LaVeck Responds, Ohioan Writes Open Letter to Coalition Organizations
Last week, on HumaneMyth.org, James LaVeck published his response to criticism of “Silencing the Lambs,” discussion of which has been long and heated both on this blog and elsewhere, online and off, in the last week. In this written response, James expands on the reasons for creating the video, the background behind it, and the issues it raised, and he responds to the widely disseminated statements from groups such as Farm Sanctuary in reaction to the video. You may read his statement, in full, here, and I certainly recommend that you do.
Second, the Ohio animal advocate who first learned of the troubling fundraiser and made the point of contacting HSUS about it and who then took steps to create dialogue about it, Donna Liebenauer, has written an open letter about the matter, which I share here:
Open letter to the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary & all other animal protection organizations with the Ohioans for Humane Farms coalition:
I am the Ohio animal advocate who initially challenged the HSUS promotion of the Ohioans for Humane Farms (OHF) fundraiser event on July 19, and whom James LaVeck refers to at the onset of his video commentary, “Silencing the Lambs,” http://www.vimeo.com/13613159.
I am not touting to know all the answers to achieve animal liberation, however, I know a “disconnect” when I see one.
Let me first say, I believe many of us are doing what we believe is most good and right for our non-human friends. I commend those who labor tirelessly for the animals, especially with direct rescue work. I do, however, need to point out an injustice on the part of Farm Sanctuary to say that James has refused communication with them. I know that Gene and James shared a public discussion specifically about the farm ballot initiatives and other related issues at the 2010 Vegetarian Summerfest (http://www.humanemyth.org/silencingthelambsresponse.htm).
Another unfair claim by Farm Sanctuary was officially stating that James LaVeck has “taken a course aimed at creating divisiveness within our broader movement to end animal exploitation.” James is certainly not alone with his concerns with the direction of the animal movement. The division in the movement already existed when the pure message of animal liberation splintered in a new direction of joining hands with the animal exploiting industries through endorsements, coalitions and the like. One could then argue that those individuals who splintered into new tactics are the dividers of the movement. The finger can point in both directions. The difference is the groups being challenged about these new tactics have grown a larger, collective voice. They are easily influencing those who are listening to say that others are dividing the movement, not them. I find it interesting that those who are maintaining the original path to animal liberation are steadily being marginalized as dividers of the movement, not considerate of the animals who are suffering now. I ask you though, who considered the animals, now, who were sacrificed for this “celebration” fundraiser?
James and many others are in a struggle to maintain a consistent message for the animals and not create confusion with the public that we are justified in any way to use and kill animals as long as we are nice to them. Unfortunately, there is an attempt to stifle our voice, not only by the animal exploiting industries, but now by our own colleagues within the movement. We are not allowed to challenge the new methods of the stronger voice, or we will be labeled “dividers.” This division, whoever or whatever is to blame, is more than the animal-using industries could have hoped. Please consider reading the article, “Invasion of the Movement Snatchers”, printed in the former Satya magazine: http://www.tribeofheart.org/tohhtml/essay_ims.htm.
If you watch the video again, you will find the challenge was truly at the HSUS (not any other group) promotion of a non-vegan event in celebration of farm animal progress. The second part of his message in the commentary is a challenge to all animal advocates, including organizations, to be clear with our message to the public that it is not acceptable to use and kill animals, as well as be honest about all the negative impacts of animal agriculture. I am disappointed to see that, in everyone’s defensiveness, the message is not being heard. As animal advocates, we should not be expected to nod along just because a large, well-intended organization(s) says it is the best path. We need to always be thinking critically and challenging our methods for animal liberation, regardless of how tiny our voice. If we do not hold ourselves accountable, who will?
On a personal note, I can tell you that as part of the Ohio Ballot Initiative, I was told by [name/s intentionally withheld] I could not advocate for veganism during the campaign if I chose to be involved. This would be too confusing for the public. Do we really think that little of our fellow humans? Are we, as advocates, perceived as lacking enough savvy to articulate a clear message? What could be more confusing than animal protection organizations endorsing “humane” farming by coalescing with those who exploit the animals? Withholding a vegan message, and other crucial information, is a disservice to the animals and the people we are trying to educate.
One final thought…rather than Farm Sanctuary and the other coalition organizations publicly lashing out at James and those who support the same ideals, they should be directing their energy at HSUS for their choice to promote a celebration for farm animal progress by serving them on a plate. With being a participant in a coalition of competing values, there should be no surprise on the part of the involved animal protection organizations that events may occur which are in direct conflict with their own values and mission. What should surprise them is one of their own making a choice which so blatantly is in conflict with protecting animals. None of us are infallible. HSUS is no different, no matter how powerful their voice. HSUS should be made publicly accountable for their actions by their fellow animal protection organizations for not seeking collaboration and consent to promote the OHF event. I hope that Farm Sanctuary and others will do just that. I personally contacted HSUS and debated the matter. I am mystified as to why other advocates and organizations are not doing the same. The movement is on a slippery slope and we need to keep each other accountable…for the animals’ sake.
