On “The Moral Equivalent of Slavery”

Think you know what this one’s about?

Think again.

“The Moral Equivalent of Slavery” is a Grist post from Monday by “climate campaigner” Ken Ward. Here are some quotes that you just might have heard in a different context:

• The monolithic, inextricable nature of slavery stumped every leader from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln, and mainstream anti-slavery advocates, none of whom could envision any exit other than gradual, cooperative measures acceptable to slaveholders,
• [William Lloyd] Garrison’s words divided anti-slavery forces into two camps: those who, through personal prejudice or pragmatic politics, continued to advocate small steps that might past muster in Congress, and those who rallied to his immoderate call for immediate abolition.
• Frederick Douglass delivered a memorial address, in which he said, “If John Brown did not end the war that ended slavery, he did at least begin the war that ended slavery … Until this blow was struck [at Harpers Ferry], the prospect for freedom was dim, shadowy, and uncertain. The irrepressible conflict was one of words, votes, and compromises.”

I know what you’re thinking: This is gonna be another abolition versus welfare debate and we’re not gonna get out of it without also discussing violence.

But wait . . . The sentence following the above Douglass quote is:

Prolific burning of fossil fuels is no less monolithic, globally, than slavery in the Antebellum South. So too, our organizations and politicians aiming to ameliorate climate change, like anti-slavery advocates, see no alternative but to negotiate with coal and oil interests.

We continue:

• [A]ny act that countenances the extension of fossil fuel burning is wrong. Anything short of immediate and total shutdown of extractions is immoral. That we are all complicit is no justification for acquiescing to evil.That the violence commences with extractions recognizes the injustice done to local peoples, whether they be in Appalachia or Nigeria; but more profoundly, we must accept that every investment in fossil fuel exploration and each decision to mine or drill is a deliberate, premeditated, and ruthless act.
• In the twelve years since BP first teamed up with ED [Environmental Defense], BP’s profit has risen from $2.8 billion to $25.5 billion, with the overwhelming bulk of investment going to fossil fuels.
• Something other than dialogue is required.
• [I]t is incumbent upon us to take up the same challenge . . . : to examine in what ways our organizations and associations aid and abet the practice of evil; to take direct, non-violent action to halt those practices; and, if we are not so situated, to provide all possible assistance and aid to those in the front lines.

Not only is the language of the post familiar, but the comments (including people thinking the slavery analogy isn’t appropriate, and even ad hominem attacks).

Obviously, there’s another moral equivalent of slavery looming, and it’s far less of a stretch than a comparison to climate change. The difference is that humans can claim that it doesn’t affect them (or at least they can argue about how real and dramatic the effects really are). But the institutionalized slavery that defines our relationship with nonhuman animals is accepted nearly universally by humankind and clearly contributes to climate change and environmental degradation. It also fuels/is fueled by the exploitation of humans, from immigrants to indigenous peoples.

I find it more and more difficult to separate these issues because, well, they’re inseparable.