Guest

Yeah, yoga's great for bodybuilding. Check out this advanced yogi, Harold Zinkin (Mr. California 1957 and founder of the company that makes the Universal Gym), doing a backbend at Muscle Beach.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2006/09/09/2003251540.jpg

Hi Kate!

Yep, this is one of those comments I find so annoying. I mean think about it, what's this person really getting at? Don't women and men have the same basic needs for protein? Can't women be big and strong? I bet people who say this sort have some backward thinking when it comes to women.

I think these comments are cross of male chauvinism and a disregard for other animals. You get the same "be a real man" crap when you refuse to exploit or be cruel to women. Like, it might be just as easy to think of someone telling your spouse to be a "real man" and break an important commitment with you to go hangout and have a few drinks. After all, he wouldn't want to be thought of as "whipped," right? For crying out load, if you're male and oppose most forms of violence, like dropping bombs on women and children in far off countries, you're also accused of not being a "real man."

Hopefully, if someone was telling your spouse to "be a real man" and disrespect you he would at the very least ignore them or tell them to buzz off. It wouldn't do either of you any good for him to try to conform to the male-stereotype, and the same goes for eating animal-products. But ignoring them, or telling them to buzz off, might not be the best option.

I think what I would do is attempt to be more assertive. If I ignore them then they may likely just keep trying. And if I tell them to buzz off they might just keep trying. But if I stand up for my rights and the rights of those they're insisting I ignore then they'll at least have an understanding of where I'm coming from and that I'm not likely to be easily manipulated by attacks on my "manhood." But then again, I'm not interested in acting like a "man."

<3 Guest

SiNa94, I just want to let you know that, while I disagree with you on many points, I consider each of your posts to be a gift. I appreciate the chance you are giving me to exercise my brain by challenging my thinking as I continue to strive to end the institutional exploitation and killing of other animals. The more I disagree with your posts, the more I am challenged, and the more I am thankful for your gift. I feel you are helping me become a better vegan advocate by giving me these opportunities, and I'm pleased to accept each of your gifts and look forward to the next.

<3 Guest

I haven't read, or at least read thoroughly, the other pieces you've quoted here, but this particular quote sounded familiar, and completely taken out of it's original context.

Actually, it is the original context. Singer, as you point out, straight up says, "I do not, on balance, object to free-range egg production." Regardless of whatever "on balance" refers to, Singer is still talking about the exploitation of hens. Singer even admits that all male chicks are slaughtered and is still "on balance" is not opposed to "free-range" eggs.

Of course, it isn't Singer's life being balanced away as "relatively minor" so that some animal exploiter can profit from pandering to the taste buds of people who like the "luxury" of Egg Foo Yong (see early versions of Animal Liberation for Singer's recipe, which instructs the reader to "beat up some eggs -- free-range, of course"). I don't agree that "on balance" the vital interest in a hen and her male chicks living and not being exploited is "relatively minor," as Singer put it, when compared to the nonvital interest of a human making a profit so another human can have an insignificant taste sensation. I think Singer isn't even attempting an "equal consideration of interest." How does a taste sensation win out over life?

This last line is the necessary disclaimer that you conveniently forgot in order to make your point.

That line makes my point directly. That Singer does "not ... object to free-range egg production" -- a form of exploitation that Singer calls "factory farming" in The Way We Eat.

This particular books focuses solely on the suffering of animals. Because none of the evidence he'd provided in the book had set up the possibility to argue against the consumption of eggs, he could not argue that the consumption of eggs in which it does not appear any animals are suffering is morally wrong.

Exploitation is using others for one's own benefit. Using hens to produce eggs and then killing them "when they cease to lay productively" is a clear cut case of exploitation. In short, Singer is not "committed to the view that we can no longer treat animals as our resources." Using hens to produce eggs, regardless of the method, is still treating these animals as resources.

I can guess at the context for the other quotes, because I'm sure what you're quoting is a little biased against Singer.

All the quotes are Singer's own words. Are you saying Singer is biased against himself?

As for killing? There is nothing else which one can steal form another that is of greater worth. Life is a prerequisite to anything else. Killing really is just about the ultimate in exploitation, isn't it? When a person take another's life for their own benefit they have basically exploited the one they killed to the utmost -- totally used the other up to the point there is nothing left to take.

Veganism pre-dates Peter Singer's philosophy by more than 30-years. Veganism is a movement founded in 1944 as a way of life that rejects exploitation of animals, including killing. The term "vegan" was created by Donald Watson who became vegan after visiting an uncle's family farm where all the animals were living in what Singer would call "natural conditions." Watson came to the conclusion that "the idyllic scene was nothing more than death row, where every creature's days were numbered by the point at which they were no longer of service to human beings." Thus, Watson joined with others to build a vegan movement that is opposed to such idyllic scenes. Keep in mind, this wasn't even the industrial "free-range" operations that Singer is in support of. What Watson is talking about is a pre-World War II, pre-industrial agriculture, pastoral farm. Singer sees the much less idyllic scene of the "free-range" industry where animals, like the hen and her chicks, are being killed when they are not of use to their exploiters and comes to the exact opposite conclusion as Watson.

In the "disclaimer" you highlight, Singer clearly talks about not being opposing to what Watson rightly calls "death row." So long as Singer thinks "on balance" the enslaved and executed didn't suffer more than the benefit derived from that enslavement and subsequent slaughter he is willing to support it. However, exploitation and killing are still exploitation and killing. Regardless of whether Peter Singer thinks that exploitation was "pleasant" enough to justify killing, exploitation and killing are not vegan. It never was, and never will be.