The course each of us chooses to aid in ending animal use and abuse is obviously of much debate, however, I sense HSUS and other animal protection groups will continue to find themselves entrenched in these moral dilemmas each time they join hands with those who wish to continue exploiting and killing animals.
–
Be at peace…
Donna Liebenauer
In memory of the animals who lost their lives for July 19th…and every day.
“Nothing is more powerful than an individual acting out of his conscience, thus helping to bring the collective conscience to life.” ~ Norman Cousins
“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” ~ Abraham Lincoln
—-
Back to me (Stephanie) now. Last week, I wrote my own response to the reactions, but truthfully, my emotional resources are stretched thin right now, and I don’t currently have it in me to publish it. What I will briefly say is how disappointed I’ve been, like Donna, to in some spaces see organizations’ representatives personally attack and try to virtually shout down those who would dare challenge HSUS or question the decisions of other groups that aren’t accustomed to being challenged, sometimes with stunningly vitriolic remarks and combative tone, while conspicuously failing to condemn HSUS’s actions. Between comments on this blog and, moreso, statements and accusations made elsewhere, including many personal Facebook pages visible to large numbers of animal advocates, I (like others) spent just preposterous amounts of time last week not discussing the important issues raised but rather defending against and correcting widely copied-and-pasted personal insults and false statements about the video’s content. And that’s disappointing.
This is all still fairly fresh. I’m still hoping that at least behind closed doors, regardless of discomfort or even irritation, groups are discussing these matters and formulating responses and policies that both openly, firmly hold HSUS responsible for its actions and show interest in open discussion and contemplation about the strategies and direction of our movement — dialogue in which dissent from and challenges to the groups in power are welcome and respected and encouraged, not shut down or buried, in which all animal advocates are entitled to have their voices respected and considered and in which attempts by the louder, more powerful voices to silence or dismiss or discredit the other voices are not tolerated.
Please remember to see James’s detailed response and commentary if you have not read it already.
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
For me, the main source of frustration and confusion was that the video – specifically the way it was visually edited at around the 3:30-4:30 minute mark – seemed to imply to the casual viewer, that groups other than HSUS were involved with this “humane” dinner when in fact, most of them didn’t even know about it.
I think James makes many important and valid points about the inherent problems and ethical conundrums that arise when animal advocacy groups join in alliance with animal exploiters. I believe more people would have paid attention to this message (rather than getting hung up on who was or was not behind that sickening dinner), if the video had been more explicit.
Much of the ensuing brouhaha could have been avoided, imo, had James merely said something like, “Even if these groups weren’t aware of this dinner and would not serve animal products at their own fundraisers, aren’t they complicit in this event on the basis of their coalition?” Then viewers would have focused more on the responsibility and consequences that arise when animal advocates join in coalitions with animal exploiters, rather than defending organizations who they believe were misrepresented by the implication that they actively supported this specific dinner. Just my 2 cents….
I tried to read all this,, with my private Catholic degree….. it seems to me…. it is a matter of few who try to prove they are ” better”… a life is a life…. we need to eat…same as the difference in religions….there is a difference in beliefs.. I am not right.. you are not…right or wrong… i think ( being a vegan) that some need to feel superior why? i don’t know.. if it seems i have gone over the board so to speak …… good then you “get” me I can’t kill an ant…. BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Bless you all
Christine, your post is off topic, but I will respond briefly. Vegans are often labeled as acting “superior” or “holier-than-thou” by animal-eating friends and acquaintances who don’t want to acknowledge their own complicity in animal suffering. But is this criticism really valid? Advocating non-violence towards animals (expressed through a vegan diet), is no more “holier-than-thou” than advocating non-violence towards humans. Most people would say they oppose murder, rape, slavery and so on. Does that mean they’re being judgmental and “holier-than-thou”?
Yes, we need to eat. But we don’t need to enslave and kill animals to do so.
that’s why I asked where is the stifling, I didn’t say it wasn’t happening, but I guess you say can’t be pointed out. And again, I didn’t say anything about ‘proof’ that James was vilifying anyone, I said it was obviously how it ‘came off’.
How productive when we can’t even respond to what we are ACTUALLY posting
Thank you for taking a morally courageous stand against this Goliath of a coalition, Donna. You’re a modern-day “David.”
