breath. I’m vegan, Elaine is vegan. ALL OF US reading this most likely are vegan. Take that line in the sand and erase it. Start over. You’re not winning by alienating others. Your “dividing” people. You are.
You’re doing it wrong. Trust me friend, you are.
Open arms work better compared to folded ones. They do. I KNOW you know that. Welcome people and teach them without judging them first. Can you do that? I truly think you can. You’re a good man. A smart one. Very. Are we all not vegan because we CARE?! Teaching others does not work when you force views. They only work when the one teaching as passionate and has students that are passionate about learning from their teacher. Yo have that gift. Please don’t abuse it. It is a gift. Use that gift just right and we get some “wins” for our team. Use it wrong, and all you do is push others away that want to learn yet feel afraid to question or speak up.
You were born vegan huh? You were NEVER a wefarist yourself huh?
Too bad you can never remember where it is you came from and how you got here. That’s honestly sad. The more you look at this subject as only an academic approach for a solution, the more you push other humans away. When you can’t accept those that are close, yet still far away from your own views……. how is it that you think they will accept the truth of the matter?
BT and GF, well they both want a vegan future, yet they shut off everyone that does not subscribe to their exact views on how we get there. They both have been SO very very successful in creating more vegans. Treating other vegans and vegetarians like crap and ridiculing them is always a great path to follow.
Sad you think you’re better. You do. It’s SO obvious that you yourself are blinded by it.
I’m vegan. Are you a better vegan? I don’t think you are. I don’t thing YOU think you are a better vegan compared to me. Sometimes your very words……… well they make some of us feel as you think you are. Remember this. In the end, we ALL want the same thing. Again I will tell you that open arms are more reaching compared to folded ones.
Try being HUMBLE! It just might work. Both you and I know it works!
Good thing that MLK and Gandhi were not so judgmental to those that did not subscribe to their views in the beginning. Had they been like YOU, They never would have made a difference. Yet you have the same power to be as good as they. If only you could see that. I wish I had the communication skills you did. I do. If I did Bob, I know I’d reach out in a more humble way to those that need to hear my words the most. I would.
~
As far as the interpersonal bickering here is concerned, I don’t think either side can claim innocence.
It is true that Bob Torres’ comments about Ryan McReynolds were pretty uncharitable. He could have just said that McReynolds apparently wasn’t reading Francione carefully judging from his misconstruals of Francione’s position and pointed out the errors in his characterizations and arguments without belaboring his supposed fecklessness. His comments about Elaine were needlessly disparaging as well. I don’t think anything is accomplished by such personal attacks, unless you count a lot of time wasted on bickering as an accomplishment.
But that doesn’t let Elaine off the hook by any means. She misrepresented what Bob said in several respects, of which I’ll just give a couple of examples. He certainly never “essentially argues that if you haven’t written a book…then you don’t deserve to take part in the conversation.” And in the podcast that was referenced, as Bob points out, Jenna and Bob were asked a question simply about restaurants in general, not vegan restaurants. I didn’t think he would just make up something as specific as what question they were asked or how they responded, but I listened to that segment of the podcast to find out exactly what they said, and it was a completely reasonable response (especially considering that it was an off-the-cuff response to a question from a live audience) about what their favorite restaurants (whether strictly vegan or not) were.
Okay, enough of that; let’s get to the substantive issue at hand–the importance of animals not being treated as property. And here I side with Francione and Torres. As Torres puts it, “until we can overcome this barrier of the property status of animals, any reforms we make will ultimately fail to accord animals any true recognition as persons in the long run.” Note that he doesn’t say that property status is the only barrier to freedom, nor does he say that reforms don’t have any value without addressing the property status issue, nor does he say that abolition of status as property is the only interest animals have. What he’s saying is that as long as animals are regarded as property, whatever reforms are made will be both very limited and quite possibly temporary.
Elaine objects to Torres’ and Francione’s focus on challenging the property status of animals, based on the analogy that there is still human slavery in the world despite it being illegal. But this confuses illegality with actual abolition. There are international laws against slavery, torture, bombing of civilians, and all manner of other atrocities against humans, but all of them take place, some of them routinely. In other words, they have hardly been abolished!
So, that raises the question of what it would actually take to abolish animals’ status as property. As a revolutionary socialist who also happens to be vegan, my answer is: We have to abolish private property (aside from personal property such as one’s house, car, toothbrush, etc.) as a whole–in other words, we need to get rid of capitalism and create a world in which no one and nothing is treated as a commodity. We presently live in a world where not only nonhuman animals, but almost everyone and everything is, at least some of the time, treated as property! For instance, unless you’re self-employed, your time and your labor are, during your working hours, the property of your employer, as are any products resulting from that labor. Of course, unless you’re a slave, your employer is contractually obligated to financially compensate you for that labor, but that doesn’t change the fact that, for however many hours a week, you’re a “wage slave” who is denied the right to own and control the products of your own labor, and instead receives a wage that is almost certainly less than the value of those products. Humans, animals, and the environment are all exploited ruthlessly for profit under capitalism. Reforms can make things better, but 1) there’s usually a financial incentive for capitalists to take away those reforms, so their status is temporary and 2) reforms only alleviate, but can never do away with, the injustices of a system that revolves around money made from treating both animate and inanimate objects as commodities, because they never eliminate the source of the problem: The fact that some people are in positions of power that enable them to exploit people, animals, and the rest of nature for their own enrichment.
Jeff, for the record, my point is not that we need not work towards abolishing property status. My point is that “property status” is not the root of the problem. Greed, corruption, and power (exerted as force or coercion) are the problems. Those problems exist in any economic or legal system. (And in fact, they are demonstrated right here in this thread. See Ed’s comment above.) Secondly, my point is that these problems facing animal liberation can be tackled in a number of ways, but hating on PETA and the HSUS isn’t one of those ways.
“Jeff, for the record, my point is…that “property status” is not the root of the problem. Greed, corruption, and power (exerted as force or coercion) are the problems. Those problems exist in any economic or legal system….”
Well, if they are the root of the problem and they exist in ANY economic or legal system, then there is absolutely no hope of ever addressing the root of the problem. It’s this notion that “there is no alternative” that politicians and the corporate world have been pushing on the public for decades now. But as the current economic crisis is making clear, if there really is no alternative to a system in which a tiny minority hold the vast majority of political and economic power, then we humans, other animals, and the planet’s ecosystem as a whole, are totally FUCKED. But there IS an alternative. There’s no reason why we can’t have an actual democracy instead of a system ruled by a few, which is not only unfair but, as you suggest, inherently corrupting. There are reasons why we don’t and aren’t likely to in the near future (primarily the amount of power that those wealthy few have), but that doesn’t mean we can’t.
Owning property is a major form of power, really THE major form of it under capitalism. In the first place, it’s power over what is owned, and when people own large amounts of property, that gives them a lot of indirect power–they get to bribe congresspeople, exert power over people’s minds through the mass media, etc.
“Secondly, my point is that these problems facing animal liberation can be tackled in a number of ways, but hating on PETA and the HSUS isn’t one of those ways.”
Criticizing PETA, HSUS, or any other individual or organization for actions that are unhelpful or actively counterproductive most certainly is one of those ways.
I find the photos you choose to be very disturbing indeed. As a vegan, I wonder why you would choose to put the photo at the top of the page with the pigs on their way to be butchered where sensitive caring vegans would see them without being warned in advance.
Jeff,
I hardly encourage nihilism, apathy, “there is no alternative”. You’re jumping the gun, creating a slippery-slope.
The above article offers practical suggestions:
I am very much a pragmatist. I try to find and offer practical solutions. That’s part of what this debate is about. Bob and Francione think “nonviolent, creative vegan education” is the answer. I think the answer is a multi-pronged approach that includes some support of welfare measures.
PLEASE read the patrice jones article linked above.
And check out this video that includes some discussion of “moving the middle”: http://sellingcompassion.blogspot.com/2009/02/knowing-our-audience.html
—
Selah,
Good question. Thanks for asking
When I use graphic photos it’s often to elicit a certain emotion that guides reader’s reaction. The normal, healthy, human reaction is yours – empathy for animals. That empathy, hopefully, translates into action.
The photos do two things:
a) They persuade nonvegans to go vegan: graphic photos don’t persuade everyone, but they persuade more people than nongraphic photos.
b) They motivate vegans to act.
Without graphic photos or videos, the articles are just words. They don’t move people to act. Our movement is strongly propelled by emotion. (Please see this video for some evidence: http://sellingcompassion.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-graphic-content-effective.html )
Now, there is a case to be made about desensitization, but so long as the images are accompanied by specific calls to action that help animals, the risk of desensitization is low.
In this particular case, I’m trying to make the point that action for animals is urgent. My point is that animals need our help now. And some welfarist measures might offer that hope. The photo helps do that. Those pigs are going off to slaughter. They are crammed tightly together, they are looking out at the photographer with curiosity and HOPE. We have to help them.
PS – Francione uses graphic photos in his Abolitionist blog’s header.
Thank you for this post Elaine! I agree with it 100% with you on this.