Singer does not agree with animal exploitation, and I don't know where you came up with that.

Actually, Singer is quite clear on being supportive of a world in which animal exploitation continues, whether it's humans using nonhumans for their own benefit, or humans using other humans. That is, Singer's "end goal" is compatible with animal exploitation. In fact, when Singer was asked the question: "What is the end goal for which you are advocating?" by The Minnesota Daily in March 2006:

I'm prepared to leave that as a somewhat open question - whether it requires a completely vegan lifestyle or whether it simply requires us to ensure animals live good lives and have their interests reasonably provided for, and whether we nevertheless make use of some animal products in that process.

And when responding in the journal Behavioral and Brain Science in 1990:

I certainly would never deny that we are justified in using animals for human goals, because as a consequentialist, I must also hold that in appropriate circumstances we are justified in using humans to achieve human goals (or the goal of assisting animals). I am not the kind of moral absolutist who holds that the ends can never justify the means. Nor have I said that no animal experimentation is ever of use to humans (though I do think much of it is of minimal or zero value) or that all animal experimentation involves suffering. (If I seem testy here, it is because such oversimplifications are bad enough when they come from the popular press; when they come from people who teach at distinguished universities, they may well cause even highly sophisticated folks to wonder about the worth-whileness of a college education).

So Singer is not opposed to the exploitation when it comes to using nonhumans for human benefits. This is a constant part Singer's philosophy going back to Animal Liberation. An example:

Assuming you can get free-range eggs, the ethical objections to eating them are relatively minor. Hens provided with shelter and an outdoor run to walk and scratch around in live comfortably. They do not appear to mind the removal of their eggs. They will be killed when they cease to lay productively, but they will have a pleasant existence until that time.

And in an interview from the Autumn 2006 issue of The Vegan, the magazine of The Vegan Society:

to avoid inflicting suffering on animals—not to mention the environmental costs of intensive animal production—we need to cut down drastically on the animal products we consume. But does that mean a vegan world? That’s one solution, but not necessarily the only one. If it is the infliction of suffering that we are concerned about, rather than killing, then I can also imagine a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm.

So Singer is perfectly fine with exploitation, at least as long as the suffering brought on is not far beyond that experienced by a so-called "free-range" hen. Mind you, in Singer's book The Way We Eat, co-authored with Jim Mason, Singer describes the living conditions of "free-range" hens as "factory farming." And at the end of that book, Singer still goes on to recommended that consumers "buy the more expensive but better-tasting eggs from hens free to move around inside sheds." (These aren't even so-called "free-range" eggs, but the even more intensively produced so-called "cage-free" eggs.) Singer describes a vegan lifestyle as the less attractive "other choice," as opposed to the "better-tasting" one.

Also, The Vegan is a publication that goes to the members of The Vegan Society, which means that the readers are basically all vegans. And in an interview for this publication Singer calls "free-range" eggs -- again, eggs that come from the same type of exploitive setup Singer called a "factory farm" in The Way We Eat -- a "luxury," and even went on to endorse the consumption of flesh. So, the subtext of all this is that while Singer won't advocate veganism to people, Singer will advocate the consumption of animal products to vegans.

I disagree with Singer's philosophy largely because the philosophy is not oppose to exploitation. Were Singer really opposed to animal exploitation I would most likely think differently. Saying "Singer does not agree with animal exploitation" is just the sort of "oversimplification" that is likely to make the philosopher "testy."

I agree that Scully does not openly advocate veganism or AR. I have not read enough of his work to know whether he is opposed to either, however. Is this what you are saying? As to Singer, I didn't know why anyone would "go vegan" until I read Animal Liberation, which was the start of my vegan journey. The book seemed to me to advocate the personal decision to go vegan and to work to improve conditions for animals who are being exploited until such a time as they shall all be free. This seems commensurate with PeTA's philosophy as well. I disagree that this means they support the status quo or that they believe exploitation is OK. I think what it DOES mean is they have a different idea than you do of HOW to bring that about. I agree with their philosophy but would like to learn more about yours. When I have time I will certainly read your article you posted. Meanwhile, I will also be trying to learn all I can from others' responses on this thread.

In the chapter titled "A Response," in Singer and His Critics (ed. Dale Jamieson), Singer writes that he has "moved to a near-vegan diet, but I am not strict about it, and do not advocate veganism to others, or at least not to those who are not already in the animal movement, because at the present stage of development of our society's concern for animals, this seems to be asking more than most people are prepared to give. In other words, to advocate veganism may be counterproductive."

The "present stage of development of our society" is almost identical to the definition of status quo: the existing state of affairs, esp. regarding social or political issues. Of course veganism is "asking more than most people are prepared to give." That's the whole point of working for social change. Antiracist activist Tim Wise points out: "In 1963, about three-quarters of white Americans, according to Gallup polls, believed that the civil rights movement was moving 'too fast' and asking for 'too much.'" And Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "White America is not even psychologically organized to close the gap—essentially, it seeks only to make it less painful and less obvious."

As Frederick Douglass, a former slave and abolitionist, wrote in a letter in 1849:

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.

So even though in 1963 civil rights were, as Singer puts it for animals, "asking more than most people are prepared to give," the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, and it was only passed because people did what Singer is not willing to do: advocate! As Douglass wrote: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will."

Rights aren't necessary for Animal Liberation.