How interesting that you were warned during the petition-signing period not to “confuse” the public by talking about veganism. Based on the fact that you chose not to identify the person who warned you, I surmise it was someone in an animal protection organization. How chilling.
I’m heartened whenever a “little guy” challenges the behemoth HSUS. One such fearless individual is Nathan Winograd, who has developed a workable life-saving No Kill Equation for animals shelters.
One chapter of his new book, “Irreconcilable Differences,” is titled “Fear Mongering at the Humane Society of the United States.” In it, he writes: “HSUS claims that it is devoted to saving dogs and cats, to promoting the bonds between people and animals, and to leading the cause of protecting them and increasing their status in society. However, such claims cannot be reconciled with their support for the killing of healthy dogs and cats in shelters to this very day. As to why they insist on taking positions that are, at their core, inherently antithetical to animal welfare, we must look to the ‘actors’ who compose their leadership, particularly the Companion Animal division. Here, the term ‘actor’ is deliberate. Because while they play the public persona of animal lovers, HSUS leadership often comes from animal control organizations that kill animals, and these individuals carry that mindset to HSUS, even though it claims a different mission. And so they denigrate the animals they are supposed to protect, and use HSUS to veil their reactionary animal control agendas under the cloak of ‘animal welfare.’ Until recently, HSUS’ agenda of killing has dominated the national discussion of companion animals that it was essentially the only voice until the No Kill movement called it into question. In fact, the lack of challenge to this position has convinced many animal activists to accept the extreme Orwellian notion that killing is kindness, because this position comes under the mantle of large, national animal welfare groups. They have been taught to believe that animal control based on killing poses no contradiction with an animal welfare mission.”
Based on these few sentences alone, it’s easy to see how it’s possible for HSUS to reconcile the irreconcilable in promoting the “humane”-meat celebration in Ohio. Maybe the acronym HSUS is short for Hypocrisy Sanctioner of the United States.
I have MFA Farm Sanctuary and HSUS and others on my FB page I haven’t seen one thing put out to try to silence LaVeck or anyone else, I have seen the Silence the Lambs video posted about 7 times. If he wasn’t accusatory, he wouldn’t have got the responses, and they are from individual animal advocates too, not just leaders of large organizations. So when you make it out to be the little guys voice being drowned out by the big guys, well, that is not how this regular non-member of any of those organizations sees it. By now everyone but HSUS has stated that they did not agree to animals being served so maybe you could quit repeating it on your blog . ( ” I ask you though, who considered the animals, now, who were sacrificed for this “celebration” fundraiser” , yes I know Donna said it and you are posting it.) Fingerpointing does go both ways and it’s just continuing here.
and to Donnna who says ” As animal advocates, we should not be expected to nod along just because a large, well-intended organization(s) says it is the best path. ”
why do you think they would just nod along?, maybe they actually agree that incremental is the only feasible route, that the animals while they are still being exploited, should not have to endure factory farm conditions if we can do anything about it. Do you actually think people are just going along mindlessly? You take everybody else for a fool?
And the public lashing came from James first. You are complaining about the same things you are doing. The only thing I have seen from those other groups were on this blog. I don’t think there is a David and Goliath thing going on here. The anti-humane side hasn’t shown that there is another serious option, maybe what you fail to understand is that a large part of AR (even though James may call them agents of disillusion, they probably see themselves as perceivers of the reality) doesn’t think turning people into vegans moves fast enough and wants to act to do SOMETHING for all of the animals who will continue to be exploited until that miraculous day comes when the world opens it’s eyes.
ANYTIME we in AR pass on inaccurate information we shoot ourselves in the foot, and give reason for others to discredit what we say. When an AR says that every cow is tortured from the moment it is born (I’ve seen this posted), and then people drive by fields of cows with their calves peacefully grazing in the sunshine, they think AR is full of shit. There are definitley disconnects, and lots of them. This movement is all over the place. I don’t think vilifying the ones who don’t agree with your angle is very productive. Maybe all the different parts are necessary for change. I know you will say here that he didn’t villainize anyone, but obviously that is how it came off or there wouldn’t be the backlash.
as far as Jame’s post, I agree with mch of what he says ,but when he speaks of ” aggressive control of public dialogue and active suppression of dissent.” well where is that? here we are, on the internet, anyone can say anything, he’s saying whatever he wants, so am I. So are you. So can anyone. I’ve heard more from him that anyone else on this issue. I reposted his video, as did many of my friends. where’s the stifling?
