Pushing Animals To The Margins
Print This Post
This is the second part of a three-part series. The first part is: We Have To Choose. We Have To Focus, where I wrote about how animal advocates need not dismantle every single form of oppression in order to make a significant change for animals, the environment, and the general human population.
A particular nonvegan blogger (who prefers that I not name her), claims to know all about veganism, not because she is vegan but because she has a partner who is vegan. She felt that she had a right to criticize vegans on the basis that they’re elitist because she frames veganism as a personal consumer choice. Her concept of veganism is rooted in the agency of consumers, not in the rights of animals.
While I may also also frame veganism as a choice issue at times (because it effectively encourages people to go vegan since they want to cling to their morality of justified “humane” animal exploitation), I don’t truly believe that veganism is merely a personal consumer choice; I believe animals deserve the right to live without being unnecessarily tortured and killed by humans.
Thus, my major point of contention with the unnamed blogger is that we have a difference of opinion over what constitutes “necessary.” The blogger is a nonvegan who appears very capable of choosing vegan options, yet refuses to do so, indicating that there is a level of animal torture and killing that she finds acceptable beyond necessity. She and I couldn’t disagree more.
She couches her justification for her own lack of veganism in an argument about choice and necessity for people who have few choices. She offers the example of a cold homeless person’s need for a warm coat and their acceptance of a donated fur coat as an example of necessary animal product usage. We can agree. I’d never argue that cold homeless people should reject warm coats given to them, even if the warm coats are fur.
But then the blogger unreasonably extends her argument of necessity to include people who are better able to make a free choice. Ultimately, she implicitly extends her argument to herself. Instead of acknowledging her own complicity in animal abuse, she shifts the blame to vegans and demands more from us, nothing from herself. Essentially, she simply argues a sophisticated version of “Veganism is too hard! Make it easier for me and then I’ll stop hurting animals.”
The burden she places on animal advocates is tremendous. We must be everything to everyone. Anyone who doesn’t like us for any reason whatsoever feels justified in harming animals. They eat and wear animals in order to spite us. They justify routine animal abuse by saying that vegans are elitist. They center themselves and whomever they identify with, push animals to the margins, and blame the vegans for all the problems.
I’m tired of it.
—
In my third post, I’m simply going to debunk a few myths about veganism that the blogger presented a false barriers to veganism: Making An Effort.
This discussion makes my brian hurt. It’s amazing how many ways people can come up with to criticise those who advocate for animals. And having read the entire oeuvre associated with this discussion, I now know that I’m not the only person who gets a little testy about the use of acronyms.
I really don’t understand on what you are basing your claims because I have read her posts on veganism and nowhere does she say she “identifies as a vegetarian” or that she is not vegan… and I’m not sure what the part about her “including people who better able to make a free choice” is about.
.-= Louche´s last blog ..California ban on frog & turtle imports =-.
What are you talking about? She never once said that she wasn’t vegan or tried to excuse her own choices. Did you really read her post? It was about classism in the AR movement. It does it exist as you kind of proved in the comments section.
She said people who are homeless or living in poverty don’t always have the luxury of choosing vegan options- particularly if they are getting food from food banks.
Louche, the better question is:
Why does someone who says they don’t want me to call them a “non-vegan” refuse to identify as a vegan? If she’s a vegan, why won’t she say she’s a vegan?
“people who are homeless or living in poverty don’t always have the luxury of choosing vegan options- particularly if they are getting food from food banks.”
Which is why I don’t hand them leaflets that they’d consider meaningless given their situation.
And also, why I highlighted the good people who have done things to help make vegan options more accessible. See the first part of this post: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/making-an-effort/
Nobody said you should. I didn’t say you should hand out pamphlets to homeless people. Your response has no relevance to what I said and at no point did the “anonymous” blogger use homeless people’s lack of choices to justify her own behavior- you accused her of that.
I just don’t understand why you would distort what she said. Is it because you were banned from her comments? You are seriously misrepresenting what she said in her blog. It seems you refuse to accept that you are privileged and attack anyone who calls you on it.
If you only want to advocate to college students and faculty; fine. Other people can advocate to working class and poor people. I think expanding veganism beyond middle class people is not just important; it is imperative.
This falls in line with the standards most have regarding “vegan” food… It MUST rate a 9+ to be satisfactory… Yet, I remember well as a meat eater consuming burned hot dogs, greasy, hard hamburgers, slimy lunch “ham”, etc. Basically I ate “food” that would register a “-2″ and thought nothing of it… I just wish more people would approach the idea of not eating animals more objectively. It really ain’t all that!
.-= Bea Elliott´s last blog ..Why I Don’t Drink Cow’s Milk or Eat Diary – Get Weaned – Go Vegan =-.
Francesca – The issue isn’t whether or not I’m privileged. I am. I admit it. And all people involved in this discussion know it. That’s not the issue.
The issue is that they’re telling me I must confront every single issue there is to confront (classism, racism, sexism, etc) at every single opportunity. They say that to do otherwise is doing worse than nothing.
Their explanation of intersectionality is not simply that oppressions overlap and similar/same mechanisms keep them in place. They’re saying that in order to liberate anyone we must liberate everyone AND that it MUST be done simultaneously.
I feel that their version of intersectionality is an impossible task. I feel that many of them are out of touch with the real world and are too much in academia to understand the real life consequences of their critiques.
They’re literally telling me that leafleting only on college campuses – despite any other form of activism in which I engage – is classist. And they want me to go leaflet in lower income areas, despite the cost and time inefficiency of such activism as well as my unpleasant past experiences leafleting in lower income areas.
Basically, I’m arguing for practicality and efficacy and they’re arguing for idealism.
Instead of reading activism how-to manuals or watching activists’ videos that demonstrate the kind of activism they think represents the intersectionality they demand that I engage in, they offer theoretical essays and articles about oppression. They’re not interested in helping me be a better animal advocate. They don’t even seem interested in helping animals. They just want me to do more introspection.
But the worst of it – for me – was that the discussion on VOC devolved into a personal attack on me, not just on my preferred form of animal advocacy. Those involved felt they had the right to criticize and comment on other ares of my life – of which they know nothing. They made unfounded assumptions about me and my life and began preaching to me about how to mother.