Perhaps not. But I think it is a false "liberation" that leaves the so-called "liberated" exploited and oppressed. As you likely know, Singer is not opposed to exploitation of nonhuman animals. If Singer doesn't believe that nonhumans deserve freedom than Singer's use of the term "liberation" too hollow and insincere. I like how Gary Francione addresses this in Introduction to Animal Rights:

it is my view that the requirement that we abolish animal exploitation must be part of any theory that purports to accord moral significance to animals. If we really believe that animals are not merely things and that they have morally significant interests, then whether we otherwise endorse rights theory or not, we are committed to the view that we can no longer treat animals as our resources.

So even if I don't agree with Francione's rights philosophy at least we agree on abolishing animal exploitation, which is more than I can say for Singer.

I know thats not what its about but he's been given so many strikes. This is just another straw...another last straw. Churchill isn't native American...he never was. It reminds me of The Jerk...when Steve Martin grew up black. Churchill applied for a position that was only available for Native Americans. I don't feel its in good judgment to apply for a position like that unless you are at least mostly Native American...he also played up his Native American status. A far cry from honesty for an ethics professor. Anyway they were trying to bring diversity to the department and he applied for a position he wasn't going to fill properly. Its rumored that he also lied about having a PhD when he applied for the position...however the documents aren't available any longer(disappearing evidence somehow). He was given an honorary doctorate 2 years after he received the position...which is very sketchy. Its very rare to get tenure with only an MA after such a short time.

Anyhow I couldn't ethically apply for a position asking specifically for an Asian teacher. I'm half asian but didn't really grow up in a truly Asian household and I'd consider myself a lier if I did that...I think many others would as well...especially if I were teaching ethics. It kind of reminds me of the senator(Gates I think but maybe I'm wrong) that was on a committee for sexual abuse of children and was caught sending sexual messages to underage volunteers in the RNC.

I'm not saying that I don't have a problem with Ward Churchill pretending to be an Indian. I actually do think there are a number of problems with that. I also think Churchill has taken advantage of a racist system that privileges his whiteness. So this is a case of Churchill being in a position to critique racism and the genocide of Native Americans and actually contributing to it. That is, Ward Churchill took a spot that should have gone to a Native American, but didn't. This means Churchill played a role in the displacement of Native Americans, which is related to the pattern of genocide experienced by Native Americans. In this way I think we might actually be in agrement. I just think that is an issue that needs to be addressed in it's own context. But I think you sort of said that when you wrote, "I know thats not what its about."

Explain to me how acting totalitarian, militant, and morally-superior are GOOD for the movement. Religious zealots are what have turned me, as well as many other people I know, off from religion. Maybe if you're Hitler you can unite an entire country in veganism by telling them it's the only way to kill the Jews, but if you're not, I don't see how getting in people's faces, cursing them because they eat meat, vandalizing their property, etc. is going to make them have a lot of respect for the vegan movement. Instead, it's going to give them plenty of good reasons to be wary of it. It's just like your stereotypical "never shuts up in class" kid... even if they have something good to say, everyone is so sick of their voice and the fact that they never get a chance to have their opinion heard that they don't care.

Please, don't put words in my mouth. I do not appreciate false and mileading statements like the insulting, and imaginary, picture you using to charaterize me. I said nothing about being "totalitarian" or "militant." That was your misrepresentation of vegan advocay, which you again repeat here without an agrument -- it's just your negative opinion. I do believe these statements are cynical and disparaging about veganism, to say the least.

I also think it is hateful and appalling to associate vegan advocacy with Hitler the way you are doing. Where in the world did you dream up that grotesque association of linking a vegan movement with killing Jews? I don't believe that anyone who understood the philsophy of veganism would write such a thing -- it's completely counter to what veganism stands for.

I'd like to point out that no one, other than yourself, has said anything about "getting in people's faces, cursing them because they eat meat, vandalizing their property, etc." Is this really what you think of vegan advocacy? Because it doesn't show any respect for the vegan advocates. Why do you think that if a person doesn't support the violence of stalking and killing free-living animals or the violence of so-called "humane" rape, enslavement and mass killing then that person must use violence to promote such nonviolence? That is a totally illogical and contradictory conclusion.

I, personally, think it is strange that you say such warm, positive things about people who get pleasure out of doing violence to free-living nonhumans, but have such a defeatist and hostile view of vegan advocacy and the people who encourage nonviolence towards all animals -- human and nonhuman.

I haven't had time to read your article, and perhaps your own philosophy will make more sense in that context. I'll get to it when I can. But, judging by some of what you've said here, it seems as if you could be the type of person that goes off on people about their food choices at a moments notice. If you think that attitude is going to win people over, you are sadly mistaken. I could be wrong about you though, but your argument seems to hint at that.

Yes, it's called prejudice when you judge someone too quickly. My arguement doesn't hint at anything close to what you describe, yet you have made a personal attack against me as a person -- this is prejudice. Ironically, this means you're the one going off on me. I simply arguing my view about whether it is a good idea to support hunting to ban factory farming. I agree with Hero and say no to both stalking-killing free-living animals and the superexploitation of enslaved nonhumans for food. Veganism is opposed to hunting, period. I don't see how it is fair to make assumptions about me simply because I disagree with you. Nor do I think it is appropriate to malign vegan advocacy in the way you have by implying that the promotion of veganism -- that is, opposed to all violence and exploitation of animals -- is "totalitarian" or necessitates "getting in people's faces."