(as of writing this it was again posted on FB cause I also receive Tribe of heart posts)
I should say I recieved this page, Donna’s letter, not the video, just now
sad, I’m not going to respond to this point by point because, honestly, I just don’t have the energy. But even though you may not know what I’m talking about with regard to the personal attacks or the silencing of dissent (and regarding the latter, not just now in relation to this but ongoing for a while), even though you may not have seen it or experienced it for yourself? That doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened and doesn’t happen. For the record, my allusion to things happening on Facebook was not to official posts by organizations; if you’ll reread, you’ll see a reference to “representatives.” And as many do know, yes, there were individuals contacting people privately as well as copying and pasting some pretty personally offensive (in addition to misleading) stuff in others’ comment threads. What you did *not* see in James’s video was a lashing out at individuals, a devaluing of the other good work the organizations do, an outright dismissal of the good things they’ve done, or snide remarks about individual persons’ motivations, all of which *were* responses lobbed at James (and others), even if you didn’t personally see them.
And again, the fact that you haven’t been personal witness to larger groups silencing smaller groups or individuals when they dissent is totally irrelevant. That people don’t know when these things happen is sort of the point. It’ s not as if people or groups in power send out press releases about actions they’ve taken or strategies they’ve used or people they’ve worked to marginalize. “Behind the scenes” does not equate to “doesn’t happen.” The strategy is smarter than that.
And yeah, people being shamed and called “divisive,” or having their motives misrepresented or their work in general demeaned, for daring to publicly disagree is an example of dissent being discouraged. You say that the backlash is somehow proof that James “vilified,” and I find that logic bizarre. Individuals’ (or groups’) reactions and framing of the debate, whatever those are in whatever circumstances, are not proof of the content or intention of the original position. “We are responding this way because someone said this or did this” is not proof that someone did indeed say or do that thing.
sad permalink
August 2, 2010 1:45 pm
that’s why I asked where is the stifling, I didn’t say it wasn’t happening, but I guess you say can’t be pointed out. And again, I didn’t say anything about ‘proof’ that James was vilifying anyone, I said it was obviously how it ‘came off’.
How productive when we can’t even respond to what we are ACTUALLY postin
Actually, “sad” the public lashing was first delivered to the public when many groups, that we had supported for years and believed were heading in the right direction, chose to join hands with businesses who make their profits by exploiting animals. James was only taking another step in pointing out this problem in our movement.
sad wrote:
“why do you think they would just nod along?, maybe they actually agree that incremental is the only feasible route, that the animals while they are still being exploited, should not have to endure factory farm conditions if we can do anything about it.”
sad, I would once again ask, as I did in the previous thread, if you–and others who assert that this agreement and others like it are making a substantial difference in the lives of farmed animals “now,” and that these alliances with industry represent “incremental steps” towards animal liberation, have actually read the text of the OHF agreement? It isn’t that easy to find, but it’s available here, on the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation’s website:
http://ofbf.org/uploads/Agreement.pdf
Note how weak the language is: the phrase “recommendations will be made…” comes up again and again, making clear that these are ONLY recommendations, not binding rules that will actually be enforced (and even when binding rules are passed, they usually aren’t enforced even then; the so-called Humane Slaughter Act being a prime example). And note the timelines involved. The agreement says, for example, that “recommendations will be made” for veal calves to be transitioned into group housing by the year 2017. Assuming you think this represents a tremendous improvement in the lives of calves being exploited for veal, it does absolutely nothing for calves being exploited for veal “right now.” In fact, it probably won’t do anything for calves being exploited for veal in 2017, since it is only a “recommendation.”
Make no mistake, I am an abolitionist. I don’t believe that the finite amount of time I have to spend on activism is well spent trying to get welfare agreements such as this one passed, nor do I feel that these measures come anywhere near addressing the fundamental problem, which is the property status of animals. In fact, I think these welfare measures actually reinforce that property status while giving the public at large the impression that something is being done to make animals’ lives better, so they can go on eating them with a clear conscience.
Even if you truly believe that regulating nonhuman slavery is a good way to abolish it, though, how does an agreement like this one actually serve that end? The OHF agreement is so toothless that it fails even as a welfare measure. The only thing it does succeed in, as far as I can see, is as a brilliant piece of PR for the animal using industries who can now wave this agreement under the noses of Ohio animal advocates and say, “See, things are so much better in Ohio, so please get off our backs.” I don’t see how anyone else–particularly the animals–benefits from this in any way.
I think all animal advocates should read this from Norm Phelps:
http://www.tlov.org/tlov2009/norm-phelps-nw.html
Susan is wise (thank you Susan) in noting that all animal advocates should read the presentation by Norm Phelps.
I don’t understand these groups (Farm Sanctuary, Mercy for Animals, …). They were being asked to join a cause organized by an organization that includes the term “humane” (=cruel) in its name and they say “yes”.
What the hell they were thinking??
Bravo Stephanie!…thank you for stating what is important in this matter and for sharing Donna Liebenauer’s well expressed letter.
