New York Times Finally Catches On. Or Not.
For a moment I though that the New York Times, or at least sports writer William C. Rhoden, just might be beginning to understand that animal rights isn’t the same as animal welfare.
Then I read the article.
In "Vick Case Exposes Rift Among Animal-Rights Advocates," Rhoden writes:
But there remains a widening divide still simmering within the animal-rights community over the treatment of abused, high-risk animals. The friction boils down to a matter of life and death. PETA generally advocates euthanizing rescued fighting dogs, while other groups lean toward rehabilitation.
True, and I’m glad he points this out. He then writes:
The public disagreement is eye-opening for those of us who assumed animal-rights and animal-welfare groups were all on the same page.
What I don’t get is why people assume that when they have different names: animal rights and animal welfare. He says there’s a difference, but then he calls them all animal rights. I’m confused.
Rhoden continues:
After talking to both camps, this much is clear:
They all love the animals, but can’t seem to get along with each other.
If they have different missions, I’m not quite sure why they need to "get along" or why that’s even an issue. But my favorite part is next:
The divide surfaced in the aftermath of the Vick trial . . .
. . . when the judge decided Vick would pay restitution and the dogs would not be euthanized.
THAT’S when the divide surfaced? Where’s he been?
What’s worse, it appeared as if maybe Rhoden was going in the direction of discovering the real difference between animal rights and animal welfare (assuming PeTA is an animal rights organization, which is not a good start), but then the story he recounts, though true, doesn’t address that like he thinks it does.
For anyone unaware, Rhoden reviews the situation: PeTA thought the animals should be killed, and Best Friends–an animal welfare group/sanctuary thought they could be rehabilitated and some could be adopted out. In other words, killing them wasn’t the solution. Now, you’d think that the rights group would be saying that, wouldn’t you? And Michael Mountain of Best Friends agrees:
“I don’t think PETA’s argument is with us, I think it’s with themselves,” he said from Utah in a telephone interview. “It’s really difficult as an animal-rights, animal-protection, animal-whatever-you-want-to-call-it organization to explain away the fact that pretty much all the animals you rescue, you kill. It doesn’t make logical sense; it doesn’t make emotional sense.”
I agree with that, but this sort of muddles Rhoden’s rights versus welfare theme, as he doesn’t articulate the difference (again, putting aside whether or not you believe PeTA is really an animal rights organization). And what’s worse is how the article ends. The third paragraph from the end is:
I must confess that the dogs were often background music to my perspective on the Vick case. I felt the sentence was unduly harsh. But this is not really a dogfighting issue or an animal-rights issue or an overpopulation issue.
Dogfighting, which is illegal, isn’t a dogfighting issue? Is it not a legal issue either? What kind of issue is it, Mr. Rhoden?
This is a caring issue: If we, as a society, cannot treat the
defenseless with kindness, how can we ever hope to truly care for one
another?
The defenseless. Like cows, chickens, fish, pigs and sheep? Are they defenseless? Or is it just doggies and kitties who are defenseless? Given how the third paragraph began, and dogs were the "background music" (their cries and whelps?), I’m fairly sure the behind-the-music of breakfast, lunch and dinner aren’t going to be explored anytime soon, which makes the whole caring statement difficult to, um, swallow.
The article ends without the rights versus welfare issue every being explored, which is probably good because this situation doesn’t expose a rift "among animal-rights advocates." Rhoden says there’s a difference between rights and welfare while putting them all under the animal rights umbrella. And this is after speaking with PeTA and Best Friends.
Rhoden gets the story of what occurred correct, and highlights that PeTA kills animals, but misses the core differences between rights and welfare that he claims are being exposed.
Maybe those issues, crucial to us, are just more background music to him.
I wrote about this article, too: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/theres-more-than-one-way-to-save-a-life/
I think what he meant when he said "I must confess that the dogs were often background music to my perspective on the Vick case." was that he was more interested in the sports scene. This article was published in the sports section, you know. And the author usually writes about sports. He wrote before "Michael Vick of the Atlanta Falcons is one of the most important players in the N.F.L." here:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/sports/football/20rhoden.html
Where he also said this:
"My original position on the Vick investigation is that, for all its validity, it had the earmarks of overzealous federal prosecutors taking on a high-profile athlete. I still feel that way, but my hope is that the investigation and indictment becomes a catalyst — not for a referendum on conduct and African-American athletes — but for a far-flung war on animal fighting."
Sounds like Rhoden was interested in race issue, too. (It's not a coincidence that Vick got hit the hardest here. There is certainly some racism attached to some anti-dogfighting activism.)