As with most disagreements, I think that a lack of honest communication is at the root of the problem. From what I have read, it seems that Francione and others are saying that welfare reforms (or any effort that doesn’t directly challenge the property status of animals) are counterproductive to animal rights goals. These people think that vegan education, and nothing else, will achieve animal rights.
Others disagree with Francione’s position because they think that welfare reforms are necessary stepping stones toward animal rights goals. These people believe that welfare reforms compliment vegan education and that a combination of both vegan education and welfare reforms are needed to achieve animal rights.
I believe that there are plenty of genuine animal rights advocates on both sides of this debate. What we need to do is honestly debate both side of the issue and come to a consensus about how best to move forward. We all agree the goal is to achieve animal rights –how best to do that is the question.
Unfortunately, many from Francione’s camp claim that the only true animal rights activists (or the only true abolitionists) are those who agree with Francione. If you don’t agree with Francione, then you are a welfarist (a.k.a. happy meat supporter). Instead of arguing the merits of their case, these self-described defenders of “true” animal rights discount the arguments of others and then use straw-man arguments and mischaracterization of their opponents to advance their claims. I don’t think that type of rhetoric is fair or useful.
It’s one thing to say that some of PETA’s tactics are counterproductive, but it’s another thing altogether to claim that PETA is a welfarist organization (or that it believes in the “humane” exploitation of animals). It’s one thing to say that by supporting Prop 2 in California that people are enabling animal exploiters, but it is slanderous to claim that anyone who voted YES on Prop 2 thinks that “cage-free” eggs or “humane” meat are okay. But that hasn’t stopped Francione and others from claiming exactly that.
Of course, not only is this claim untrue, it is offensive and divisive. There are many vegan, animal rights advocates who support bans on battery cages who also believe that exploiting chickens is wrong no matter how it is done. Being against one form of abuse does not mean you support other types of abuse. Even if Francione’s supporters believe that vegans who support welfare reforms are being counterproductive, that does not mean that it is accurate to say that these people believe in “humane” animal exploitation.
And from what I have read, this types of mischaracterization seems to be almost entirely one-sided. While many people in Francione’s camp seem perfectly at ease claiming that anyone who voted to ban battery cages in California is a “happy meat” or “cage-free egg” supporter, I don’t see anyone from the welfare reform camp claiming that everyone who voted NO on Prop 2 in California (including Francione) must be a battery cage supporter. Perhaps that is because Francione and his supporters are more interested in arguing that they are right and everyone else is wrong then they are in actually coming to an honest and fair consensus about the best ways to advance animal rights.
Ed, I agree that the rhetoric coming from Bob and others seems more about keeping the “flock” in line than it is about honest debate.
Jeff your feeling of what Torres means:
“What he’s saying is that as long as animals are regarded as property, whatever reforms are made will be both very limited and quite possibly temporary”.
My Response:
As long as the number of veg*ans increases as a percentage of population, reforms can be substantial, reforms gather strength and mobility as veg*anism grows, greed and power gives way to popular movement, because it tips power in favour of veg*ans increasing numbers.
You also quoted torres here:
“until we can overcome this barrier of the property status of animals, any reforms we make will ultimately fail to accord animals any true recognition as persons in the long run.”
Your response:
“Note that he doesn’t say that property status is the only barrier to freedom”
My response is that, it’s exactly what he’s saying, if he doesn’t believe it, why say it, going around in circles and saying everything ultimately is misleadig and not having the gumption to stand behind what he really means is diversionary, kind of like this, if I state enough positions I can hide behind anyone of them based on responses from others, diversionary and disingenuous.
EC, I just read the “Strategic Analysis of Animal Welfare Legislation” paper by Pattrice Jones that you linked to at: http://pattricejones.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/perplexed.pdf
I have to say it is brilliant. I think everyone should read it, on both sides of this debate. I especially like this bit:
“The argument that [banning battery cages] would increase egg consumption by consumers made more comfortable by the idea of happy hens is not supported by the physical evidence… Further, even if this argument were supported by facts, it would not represent a valid reason to refrain from abolishing battery cages. Subjecting hens to torture in order
to make eggs unpalatable to a subset of consumers would be treating those caged hens as objects and thus not ethically acceptable.”
I don’t think Bob truly believes all of his own BS on this matter, which is why I sense motives from him other than merely passion for AR.
For instance, on his most recent podcast he had Chris Hannah from Propagandhi on. Chris has spent the last month or two fundraising for peta2 (in addition to two other groups). He also invites peta2 to come to Prop shows to talk to the showgoers.
Chris mentioned during the podcast (I’m paraphrasing) that it gets him down sometimes how so many people can be huge Propagandhi fans, and then sit down after the show and eat a hamburger. Despite his misgivings about some of what PETA does, Chris invites peta2 to the shows to help get the animal rights messages across to those who attend the shows. This is what I think Elaine would call a multi-pronged approach. Offer people the message of AR in several different formats and see which one takes root.
Naturally, I was expecting Bob to respond with a rant about Chris’s “sad little band.” Fundraising for and promoting peta2 is, after all, tantamount to personally slitting the throats of 10,000 piglets. (Before you pop a blood vessel, Bob, I’m exaggerating your position for effect. Don’t want to see you land in the hospital over this thread.)
But no rant was forthcoming. Bob made his distaste for PETA clear, and he left it at that. No accusations about farting mariachi bands, and at the end of the interview, Bob thanked Chris for all the good he was doing for the movement.
This is how a mature adult should handle this difference of opinion between two parties who clearly, desperately, both ultimately want the same thing.
Bob reserves his rants for the little guys. Does Bob really think that this website is an “ugly project”? If he does, I think that’s sad. But I don’t think he really thinks that. After all, he’s shown that he can bridge the largely artificial and illusory “abolitionist” vs. “welfarist” gulf with maturity and respect.
As I said in my comment above, I don’t think Bob’s ire has much at all to do about ideas. It’s about personalities and power within the movement.
It’s telling that his first instinct was to attack this WEBSITE. Not ideas. Not even Elaine, but the website. If you got in an argument with someone over the internet, would it even occur to you to attack their website? Weird, huh? But it’s not weird if you realize that attacking the platform is a tried-and-true tactic to silence the person. As just a couple of examples from millions, the government loves to attack, discredit, and even criminalize websites (e.g., SHAC7). So does Bill O’Reilly, et al.
Simply put, there is no legitimate reason to attack a website. A website is merely a platform, and a platform is never bad. The goal of attacking the platform is always to silence the voice. Attacking the platform represents the politics of power in a very naked way. I’m not saying Bob Torres is a narc
, but I do see in him the instinct to put one hand on the billy club whenever a disagreement arises.
But it’s just an instinct, and we all have our foibles. I think Bob is a passionate advocate for animals, and I think he deserves respect, encouragement, and thanks for how he chooses to spend his time on earth (fighting the good fight). Maybe I can leave this as I started with some words from Propagandhi:
Please let’s share freely with each other and not sell each other out.
~ Recent blog post: Are You Cheating Preflop? ~
For all those on here who suggest that Francione (and/or Torres or other “abolitionists”) suggest that it’s “their way or the highway” or whatever, what do you have to say about Francione constantly trying to openly discuss and debate the issues with the “leaders” of the animal rights/animal welfare movement? Virtually noone will discuss the issue with Francione at all. Not Pacelle, not Singer, noone notable as of yet besides Eric Marcus, who, as all of us who heard that debate know, was at a total loss of any evidence of his claims that welfare reforms work to “reduce suffering” or lead to ending the institutionalized exploitation of other animals.
It’s clear to me, and anyone else who has actually looked into the issue, that Francione is more than willing to openly discuss and debate the issue of whether animal welfare reforms work or not, but the other “leaders” of the large animal advocacy corporations are too afraid to give him the time of day (paraphrasing a Francione quote from Vegan Freak podcast – “if i’m wrong, tell me why I’m wrong and we can discuss it”). Why is that? Is it, as they say, that they don’t want to “fight” about it? Or are they just concerned that their tactics are better for generating generous donations than actually reducing, and ending the exploitation of other animals? Are they afraid that without these donations (from people who generally are concerned, in some way or another, about the plight of other animals but are threatened by the thought of taking personal responsibility for their actions and going vegan) they will no longer be in business? These are serious questions that need to be addressed, because, even with all the so called animal welfare “victories”, that are very costly and time consuming, more and more animals are exploited every year for the interests of humans. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. Please, someone tell me, where is the proof that all these animal welfare reforms are reducing the net suffering of other animals used for human interests? There is none and I feel that is why no one will debate Francone.
It’s also crystal clear to me that it is those who refuse to discuss and debate the efficacy of their tactics and prefer that people blindly follow them, and accept the “work on and/or support and fund our welfare reforms” or “do nothing and be a ‘purist’ or ‘absolutist’” false dichotomy, without question are the ones who take the “their way or the highway” position.
Ed, you rock!
Supporting Prop 2 makes you a welfarist in the same way that supporting universal healthcare makes you a socialist. It doesn’t, but those labels are sure to “win” the debate in some circles.
