Is this “War?”
“Animal Rights is a High-stakes Issue” is an article about animal farming and animal rights that gets an important issue correct, while missing the mark on an equally important one. But it’s one particular comment that’s my real reason for this post.
Let’s deconstruct:
- The article begins:
Though peripheral to the daily concerns of most Americans, animal rights vs. agriculture is emerging as one of the hottest issues of this young century. The stakes are too high for it to be otherwise.
So far so good. But the very next paragraph presents the . . .
- Incorrect Important Issue: Virtually every organization that claims to serve animals is not an enemy of agriculture, as they all seek to regulate the usage of sentient nonhumans, not end the use. For this reason, the second paragraph of the article is misleading:
Livestock producers, though not yet well organized in their opposition to animal rights activists, are justifiably alarmed at the activities of the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other extremist organizations.
If the Humane Society of the United States is extremist, I wonder what category the Animal Liberation Front fits in? The reason this article isn’t just another in a long line of misinterpretations of what most large nonprofits that help animals actually do with their funds, comes next with . . .
- Correct Important Issue:
I should clarify that animal “rights” and animal “welfare” are different concepts. The former places animals on essentially the same plane as humans; the latter centers on proper care for animals and is representative of more traditional thinking. Hosts of individuals and organizations such as local humane societies and animal shelters devote countless hours and dollars to caring for neglected or abused animals. They are not enemies of agriculture.
Wait a minute. I don’t mean to complain when I hear good news, but if one understands the difference between rights and welfare, why put HSUS and PETA (which does at least claim to be interested in animal rights) in the same category?
What follows includes a misguided focus on HSUS, as if it were an animal rights organization, some special attention to the Bible, and the most illogical:
While many animal lovers may easily embrace the scriptures permitting us to eat meat, others equate eating meat of any sort with eating the family pet. The vegan influence in animal welfare/rights activism is irrefutable and downright scary.
I’ll tell you what’s irrefutable–That in every meaningful way “the family pet” is no different from “meat,” or more accurately, animals we have chosen to use as food. What’s “scary” is the inability to acknowledge that.
But I did say that one of the comments motivated me to write this post. Commenter Kathie K has this to say, among other things:
It is because of the hatred and disdain for human-kind that so obviously emanates from the animal rights extremists that [the author of the post] is entirely correct. This is a war, and the enemy is self righteous extremists who refuse to negotiate and whose ultimate aim is the total “liberation” (whatever that means) of animals and the abolition of all animal use.
Notwithstanding the astoundingly inappropriate “extremist” label, presumably referring to the way HSUS refuses to negotiate (huh? Can you say Prop 2 and every other campaign?) and the misanthrope accusation (so tiresome and baseless), Kathie K raises a point that is partially correct, in my opinion: This is a war. But she fails to recognize the real war: the longest-running war with the most casualties in the history of recorded time. It is humankind’s war against nonhumans.
Now, the problem with seeing this as a war is that it begs the question: What do you think is an acceptable response to the violence? If the carnage weren’t happening to nonhumans but to humans, the answer would likely be a lot clearer for many people. So maybe seeing what humans have been doing to nonhumans as a war isn’t a good idea, as it leads to too many places that make us uncomfortable.
Or maybe it is a war, but whether or not the US or any other country intervenes when they see genocide or other massive-scale violence anywhere (think eastern Congo) depends on what we’d have to gain–or lose–from stepping in (or changing our behavior). Maybe whether or not one calls it war or genocide isn’t the issue. Maybe the issue is that people (and definitely nonhumans) getting killed isn’t as important as what would it cost us if we tried to do something about it, or what would it cost our system (i.e., whatever form of capitalism we can say we have) if we did something about it.
What do you think?
