Welcome to the Rumor Mill
The debate about the appropriateness of the Animal Liberation Project
has definitely continued past last night. I've already made my
contribution; but I did want to make one clarification for any and all
interested parties.
It came to our attention last night that a rumor has been circulating
campus that the ALP originally had a panel showing the Holocaust, and
that this panel was not set up at the request of Jewish student
leaders. This rumor led one person to ask me "why did the concerns of
the Jewish community resonate with you in a way that the concerns of
the African American community did not?"
Let me start by saying that PAWS did not choose the panels that came
to Princeton. The exhibit consists of twelve panels, all of which
travel together and all of which were chosen by PETA. They do not
include a panel displaying the Holocaust. Sangeeta Kumar of PETA
explained to me that the reason for this is that PETA has already made
the Holocaust / slaughterhouse comparison a million times and wanted
to try something new. So just to be clear, PAWS did not talk to any
Jewish leaders, there was no Holocaust panel, and the rumor is
completely made up.
That said, I believe that a Holocaust panel would have been completely
appropriate. I continue to view this demonstration as an "all or
nothing" affair; if one connection between human and animal suffering
is okay, I believe that all twelve panels are appropriate. I do not
believe that huge abuses like the Holocaust or slavery can be
quantified, nor do I believe that we can say that one is "worse" than
the other. If it is appropriate to show slavery and Pol Pot massacres,
I believe it must also be appropriate to show the Holocaust. No one
group can claim a monopoly on the "worst" oppression or "worst"
history, and then refuse to allow that history to be used to the
benefit of others.
One final note about the rumors that have been circulating; which is
that PAWS ignored the concerns of the African American student body.
PAWS listened attentively to the concerns of the African American
groups we contacted and attempted to address them in the panel and the
literature we handed out. NO campus group was willing to meet with
PAWS to discuss their concerns, NO group allowed me to make a
presentation to them, and NO group asked to see the entire display -
they judged it based on what they had heard about it, not the actual
content. Perhaps most importantly, NO group requested that PAWS not
bring the display to campus. Without specific, articulated concerns,
there was no reason for PAWS not to bring this important display to
the attention of the student body.
Hopefully that clears the air, and we can resume discussing the more
important philosophical issues this demonstration brings up.
Posted by Alex Barnard at 4:55 PM 0 comments
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Slaves and Slaughterhouses...
The following editorial will be in the Prince tomorrow morning:
If you attended the Princeton Animal Welfare Society's screening of
the film Earthlings last week, you are now aware that 28 billion
animals are tortured, exploited, abused, and eventually slaughtered
for human consumption in the United States each year. But if you're
like most Princeton students, you didn't go to the screening, and
probably aren't aware of that fact, much less been forced to think
about it.
As of this week, though, every Princeton student passing by the Frist
North Lawn will be forced to consider these issues, thanks to a series
of panels set up by PAWS juxtaposing historical abuses of human beings
with on-going abuses of animals, and comparing the justifications for
each. The fact that the average student has not been to one of PAWS's
more sobering events, yet will be forced to think about animal welfare
thanks to the Animal Liberation Project display, in and of itself
shows why the eye-catching, controversial tactics employed by the
demonstration are an unfortunate necessity to draw attention to an
otherwise ignored issue.
That said, PAWS respects the position of individuals concerned about
comparing the suffering of animals to the suffering of human beings,
particularly those panels that show animal slavery alongside human
slavery. That's why PAWS reached out to a variety of campus groups
before the demonstration arrived, giving them an opportunity to engage
in dialogue with us about this exhibit. One of the most common fears
expressed to us was that PAWS is suggesting that some groups are "no
better than animals." This concern is, of course, particularly acute
for the campus's African American community, who have experienced a
legacy of discrimination that included the claim that they are more
similar to animals that other human beings.