So, let me get this straight, because I’m not sure I fully understand this argument. The majority of the people posting here seem to support the welfarist approach, and think that Bob Torres and others who take the abolitionist approach are scaring people off, right? That they are somehow misguided because they’re not content with pulling punches and taking baby steps towards the ultimate goal of animal liberation.
Well, I can say with confidence that not a single person who would’ve scoffed at the idea of animal rights are going to take it any more seriously if we change the name of fish to sea-kittens (which was suggested by PETA and I hope was a joke). I also don’t beleive that KFC Canada’s decision to provide better conditions for chickens-to-be-slaughtered was anything more than an economic decision. “Maybe getting PETA’s stamp of approval will help our dwindling sales”. I also think KFC may have also misunderstood why their sales were down in the first place. I know Bob Torres made some mention of McDonald’s being one of the few businesses still thriving in this economy, on the VeganFreak podcast. But they were taking a hit in sales before the economy started tanking. At least they were smart enough to understand that it was the obesity epidemic that was scaring people away from Big Macs and not the way they were treating animals. Which is why they, like every other fast-food chain, started selling fruit as an alternative to french fries, or whatever…
I guess my point is, I became vegan (after years of skepticism and lots of jokes at the expense of the AR movement), by having the cold, hard, unpleasant facts presented to me bluntly and without kid gloves. And even though I may have been dismissive and defiant at first; the message ultimately got through- when my conscience couldn’t take it anymore. Maybe I’m an extremist in that regard, but I don’t find comfort in small victories, and using soft, PC language to get this message out there, like so many other so-called animal-rights activists seem to.
Eric,
I don’t think this is what’s going on here at all. And I think some people’s absurd insistence on using these “abolitionist” and “welfarist” labels is largely what is creating the confusion for you.
I object to being labeled a “welfarist” simply because I think PETA has a place in the movement. I think this “abolitionist” vs. “welfarist” nonsense is largely a very, very false dichotomy.
Perhaps you should read the discussion on the “You Should Be Nicer If You Want To Convince Me” post.
~ Recent blog post: Are You Cheating Preflop? ~
Lui, For us rogue vegans who don’t tow any particular line and simply make up our own minds as we go along, we don’t necessarily need or want the large organizations to get on board with Francione’s version of abolitionism. What we need is to determine how best to respond to the large organizations. Thus, my suggestions:
1. Follow your moral intuition.
2. Any criticism of others’ animal advocacy should include a call to action, such as, “help people go vegan.”
3. Reframe the problem or the solution to fit abolitionist goals.
See my explanations above in the original article.
Eric, I don’t think that at all. I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly do not think Torres “scares people off.” I’m not going to say anything further about my personal opinions of Bob Torres
Regarding Ed’s comment: “It’s telling that his first instinct was to attack this WEBSITE. Not ideas. Not even Elaine, but the website.”
I didn’t fully pick up on that until it was pointed out, but I agree with Ed’s take.
And for the record, The Vegan Soapbox is a group blog with multiple authors: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/authors/ and if you’d like to contribute to the Soapbox and you’re vegan, please let me know
I’m happy to crosspost vegan blogposts about theory, recipes, events, etc. The whole point of this website is to offer a platform for vegan discussion and to help promote other vegan websites: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/about/
Cork wrote- “You were born vegan huh? You were NEVER a wefarist yourself huh? Too bad you can never remember where it is you came from and how you got here.”
I was raised omni, went ovo-lacto vegetarian- only buying free range “happy” eggs and milk in 1993, then eventually went vegan in 2005.
So, yes I was a welfarist and member of PETA, before I was an abolitionist, but I can remember exactly how I got here and as a matter of fact that’s precisely why I’m an abolitionist now, as I can explain.
I feel that if I’d been exposed to abolitionist literature explaining that animals should not be viewed as property and that veganism was a moral imperative for anyone who cared about animals, I would have gone vegan a helluva lot sooner than 2005. I’m annoyed that it took me so long.
I also think the fact that I was a veggie who thought free range eggs and dairy were a-okay for most of my PETA membership years speaks volumes about how ineffective welfarist activism truly is.
~ Recent blog post: Poppy seed muffins and… Xmas dinner…? ~
I’m going to try to keep this simple for Eric and Lui, bashing Francione or Torres for hard line abolition isn’t helpful, bashing PETA or HSUS isn’t helpful, however saying abolition is the only way forward is faulty, vegetarianism can be transitional to becoming vegan, vegan can be transitional to becoming abolitionist, (let me know if you want clarification for this) if every human out there were a budding abolitioinst they wouldn’t need transitions such as becoming vegetarian first because it’s slowing down the movement towards abolition.
Using the Francione/Torres approach we should just as aggressively if not more so be targeting vegetarians and trying to make them become omnis again, after all they are viewed by abolitionists as doing more harm than good right? because all the time welfarism is at work, it makes omnis feel as though happy meat is a good thing, and anyway according to Torres being vegetarian is worthless, excerpt from his new as yet unpublished book: “Huge reason #2: The other big reason that so-called “animal rights” ovo-lacto vegetarianism is pointless”, so vegetarians are “pointless”, assuming all vegetarians are “pointless” the title to his new book should be If you’re vegetarian don’t buy my book, that way only omnis will buy it right?, vegans have no need they are already vegan, or abolitionists don’t need it they are already abolitionist, hmmm I wonder how many he’d sell.
Militant abolitionists need to get over themselves, vegetarians and welfarists are making the plight of non humans newsworthy, newsworthy means omnis take notice, taking notice removes empathy, removing empathy is terrific for non humans, like it or not welfarism/using multi faceted approaches reap way more positive results than abolition alone, the numbers necessary for political reform are immensely bigger than the numbers available from the militant abolitionist sector, while they are still trying to bolster their numbers, vegetarians, vegans, and welfarists will eventually multiply and forge legislation that will make a difference, please don’t mistakenly think abolition is the only way forward.
Wow, that’s great condescension. Make it simple for me? You are such a helpful person, meegan! A real humanitarian!
“We rogue vegans here at yada yada”… Is that supposed to be a joke? That sure sounds like you’re towing a particular line to me. “We here”? Ha!It’s great that no one responded to the content of my post.
Bravo, rogue vegans! Bravo!
Lui – my point was the we are not “the leaders.” We are all just everyday people. Who cares if Pacelle or Singer listen to Francione? What’s that got to do with me? What’s that got to do with MY activism? Nothing.
We can’t control the world. We control ourselves. We choose how we respond to “welfarism” and “abolitionism.”
Want to work on abolishing the property status of animals? Go for it! I’m NOT stopping you.
Actually Lui that was condescending I admit it, but aside from that did you not see a response in there anywhere, Francione wouldn’t give me the time of day, but your here as his advocate and I responded to you, if you don’t think my response is worth addressing then you’re doing exactly what you claim PETA and HSUS is doing
Lui,
You were indeed condescended to above.. I don’t think that’s cool.
I do think Elaine addressed your post, however. This is a large movement. It’s not large as a percentage of total population, but it is large as in we can’t all fit in one room. People come to this movement from myriad backgrounds with myriad experiences. The way each person advocates will be a very personal thing. Some people will leaflet. Some people will write blogs. Some people will make podcasts. Some people will write books. Some people will start bands. Some people will use direct action. Some people will be loud. Some people will be quiet. Some people will emphasize one aspect of veganism. Some people will emphasize another.
Neither you, Gary Francione, nor Bob Torres can control how people advocate. You just can’t. We are all “rogue” vegans (as Elaine put it), and we each are ultimately going to advocate in the way that works for us.
Undoubtedly some messages and causes will be more effective than others. You seem passionately convinced that your message and cause is more effective than a “welfarist” message and cause (for which you say there is no evidence that it’s effective at all). Which may well be true (or it may not be)… but the problem is that it’s clearly not a message that resonates with all vegans. If the message doesn’t resonate with someone, then I can guarantee you that the person will either choose a different message or simply not advocate at all. No matter how hard you try, there will be square peg vegans that you simply can’t fit into your round hole.
So, while I don’t directly dispute Francione’s point, I do question its relevance. Does he/you want vegans who don’t see things his way to sit down and shut up? The idea that we shouldn’t push for better treatment of animals (if only as a temporary goal on the way to “abolition”), after all, is a very COUNTERINTUITIVE idea. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it does mean that it will FEEL wrong to a lot of people, and to the extent that you’ve taken a vegan and confounded them and told them they’re doing it all wrong… well you’ve created a person who will be a less passionate advocate and who therefore will do less to grow the movement.
So, using Elaine’s words, what’s your call to action? You don’t think PETA is an effective advocate for animals. You think HSUS is more interested in donor dollars than changing things. Fine. What should I DO about it? Should I stop doing what I’m doing right now? Apparently I should stop sending money to PETA. But what ELSE?
In all of your commments, I see no call to action at all. If I agree with you, what the heck am I supposed to GO OUT AND DO? Elaine’s original criticism (in the original post if you can scroll up that far), after all, was exactly that… that she sees so-called abolitionists taking a lot of pot shots, but she sees no calls to action. What is a “rogue” vegan supposed to do in light of Gary Francione’s wonderful revelations?