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
I’m confused by this statement:
I can understand why the “vegan influence” might be “downright scary” towards welfarists, but the animal rights view necessitates a vegan starting point. Of course veganism and animal rights are irrefutably linked, but welfarism and veganism? I don’t believe so. Perhaps certain welfarists are influenced by their personal commitment to veganism, but I think it’s safe to say they come down on the “it’s a personal choice” side, and are willing to compromise to regulate, and not end, animal use.
I’m no longer ashamed to say that yes, my aim is the abolition of all animal (including humans!) use, which is exactly what liberation means in this case. No, I don’t want to negotiate, just like I don’t want to negotiate about whether or not human slavery is okay, or human murder, or human rape. Maybe that does make me self-righteous, but I don’t believe it does. I don’t think I’m better in any meaningful way than an omnivore, just better educated. So yes, this is a war, but not on humans. Against some humans, maybe, but not against human kind.
People need to wise up. Animal liberation, animal rights, is about ending the use of all animals, including humans. Yes, humans ARE animals, and most of us don’t hate them, or even dislike them. Most of us have families, friends, significant others who we love. Most of us feel the same compassion towards human animals who are suffering as we do towards the cows, pigs, chickens, ducks, dogs, cats, horses, elephants and other non-humans who are suffering.
I think the term “war” is being brandished inappropriately on both sides. It carries alotta baggage like “terrorism” and really doesn’t help the argument. It sets up a dichotomy meant to polarize the audience while avoiding the crux of the matter. We should take the high road and find common ground avoiding the pitfalls articles like these set up.
I think animal liberationists should not be so quick use the term “war.” Saying “We’re at war” is used by States/Societies/soldiers/citizens to justify brutality against “them.” People in our movement also carelessly use it to justify terrorizing the “enemy” on behalf of animals.
“Welfare” and enslavement should be mutually exclusive. Same for “welfare” and slaughter. If we use the term “welfare” and “welfarism” in the context of speciesist exploitation, let’s put it in quotes. True welfare for other animals means an end to their use by humans – abolition and total liberation. Extending basic rights to all animals (rather than just humans only), is the best thing we can do for the welfare of nonhuman animals.
Very interesting subject Mary! Odd that I was just discussing with my husband yesterday, that future “real war” will most likely be an inevitable reality. I don’t see it initiated by “peace loving vegans”, but rather in defense against those who will (with arms) resist reason. I think someday, it will be a matter of self preservation against extremist animal users.
Surely the AETA has put some of this in place already? Hasn’t the founder of Food Not Bombs been arrested and subject to physical abuse, along with many other gentle advocates? I too have been personally assaulted (while in traffic), for my “eat kind”, “animal friendly” bumper stickers… I think if these brutes could have, my opinions would have been permanently snuffed – no matter how.
I read many of the users words on blogs and essays… There is a (violent) hatred for vegans and “animal rights people” that is frightening to me. I think there’s a strategy to use hsus/peta as THE example of who the “adversary” is. They do this to make these groups appear as the “radicals”, which sets up a lower standard of who the “threat” is. It makes anything beyond the two- absurd “fringe”. In comparison, if you want rights, abolition or liberty – you become a wacko or a terrorist.
Like everyone here, I resist a system that blindly subjugates and exploits innocent beings. I “battle” with those who say that even questioning the wrongness of this is “confrontational”. I am “evil” because I challenge what “gOd” (or anatomy), has “gifted” to humans. I have been given the death-stare and socially shrouded for doing such… I may be imprisoned if caught trying to save a life that “belongs” to a human “owner”. Is it “war”? For me – the first time I saw a pig in a “cage” – I knew it would be nothing less…
The animal industries and the federal government have always waged a war against the animals. No real laws protect farmed animals, especially when none are enforced. USDA inspectors who complain of cruelties in slaughterhouses are promptly scolded or fired. I agree with Bea: the extremists are actually the animal abusers. And we can’t negotiate murder. There’s nothing self-righteous or even brave about resistance to tyranny and injustice. It’s simply necessary to living a true life.