Yes. I do believe the point is being missed completely here (with the exception of Clever Name, perhaps). "Support" might be a bit of an exaggeration of what I'm trying to get at here... but it IS a question, not a demand. How much can we work with hunters, and on what, before it's no longer true to our cause?

Please read my article on this forum: "The Environment." As an animal advocate, a vegan and an environmentalist I cannot work with "hunters," people who stalk and kill nonhumans. And I argue that it is counter to animal advocacy, veganism and environmental protection to work with these stalker-killers.

The point here is not to support hunting if anyone has been misled to believe that's the point I'm trying to make (sorry if that wasn't clear). The point is to show mutual support for those things that we DO agree on (as limited as they very well may be). I believe, maybe incorrectly, that there is a fair amount of (apparently I can't write d-i-s-g-u-s-t without it turning into a smiley) with factory farms on either side of the argument (or would be, given what I take to be the hunters philosophy based on my experience with them, if only they were educated about factory farms). But, if "animal rights activists" are busy attacking hunting (which is responsible for far fewer deaths each year than factory farming) and then hunters are busy defending themselves from animal rights activists, or are off doing something else altogether, then this collective force is ignoring factory farms altogether (or at least not working against it effectively).

Being silent against stalking-killing is a form of passive support. Again, it is like saying, "The hunters came for the free-living animals, but I only care about factory farming so I won't speak out." That quote you used was about speaking out, yet you are arguing against speaking out.

The idea that I'm trying to put forth here is that we may be responsible for MORE animal suffering by working against, instead of with hunters. Especially when you consider in order for both groups to be working against factory farming, that means hunters themselves would have to start educating themselves and other people about the horrors of factory farming. I think it will be very powerful to hear the words "Stop eating factory farmed meat" coming from someone that regularly kills animals themself... just likes it's powerful to hear Howard Lyman talk about being a 4 generation cattle rancher and then just giving it up for veganism.

As I point out in my article, environmental organizations do not take a strong stand against the superexploitation of nonhuman animals because that would alienate the stalking-killing "allies." So why would stalker-killers take a stand against such superexploitation as factory farming?

The fact is that they wouldn't, because the philosophy of institutional "hunting" is actually based on the same consecpt of superexploitation that factory farming is based on. Aldo Leopold literally wrote the book on modern "hunting" -- "Game Management." In this book, Leopold refers to free-living animals as "crops" to be maximized through human control for "harvest." (That's exactly how factory farmers refer to nonhumans.) This is an out growth of Gifford Pinchot utilitarian philosophy and is writen into the all state and federal laws that govern stalking-killing. Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt invented the "hunter's ethic" to promote the recreational, sport-like trophy killing of living beings. (Pinchot's and Roosevelt's club for stalker-killers, the Boone and Crocket Club, gave points for the size of the nonhumans that the members killed. "Fair chase" was about formalizing rules for this competitive stalking and killing.) This is hardly a pro-"humane" philosophy. If stalker-killers really believed in not causing suffering they wouldn't stalk and kill nonhumans in the first place.

It isn't about supporting one evil over the other. It's about, and I don't really want to sound militant, but it's about dividing and conquering. With more eyes opened to the cruelty of factory farms I'm sure many would come to the belief (as I did), or would already believe, that hunting is wrong. With factory farms out of the way (theoretically speaking) we could then focus all of our attention on putting restrictions or bans on hunting. This is all very idealistic of course, but I think the current approach of the animal rights movement is pretty idealistic as well. We're spread too thin, and we're working on too many different issues to be truly effective (in my opinion).

The folks who are going to be "divided and conquered" are the animal advocates. It is a split between anti-"hunting" and anti-factory farming that is being proposed. A universal approach to animal rights -- that actually opposes the oppression of nonhumans as a whole -- has not been attempted, yet. The current approach is the piecemeal approach you recommend. I think that an alternative approach that is consistent and systematic is what is needed. Not the division of nonhuman oppression that is being suggested.

This was all sparked by an essay about how there's common ground between "animal rights activists" (the author used Peter Singer and Tom Reagan as examples) and animal experimenters. He said that both should understand that they have some common ground and then start there. I thought the idea of two seemingly opposing groups working together was very powerful, even though I did have some major objections to the author's conclusions.

Well, Peter Singer has never claimed to be opposed to vivisection as a whole. We are all humans, and therefore we all benefit from nonhuman oppression. So yes, we do have something in common with vivisectors. But I think the point is to challenge that oppression, not embrace it. It's inconsistent to say one suffering is more important than the other. As Suzanne Parr points out: "There in no hierarchy of oppressions. Each is terrible and destructive. To eliminate one oppression successfully, a movement has to include work to eliminate them all or else success will always be limited and incomplete."

It was also sparked by a conversation that I had with my Animal Ethics professor about how while she was in school they fought with Aramark to get rid of factory farmed eggs. Aramark actually set up a debate, thinking it would be a piece of cake to just tear these kids apart in this public setting. But the group my prof worked with brought in a representative of the HSUS to argue for them. And they also brought in a local producer of cage free eggs because Aramark had claimed that there was nobody that could provide as many cage free eggs as they would need. I find it amusing that a group of vegans was working with the "enemy" (the cage free egg producer) in order to combat a common enemy--factory farmed eggs.