Sadly, in my criticisms of some of the same animal advocacy / sanctuary orgs’ misguided, often dishonest, and always counter-productive campaigns of collaboration with animal exploiters to promote the less cruel exploitation and killing of animals, I’ve frequently experienced the same misplaced and thoughtless vitriol by defenders of these well known animal orgs.
Those who are getting hung up about their organization being connected to a fundraiser where ‘humane’ meat is served really ought to start to do some careful and honest introspection instead of externalizing onto others, their errant and misplaced anger. Indeed, these folks are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to making up their own facts.
The fact of the matter is that by officially joining Ohioans For Humane Farms (OFHFs) (one cannot join passively, without intent to support OFHFs’ mission), a coalition which has an unambiguous and unhidden mission to advance the exploitation and demise of animals through ‘humane’ farming standards, clearly, Farm Sanctuary whole heartedly endorses ‘humane’ meat and animal products. Any claim otherwise is damage control or spin.
OFHFs’ own amendment if passed would, ” 2) “require a farm owner or operator to ensure that all on-farm killing of cows or pigs be performed in a humane manner…” Right, humane killing…what an absolute farce! This is precisely where ‘happy’ meat comes from and certainly one of the reasons why ‘humane’ animal products are so popular even among former vegans and vegetarians. It is in part because organizations that ought to stand opposed to the unnecessary exploitation and demise of farmed animals are instead supporting and endorsing it. Shame on them. Shame on those who denounce those who criticize this unconscionable collaboration while voicing nary a word to those orgs who have crossed the rubicon to stand together with animal exploiters in endorsing ‘humane’ exploitation and killing.
As to the meat-served fundraiser specifically, by signing onto OFHFs, indirectly (in the very least), an organization has already endorsed the serving and eating of meat that comes from these ‘humane’ farms. In fact, it is hypocritical of an organization to, on the one hand freely join OFHFs and on the other hand try to distance them self from a fundraiser that serves the very thing that OFHFs was created to advance in the first place….’humane’ standard animal products. Leaders of OFHFs’ partnering animal organizations cannot now claim that they were clueless as to what the mission of OFHFs was created for. If a leader does s/he didn’t know this, then we have the right to question why in the first place would they sign onto a coalition they knew little or nothing about. What sense would that make?
I feel it would serve the animal’s best interest if we all take Farm Sanctuary to task for this very troubling misstep and serious faux pas. Contact them and ask them how can they reconcile supporting the advancement of the exploitation and demise of farmed animals through ‘humane’ farming? Why hasn’t Farm Sanctuary yet publically renounced its support of OFHFs and apologized to its membership for doing what is really unconscionable….it’s a betrayal not only of its membership, but of the animals as well.
Contact Farm Sanctuary here: 607-583-2225 or at info@farmsanctuary.org
.
Louie – first off I agree with everything you say so I will not rehash it here. However, a few words about Farm Sanctuary and HSUS. I believe many activists hold FS very dear to their hearts and it is hard to accept that they acted like an errant child and they have not fessed up to making a huge blunder. I remember Gene and Lori in the early days of FS when they raised money by selling tofu pups at events. I have been to FS many times and always enjoyed their August hoe down. It was a video that I viewed there in 1997 that convinced me to be strict and loyal about being vegan. It has always been wonderful to visit with their rescued farm animals. The first Peaceable Kingdom documentary by James LaVeck and Jenny Stein was about Farm Sanctuary. That is no longer available.
I saw this coming many years ago when FS sponsored a campaign in NYC against restaurants that sold milk-fed veal (crated veal.) At the time I wondered if that meant that veal raised “humanely” would be acceptable. No one at FS was able to give me a satisfactory answer. Many activists unfortunately are not critical thinkers and joined in the demonstration possibly thinking that it was truly against veal – period. It was not.
As for HSUS – I became involved with animal rights in the 1980s when the welfare/abolitionist issues were more clear. HSUS and the ASPCA were on the welfare side … all the other organizations were on the abolitionist side … or so we thought. While I do appreciate some of the work HSUS does, I mostly have not changed my opinion about them.
The animal organizations that joined this Ohio coalition all have many years experience in what this means and dealing with the politics involved. They should have known that lending their name to a coalition that included commercial animal using entities could present problems. If not for James LaVeck, we might not have know this and there would not be a debate about it now.
If companies like McDonalds and KFC were to use controlled atmosphere killing and do everything that PETA has requested of them to treat animals more humanely – would PETA put their seal of approval on the “humanely raised” chicken flesh. And if so, what does that say? That this is as good as it gets and on to the next campaign. Vegan food is only for us the more enlightened.
If not, then what is the next step? And if there is a next step, isn’t it obvious that these companies know that so will not participate in the slippery slope.