Like Bea, I see a strategy to identify HSUS and PETA as “terrorists” so that effective hardcore AR activists look “fanatical.” Incite fear in the general public and it’ll be easy to pass additional militant laws to silence any dissent against corporations. Soon we could all be facing a fine or prison sentence for voicing a negative opinion about an “animal product” in a public forum. Crazy? Chalk is now a weapon of terrorists—or the AETA 4 wouldn’t be facing sentences longer than those given to a cross-burning Klansman. Joseph, Maryam, Adriana, and Nathan’s “crime”? To protest animal exploitation, they simply wrote their opinions with chalk on a sidewalk.
Violence can’t be done to inanimate objects, only to living beings. To value any property over life is pathetic. Busting animals tortured for greed out of tiny metal cages is a loving action of common sense. Wearing a balaclava and resisting unjust laws doesn’t make a person a terrorist. In the U.S., no harm or death has come to anyone as a result of an ALF action. Ever. That shows a deep respect for all life. Whereas animal industries and government have injured and killed activists. ALF actions could be interpreted as ultimate altruistic compassion: the risking of one’s own life or comfortable freedom to free other individuals. Note some animal welfare folks enjoy taking potshots at the ALF to gain mainstream acceptance.
PETA’s current actions suggest it’s not an animal rights group. They do not advocate *only* on behalf of the animals. Classic example of conflict of interest: in 2005 PETA befriended Whole Foods and several other big welfare groups to form the Animal Compassion Foundation. (Now called the Global Animal Partnership, a Goliath-sized proponent of the humane meat myth.)
There is a war. But vegans and AR activists aren’t waging the war. We’re just among the last resisters trying to defend the earth.
And modern war isn’t necessarily waged with tanks and warheads. It’s waged with ideology. At best, that article is misguided. But I think it’s the lobbing of a verbal hand grenade to a greater war to come.
Mary…..great post! This blog always has the most relevant and current topics…I’m talking about all of the contributors here too.
I think it has to be suggested here that we ethical vegans and animal rights advocates live in a bubble. The bubble being one of the grasping and comprehending the issues in all of it’s realities kind of bubble.
The fact that without fail every non animal advocate person I talk with about PeTA or HSUS believe that these are both animal rights organizations. What this suggests to me is that most people have no understanding about what these organizations actually do, what they stand for and the differences in rights vs welfare.
However, I will also admit that when people are led through the activities of these organizations and explained how these groups are really only interested in the treatment not use of animals…even non vegan, non animal people get it. They may not agree with ending use of animals in their own lives (that’s a different argument) but they do seem to get the notion that groups like HSUS and PeTA are not AR organizations. Prop 2 is a great example and so is PeTA giving awards to MS Grandin and KFC.
Maybe this is an important aspect to this fight (war?). Maybe this is what we can contribute. Educating everyone about the difference between rights and welfare.
Simply arguing with humans like Kathie K about our supposed hatred for human beings as the motivation in our animal advocacy is about as productive as engaging in a conversation regarding the value and importance of empathy for others…. with Ted Nugent.
It’s just a huge waste of valuable time.
I agree with those who say the war rhetoric is unhelpful. However, even if everyone in the animal rights community agreed that there was a “war,” it would be “fun” to see who each group/faction/clique/individual deemed the enemy. The vivisectors? The farmers? The slaughterhouse workers? The politicians? The lobbyists? The corporations? The CEOs? The shareholders? Meat eaters? Happy Meat Eaters? PeTA? Michael Vick? Michael Pollan? Our family and friends? Everyone has their own version of who the enemy is. Some activists in the AR community even believe there are no enemies at all…just “misguided folk” (why did I hear George Carlin’s voice when I wrote that last sentence?).