So-called "cage-free" eggs are factory farm eggs. These are eggs from concentrated shed opperations. Even Peter Singer admitted, in The Way We Eat, these shed eggs are factory farmed, but still supported it. So the campus is still serving factory farm eggs. In the end, chickens are still being superexploited. In addition, this superexploitation has the blessing of so-called "animal advocates." However, HSUS is not a vegan or vegetarian organization. The president of HSUS explicitly stated as much in a letter published in a major Montana newspaper -- countering another letter that claimed the organization was opposed to "meat." Yes, the organization claims to oppose some forms of factory farming. But they also consent to and promote other forms of factory farming, like concentrated-shed egg production.

For me, it was like an avalanche. Once I admitted that factory farmed meat was unacceptable I had to ask why the eggs and dairy were. I didn't have a good enough defense, so I had to give those up as well. And everything else followed.

Yet Peter Singer and HSUS have come up with defenses for flesh, eggs and dairy that is not the "worst" form. Even what is being suggested in this thread makes an implicit defense of stalking-killing and flesh, eggs and dariy that is perceived as "factory farmed." I think this is counterproductive.

I think an all or nothing approach is ineffective. Expecting veganism, rather than accepting whatever stage an individual is at, will only create negative connotations for the movement: militant, self-righteous, totalitarian. This is just my own opinion, but I think the best move is to work on eliminating the worst of the evils first (factory farming that is) through education and legislation... and then once (or if, for the pessimists) we accomplish that, just never stop asking "If that was wrong, why isn't everything else you're doing that involves animals?"

I think this as an extremely cynical and disparaging statement about veganism. This makes me sad, considering we are on a vegan forum. I guess this is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we have an internalized "negative connotations for the movement," as is being promoted with the pessimistic and dismissive cliché "all or nothing," then of course "we will only create negative connotations for the movement." We won't get what we don't ask for. I think what has been proposed in this thread is what creates the negative connotations.

But... I'm a big picture, utilitarian type with a touch of idealism. All of this is more philosophy than anything.

I think John Muir had the big picture when warning against the utilitarian point of view, "None of our fellow mortals is safe who eats what we eat, who in any way interferes with our pleasures, or who may be used for work or food, clothing or ornament, or mere cruel, sportish amusement." If we don't challenge it all, then those fellow mortal will remain in danger.

As much as AR groups want to see animal rights in our lifetime, we often have to start with animal WELFARE until such a point as we can argue for RIGHTS. Consider PETA's progress in getting McDonald's, Safeway, etc. to treat their animals better than they did before the campaigns. By insisting on better treatment of animals, rather than demanding that these establishments stop serving animal products, they've gotten a foot in the door, so to speak.

I have to disagree with this on a fundamental level. I believe we can, and must, argue for rights now!

Carpe diem!

I don't see any logical progression of "welfare" to rights. I think the McDonald's and other PeTA campaigns have been complete failures in terms of animal rights, and victories for the exploitation of nonhuman animals. From my perspective, these campaigns have not resulted in meaningful improvements for nonhuman animals. They have not helped dismantle the systemic exploitation of nonhumans. Rather, they have generated good-will for the corporations that profit from the systemic exploitation of nonhumans. I believe what PeTA did, and is doing, was get in bed with the corporations profiting from the exploitation of nonhumans. The people who consult for PeTA on these campaigns are folks like Dr. Janice Swanson and Dr. Temple Grandin. These are the architects of the new systems nonhuman exploitation, which consists of raping ("breeding"), enslaving ("rearing") and slaughtering ("processing") nonhuman living beings.

Again, the quote about the Nazis is being misused -- and this shows the disconnect between what is being suggested and the reality for nonhuman animals. The quote doesn't mean we should get our foot in the door of the Nazi death machine by helping make the slaughter of the Communists, the Socialists, the Trade Unionists, and the Jews more "humane." So it is also counter to the so-called "welfare" campaigns that promote the "best practices" of the corporate death machine.

I hear SiNa94 influence by Peter Singer. PeTA is also influenced by Singer. However, Singer doesn't support animals right. So there again is a logical failure in the "welfare" to rights line of thinking. Nor does Singer support veganism, and is not opposed to nonhuman destruction and exploitation. Nor is Matthew Scully a supporter of either veganism or animal rights. Both Singer and Scully, like PeTA, appeal to the status quo that believes it's okay to exploit nonhumans as long as the so-called "worst abuses" are eliminated. These are all conservative perspectives. Given this, of course I disagree with the premise that SiNa94 has put forward.

I don't plan to wait until after I'm dead to promote animals' rights. And I think that a vegan community like this should be a place to affirm animal rights and oppose all animal exploitation. If I want to read pro-hunting, anti-nonhuman stuff I can open any newspaper. In my opinion, social change doesn't come from pandering to existing prejudices and power structure, but rather from challenging the existing prejudices and power structure.

The threads "vegetarians are evil" and "10 reasons why the vegan diet will kill you" are critical of those titles, unlike this thread were "Support hunting to ban factory farms?" is being argued in a way that is counter to the interests of free-living animals. I'm challenging what is being proposed by SiNa94 because I find it abhorrent. It's not that I "misunderstand" what is being suggested, but that I understand it and I'm against it.

[The following is an article I wrote titled "The Environment" that was published in the fall of 2006.]

Animal agriculture degrades the environment in many ways – from deforestation and grassland destruction to water pollution; from intensive energy consumption and global warming to the global expansion of farmland; from the global spread of diseases to biodiversity loss and threats of extinction.[1] This is a well-established reality, and it has been for some time.