~ Recent blog post: Are You Cheating Preflop? ~
To lui and Eric I apologise for my condescension you were clearly upset by it, it was wrong of me, in the interests of keeping this forum less hostile I will refrain from doing so again, in the interim I’m interested in some critique of mine and Eds responses…thanx
Kris said:
“I was raised omni, went ovo-lacto vegetarian- only buying free range “happy” eggs and milk in 1993, then eventually went vegan in 2005.
[...]
I feel that if I’d been exposed to abolitionist literature explaining that animals should not be viewed as property and that veganism was a moral imperative for anyone who cared about animals, I would have gone vegan a helluva lot sooner than 2005. I’m annoyed that it took me so long.
I also think the fact that I was a veggie who thought free range eggs and dairy were a-okay for most of my PETA membership years speaks volumes about how ineffective welfarist activism truly is.”
I’m with Kris here. My story is quite similar. I went vegetarian in 1986 after reading Frances Moore Lappe’s book Diet for a Small Planet, which argued for vegetarianism based on health and environmental issues and didn’t mention a thing about animal suffering. AND I on several occasions for the first few years lapsed into eating seafood, because I thought (based on what I’d read by that time) that that was environmentally okay and, well, I just liked fried shrimp!
In around 1997, I read John Robbins’ book Diet for a New America, which makes as powerful a case for veganism as any book I’ve ever seen, and I went vegan IMMEDIATELY. A few years later, I watched Earthlings, which further reinforced my convictions and motivated me to get off my ass and get more active and vocal about animal rights. Like Kris, I think there’s no doubt I would have gone vegan a hell of a lot sooner if I’d been exposed to the cold, hard facts (with lots of gory pictures and video) back when I went vegetarian.
Jeff
I was buying cage free eggs for some time because I thought it would help the chickens, I read Skinny Bitch and became vegan, I doubt I would have listened to anyone if I hadn’t already started down that compassionate road, so a welfarist approach worked for me, I feel your experience and mine exemplifies how no one approach by itself works…:)
Matt commented on Mar 15th, 2009 at 9:10 am
“From what I have read, it seems that Francione and others are saying that welfare reforms (or any effort that doesn’t directly challenge the property status of animals) are counterproductive to animal rights goals…”
No, that isn’t what they’re saying.
“It’s one thing to say that some of PETA’s tactics are counterproductive, but it’s another thing altogether to claim that PETA is a welfarist organization (or that it believes in the “humane” exploitation of animals).”
Both are true statements. As an example of the latter–well, no, actually of both–consider that PETA opposes no-kill shelters.
There are alot of assumptions flying around here (ED).
I’ve not said that I give myself a label (abolitionist, welfarist, whatever). Just because I tried to clarify many misconceptions about Francione’s approach in this thread (from people who *obviously* haven’t read his work – correct me if I’m wrong please) it is assumed that I consider myself an “abolitionist” who is solely concerned with the property status of other animals and that I’m apparently not open minded enough to be a “rogue” vegan and could obviously not have my own approach, while drawing on approaches of many theorists and thinkers on this, and other related, subjects. Reactionary much? You can almost hear the knees jerking.
I’ve posted two comments so I think it’s interesting that Ed says in “all my comments” he doesn’t see a call to action. As if just blindly supporting PETA or HSUS or whoever is doing “something” even if that “something” historically have been *proven* to be ineffective and counterproductive in meeting it’s own goals of ending institutionalized animal exploitation. So doing something that is actually helping to increase animal exploitation every year is action on behalf of animals? Damn, that sucks for the other animals involved. Again, if there was any proof that welfare reforms are leading to the abolition of institutionalized animal exploitation, and not just reinforcing human supremacy over other animals by assuming they are here for us humans to use, then perhaps I would support them. However, as I have explained, these costly reforms (“victories”), from what I’ve seen, have only led to increased consumption of other animals because these reforms assume that other animals are here for humans to use in the first place. Please tell me I’m wrong and that we are closer to abolition of institutionalized animal exploitation than we were 200 years ago when modern animal welfare, as we now know it, began. Can you do it?
My approach, not that anyone asked (everyone just assumed) is to live by example and provide a clear, coherent vegan message to anyone I come across on a daily basis. Using my own talents and abilities (and not relying on some animal advocacy corporation to make impotent campaigns for me) I make music and write lyrics that deal with vegan issues and perform them, play my recorded tracks for others to hear, and hand out CDs with my tracks, as well as certain podcasts, on them. I also hand out leaflets and try to engage in respectful dialogue with others. Like you say, Ed, that certain approach (as any other approach) might not work for everyone, but at least I’m being consistent with my values of nonexploitation and not acting in collusion with those those industries that exploit other animals on an enormous scale.
Elaine and others, you obvously consider yourselves to be vegans and are “towing” that line. If you have looked into the original principles of the vegan movement at all you would see that historically veganism is a rejection of the exploitation of other animals, of rejecting the idea of accepting alternate forms of exploitation of other animals even if there are empty promises of abolition at some unknown time in the future. Veganism, since it’s inception, has been the principle of nonexploitation. That’s why, in sticking to the original meaning and principles of veganism, I reject welfare reforms that assume that other animals are here for humans to use because using other animals for human purposes is exploiting them. If there are incremental steps taken that don’t assume that other animals are here for humans to use, and genuinely respect the interests of other animals, and don’t provide alternative forms of exploitations that are supposedly more “humane” than current practices then perhaps I would support them. I see no such incremental steps coming from the modern animal advocacy movement. Please direct me to some if I’m incorrect.
Dani at theveganideal.blogspot.com has done an exceptional job in clarifying the original meaning of veganism in many very thoughtful and well researched blog entries. I’d recommend checking it out if anyone is interested.
Thanks all for asking about my position. Oh wait, no one was considerate enough to do so. That must be the way of the “rogue” vegan.
And I’m out.
Peace
Lui,
I get it. I’m doing it wrong. I’m being counterproductive.
What should I be doing instead? That’s all I’m asking. Please tell me what I should be doing instead.
~ Recent blog post: Are You Cheating Preflop? ~
Did I say that, Ed? Are you reading my posts at all?
I said welfare reforms are counterproductive. You really want me to tell you what to do? I really doubt that, as I’m not sure I cannot tell you anything. I would recommend that you use your talents and abilities and clearly advocate veganism to others on a daily basis, live by example, and don’t rely on animal advocacy corporations to dictate the proper way to be an animal advocate, especially if the particular corporation is using tactics that undermine veganism and further reinforce the mentality that it’s ok to use other animals for human purposes as long as the are ostensibly treated “humanely”.
You seem like a creative person, I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you what to do. I can just make suggestions based on my personal experiences and the facts that I know about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the tactics animal welfare/animal rights corporations.
I don’t know if that works best for you but it’s a way to stay consistent with the vegan ideal of nonexploitation, which works for me.
I see that you are a fellow poker enthusiast, Ed. Why not discuss vegan issues at poker games or just make delicious vegan food for your friends (opponents) on poker night?
Meegan,
Is the purpose of companies producing and advertising cage-free eggs to start people down the road of compassion who aren’t ready for the whole truth about how livestock are treated? No, the purpose is to get people who’ve started down that road for some other reason to keep eating eggs. It’s pretty much just a slick PR campaign by those who make money from exploiting animals. Yeah, cage-free is better than caged, but the point is that there are vested interests who would rather people didn’t know the cruelty involved in even “free range” production, and the result is that the vast majority of people don’t. And yes, many people get quite defensive if one tries to raise the issue of how animals are treated, but I think the main reason more people aren’t vegan isn’t that; the main reason is that the vast majority of people have no idea how livestock are treated, and are trained not to think about how their meat, dairy, or eggs wind up on their plate. And I think it follows from that that the more of us are directly educating people about those issues rather than, say, spending our time trying to get this or that fast-food chain to offer vegetarian whatever, the more progress we’ll make. It’s just a more productive use of our limited time to bring the whole truth to as many people as possible.
Now, it may or may not be true that, say, PETA pressuring KFC to have vegan McKFCnuggets or whatever the hell they are
Sorry, I left an incomplete sentence tagged onto the end of my post that I didn’t notice was still there. I was just going to say, essentially, that organizations like PETA spend a lot of time on stuff like pressuring fast-food chains to introduce new menu items that really doesn’t do much to educate people about animal rights. Maybe such campaigns aren’t a complete waste of time, but they’re certainly not the best use of time.
Lui,
Let me give you an example. I hand out Vegan Outreach pamphlets. I’m not fully in love with the message in these pamphlets that I hand out, but I hand them out nonetheless because I feel they’re (a lot) better than nothing.
Do you think handing out Vegan Outreach pamphlets is a good thing for me to do? Or do you think it’s counterproductive?
If it’s counterproductive, what should I do instead of that?
You’re right, I am a reasonably creative person. But, for example, I supported Prop 2. I didn’t spend a ton of time and energy promoting it, but I supported it. This is the sort of thing I will do with my creative energies if told “just do your thing.”
If doing such things is counterproductive… and I’m open to the notion that it is… then please tell me specific things to do instead.