I think “war” for many of us (particularly in the U.S.) is an abstract idea. We have absolutely no conception how we would act if we were actually thrown in the midst of it, surrounded by mass bloodshed toward any group of beings. I think we would surprise ourselves in all kinds of ways. In an act of free will, the one who is gung-ho on violence might wimp out and the staunch pacifist might break down his resolve and physically lash out when faced with such horror. This is why I no longer participate in debates about “violence vs nonviolence” (even though I still, at the moment, believe in and practice nonviolent solutions). I do believe the idea of “out of sight, out of mind” governs most of our current actions toward those who we know are being slaughtered, but who we do not see. Most of us are pretty guilty of that. And that includes many of those activists who incessantly shout the “by any means necessary” slogan. If they really meant what they say, many of the people who they deem the enemy should by “all means” be dead by now with a bullet through their head (not that I am encouraging that, because I am not). Instead, most of us simply refrain from consuming animals and try to educate others to do the same. Is that enough? Not by the time positive feedback kicks in. At which point we’ll all be eating plants exclusively whether we think it ethical or not, and that is only if we are able to get our hands on some plants to begin with.
As far as the violence in the Congo goes…again…out of sight and out of mind (for most people). Though Oprah and others may encourage compassionate people to help those in the Congo, no one wants to talk about the reasons why violence is there in the first place. No one in the mainstream media (including Kristof) wants to mention the corporations that have fueled and instigated the wars so that we can yap and text on our phones all day long (at the cost of *their* system in the Congo). And of course, if an animal rightist doesn’t care so much about the horrific suffering of the humans in the DRC (following the line of thought that an inanimate object – such as a bottle of water or a cell phone – produced off the suffering of others does not equal the slaughter of billions of nonhumans), then one might at least consider what is happening to the nonhuman animals in the Congo who are suffering, dying, and/or going extinct due to the wars (e.g., the plight of the gorillas and the hippos http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=8376416&page=3 ). This will forever be part of *our* history and legacy through the consumption of endless electronic gadgets (as well as other products tied to the Congo’s natural resources that the Global North has exploited throughout the many years). You, me, massive consumerism, the corporatocracy, the natural resources, the wars, the deaths, the rapes, the diseases, the extinctions…they are all linked. It’s no mystery why the atrocities in the Congo have not been mentioned in the media all these years.
And while we send our donations to those suffering in the Congo, are we also (more importantly) changing our lives in such ways that we are not causing further suffering to all the various beings in that country? Or are our donations another form of “buying indulgences”? I can send money, but I am aware that it simply puts a tiny band aid on a horrendous problem.
It may not be a war (just as well since it would be as one-sided and short-lived as the US vs Iraq), but there have certainly been battles from fur farms to the Antarctic where in the past month whalers have destroyed one Sea Shepherd ship and damaged another. And just like situations in the mideast, those battles will continue as long as our civilization hangs on and there are individuals willing to resist it.
But then there’s this from the Manhattan Bird Club:
“As I was feeding the birds, a man and a woman grabbed my bag of bird seeds and threw it away. They shouted at me and put their fingers up in front of my face and put their hands on me.” Apparently the police said it’s not uncommon…
http://forums.manhattanbirdclub.com/post?id=4584766
There’s also a few FaceBook members who have recently been assaulted – One physically – “Jumped and held down and kicked”…
Maybe not “war” — But certainly a lot of hostility. :(
The following might sound like a self-contradiction, after what I said about the war on the animals. The word “war” is inflammatory. I understand why others here want to avoid its use. The idea of taking sides or the idea of “enemies” is not helpful when trying to make a more peaceful world that has a place for everyone. Yet to not side with the animals is unthinkable. This is an unresolved dilemma for me.
“Abolition by any means necessary” is an intriguing rallying cry from activists such as Dr. Steven Best. I’m not very familiar with his work, but his essays certainly challenge complacency and encourage me to keep exploring what is effective in this struggle toward freedom for the animals. I also think that all life, nonhuman and human, has to be met with empathy and with true eyes—not just looking for what we want to find and for what reinforces our preconceptions but to *see* who is actually there. To discover. To desire to know all others with the same intense curiosity we have for learning more about the depths of our own nature.