On energy consumption and global warming, Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, found that removing animal products from one’s diet would reduce greenhouse emissions, eliminating 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide that each person generates in a year, as well as reducing methane (which has 21 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide) and nitrous oxide. By comparison, switching to a hybrid car would only eliminate 1 ton of carbon dioxide per year.[2] Nevertheless, mainstream environmental organizations have yet to confront animal agribusiness -- and their members’ support for this sector -- in a serious way.

If Eshel’s and Martin’s findings come as a surprise, it is precisely because environmental groups have hesitated to inform the public. Vegans and other animal advocates have long been aware of the ecological impact of animal consumption. And as early as 1944 the founders of the Vegan Society emphasized the importance of a conservation ethic in their charter, which defines veganism as taking into account humanity's “responsibilities to the earth and its resources and seeks to bring about a healthy soil … and a proper use of the materials of the earth.”[3]

Animal rights and environmental advocacy have much to gain from each other in the effort to protect and restore land and water and intervene in pollution and global climate change. The fusion of animal rights and environmental advocacy would bring speed and synergy to these related causes.

A major obstacle to the unification of the two communities, especially in terms of land preservation, wilderness advocacy and endangered species protection, is the view of conservation formed by hunters at the end of the 19th century, when several species of hunted animals teetered on the verge of extinction. At that time, as today, the conservation movement was fragmented between those wanting to protect nature for nature’s sake, and those wanting to manage nature for human use – the latter comprising the majority.

One of the earliest and most adamant advocates of the former view was John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club. Muir’s vision of conservation as the preservation of untamed wilderness contrasted with that of Gifford Pinchot, a forester and politician who advocated for conservation as the utilitarian management of natural recourses. In 1904, Muir noted, in a letter on the preservation of free-living animals, “The murder business and sport by saint and sinner alike has been pushed ruthlessly, merrily on, until at last protective measures are being called for, partly, I suppose, because the pleasure of killing is in danger of being lost from there being little or nothing left to kill, and partly, let us hope, from a dim glimmering recognition of the rights of animals and their kinship to ourselves.”[4]

While Muir was no friend of hunting, the Sierra Club took a neutral position on hunting that lasted a hundred years. In 1994, the club’s board of directors adopted a pro-hunting policy. In 1996, the club launched the Hunter and Angler Outreach Campaign and its magazine, Sierra, published the article, “Natural Allies,” by hunter Ted Williams, which argued, “If only hunters, anglers, and environmentalists would stop taking potshots at each other, they’d be an invincible force for wildlands protection.”[5] The article became the foundation for Sierra Club’s outreach campaign, later renamed Natural Allies, which, during the buildup to the 2004 presidential election, saw the appointment of a designated director.[6]

Historian Michael Smith notes that “John Muir established his reputation as a nature writer shortly after the Civil War, observing the alarming depletion of the nation’s resources long before the conservation movement became institutionalized during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency.”[7] The Sierra Club now downplays its own founder’s achievements and influence on environmentalism in favor of Theodore Roosevelt and the Boone and Crocket Club, a trophy hunting organization Roosevelt founded with Gifford Pinchot that formulated the concept of fair chase. Roosevelt and Pinchot expropriated the word “conservation” to describe an anthropocentric view of nature’s purpose.[8] Yet the Sierra Club’s electronic “Conservation Timeline” actually begins with the founding of the Boone and Crocket Club in 1887.[9]

And today, hunters are called the original environmentalists by parties as divergent as the Sierra Club’s executive director Carl Pope[10] and hunting militant Ted Nugent[11]. Early hunter-conservationists were not claiming to advance environmentalism so much as the efficient, professional management of natural resources in the interest of the national economy. This was made clear in Roosevelt’s first State of the Union address in 1901:

The fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of the forests by use. Forest protection is not an end in itself; it is a means to increase and sustain the resources of our country and the industries which depend upon them. The preservation of our forests is an imperative business necessity.[12]

Pinchot referred to this vision of conservation as “the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the long run,” and treated it as the foundation for the sustained-yield, multiple-use policies for federal resource management. Muir, in contrast, realized such utilitarian precepts would have disastrous results for other animals, noting, “None of our fellow mortals is safe who eats what we eat, who in any way interferes with our pleasures, or who may be used for work or food, clothing or ornament, or mere cruel, sportish amusement.”[13]

Hunting and fishing are multi-billion dollar industries intimately linked with state and federal agencies, not unlike logging and ranching interests. It’s not apparent that, as a group, those who participate in the recreational, consumptive removal of free-living land and aquatic animals are “natural allies” in the preservation of untamed lands. But for as long as mainstream environmental organizations seek to romanticize the 19th century hunter-conservationist, those organizations will fail to offer a decisive challenge to our planet’s most pressing environmental concerns.

Footnotes

1. “MEAT: Now, It's Not Personal! But like it or not, meat-eating is becoming a problem for everyone on the planet.” – World Watch Magazine (Jul./Aug. 2004).
   
2. “It’s Better to Green Your Diet than Your Car” – New Scientist (17 Dec. 2005).
   
3. Quoted in Freya Dinshah, The Vegan Kitchen (12th edition, May 1996).
   
4. Letter to Henry Fairfield Osborn (16 Jul. 1904). In William Frederic Badè, The Life and Letters of John Muir.
   
5. Ted Williams, “Natural Allies” – Sierra (Sep./Oct. 1996).
   
6. Ellen Gamerman, “Deer Hunting Caught in an Identity Crisis” – Deseret Morning News (10 Nov. 2005).
   
7. Michael B. Smith, “The Value of a Tree: Public Debates of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot” – The Historian (22 Jun. 1998).
   