~ Recent blog post: Are You Cheating Preflop? ~
Sigh.
Lui, Ed and I are organizers for a local vegan potluck. We run a few vegan blogs where we post vegan recipes, news stories, etc. Ed’s posting about veganism in a poker web forum. I’m making vegan vlogs (video blogs).
Are we doing it right?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but simply put, I’m tired of the “nonviolent creative vegan education” approach that Francione’s so fond of. Sure, that’s an appropriate approach for a lot of people, and quite frankly that’s the approach I personally prefer for my life given my current circumstances, but it’s NOT enough. I’m willing to admit that, are you?
The meat and dairy industries CREATE new consumers by dumping their excess products onto schools, hospitals, prisons, etc. We vegans convert a few of those people, but while we’re making new vegans everyday, they’re making new nonvegans. We can’t compete armed only with the tool of “nonviolent creative vegan education.” We HAVE to get at the roots and take down the problem from ALL ANGLES. We can’t just focus on the consumers, we have to focus on the producers, too. And the legislators.
PS – A rogue vegan is someone who doesn’t work for any large organization, someone who makes their own path of activism. You are a rogue vegan
In response to Meegan’s post:
I don’t know what made you think that I was upset about you being condescending? Or what made you feel that I needed you to simplify anything for me. Did my post give you the impression that I’m not on your level intellectually?
Isn’t that essentially the type of attitude you go on to attack in the rest of your post? Since you seem real good at talking in circles and writing sentences that don’t really make any sense (or I’m just not brilliant enough to grasp), I’ll answer my question for you. Yes, it is!
The problem with any movement (and the reason I refuse to be a part of one, at least in the community sense) is that it becomes like an exclusive club, where everyone gets this elitist attitude. I see it here, I’ve seen it in the straight-edge movement, and so on. It’s this attitude where, the elitists act like they want everyone to have the same beliefs they do, but really they don’t- because then they couldn’t whine and feel persecuted anymore.
I’ll go on living a vegan lifestyle and maybe set an example for others along the way. But as far as being a part of any “vegan community”, no thanks. I’ve spent some time checking out this site and a few others, and I’ve spent an equal amount of time laughing and being just plain turned off.
I think it’s very interesting how many people say things like “I would have gone vegan earlier if someone would have [fill in the blank].” Rather than take personal responsibility and rather than blame the animal exploiters, they blame other vegans.
My story:
I understood vegetarianism when I was 6. I understood veganism when I was 13. I read Diet for a New America and I went vegan. This was before the Internet. I didn’t know a single other vegan. I had virtually NO support. And I was taunted and ridiculed by nonvegans.
After a year, I went back to lacto-ovo vegetarianism. I could do that. I knew other vegetarians. People didn’t react so poorly to my vegetarianism. Besides, I had been vegetarian the majority of my life, it was my identity. And there IS a difference: it’s worse to eat animal flesh than to eat animal secretions.
Years later, in young adulthood, I met other vegans who were “hardcore.” They acted like bullies and they reminded me of the nonvegans who harassed me.
After the Internet, after traveling, after college, after marriage… that’s when I finally felt safe enough to go vegan again. For me, I needed the support, the resources, the gentle encouragement.
Eric
Lui didn’t like it….lui said: “Wow, that’s great condescension. Make it simple for me? You are such a helpful person, meegan! A real humanitarian!’
and Ed said ‘it wasn’t cool”
after thinking about it I realised they were right, I typed faster than I should have and didn’t reflect on it enough,
I apologise even if you do say….”I don’t know what made you think that I was upset about you being condescending?”
Please share with me what part of my post, (maybe copy and paste it) you feel I was talking in circles about, sometimes it’s difficult to elaborate everything I want to say in one post, I’d like to recompose as it was unintelligible.
You say you refuse to be a part of any movement because of it’s elitist attitude….me too, I think where we part company is idealogically not organizationlly, I am convinced welfarism should be included in the effort to liberate non humans, at the same time I agree with this statement of yours, “KFC Canada’s decision to provide better conditions for chickens-to-be-slaughtered was anything more than an economic decision”….. and the sea Kitten thing was/is rediculous.
Your statement here:
“but I don’t find comfort in small victories, and using soft, PC language to get this message out there, like so many other so-called animal-rights activists seem to”, leads me to believe you are abolitionist (please correct me if I am wrong) and welfarism doesn’t work for you, well fine, Personally I’m welfarist and abolitionist, I’m ok with abolition as long as I’m not being told I’m wasting my time (I’m not saying that you’ve said that about me) with intermediary steps such as legislative reform or condoning vegetarianism, no on an individual basis it’s not enough but collectively it makes a huge difference.
Elaine said “I think it’s very interesting how many people say things like “I would have gone vegan earlier if someone would have [fill in the blank].” Rather than take personal responsibility and rather than blame the animal exploiters, they blame other vegans.”
Actually, I’m not placing the blame on anybody. I honestly get that most welfarists mean well, and that their intentions are good. I’m just trying to offer constructive criticism for a more effective form of activism, based on my own personal experience.
Ed asks “In all of your commments, I see no call to action at all. If I agree with you, what the heck am I supposed to GO OUT AND DO?”
Distribute abolitionist literature on stalls etc, explaining why people should go vegan. The UK Vegan Society or British Union For The Abolition Of Vivisection has some, and I know a lot of overseas vegan abolitionists who write and print their own material.
The stalls my local group organises also often hand out or sell vegan baking and recipe leaflets, a good way to attract people over. We have a fairly gentle, yet IMHO effective approach.
~ Recent blog post: Poppy seed muffins and… Xmas dinner…? ~
Jeff
Thanx for your response to me, I agree that the purpose of cage free eggs is designed to keep egg eaters going back for their alternative to regular eggs in order to continue being profitable.
Also I do not contribute money to PETA, I do contribute to PCRM animal shelters etc,
We all have different personalities, some of us write or call state representatives, some leaflet, some offer recipes, some of us do all those things.
Abolition as the only alternative is mistaken to be the only</b. way forward, I’m vegan, a friend of mine that I hadn’t seen for several years came to visit me, she didn’t even know I’d become vegan, her last memories of me was as an omni, the issue of me being vegan barely came up for more than five minutes during that visit, she went back home, bought Skinny Bitch, called me back and said she was now a vegetarian, she’s an assistant manager in a supermarket deli and has been working there for seventeen years, I think if I had told her that what she’s doing (in the words of Torres) was pointless it would dishearten her possibly going back to be omni, allowing her to get a foothold on the non consumption of animals is good, one day she may even change jobs, until then I’m happy with her contribution, as I spend more time with her this spring I’ll introduce her to veganism more, I have other experiences like that, I’m sure you do too, we all have different talents and abilities and can use them productively, if I had the caveat of abolition only every time I brought up being vegan I know because of my personal life experiences that I’d turn people off, if it works for you, great!, as for me I have a different approach.
If every vegetarian became omni overnight it would be a setback for all of us, companies that produce burgers for instance would fold and there would be less media attention on non humans, so personally I’m grateful for every vegetarian and welcome their contribution
Elaine, thank you for responding. You wrote “PS – Francione uses graphic photos in his Abolitionist blog’s header.”
Indeed, he does. And I find it equally disturbing. In fact, I have difficulty getting those photos of the horses and your photos of the pigs out of my head. Each and every time I see a “food” item that contains gelatin, I see the horse photo flash in my brain. That said, I admire Gary Francione greatly, and think he’s got the right idea about how to further the movement.
While vegans see these photos for what they are, pigs on the way to slaughter, in this case, those who’ve sanitized and whitewashed their consumption by cloaking it in “happy meat” lies might see that as pigs getting ready to go frolicking in a lovely bucolic pasture setting.
To me, watching Earthlings repeatedly, or having to view such graphic images (without a word of warning for those who do have a sense of empathy) reminds me of A Clockwork Orange in its barbarism.
You go on to write, “The photos do two things:
a) They persuade nonvegans to go vegan: graphic photos don’t persuade everyone, but they persuade more people than nongraphic photos.
b) They motivate vegans to act.
Without graphic photos or videos, the articles are just words. They don’t move people to act. Our movement is strongly propelled by emotion. (Please see this video for some evidence: http://sellingcompassion.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-graphic-content-effective.html )”
1. What evidence do you offer up to demonstrate that seeing photographs of pigs on your blog motivated any single person to opt for a vegan life?
2. You don’t need to “nudge” me (or any other vegan for that matter, who’ve proven their convictions with the clear statement that veganism makes) into realizing something must be done. In fact, it’s rather a condescending position to take, nu?
I do wish you’d warn people and give them the option to not view these painfully graphic photos. I think using photos of animals on the way to be killed to “sell” a vegan life is just about as sad as PeTA using girl on girl action, nudity, and Klansmen outfits to “sell” their agenda. Yeah, sex sells, as evidenced by the enormous market for child pornography. Does that legitimize it?
I used to think that vegan only education was the best way to advocate for animal rights. I still think that vegan education is extremely important and that nobody should be promoting “happy meat” or welfare reforms that they don’t belive are stepping stones to animal rights.