Whichever way we (who refuse to be complicit with the animal industries) personally choose to work toward freedom for the animals and though the means might be quite varied, the goal seems to be the same: ending the acceptance of an unacceptable system that’s unsustainable for earth and our conscience.
Bea, it is interesting that the people in the article seem to be more worried about their own rights to feed the birds, than they are worried about the birds not receiving food. Which reminded me of a recent blog I read by The Vegan ideal where an interesting debate took place in the comments over whether or not vegans are oppressed: http://veganideal.org/content/why-vegan-oppression-cannot-exist
I won’t comment on whether or not vegans are oppressed, but I can say that there are some animal activists/vegans who tend to focus on their own plight and consequently forget the plight of those other animals they are supposedly “fighting” for.
I could take this notion further, in that sometimes in the case of “war rhetoric,” the “war” becomes more important than finding the right/effective solution to the problem. This has been a problem throughout human history.
Hi jeannie, I totally agree with you that one must not loose sight of the goal because of the “war”. Yes, we do want solutions… And MJ you’re right – I sure don’t think creating “enemies” does this either.
But I do have to say if our freedoms to speak out and speak against are supressed by brutes, bullies, mobs, unjust legislation, corrupt government, etc., the animals are lost for sure. It is critical that we maintain our basic liberties, (and protections), if we can ever hope to continue to advocate for animal rights. So I don’t think directed physical attacks should be taken lightly…
This is quite different than the “oppression” some vegans might say they have, living in a nonvegan world, where they have to negotiate social “norms”. Physically harming anyone – violates any social “norms”. Even if one was not vegan, these acts would still not be acceptable…
So really, if one is concerned with hungry birds – One better make sure they maintain the “right” to feed them at all… If human rights are denied -Nonhumans won’t stand a chance…
I think we have an obligation first to protect ourselves in the rhelm of “community” lawfulness… No one wants to live in the wild-wild west. But secondly as an advocate, there’s an imperative to protect “my” rights, to be able to quest for theirs.
No, we vegans are not “victims” because stores don’t carry enough of “our” products… We’re not “oppressed” if dining out is a challenge… Not “threatened” if avid “meat-eaters” are verbally abusive – or ignorant to our cause. But, once physical force enters the scene – It becomes an entirely different matter. The stakes become much higher… For ourselves on an individual level and then of course, the Others, who will stand to loose all as well.
It’s unfortunate but there is some “fighting” to do, just to preserve advocating for peace. I don’t think being outraged or dismayed by physical attacks, is out of step with this idea.
The following is NOT directed at you Bea, but one of the reasons I no longer bother with debating over whether or not violence is acceptable (and the definition thereof) is because the majority of people who advocate animal liberation (and repeat the “by any means necessary” phrase over and over) do a whole lot of talking and zero walking. There are only a handful of people actually DOING what others talk about when it comes to physically defending animals underground. For all the others it’s a whole lot of blah, blah, blah. Most of the time it is just empty rhetoric. The strange thing is that though I do not advocate mda myself, I give credit to those who actually do DO it – their actions are in line with their beliefs. I find that commendable.
If someone pushed me around because I was feeding birds, I wouldn’t run to the police (I mean really – what planet are these people living on where they think the state is going to help?!). Secondly, it wouldn’t stop me from continuing to feed the birds if I knew it was vital to their lives (which, by the way, feeding them is usually NOT necessary – pigeons are quite adept at finding food, even in the urban settings). Personally, even if I got beat up pretty good, I wouldn’t consider myself oppressed. I would be angry, but I would more likely be concerned about the birds. My rights do not outrank the rights of the birds (why are those people complaining about their own rights and focusing on their own “dilemma,” rather than fighting for birds’ right to eat the food?!). Even though I practice nonviolence, I honestly sometimes think I have more in common with those who really do mda than those who merely open their mouths.