We should try to be charitable when interpreting other people's writing. I think Rhoden is trying here. He's trying to understand something that's probably relatively new for him. We should give him a bit of leeway. After all, he wrote this, which is just incredibly powerful and poignant:
"[T]his is not really a dogfighting issue or an animal-rights issue or an overpopulation issue. This is a caring issue: If we, as a society, cannot treat the defenseless with kindness, how can we ever hope to truly care for one another?"
Elaine,
I do say he's a sports writer and even link to his bio. But my purpose on Animal Person is precisely to deconstruct what people write. Nitpick is my middle name, here. This would have been yet another case where rights and welfare are confused for reasons we're all accustomed to, but he adds a whole other level of confusion.
What he writes is just another symptom of the lack of clarity about animal rights, and that's not entirely his fault as MOST PEOPLE appear to have a similar lack of clarity. Even some people who care about animal rights, as we all know.
I'm not sure what Rhoden thinks he understands (other than the facts of the case, which I do state appear to be correct). PeTA wanting the dogs dead and Best Friends not wanting them dead is not a rift between animal rightsists and animal welfarists. It's a difference in philosophy of two specific groups. But that's not how he paints it.
It's my job, as I see it, to comment on how the rest of the world paints us and our issues so we can see just how garbled the message is and begin to attempt to clear it up.
I found his use of "background music" offensive, which is why I brought attention to the first background music that came to mind in dogfighting. I know what he meant, but his choice of words was not good at all, in my opinion.
Finally, I had a different experience of the quote you refer to. I don't think it's a caring issue. I think it's an issue of having respect for the life of another sentient being. Though obviously we should treat the defenseless with kindness, the title of the article refers to animal rights, and I didn't read anything about animal rights. I didn't read anything about not using dogs in the first place, which is the real problem.
Well, I suppose I just don't agree with you that it's more important to make sure the MSM uses your definition of animal rights, then. I think this is a step forward, that he recognizes similarities between the pro-animal movement and other social justice issues and he's basically making that point in the mainstream media, in the sports section, no less.
We (pro-animal people) are not united and that's the main point of his article. He didn't even mention animal welfare and I don't really think it's relevant. It's sort of like expecting the MSM to understand the difference between radical feminism and postmodern feminism. It's never going to happen. So, if I'm going to harp on someone for misunderstanding it, I'm going to harp on those who should know better – theorists, philosophers, feminists.
"I don't think it's a caring issue. I think it's an issue of having respect for the life of another sentient being."
Well, I personally think caring and respect are not all that different. I understand your point about property status, but…
I don't expect Joe Blow to understand complex rights theory. Seriously, ask 100 random Americans what human rights are – they won't have similar definitions or examples. There are even plenty of people who base their 'respect' for other people (and therefore their lack of intervention in their lives) on utilitarian principles or simply out of self-interest not to risk prison. They don't need to understand the philosophy of rights in order to abstain from harming others. It's just a cultural thing – some things we do to each other and some things we don't. And since I don't expect the average person to understand human rights, I don't expect them to understand animal rights, either.
Elaine,
I don't expect Joe Blow to understand anything. But if a journalist from the New York Times is writing an article largely about animal rights (at least according to the title), I don't care which section it's in–I expect more clarity. People will read the article and get information about animal rights from it. And my job has just become more difficult. THAT's my problem. It literally becomes my problem because now I have to do damage control in my daily interactions.
Now, in "NYT Thoroughly Confused About Animal Rights" http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/2007/07/nyt-weighs-in-o.html from last year, I wrote about the obvious–this problem is not new at the Times.
I do agree that this is our fault. And that's why we must be vigilant with our language and clear in our presentation about why we're not PeTA members, etc…. Many of my readers and I have been writing to major newspapers and magazines over the past year explaining the difference between rights and welfare, and evidently we have a lot more work to do.
I am surprised by Elaine's comments – almost shocked I guess. But is it true that most people will not have at least a decent idea of human rights? Surely such a survey would reveal that many people recognise human animals as rights bearers and many harms deliberately done to them as rights violations? That is the basis of my position on AR claims-making; that we need to 'ripen up' the public to these claims.
RY
Roger,
I absolutely think that people recognize human animals as rights bearers. It is precisely the idea that nonhuman animals have the right to their lives that is anathema (that's what our culture tells us). And I think we'd all agree that we have a long, long way to go toward helping the average person even begin to think about the right to one's natural life rather than extent of suffering while under the thumb of another.
Unfortunately.
Ask people. Really, ask them what human rights are, what specific rights we have, and why we have them.
You'll get a bunch of answers that vary dramatically, particularly if you do a cross cultural survey.
If Americans have such a concrete understanding of human rights, why do we still have the death penalty?
Elaine,
The death penalty question is most baffling and frustrates me profoundly. The answer appears to be that revenge is more important. And with animals (not that they have rights, but they won't because . . . ) "culture" and palate, and every trivial desire we have, are all more important than their lives.