Vegan Outreach doesn’t always work for every person:
I’ve come to realize that there are a lot of people who are scared of or turned off by the idea of veganism and animal rights. (My personal observations) To them, going vegan seems too hard, or too extreme and they won’t even consider it for a moment. I’ve learned that no amount of vegan education will bring some of these kind of people around. They won’t watch the videos with “graphic” images, they won’t read the literature, and they certainly don’t debate the theory or philosophy of animal rights vs. animal welfare. We’ve all heard their excuses, justifications, rationalizations etc. I’m convinced that most of these people do feel genuine empathy for animals and I’ve learned that if that little bit of empathy is allowed to grow, that over time these people often do become vegan, animal rights acitivists/abolitionists.
Welfare reform campaigns can work for some people:
I used to protest outside of Ringling Bros. circus a lot. I met lots of omnis who were genuinely upset about how the circus treats elephants and wanted to get involved in protests. Many of these people would not even consider veganism because it seemed to “radical” or “difficult.” But after protesting the circus and being exposed to some animal welfare campaigns, they started to think about the issues a little more and in time realized that veganism isn’t so scary after all.
I’ve had similar experiences with omnis who got involved with anti-fur campaigns, or the Prop 2 campaign in California, or a bunch of other so called “welfare” or non-vegan campaigns. I can’t even count the number of anti-vegan omni’s I know who have gone vegan, and have stayed vegan, after being exposed to the issues via more moderately toned animal welfare campaigns. The idea that vegan only education is the only, or even the best, way to reach people and to get them to go vegan flies in the face of my own experiences.
The Happy Meat crowd is very real:
And I’ve met some vegans who backslide and start eating meat again. I’ve met some former vegans and vegetarians who try to justify or rationalize their decision to eat meat again with the “happy meat” arguments. But almost without exception, all of the former vegans I have met have said that the reason they went back to eating meat is that veganism was too hard or too radical. They felt that “happy meat” was a valid middle path to take. It was actually the hard-line abolitionist, the so called militant vegans, who scared them off, not the big AR organizations and not the welfare reformers.
Perhaps it would have been easier for these people to stay vegan if every KFC in the United States had a vegan option (a major part of the deal that PETA brokered with KFC in Canada). I mean, really, what’s the difference between shopping for vegan food at your local health food store that also carries meat, dairy and eggs or choosing the veggie burger at your favorite non-vegan restaurant and choosing a vegan option at KFC? Well, one difference is that KFC is everywhere. So, if people can even get a vegan option at KFC, there isn’t much power left in the argument that veganism is too hard – is there? But boo PETA for brokering that deal, right? [Sarcasm]
Oh, right, PETA also got KFC Canada to start treating chickens a little better. We wouldn’t want that because then people might start eating at KFC and seeing how easy it is to find vegan options. Then people would stop thinking of veganism as a scary fringe movement filled with fundamentalists who are more concerned with personal purity than they are with advancing the rights of animals. It would be much better if all of us vegans continued to boycott KFC and its vegan option so that the company thinks that there isn’t a market for vegan food and takes it off the menu forever. It would be much better if the only places people can find vegan options are at expensive vegan restaurants or health food stores that cater to elitists or middle class white people. We wouldn’t want veganism to be accessible to the masses, would we? So yeah, let’s bash PETA and other animal rights activists for those pesky welfare campaigns that didn’t bring about a 100% vegan world yet. [Sarcasm]
But I digress. My point is this: In my opinion, and experience, well thought out welfare campaigns can be used to bridge the gap between the empathetic omnis and the “hard core” vegans. Martin Balluch’s essay makes a lot of good points, with actual empirical evidence, that welfare reforms can be an effective compliment to vegan education: http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/artikel/20080325Abolitionism/index_en.php
Of course, not all welfare campaigns are created equal and some may even be counter-productive. I think Pattrice Jones did a good job in her essay of showing how one might determine if any single welfare reform effort is productive or not: http://pattricejones.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/perplexed.pdf. I especially like that she points out that as animal advocates we should remember to consider what the animals want ahead of some abstract theory. Remember the animals?
Once we’ve got the omni’s going vegetarian and/or vegan using both vegan education and well thought out welfare campaigns, then we need to make sure they stay vegan by making veganism as accessible and easy as possible. That means well thought out vegan outreach efforts and getting places like KFC (and everywhere else) to start carrying vegan options. We need to redouble our efforts to show that there is no such thing as “happy meat,” and we need to be careful not to slander other animal advocates and their efforts. (For the record, PETA saying that “animals are not ours to eat, but if you are going to kill them anyway at least don’t torture them to death” is not the same as promoting “happy meat.”)
In other words, we need to work as a team. If you are uncomfortable working on a welfare reform campaign, then don’t. Spend you time doing vegan only education then. But don’t waste your time publicly bashing the honest efforts of those who are working toward the abolitionist goal from another angle. If you don’t like a certain thing that PETA does, that’s fine. But ask yourself if you honestly believe that the people who work at PETA aren’t doing what they think is best before you spout off that the organization is just a rich, money making scheme. (Seriously, I used to work at a small record store chain in Colorado that has a bigger annual budget than PETA does.)
In short, do what you think will be the most effective at achieving abolition. Listen to the arguments from every side with an open mind and a healthy skepticism, but beware of those who offer little more than slander and petty character attacks (they are more likely to be the snake oil salespeople). And don’t think for a moment that you, or anyone else, have all of the right answers. We are all in this together, let’s start acting like it.
Also, for the record, I do not work at PETA. I am one of those “rogue” animal advocates trying to make sense of all of this infighting.
This has been pretty entertaining.
I consider myself an abolitionist, as I see a clear distinction between this and what Francione refers to as the new-welfarists. I don’t see this as being divisive, as much as I see it making a distinction. Abolitionists do not encourage people to purchase cage free eggs or eat less meat, we encourage people to go vegan (not vegetarian). We are very clear in that the use of animals and the property status of animals are the problem.
I do however think PETA serves a purpose- they do great undercover work and they make animal rights a more mainstream discussion. Unfortunately, what the mainstream see’s of PETA is usually their more negative campaigns- KKK demonstration, ads somewhat mocking a decapitated man riding a bus, and using naked women to hand out vegan (but marketed as vegetarian) sandwiches (which we all (should) know is just masturbation material for teenagers). I disagree with PETA far more than I agree and for this reason I openly tell people that I do not support PETA, I think they do a lot of damage. Although, I also explain that they serve a purpose through the 2 examples I mentioned initially. In the end I think their campaigns are damaging, their support of the ALF is damaging, and their belief that all press is good press is just immature.
The fact that welfare reform has done NOTHING to improve the overall use of animals says something very powerful. It’s time to take a new approach. Abolitionists are working to create a new movement, an abolitionist movement that advocates veganism, not vegetarianism, not telling people it’s okay to consume less meat or consume cage free eggs. We very clearly state that we disagree with groups like PETA, HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, etc. which is why we do not support them. It’s not that they are BAD, they do a lot of good for animals, but b/c we disagree, we do not support. Why support something you feel strongly opposed to?
What can one say about a movement that still praises Peter Singer? The more he speaks, the worse the animal rights movement looks as a whole. Not to mention he makes my brain bleed.
Stop complaining and try something new…the current mainstream approach clearly is not working. Put your money to better use- Vegan Outreach, Peaceful Prairie, The BVA, or print your own copies and distribute. Stop taking shit so personal.
Ian you said:
“The fact that welfare reform has done NOTHING to improve the overall use of animals says something very powerful”.
My response:
The issue of welfare reform needs veg*nism/AR numbers to increase, throwing vegetarians under the bus sets us all back, if there were 1 billion vegetarians there would be collosal improvement in non human welfare.
Ian,
You wrote: “Abolitionists do not encourage people to purchase cage free eggs or eat less meat, we encourage people to go vegan (not vegetarian).” [...] “Put your money to better use- Vegan Outreach”
Have you read the VO pamphlets? They encourage meat-reduction and vegetarianism, as well as veganism. From their “Even if you like meat” pamphlet ( http://www.veganoutreach.org/EIYLM.pdf ), they say
I like VO and I distribute VO materials because they get through to people. And most of their messages in most of their pamphlets are truly “abolitionist.” (“Even if you like meat” is an exception.) I’m just saying… this distinction between abolition and welfare isn’t all that black-and-white.
One might conclude from the lack of interest in response to my legitimate questions, Elaine, that indeed the feeling of condescension was accurate.
SelahWrites
You Wrote;
“To me, watching Earthlings repeatedly, or having to view such graphic images (without a word of warning for those who do have a sense of empathy) reminds me of A Clockwork Orange in its barbarism”.
My Response;
I know you know while navigating around the myriad of websites concerning vegan/AR issues you are very likely to encounter graphic images, I feel you should either stop visiting any of these sites or learn to deal with the images as they are most likely to be in several other blogs and websites too, also I have empathy I do not have “a sense of empathy” so maybe a little condescension of your own, the movie ‘A Clockwork Orange’ falls under the label of entertainment, websites such as this are an honest effort to help drive home the message of veganism, however I’m certain you know everything I just stated.