“War” “Fighting” “Battles” – pa-shah. Just words. You either follow what you say or you don’t. The animals don’t give a crap how you describe their plight. They just want to be free.
That’s just my feeling on it. And I’ll leave it at that. :-)
Hi Jeannie,
You wrote: “There are only a handful of people actually DOING what others talk about when it comes to physically defending animals underground. For all the others it’s a whole lot of blah, blah, blah.”
Part of talking is that the people doing the work won’t be doing the talking. And if, like you, I find some of what they do commendable because their actions are in line with their beliefs, I want to state my support for their position. I don’t personally know the “by all means necessary” group (I do know Steve Best), though Camille Marino of Negotiation is Over did contact me for the first time yesterday for permission to post one of my posts. My feeling is that though I often cannot stand behind content or presentation, as long they are not advocating harming anyone (and I do draw lines around sabotage and property damage that many would call very conservative), I have to support their right to their position. And sometimes I find a philosophical justification and defense for their position.
That’s part of what the recent ruckus involving Best and Francione is about. Best’s response is here: http://negotiationisover.com/2010/02/14/the-loss-of-a-halo-francione-and-the-mask-of-jainism/
None of us knows what will ultimately lead to the liberation of sentient nonhumans. I suppose we each are left to take an inventory of our beliefs and the actions (and consequences) we are willing to take (and accept) in support of those beliefs. I just hope that that inventory is a sober and informed one.
Hi Mary,
Here’s just my opinion. Firstly, I think the people who are veterans of mda (e.g., Peter Young) can do the speaking for themselves. They’ve been there. They’ve done it. No need for anyone else who hasn’t done it to speak up for them. I actually think they are doing a decent job of it. Though there are only a handful (comparatively speaking) who have walked the walk.
Secondly, I read Camille Marino’s blog regularly. I’m a bit selective about what I read, I admit (I skip over a lot of the stuff regarding vivisection, etc.). I do this partially because I’m actually interested in what others in the movement are doing, but also because some of the articles she posts there are actually interesting. You will find few from my “side of the fence” doing so, unfortunately. I’m actually very open to ideas outside my own sphere of opinion these days. I think Camille performs a function that is helpful to mda – she provides of hub of information – she is taking specific action. I know that she also is attached to the “By any means necessary” mantra, but I also see her giving her absolute all to what she is dedicated to. She’s not on the periphery of the movement jumping up and down cheering with bright colored pom poms on forums, blogs, etc. She’s in the midst of it and has made the commitment.
No, I don’t advocate mda. My way is nonviolent. Like I said, like anyone else I do not know (and know one knows) how I or others will act in the midst of real bloodshood. And I do not pretend to know all the answers; yes, it’s true that none of us know what will lead to ultimate liberation. My point was that I do not argue about violence vs. violence anymore because, to me, it seems a pointless endeavor when most people who are there to argue about it (online), in my experience, have never experienced it themselves and also know very little about it. I would venture to say that even though I advocate peaceful/nonviolent solutions, I know more than most about mda because I actually read material from both sides (actually all sides). I’ve read the books, sites, etc. I do wish others would do the same. Scarce few on the mda side of the fence have read anything specifically on the topic of nonviolence (or the history thereof) – they haven’t even given it a chance.
I have to scoot out the door, so I’m not sure if my thoughts are complete here. If I think of anything else, I’ll write more later. :-)
I wrote: “War” “Fighting” “Battles” – pa-shah. Just words.
On the other hand, in terms of ideology, I suspect these words are strongly rooted in the historical context of patriarchy, colonialism, and other “fun stuff” tied to justifying domination, hierarchy, violence, etc. I am regrettably not well-versed in this area, but I’m sure someone out there who studies it would have something interesting to contribute regarding it.
This is really a reply to the above comment but we’ve run out of allotted ones, so . . .