Elizabeth,
You’ve made excellent points and I’ve had many of the same experiences you’ve had.
It was precisely when I began to get involved with Farm Sanctuary’s campaign against “crated veal” that I began to realize the very dangerous (for generations of animals) path that Farm Sanctuary was embarking on. I very quickly stopped my involvement in this campaign after this realization. Sadly, most activists have not yet realized why such campaigns and husbandry modulation efforts (which include this latest OHF endorsement effort) are such a bad idea if the long term goal is an abolitionist one.
When the meat industry and animal orgs support and endorse the same activity or line of thinking (as is done with great frequency) then you know it is not a ‘victory’ for the animals as many animal org husbandry modulation campaigns exclaim, but rather a huge step backward. The industry is always going to back efforts that are more profitable (now or in the long term) for them and this is why ALL the big commercial processors have already made moves toward “welfare” reform and standards which includes everything from sponsoring studies into welfare matters to employing ‘experts’ on animal husbandry. The push for ‘humane’ meat by animal org leaders who believe in a basic animal rights principle (that animals are not ours to do with whatever we please) is not only an embarrassment, but a regrettable mistake if they keep on this path.
Thank goodness for the growing numbers of activists who are seeing this for what it is and speaking out. Thank goodness for http://www.HumaneMyth.org
Susan and veganelder:
In order to understand what it is that you find so compelling about Norm Phelps’ views, I read the presentation “In praise of ‘The New Welfarism’” : http://www.tlov.org/tlov2009/norm-phelps-nw.html that you both seem to endorse, as well as “One-Track Activism: Animals Pay the Price”: http://www.veganoutreach.org/articles/normphelps.html, and “Trying to Walk Before We Can Crawl”, Phelps’ review of Joan Dunayer’s book “Speciesism”: http://www.satyamag.com/jan05/phelps.html.
Phelps’ arguments against abolitionism, as a “one-track strategy” that, according to him, does not work and that perpetuates animal suffering, are packed with such ill logic, unsubstantiated claims, condescending and misleading statements, it is hard to know where to begin.
In “One-Track Activism”, Phelps asserts that “campaigns to relieve the worst suffering of animals on factory farms force the public to think of animals as sentient, sensitive beings whose well-being is a matter of serious moral concern” and that this “can only advance, not retard, liberation”. He also declares that “there is absolutely no evidence to support Dunayer’s claim that working for ‘welfarist’ reforms retards liberation”. Given that we have had animal welfare legislation since, at least 1824 (SPCA, UK and 1866 SPCA, USA), and that, in 2010, we are confining, using, exploiting, and slaughtering more nonhuman animals than ever before, Phelps’ assertions amount to nonsense.
In arguing against abolitionism without welfare reforms, Phelps claims that “most people are extremely resistant to moral criticism of things that they are personally doing” and he suggests that the way to have them “come to the animals’ cause” is to get them to become morally outraged about something they are not doing themselves. He cites as one example the success of the anti-fur campaign. His farmed animal analogy is that if we manage to get people to become “committed to opposing a specific form of cruelty, such as battery cages”, then the “consistency principle can kick in” because “we all like to see ourselves as consistent” and because “moral inconsistency causes intense psychological distress”. Given that most individuals oppose the slaughter of seal pups for their fur, that they make no connection between the skins of slaughtered seal pups and the animal skins used on their shoes, and that they do not seem particularly distressed about this moral inconsistency, Phelps’ claim is not only unsubstantiated, but it contradicts reality.
In his fierce criticism of abolitionism without welfare reforms, Phelps contends that it is “one-track activism that has thus far failed to reduce the number of animals Americans consume”. Given that abolitionism is not (yet!) in the consciousness of mainstream media and the public and that welfare vs. abolition is not a common debate or dialogue in the public arena, it is baffling that Phelps comes to the conclusion that it is abolitionism and not welfare campaigns that have resulted in the massive increase in the exploitation of animals.
In “In Praise of ‘The New Welfarism’”, Phelps contends that the disagreement between “new welfarists” and “abolitionists” is “entirely about strategy”, not goals. Given that the prime supporters and promoters of welfare reforms and regulations, such as the SPCA, HSUS, and most Humane Societies, do not identify the abolition of animal use as their objective, it is perplexing where Phelps gets his “facts”.
While conceding that PeTA’s “vigorous campaigns against all animal exploitation and in support of a vegan society in tandem with their campaigns for humane reforms” are “not entirely consistent”, he claims that the two-pronged approach is necessary and that it reduces suffering. It is impossible to comprehend how Phelps can not only accept, but actually promote the absurdity that one can simultaneously claim to want to end exploitation *and* join forces with animal exploiters whose sole objective is profit and economic growth.