You Asked;
1. What evidence do you offer up to demonstrate that seeing photographs of pigs on your blog motivated any single person to opt for a vegan life?
My Response
It’s Elaines website, she doesn’t need to provide evidence, she’s an adult with her own life experiences that tell her that what she’s doing with this website is her best to help non humans, if she had to please everyone’s concerns there would be no website as everyone would have a personal caveat that would finally be the death knell to the site, for instance if I said to Gary Francione I’m depressed after visiting his website and I’d prefer more upbeat news, how do you think that would work?.
You also wrote;
“I do wish you’d warn people and give them the option to not view these painfully graphic photos. I think using photos of animals on the way to be killed to “sell” a vegan life is just about as sad as PeTA using girl on girl action, nudity, and Klansmen outfits to “sell” their agenda. Yeah, sex sells, as evidenced by the enormous market for child pornography. Does that legitimize it?”
My Response;
Consider yourself warned that there will be graphic images and videos in several vegan/AR websites as well as this one, PETA uses nudity to push veg*ism and AR, that’s their prerogative it’s what they feel is necessary in an apathetic society relevant to AR.
Ian, I see where you are coming from, but I think you are mistaken about a couple important things. PETA and Farm Sanctuary do sometimes use the words vegetarian or “veg” to mean veganism. But if you look at their literature and websites they are vey clear that eating dairy or eggs or any other animal products is NOT okay. These groups are very clearly against all forms of animal exploitation and very clearly denounce the property status of animals. They are abolitionist groups – by definition.
If there is a word that is misused and deserves to be taken back by animal rights activists, it isn’t the word abolitionist, it’s the word vegetarian. Milk and eggs do not come from plants, so describing these things as vegetarian is absurd.
If you don’t like what certain groups are doing, that’s totally fine. Don’t support them. But no matter how many times Francione and others say it, the groups you listed do not support cage-free eggs, they support an end to animal exploitation altogether – making them abolitionists by definition.
The HSUS can accurately be described as a welfarist group, not an abolitionist group. However, that has been changing dramatically since Pacelle took over. In any case, even the HSUS states that cage-free eggs are not cruelty free, it just says the animals suffer a bit less than they do in battery cages.
From their website:
“Cage-free hens are spared several cruelties that are inherent to battery cage systems. But it would nevertheless be a mistake to consider cage-free facilities to necessarily be “cruelty-free.” Here are some of the more typical sources of animal suffering associated with cage-free egg production:
Cage-free farms typically buy their hens from the same hatcheries that supply battery-cage farms. These hatcheries kill the male chicks upon hatching—more than 200 million each year in the United States alone.
Most cage-free hens have part of their beaks burned off, a painful mutilation.
Hens are typically slaughtered at less than two years old, far less than half their normal lifespan. They are often transported long distances to slaughter plants with no food or water.
While the vast majority of the battery and cage-free egg industry no longer uses starvation to force molt the birds, there are battery and cage-free producers alike who still use this practice.
So, while cage-free does not mean cruelty-free, cage-free hens generally have better lives than those confined in battery cages. The ability to lay their eggs in nests, walk and spread their wings are tangible benefits that shouldn’t be underestimated.”
I’ll say it again. If you don’t like the tactics of a particular group – don’t support them. But that doesn’t give you the right to mischaracterize what these groups stand for.
Selah, I can’t respond to everyone. I am only one person. I’m sorry if you feel I ignored you. It wasn’t intentional. I was simply doing other things with my time. For example, yesterday I made a vegan vlog: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V5-ODO10JQ ), I cleaned cat cages at a shelter, and I watched the HBO special Death on a Factory Farm.
1. Regarding graphic videos: I clearly warn video viewers about disturbing content. Look in the sidebar (on the right) where it says: “Viewer discretion advised. Some videos are extremely disturbing.”
2. Since you are personally, regularly offended by images here and elsewhere on the web, may I suggest that you learn how to disable images in your web browser? It has the side benefit of making the pages load faster ;D
Sorry if that sounds condescending. It probably is. Please know, though, that I understand and respect your position. In fact, in college I was strongly against all forms of graphic images. HOWEVER, during college my views on the issues of free speech and graphic images evolved.
Regarding evidence that graphic images work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VehADcxbxw0
read the comments: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/8-disturbing-animal-videos/
—
New topic…
Francione said: “Creative, nonviolent vegan education is the best way to reduce animal suffering and death in the short term and in the long term. Increased veganism is the only means to achieve the abolition of animal exploitation.”
source: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=165
I agree with Matt on this issue, particularly where he says:
“If you are uncomfortable working on a welfare reform campaign, then don’t. Spend you time doing vegan only education then. But don’t waste your time publicly bashing the honest efforts of those who are working toward the abolitionist goal from another angle. If you don’t like a certain thing that PETA does, that’s fine. But ask yourself if you honestly believe that the people who work at PETA aren’t doing what they think is best before you spout off that the organization is just a rich, money making scheme.”
meegan commented on Mar 16th, 2009 at 6:19 am
[...]
“Abolition as the only alternative is mistaken to be the only</b. way forward, I’m vegan, a friend of mine that I hadn’t seen for several years came to visit me, she didn’t even know I’d become vegan, her last memories of me was as an omni, the issue of me being vegan barely came up for more than five minutes during that visit, she went back home, bought Skinny Bitch, called me back, and said she was now a vegetarian…I think if I had told her that what she’s doing (in the words of Torres) was pointless it would dishearten her possibly going back to be omni, allowing her to get a foothold on the non consumption of animals is good, one day she may even change jobs,
[...]
If every vegetarian became omni overnight it would be a setback for all of us, companies that produce burgers for instance would fold and there would be less media attention on non humans, so personally I’m grateful for every vegetarian and welcome their contribution
”
Although of course it’s important not to disparage people’s first steps toward a vegan lifestyle, I think that you’re really kind of taking a glass-half-empty approach here, worrying about the possibility of vegetarians going back to omni as a result of someone raising arguments about becoming vegan more than you’re thinking positively about the possibility of some of those vegetarians going vegan as a result of such discussions. (Many would of course simply stay vegetarian.)
In Podcast #101, Torres addresses the subject of being vegetarian at length. What he says is that following a vegetarian diet “doesn’t do a whole lot for animal rights,” and he’s quite right about that. Every animal in the dairy and egg industries is ultimately slaughtered well before the end of their natural lifespan, the males often within days or weeks of birth, female dairy cows are kept continually pregnant, yadda yadda yadda, you know the rest. Pound for pound, consumption of dairy products and eggs is every bit as unethical, in terms of animal rights, as consuming meat–in fact, a meat-eater who only, say, ate road kill and didn’t eat dairy or eggs would be following a more ethical path than a vegetarian!
Although I’d imagine most vegetarians don’t simply substitute dairy and eggs for the meat they give up and therefore their consumption of animal products goes down some, they’re still consuming a lot of animal products. How much harm they’re doing to animals of course depends on what proportion of their consumption is animal products, whether they wear leather or use animal-tested products, etc., but regardless, the harm they’re still doing to animals by following a vegetarian lifestyle is vastly greater than would be the case if they were vegan. And if we don’t at some point tell vegetarians that, how are they going to know?
I haven’t finished reading this whole thread, but I’d like to point interested people to two relevant sources:
http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows/gary_francione2
http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows/gary_francione
These are two interviews that Gary Francione did with an animal-rights radio show. The interviews are available in both MP3 format and as written transcripts.
When I first encountered these interviews a couple of years ago, they completely changed the way I approached the whole subject of animal rights. I recommend them to anyone who has any interest in animal-related issues. (If you have a commute to work, listen to ‘em in your car.) Even people who have no particular interest in AR have told me that they found the interviews to be thought-provoking and engaging.
Jeff….thank you for your thoughtful response.
My thoughts on vegetarians.
I personally know a number of vegetarians, two of them don’t care about non humans and buy leather shoes and down pillows but because of my laid back passive example now buy tofutti sour cream and cream cheese and at times check out items at my house to see if there’s something healthier to think about eating, in addition when we get together they always cook vegan for me, yet another vegetarian cares about animals and eliminates things like cheese, butter, milk etc, but eats fish, another who cares about animals is very close to a veganism but not quite there yet, another is raising a very close to vegan and now fifteen month old girl and says to me that her daughter will be raised to never eat flesh and feeds her daughter soy formula and no meat products whatsoever, and there are others but I’m sure you get the picture.
So in the previous paragraph I gave examples of vegetarians I’m personally in contact with, individually they don’t have a significant impact on the welfare of non humans, however as a group of vegetarians they have the same impact as vegans, some don’t buy leather or fur, others don’t buy dairy products, others recommend and talk to their friends about veg*nism, in the vegan/AR climate we live in I’m very happy for every omni that becomes vegetarian, it creates a better, more publicly aware arena for animal welfare talk, when we reach enough in numbers of veg*ans and are able to propose, vote, and change legislation in support of non humans, I think we can be a little more picky about who our vegan/abolitionist allies are, the abolitionist only argument until then for me is ok for those that want to propose a one size fits all tactic, but personally I see a multi pronged approach as a more productive means to advance animal rights.