I should clarify “the people doing the work won’t be doing the talking.” What I meant was that for instance if I, Mary Martin, were currently involved in some kind of illegal direct action, I, Mary Martin, wouldn’t be talking about it. But others who found justification with my actions might, in a show of support.
Sorry about that.
I don’t think vegans are oppressed either. Inconvenienced? Sure, sometimes. I also think it’s crucial to protect our civil liberties (which have been severely eroded by legislation for more than the last dozen years), or advocacy for the animals will get even more difficult. Especially if the general population perceives that laws are being broken. For some folks it doesn’t matter that the pro-industry, pro-government laws are unjust because being law-abiding is more important to them. I doubt most Americans even know about the Green Scare or understand the implications it has for all of us. So it’s necessary to strongly oppose proposed legislation before it turns into a new oppressive law. The AETA is a caricature of the law and needs to be repealed. If only a majority of the country had protested it from the very start….
Individuals (not referring to those bird-feeding folks jeannie and Bea were discussing) concerned about the erosion of human liberties aren’t necessarily focusing selfishly on themselves but concerned that their aboveground advocacy and the advocacy of others will be impacted. It’s pretty damn hard to advocate from behind bars. Nearly all of us have either been in that situation and/or have friends who have so it’s vital to protect everyone’s liberties against modern day Inquisition methods (such as grand juries) and the addition of more militant laws that muffle public dissent.
To feel a psychological conflict about violence in relation to animal liberation doesn’t mean sitting around wringing our hands or letting it stop us from taking actions. It’s just an unresolved issue without a pat, reductionist answer. To keep examining what we’re doing is essential to gauge how effective we are or aren’t in service to the animals. I agree that none of us can predict how animal freedom will be achieved. Dr. Best, and any of us, could be right or wrong. We can only try to stay open to new strategies and adapt to each particular situation and then act. Because what we actually do is the only thing that matters. Just as it doesn’t matter what the meat industry and gone-astray advocacy groups promise to do but what they actually end up doing.
Fwiw, Marino absolutely has advocated support for physical, bodily violence. She isn’t as bold and crass and public about it as she used to be, but it is a position she has defended. It’s unfortunate that previous incarnations of her site and older posts, from there and elsewhere, are no longer visible.
And I continue to roll my eyes at the Best-Francione scenario and agree that there are ego issues on both sides, but the Best/Marino/NIO position that Francione is obsessed with them and keeps dragging them into it, while they’re trying to ignore him and move forward, isn’t difficult to see through. They criticize, name-call, belittle, and mock him and anyone else who disagrees with their positions constantly. The attacks or criticisms, however you look at them, and rhetoric do not come from just one side.
One of my greatest frustrations in this movement is people in one camp getting loud and defensive about something being done to them while they’re doing the same damn thing to others; the demonization and the rhetoric and the chest-pounding and the belittling personal insults, versions of which come from at least some members of every camp, abolitionist, welfarist, MDA, you name it, are getting old. It all got old a long time ago. I have a post half-written about this, but it stresses me out so much that I haven’t been able to finish it yet.
I’ll hold back my other thoughts on violence/nonviolence for now b/c I have too much to say for a comment thread. As the other AR&AO bloggers know, I’ve also been planning to chime in myself on the violence issue but hadn’t taken the time to do it yet — and maybe I’ll wait a bit longer, now that things are flaring up between Francione and Best again (I see that NIO published no fewer than four posts related to Francione in just the last day–seriously?). The post could be timely, but it could also suck me into an ongoing situation that I don’t want to be sucked into. We shall see. For now, I’ll just say that I think it *is* important to have these discussions for various reasons and that I do believe even violent (pro-bodily-harm) rhetoric has the potential to hurt the animal rights movement, alienate people we otherwise might have reached, and, thus, hurt the very beings we’re trying to help.
I vote for don’t get sucked in.