Rather than reach the logical conclusion that if an action cannot be morally justified, we should not be endorsing improved ways of doing it, even on the way to abolition, Phelps carries on as though there is no other option, creating a convenient, but false principle. His strategies are deceitful because they do not disclose that abolition is the goal and his statement that abolition will not happen for many years risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy because abolition ends up not being sought while the focus remains on welfare “reforms”, perpetuating, of course, the status quo. He calls abolitionists “a vocal and sometimes intimidating clique” that is “trying to seize control of the animal rights movement”, as if welfare reforms are compatible with a “rights” movement. He compares abolitionists to “religious fundamentalists” who demand “ideological purity” (in “Trying to Walk”).
Despite his fierce rhetoric about the abuse that farmed animals endure, Phelps lists a myriad of reasons why abolition without welfare reforms is impractical and will not work. He dismisses speciesism and abolitionism as “elegant” theories that will “fall on deaf ears” and will succeed only in creating a “vegan club” whose members will “feel smug and morally superior to the rest of us”. He argues that cultural norms, beliefs, rituals around food, and our need to “feel superior” have to be overcome before “converting people to animal rights”, not through logic, but through “indirect” and “logically inconsistent” tactics. His suggested strategies include campaigning for “what it is realistic to think you might be able to get. And when you get it, you use that as a platform to get more”. I find this approach dishonest, patronizing, and incompatible with the unambiguous approach of abolitionists, who are clear that the exploitation of nonhumans for our pleasures or benefit is not acceptable, no matter how much more room we allow them to have while they are being exploited.
According to Phelps, welfare campaigns will “bring us closer to a compassionate society in which animals’ basic interests are genuinely respected”. We know that to be untrue. Tragically, welfare “reforms” have resulted in a comforted public believing that something is being done, which, in turn results in higher demand for “humane” products, more profit for exploiters, and more misery for nonhumans.
Norm Phelps’ vigorous, but poorly-reasoned arguments and his rant against abolitionists, who reject welfare “reforms”, represent another example of blatant intellectual dishonesty and intellectual hypocrisy within the welfare-reform movement, nothing more.
To mct:
You have succeeded admirably in showing that the incrementalism argument of supposedly moderate welfarists is in fact far more ludicrous, preposterous and unrealistic than the supposedly too-radical message of the abolitionists.
You also prove how accepting the least bit of immorality as a means of advancing a cause confuses the mind. What to welfarists *sounds* rational and logical is in fact riddled with discrepancies and distortions, because it is constructed on a morally inconsistent foundation.
No matter how severe and long-lasting the “storm,” we’re always safe when we build on the rock of truth instead of on shifting sand, which is ultimately washed away.
Norm Phelps himself(!) accurately explained why both abolitionists who put their (false) hopes in vegan education & welfarists are wrong.
“Animal exploitation and murder are no more the result of a particular belief system, political system, or economic system than are human exploitation and murder. To think that they are is to mistake the symptom for the disease. The disease is selfishness, greed, arrogance, and a lack of compassion. As Lord Acton told us, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Human history demonstrates that whenever a system (economic, political, religious, whatever) is installed that is designed to end, or at least ameliorate, human oppression, it is fairly quickly corrupted into a new mechanism for the same old oppression. Communism, is one example, institutional Christianity another. Political and economic democracy slow the process by distributing power widely enough to prevent its concentration while placing a significant share of it in the hands of those most vulnerable to oppression. As Winston Churchill reminded us, “Democracy is the worst system of governance ever devised except for all of the other systems that have been tried from time to time.” Radical social revolutions simply put a new class of oppressors in charge. I wish it were not so, but it is. ”
…
” To put it bluntly, we enslave and murder animals because it is in our self-interest to do so and we have the power to get away with it, not because of capitalism, liberal democracy, the Judeo-Christian dominionist tradition, or any of the other reasons so commonly given. These are merely after-the-fact justifications. We enslave and murder animals because we can and we enjoy the results. Change the political or economic system, and that fundamental fact will still be operative, and the enslavement and murder of animals will continue unaffected except that it will now be justified by a different set of theories, one that is compatible with the new system. ”
In other words: extreme situations demand extreme measures.
All Means Justifiable:
I agree that vegan education is NOT the be-all and end-all answer, and that the underlying human fallibilities of “selfishness, greed, arrogance, and a lack of compassion” are what need rooting out — and that the political, economic and religious systems that sanction the exploitation and murder of animals “are merely after-the-fact justifications.”
I’m reminded of Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous letter to fellow clergymen, written from the Birmingham Jail on April 16, 1963. Here’s the paragraph I was thinking of as I read your post:
[T]hough I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime—the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
I’m not sure what your definition of “extreme measures” is, though.