Meegan,
Yes, it’s true that every little bit helps and a large number of vegetarians who’ve reduced their consumption of animal products adds up to a significant reduction in harm to animals. Still, there are a lot of vegetarians who eat a ton of dairy products and eggs, and those vegetarians are really not changing anything for animals much if any at all. And my experience is that their continued heavy usage of animal products usually stems from two things: 1) the misconception that by substituting consumption of dairy and eggs for consumption of animal flesh, they’re significantly reducing the suffering and premature death of livestock and 2) believing that giving up dairy and eggs is a lot harder than it really is. “I just CAN’T give up cheese; I like it too much!” is a common sort of thing people say.
Not that giving up a food they really like is easy for people who are “addicted” to it, but it’s a lot less difficult than it’s often made out to be, and making it out to be so “awful” to do without something like cheese results in a lot of vegetarians never even really trying to go vegan.
In my case, when I first tried to go vegetarian in ‘86, fried shrimp were hard for me to give up because I had grown up eating and really loving them. But at the time there just wasn’t much motivation to give up animal flesh entirely because I really didn’t know anything about the animal rights angle at the time; it was all about health and the environment for me. It took me about 3 years to stay vegetarian for good.
But once I read Diet for a New America around 12 years ago and realized how horribly livestock were treated and that dairy cows and “layers” suffered horribly, too, giving up dairy and eggs was remarkably easy for me, because I realized that animals’ right not to be tortured and murdered was far, far more important than my desire to have delicious-tasting things like pizzas with dairy cheese. I think lots of vegetarians are kind of like I was; they’ve just never been exposed to much information about how dairy and egg-producing animals are treated.
There are also many vegetarians who know perfectly well that eating dairy and eggs causes animals to suffer and die prematurely (although in many cases maybe they underestimate or minimize the extent, especially if they’re eating “free range”), and they keep on eating dairy and eggs anyway because they feel that it’s “too hard” to give them up. That’s an incredibly selfish attitude for someone to take, believing that they are entitled to keep engaging in behaviors that cause significant numbers of animals to suffer and die merely because it would be in their opinion “hard” and “inconvenient” to give up foods they find delicious. My feeling about people with this perspective (and I’ve known plenty) is: Boo hoo! Get over it and think about someone besides yourself! Stop being so speciesist and putting your desires ahead of animals’ rights! Now, of course they’re not going to like it if it’s pointed out to them that this is what they’re up to. I’m not sure what a sensitive way to bring this up with people is. But one way or another, this has to be pointed out.
Jeff
A vegetarian does not substitute dairy and eggs in place of flesh, they are consuming dairy, eggs, and flesh and choose to eliminate flesh, from my perspective that’s awesome, beef cattle, veal, chickens bred for food, sheep, pigs, are all spared from death, chickens that provide eggs, cows that provide milk and it’s by product of cheese are not, so I feel there is a significant enough difference to recommend vegetarianism as an alternative to being vegan.
Sometimes the abolitionist argument is that it would be more beneficial to spend our time and energy promoting vegan/abolition instead of welfare reform, however your vegan journey began by finding it a little difficult to give up “fried shrimp” and it was an environmental/health thing until you read “Diet for a New America”, if you multiply that by 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands or a few million or so, it becomes a significant enough number to respect it’s value.
Your final paragraph relevant to dairy and egg consuming vegetarians who are aware of the suffering of non humans yet continue their selfish consumption is accurate and I agree with your sentiments, if I’m engaged in conversation with someone of that persuation I’ll spend a little time talking to or pointing them in the direction of some food item I think they can replace their dairy and eggs or icecream with, but until they are ready to change it’s not productive use of my time trying to convince them otherwise.
We can all do our part to help non humans, but asking those that spend time on welfare reform to take that time, energy, passion, and finances, and use those tools to promote abolition to vegetarians is counterproductive, if someone is vegetarian for selfish reasons I don’t care, I just care that they are reducing there dietary intake of non humans, also promoting welfare reform in the legislative or agribusiness field can be done at the same time as working on abolitionist reform, one approach does not have to, or is not necessary for progress to be made, welfarism is not stifling abolition, actually it gives it a platform to work from, we vegans need every vegetarian, every I only eat meat twice a week, I only eat fish, I only buy thrift store leather person that can help us bring up the numbers to a critical mass that will vote with their dollars to cripple McDeath, KFCruelty, and CAFOs, etc.
It seems to me that welfarism makes it ok to eat animals for some people- for alot of people. “Its ok, they had a happy life.” I forget who said it but it made a big impact on my thinking: paraphrased -welfarism is similar to fighting to get comfy slippers for holocaust victims. “Oh its ok- someone’s looking after them, they have advocates.”
It just seems like energy wasted, they are going to be killed. Thanks for the blog. I think that this debate elevates the topic regardless of what we think and the further it goes the closer it comes to critical mass. The more scholarly, dry, and academic for this topic the better as this is the audience which alters public policy.
The distinction of personhood ultimately lends credibility in the courtroom and then the minds of the masses (eventually). I think as far as this dialogue goes we are only speaking of the more developed nations- where slavery is lower in numbers. I do appreciate the research you’ve done but the slavery numbers are somewhat misdirected (not entirely).
I will continue to support some welfare campaigns in my free time- but the bulk of my time and energy is for abolition. I most likely will not put energy into opposing any effort toward bettering any life. Again thanks for the excellent writing.
“1. Regarding graphic videos: I clearly warn video viewers about disturbing content. Look in the sidebar (on the right) where it says: “Viewer discretion advised. Some videos are extremely disturbing.”
I was not referring to graphic videos. I was referring to the image at the top of this blog of the pigs on their way to be slaughtered. Good gravy, does the head patting condescension ever end?
“2. Since you are personally, regularly offended by images here and elsewhere on the web, may I suggest that you learn how to disable images in your web browser? It has the side benefit of making the pages load faster ;D”
I really, really, really believe you think you are oh so much smarter than nearly everyone else on the face of the planet, as evidenced by your smarmy responses. The proof is in such brilliant statements such as (my personal favorite) “As I understand it, meat eating hasn’t increased. What has increased is a) the population of meat eaters and b) the amount of meat those people eat.”
“Sorry if that sounds condescending. It probably is. Please know, though, that I understand and respect your position. In fact, in college I was strongly against all forms of graphic images. HOWEVER, during college my views on the issues of free speech and graphic images evolved.”
This may shock you, but I went to college too! AND as if that isn’t enough, my views on many issues changed too! In fact, one of my very favorite subjects was a logic course. I frequently use the things I learned in that course to do what is called critical thinking. Perhaps you’ve heard of it, maybe even tried it a time or two. Not an easy thing to learn, and good luck with your progress in it. You may get there eventually. Oh, did that sound condescending? It probably was.
—
Selah
You say you went to college too, while in college you practiced critical thinking along with logic, pointing out EVs condescention and then being condescending to her isn’t critical thinking or logical relative to anything useful, neither was name calling, (as in smarmy)
I know that You know that when you visit AR websites that there is a high likelihood that there will be pictures of animals similar to the pigs being shunted off to slaughter on several of them, you made it clear that you’d prefer not to see them, well fine, however it seems to me that there is something else going on here (please correct me if I’m wrong), I feel given the above obvious fact that there are upsetting pictures in several websites that you have something else on your mind, and it seems to me that you don’t like EV or that you are unhappy with her use of vegansoapbox in portraying graphic animal pictures, I’d say stop coming back here or deal with it, she’s not going to stop using graphic pictures and videos.
There is another approach, move on from the name calling and your own condescension and use the critical thinking you developed in college and apply it to the more serious issue of critquing abuse of non humans, it’s vastly more important, and better for you too at an emotional level
Selah,
If you’re offended by the image of pigs going off to slaughter, do something more productive with that anger – something that might actually help pigs – than berate me for my tone. Stop being so petty and start being more of an advocate for animals.
Meegan,
I agree that most vegetarians are like you imagine:
“A vegetarian does not substitute dairy and eggs in place of flesh, they are consuming dairy, eggs, and flesh and choose to eliminate flesh”
Consider the omni’s pepperoni pizza versus the vegetarian’s veggie pizza. The vegetarian replaced the pepperoni with veggies, not with extra cheese.
Again, I think it’s telling how many vegans here say things like “I would have gone vegan earlier if someone would have presented an abolitionist message.” Rather than take personal responsibility for their choice to refrain from going vegan sooner, they blame welfarists. STOP EXPECTING OTHERS TO DO THE HARD WORK OF ENDING ANIMAL EXPLOITATION AND JUST GET MORE INVOLVED YOURSELF.
Want a peace and love type of website that doesn’t have images of pigs going off to slaughter? CREATE ONE.
Want an organization that truly embodies the abolitionist perspective you’d like to see in other organizations? CREATE ONE.
Want to do “creative nonviolent vegan education”? DO IT.
I didn’t realize that so many vegans are internet bullies. Is this about the animals or just your own ego?