8. Ibid.
   
9. “Hunting and Fishing: An American Conservation Heritage” – http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlife/hunting_fishing/timeline.asp (last visited 30 Jun. 2006).
   
10. Carl Pope, “Ways and Means: A Sporting Chance” – Sierra (May/Jun. 1996).
    
11. Danny Hakim, “Vegans, Keep Out: It’s Hunting Season” – The New York Times (27 Sept. 2005).
    
12. Quoted in Smith (1998); see note 7.
    
13. John Muir, The Story of My Boyhood and Youth.

One of my favorite quotes is one by Martin Niemoeller.

 

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

I think it's really messed up to use that quote to promote an alliance with hunters! Because, that's using the quote, which is about the need for equal intervention against all oppression, to say something totally counter to the original intent of the quote. For example, "The hunters came for the free-living animals, but I only care about factory farming so I won't speak out."

In the book Animal Rights/Human Rights, David Nibert quotes social activist and writer Suzanne Parr:

It is virtually impossible to view on oppression . . . in isolation because they are all connected . . . They are linked by a common origin--economic power and control--and by common methods of limiting, controlling and destroying lives. There in no hierarchy of oppressions. Each is terrible and destructive. To eliminate one oppression successfully, a movement has to include work to eliminate them all or else success will always be limited and incomplete.

This is what the quote you're using is about. But twisting it to argue for hunting to stop factory farming is saying the exact opposite. It's like making an alliance with the Nazis who are killing the Communists, the Socialists, the Trade Unionists, and the Jews simply to save yourself, rather than being an ally with those who are bring destroyed in order to fight all forms of oppression.

It's not just a catchy title. What if the title was "Kill the Communists, the Socialists, the Trade Unionists and ban Genocide"? It's obviously not an appealing slogan if you're a communist, socialist, or trade unionist! And if you're a non-human who is threatened by the limiting, controlling and destroying of your life by hunting then this not a great discussion. I'm really shocked at the insensitivity and lack of compassion on this thread. It is also totally counter to the reality.

Obviously the child was on a starvation diet, not a vegan diet. There is no report that the couple knew how to raise a baby, or any mention of why the child wasn't breast fed. I disagree that the couple "deserves" a life sentence. I have no doubt that were Jade Sanders and Lamont Thomas white they would have gotten a more forgiving sentence. But that's rather obvious if you look at the race disparities in convictions.

That's hilarious!

Ouch! Looks like you took a nasty spill. Glad you're okay.

Yeah, I've been getting the Ezekiel whole-wheat bread. The Trader Joe's in my city has it with all the other breads, but all the other stores in town keep it in the freezer cases. It's hard to find organic whole-wheat without bee puke, but as Potter noted I really should just make my own .

I've started doing yoga as well. I go to a free 90-minute class once a week and do yoga videos at home at least twice a week. I'm actually downloading some of the Yoga Today videos right now! Thanks, Lindsay!

Sound like you're living the good life, Robert.

Thanks, Robert! I'm really do enjoy VB&F a lot. It's such a great community! Being a part of the forum over the last few weeks has reinvigorated me. I also owe a big thanks to the other active members for their encouragement and support.

<3 Guest

This isn't really about Ward Churchill's ancestry. This all came about because of something Churchill wrote that was critical of the imperialist U.S. foreign policy. It's only after Churchill became a target of the conservative ideologues like Bill O'Reilly that this whole business of ancestry came up.

Anyway, how did Ward Churchill lie exactly? A lie is an intentionally false statement. What Churchill was told by his own mother was that their family ancestor, Joshua Tyner, was Cherokee. This is something that many of Churchill's relatives also strongly believe.

Is the ancestry of everyone who teaches Native American Studies, African-American Studies, Asian-American Studies, Latino/a Studies to be taken as a subject of investigation? That sure privileges those who are of European-decent and teach on Eurocentric subjects, which, by the way, is the majority of courses at U.S. colleges and universities--hence why these other academic programs were created. Yet professors of say "classical civilization" (i.e. Europe studies) don't have to prove their ancestry.

The upshot is unequal treatment and differential allocations of resources to individuals who are scholars of a particular academic field--that is, studies concerning people of color. This is intended. The people who initiated the attack on Churchill have an agenda to eliminate academic programs that are not Eurocentric (and Eurocentric includes European-descendants in the U.S. and Australia).

It's important to remember what Churchill wrote about that made him a target in the first place. This isn't just about the academics. Those people attacking Churchill want to increase the global dominance of Europeans and people of European-decent. The United States is an occupying nation on land that was stolen from Indigenous people. The same ideology that was used to colonize the Eastern Seaboard, expand into the Western Territory and annex half of Mexico, as well as Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands is now being used to occupy Iraq and further plans to attack Iran. Churchill calls that ideology into question, and that's why he's being attacked.

Obviously I'd prefer it if they didn't use an elephant in the movie.

Yeah, that's a good point. All the sudden I'm not so interested in seeing this film. I mean, if I wouldn't go to the circus, why would I see this movie? Thanks for giving me something to think about, Richard.

Yes, I read The Sexual Politics of Meat. That's a classic. Two other books by Carol J. Adams that I'd recommend are Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals and The Pornography of Meat. I think Neither Man nor Beast is my favorite of these three books, and one of the most over looked books. Lots of animal activists knows about The Sexual Politics of Meat, but very few have heard of Neither Man nor Beast. In Neither Man nor Beast, Adams does take on racism and White privilege among animal advocates.