There is a reason why Norm Phelps “believes” in welfare reforms even though they are inconsistent with his true beliefs on humanity (as mentioned in the previous message). Many activists live with similar dissonance.
The rational solution to humanity’s “selfishness, greed, arrogance, and a lack of compassion” would be too “extreme” to take.
Rod Coronado said it very well:
“Let’s be honest. The animal rights movement as we now know it will never become a revolutionary struggle because the representatives of the oppressed enjoy enough privilege from the system they oppose to prevent them from supporting, let alone engaging in actual revolutionary activity that would risk those comforts.”
By “extreme measures” I don’t mean direct action ALF-style (these operations are small scale). I refer to other solutions in which the human race has no immunity.
sad writes, “…maybe they actually agree that incremental is the only feasible route…”
Sadly (pun intended), you’ve missed the point all together. Animal advocacy / sanctuary orgs joining in a coalition that has as its mission to advance the exploitation and demise of animals through ‘humane’ farming standards is definitely not an incremental step forward, but a giant leap backwards for generations of animals. How you can possibly think otherwise is really a mystery to me, especially since you claim you are on the H2H listserve where this type of thing is discussed with more regularity than probably any other topic.
Also, in Silencing The Lambs, James criticized sensitively but firmly what can objectively be argued as a very serious mistake by some animal orgs for the very reasons stated in the video and by activists who have likewise criticized or condemned (as I definitely have) the endorsement and support of the exploitation and demise of animals as has been done. On the other hand, I’ve read some fairly hostile-toned comments from defenders of these orgs and while I understand that both sides may have made comments with heightened emotions (we are all impassioned, caring people afterall), the one thing that sticks out as greatly disappointing is that the majority of the comments (which on several occasions include linked articles written by Norm Phelps) that I’ve read and made by the defenders of the likes of Farm Sanctuary et al, ostensibly insinuate that those who are being critical of these decision-makers in this instance and in similar ones are doing this simply to be divisive or simply because we are intolerant and want everyone to just do it our way. Such a position as expressed is not only completely inane and ludicrous, but offensive and shows willful ignorance on behalf of those who posit such absurd claims.
Thanks for hearing me out.
p.s. I do agree with what you’ve said here, “ANYTIME we in AR pass on inaccurate information we shoot ourselves in the foot, and give reason for others to discredit what we say. When an AR says that every cow is tortured from the moment it is born (I’ve seen this posted), and then people drive by fields of cows with their calves peacefully grazing in the sunshine, they think AR is full of shit.”
Thank you for expressing that…it is important in my view
mct and Olivia, thank you for your insightful comments.
Phelps, in his essays, has made numerous erroneous, wildly exaggerated, and outrageously arrogant arguments or statements some of which mct has pointed out. But I won’t dissect Phelps’ statements here as that would really require a thread of its own.
Instead, I would like to stay on topic and say that as of yet, I still have not seen posted a salient explanation which successfully argues how it is helpful to the well being of and respect toward animals that animal advocacy orgs have signed onto such a coalition as Ohioans For Humane Farms? Please, if there is anyone out there who can do this, I’d be very interested in reading your explanation.
Thank you.
Alexandra, I’ve previously read the O(f)HF Agreement in full and I agree with you completely. Thank you for being a courageous voice of reason in this debate.
Arguments like these are why I feel so disconnected from the animal rights movement. If we all want abolition of animal use then why do we spend so much time arguing with each other and bashing organizations who actually work to accomplish abolition?
As far as I’m concerned groups like ASPCA and HSUS do nothing towards ending animal agriculture. Instead they campaign for loved animals like cats and dogs. I remember looking at the HSUS website about six months ago and checking their list of “things you can do for animals.” “Go vegan” was no where on the list. “Go vegetarian” wasn’t even on the list.
I think an important part of welfare campaigns is not letting people forget that it’s not okay to consume animal products. A lot of welfare campaigns give people the impression that it is okay to consume animal products. If people feel a more humane animal product is okay then this really is a huge step backwards for abolition.
I don’t think it’s fair for anyone in the animal rights movement to claim to know what will finally get people to stop using animals. We can build fantastic logical arguments like the ones listed in the comments already but until we test our theories out on the general public we really have no idea what will work. By the time we know our ideas aren’t working it might be too late.
We all need to stop pretending we know the perfect solution to this awful problem. If we knew the solution we would have made a lot more progress by now.
I support this open letter as well as a moderate amount amount of criticism against animal organizations that do not actually promote veganism. I do not think we should spend all of our time bashing HSUS or PETA but we do need to let people know that animal rights is not about eating the same animals we are pretending to help (or in PETA’s case about thin, white women taking off their clothes).