On The New Abolitionism

Remember how I started by thinking that we must stop using animals, but in the interim we should campaign for any measures that might relieve suffering? Then, remember when after reading Gary Francione at the end of 2006, I was compelled to change my philanthropy plan to exclude organizations that spend time and energy on welfare reforms? (Not because I didn’t think any suffering was ever reduced, but because I was basically lying by promoting welfare reforms or products that were a result of them when my real goal is that we stop using animals.)

And then, remember how I thought I was an abolitionist and I was excited that there was this movement of sorts composed of people who weren’t going to boycott the use of animals, then un-boycott the use of animals if certain demands were met (e.g., bigger cages)? And then, remember how I gave that restricted donation of $300 to the Rural Area Veterinary services, a direct service HSUS program, and got ridiculed by a certain group of people whom I discovered were the real abolitionists? And remember how I decided to stop using the word "abolition" because it was the source of more headaches than PMS?

Well, I’d been avoiding reading "The New Abolitionism: Capitalism, Slavery and Animal Liberation," by Steven Best, Ph.D. (which isn’t exactly new), just because I had pretty much had it with the you’re-not-a-real-abolitionist banter and I didn’t care who called themselves what.

For those of you who say nothing Best has written makes any sense, you obviously haven’t read much of his material. Do you disagree with this?

It is time no longer just to question the crime of treating a black person, Jew, or any other human victim of violence “like an animal”; rather, we must also scrutinize the unquestioned assumption that it is acceptable to exploit and terrorize animals.

Whereas the racist mindset creates a hierarchy of superior/inferior on the basis of skin color, the speciesist mindset demeans and objectifies animals by dichotomizing the evolutionary continuum into human and nonhuman life. As racism stems from a hateful white supremacism, so speciesism draws from a violent human supremacism, namely, the arrogant belief that humans have a natural or God-given right to use animals for any purpose they devise.

How about this?

To treat black slaves humanely is a contradiction in terms because the institution of slavery inherently is anti-human and dehumanizing. Similarly, one cannot logically be “kind” to animals kept in debilitating confinement against their will. To “act responsibly” to animals in such a situation requires one liberate them from it. Talk of “humane killing” of animals is especially absurd as there is no “humane” way to steal and violate an animal’s life, and subject it to continual pain and suffering. No accurately aimed bolt shot through the head of an animal warrants pretense to any kind of moral dignity, however superior the killing method is to dismemberment of an animal in a conscious state. Killing itself – unnecessary and unjustified – is inhumane and wrong.

This?

The true obstacles to moral progress are not the sociopaths who burn cats alive, for they are an extreme minority whose actions are almost universally condemned as barbaric. The real barrier to animal liberation is the welfarist orientation and its language of “humane care,” “responsible treatment,” and “kindness and respect.” Every institution of animal exploitation – including the fur farm and slaughterhouse industries — speaks this language, and animals in their “care” are routinely tortured in horrific ways, Animal welfarism is insidious. It lulls people into thinking that animals in captivity are healthy and content. It promotes human supremacy and tries to dress up the fundamental wrong of exploiting animals in the illusory language of “kind,” “respectful,” and “humane treatment.” Attempting to mask and sanitize the evil of oppression, animal welfarism perverts language, corrupts meaning, and is fundamentally Orwellian and deceptive.

You certainly don’t disagree with this, do you?

Although abolitionism is rooted in the logic of rights, not welfarism, there are problems with some animal rights positions that also must be overcome. First, as emphasized by Gary Francione, many individuals and organizations that champion animal rights in fact are “new welfarists” who speak in terms of rights but in practice seek welfare reforms and thereby seek to ameliorate, not abolish, oppression. While Francione underplays the complex relationship between welfare and rights, reform and abolition, he illuminates the problem of obscuring fundamental differences between welfare and rights approaches and he correctly insists on the need for uncompromising abolitionist campaigns.

Now, the stuff you might take issue with is shortly thereafter, under "In Defense of Direct Action," but read it so that you can at least be clear about its definition (in this context). It might surprise you.

Looking at our use of animals in the historical context of others who have been enslaved, dominated or exploited, it’s clear that what we do to animals is so much worse as we breed them, often selectively, we have frequent and massive culls, and worst of all, what we do isn’t causing a titanic uproar among most of the world.

What are we going to do to get the rest of the planet to see this enormous injustice, feel its urgency, and stop it?