Neither Man nor Beast[/i],"]Granted animal defense currently is characterized by a "whitened center"--its theorists and national leaders are white, and many are men. All whites are bonded by racism, as bell hooks points out, and it is understandable that when a group of white people come together, the suspicion will arise that it is this whiteness that is the bond that brings people together. But, while predominantly white, the animal defense movement is not a monolithic movement, nor is it necessarily inscribing any "culture of whiteness" in its efforts on behalf of animals. However, anyone not actively resisting racist oppression can be seen as condoning white supremacy. If white animal defenders fail to support challenges to social oppression, the people who will be hurt are those who lack resources. White animal defenders cannot ignore the piece that each is a part of in relationship to others who suffer social oppression.

The Pornography of Meat is a more recent book based on a slide show that Adams does, mostly at AR conferences and on college campuses. I haven't read Taking Animals Seriously, but I'd be interested in knowing what you thought of it once you're done.

Thank you veganmomma for posting this. Do you ever work with the folks from International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal in Philadelphia who are fighting for Mumia? I met Pam Africa from the group a few weeks ago, which was really nice.

That quote from Marc Cooper of the Nation is offensive. I help out with the Pittsburgh Committee to Free Mumia. We are holding a fundraiser/outreach event on July 27 to raise awareness about Mumia Abu-Jamal, who is a Political Prisoner and a fearless advocate for the oppressed world-wide. Mumia is held on Death Row in a prison not far from where I live. People in the Mumia group visit him every other week, so they know Mumia and other prisoners personally. Mumia was sentenced to death by a racist jugde and a racist system, and he represents thousands of other Black men wasting away in these warehouses primarily because of the color of their skin.

I cannot fathom how someone who is a contributing editor for a supposedly "progressive" publication could term Mumia a "cause celebre that's a guaranteed loser." Why is Mumia Abu-Jamal, or Ward Churchill for that matter, a "guaranteed loser"? Is this because Mumia is Black and Churchill is Indigenous, and that they write and speak on the oppression of people of color? I think the answer is yes. Marc Cooper must know, consciously or unconsciously, that the mainstream liberals in the U.S. who read his blog or the Nation don't want to have to grapple with the topics discussed by Mumia and Churchill, let alone the oppression that these two are currently experiencing. Furthermore, they are willing to be complicit in the racism that is inherently a part of the U.S. (in)justice system and academia.

When Cooper writes, "But damned if student funds from somewhere else should be used to host [Churchill] as some sort of guest speaker." Cooper is adding his voice to the growing conservative movement attacking the use of college funding to host speakers on politically correct topics such as animal rights, anti-racism, environmentalism, feminism, etc. Here Cooper sounds just like folks from the John Birch Society or Rush Limbaugh. In fact, until these reactionaries misappropriated the term in furtherance of the conservative backlash "politically correct" was a positive term. Perhaps Marc Cooper will use "feminazi" in a future blog posting.

I'm glad someone else has read it! The essay "Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots" has even inspired me to take the word "bitch" out of my repertoire.

Yeah, I felt the same way! The author of that chapter, Joan Dunayer, came out with a full-length book on the subject of speciesist language. The book is called Animal Equality: Language and Liberation, and it includes a style and vocabulary guide near the end that can be really helpful. Even though the book is about lanuage, it also does a great job advocating for animal rights.

I'm very interested because I've been told by college sociologists that feminist and AR movements are only the concerns of the white middle class (of which I am a part, thus had no rebuttal).

That's another reason why it's problematic for an anthology covering both feminism and animal rights to be stacked with White middle-class writers. There are people of color and people with lower-incomes who do feminist and animal rights work, but because of systemic Whiteness they are marginalized or ignored.

I'll check and see if the other books you listed are at my library, too.

If your library doesn't have any, or some, of these books you might try inter-library loan; better yet, ask them to purchase the books so others can read them.

Hi trueboo!

I own this book and remember it had a profound impact on my thinking. A similar collection of essays on the interconnections between nonhuman animals and women is Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, edited by Greta Gaard.

Adams and Donovan edited another book, Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals, which came after Animals & Women and is more strictly focused on the "women's ethic of care." Both books offer interesting insights, but both lack writings by women of color.

This is significant since Animals & Women focuses on interlocking oppressions (intersectionality), which originated as a product of Black feminist thought. However, only the last essay in the book, Chapter 13 "Speciesism, Racism, Nationalism... or Power of Scientific Subjectivity" by Susanna Kappeler, addresses racism. Other chapters mention Indigenous peoples and the enslavement of Africans, but fail to integrate an analysis of race into their critique of interlocking oppressions. As Kappeler notes, "whites in general--including women and even children, and including workers exploited by capitalism--benefit from racism in their own countries, from Eurocentrism, and from the international imbalance of power--that is, the exploitation of the [Global] South by the North."

Regarding Beyond Animal Rights, the so-called "women's" ethic of care is based specifically on Carol Gilligan's research that focused on a limited group of white middle-class women and is not reflective of women of color or women with lower-incomes. To say that the ethic of care is a "women's ethic" or even a "feminist ethic" whitewashes both women and feminists making women and feminists of color invisible, which perpetuates White supremacy. Adams and Donovan will soon be coming out with a new book on the ethic of care, hopefully it will do more to respect the life experiences of women of color.

<3 Guest