:)
True violence is inflicted upon innocent nonhuman animals by slavemasters and murderers. The compassionate members of the ALF who help these other animals win liberation by destroying inanimate property and freeing them from the cages are heroes. For Gary Francione to call this “violence” is to distort reality and value property over life. This only helps corporate exploiters continue to brainwash the masses with speciesist propaganda and keep them consuming mindlessly.
Brandon,
In spite of the tedious personal attacks going on between Best and Francione now, I just liked many of Steven Best’s older essays that I’ve read in past years. I do feel that Francione and his clique of supporters seem to holler at anyone who disagrees with their premise that vegan education is the only “correct” method for animal liberation. (If I’ve misinterpreted this position, I’d appreciate anyone correcting me.) I think Francione isn’t the only one to misinterpret the ALF. I’m tired of hearing folks bellyache about violence and the ALF in the same breath. The ALF guidelines are clear about protecting all life, nonhuman and human. Any violent act that injures any sentient being is not an ALF action. Some folks are also confused about the ALF being an organization. Maybe because the ALF operates in cells and without hierarchy, some folks easily mislabel them as terrorists, who often also use cells. And of course black masks or bandanas are also associated with terrorists and other lawbreakers.
Mindlessly labeling compassionate individuals as “violent” only reveals a lotta ignorance. To associate the ALF with bloodletting or violence is total misrepresentation. The actions of the ALF over the decades speak for themselves.
I agree with your definition of true violence. Too much value is placed on possessions and property, which seems to confuse some folks about what violence really is. I think it’s possible to be supportive of direct action and nonviolence against any sentient being, that these things naturally go together.
I urge everyone to read this essay to get informed on this issue:
http://www.negotiationisover.com/2010/02/14/the-loss-of-a-halo-francione-and-the-mask-of-jainism/
This thread is going in various directions, as often happens when the “violence vs nonviolence” issue starts to crop up. All I will say is that I urge people to educate themselves on both sides of the issue. And to be clear about what is civil disobedience and what is…everything else. For example, chaining oneself to a bulldozer to stop mountaintop removal is civil disobedience (so is sitting up in a tree to stop loggers or scaling a smokestack to shut down a coal factory). I see no possible harm done to others in these actions. Examples of property damage would be setting fire to the bulldozer (or to a test lab or a fur farm) or sinking a whaling ship. I see the latter as *possibly* harming someone (including small creatures – such as rodents and insects – that no one knows are in the building walls, crawl spaces, etc. or under/over/around the burning/sinking/exploding object). This is where I draw the line, personally. That’s just ME – I’m not telling others what they should or should not do. Someone else may see the possibility of harming a few small creatures as a small sacrifice in the fight against the billions of animals being slaughtered. Let me say, for me, it’s not an issue of whether the act is legal or not (civil disobedience is often about purposefully breaking the law and knowing there may be consequences for that. A law is not always just. Nor are those who create the laws always just.). Instead, for me, it’s a matter of desiring no harm upon any person – human or nonhuman. It’s the same reason I advocate veganic gardening/farming – it’s an attempt to do no harm to the creatures, even to the smallest creatures in the soil. Am I perfect? No, I drive a car and kill insects (though I drive a lot less than most people, and plan on hopefully getting to a point where I do not drive at all). I think we are ALL hypocrites to a point – I could easily take any particular approach and point out the hypocrisies therein if I scrutinized it enough (but would that be helpful or productive?). Actually, I think Mary said it well: “I suppose we each are left to take an inventory of our beliefs and the actions (and consequences) we are willing to take (and accept) in support of those beliefs. I just hope that that inventory is a sober and informed one.”
Regarding Best vs Francione, I guess the saga continues. I do have my opinions on the approach of the Francione style abolitionists (FSA) who tend to set themselves apart from the whole community/movement by being the ONLY group whose total focus is on criticizing those WITHIN the movement…but I am sensing that this may not be the thread to bring it up. If that changes, maybe I’ll be back to say more on that. :-)