These concerned students are right about one thing - we are comparing
humans to animals - but wrong to say that in doing so we are being
racist or degrading. Sure, African Americans appear in the
demonstration - as do Asians and whites, men and women, children and
adults. The point of this demonstration is not to make any one race or
group of human beings out to be more "animal-like" than the others,
but instead to say that we are all animals, insofar as we all want to
live lives of dignity, free from suffering. We are not trying to
degrade anyone - humans or animals - but instead trying to raise all
beings up to the level where their rights and interests are respected.
I know as well as you do that child laborers, slaves, political
prisoners, and other groups depicted in the exhibit are not the same
as chickens and pigs. We know, too, that all human beings differ from
one another. In the end, however, it should not be our differences
that matter, but our commonalities. What all human beings share is a
desire to avoid suffering and live a life of our own choosing. Whether
or not you accept it, the truth is that we share this desire with
non-human animals as well.
Slave owners - just like animal exploiting meat-eaters today -
justified their actions by seizing upon irrelevant differences like
skin color or gender to draw lines between the exploited and the
exploiter, the powerful and the powerless. Today, few people accept
that the lines that divide us into categories of race, gender, or
sexual orientation have anything to do with our right to live
unfettered and our obligation to treat others with respect and
dignity.
This demonstration is about tearing down one more barrier that has
been used to justify discrimination - species. When we challenge the
justifications for speciesism, we simultaneously combat racism,
sexism, heterosexism, and other noxious forms of discrimination by
attacking the ideology that underlies them all. This ought to be a
cause that all of us, especially students from disadvantaged or
minority groups, should be able to get behind.
It is easy to understand why so many people - even those genuinely
committed to living an un-prejudiced lifestyle - have such a hard time
with this exhibit. As I pointed out at the beginning of this
editorial, few of us have ever been forced to think critically about
our consumption of animals. This demonstration demands that we do by
pointing out that meat eaters can justify their behavior only with the
same delusional thinking that has led to centuries of abuses of human
beings. Such a strong demand for change is bound to be a little
disconcerting.
Individual change, however, is the only way that prejudice can truly
be overcome. Mahatma Gandhi once said, "We must become the change we
wish to see in this world." If you want to see change, if you want to
see an end to prejudice, then you live non-discrimination in your
life. You can take a step to reject the ideology behind speciesism,
racism, and sexism tomorrow, all at once: stop consuming animals.
Becoming a vegetarian is change for the better of humans and of
animals, embodied three meals a day.
Posted by Alex Barnard at 7:06 PM 3 comments
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
So...where do you get your protein?
How often does some well-meaning friend, doctor or parent ask you
where you get your protein? Instead of rolling your eyes and mumbling
about how Americans get 4 times the amount of protein they need,
contributing to heart attacks, heart disease, obesity and other
diseases of affluence, and when's the last time you heard of protein
deficiency anyway (it's called "kwashiorkor" - yeah I didn't think
you've heard of it), just put on a smile and tell them the answer,
courtesy of Happy Cow.
PROTEIN IN LEGUMES: Garbanzo beans, Kidney beans, Lentils, Lima beans,
Navy beans, Soybeans, Split peas
PROTEIN IN GRAINS: Barley, Brown rice, Buckwheat, Millet, Oatmeal,
Rye, Wheat germ, Wheat, hard red, Wild rice
VEGETABLE PROTEIN: Artichokes, Beets, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts,
Cabbage, Cauliflower, Cucumbers, Eggplant, Green peas, Green pepper,
Kale, Lettuce, Mushrooms, Mustard green, Onions, Potatoes, Spinach,
Tomatoes, Turnip greens, Watercress, Yams, Zucchini
PROTEIN IN FRUITS: Apple, Banana, Cantaloupe, Grape, Grapefruit,
Honeydew melon, Orange, Papaya, Peach, Pear, Pineapple, Strawberry,
Tangerine, Watermelon
PROTEIN IN NUTS AND SEEDS: Almonds, Cashews, Filberts, Hemp Seeds,
Peanuts, Pumpkin seeds, Sesame seeds, Sunflower seeds, Walnuts (black)
This blog was inspired by Jess Luna's facebook picture and my new
favorite joke:
"How many vegetarians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"
"I don't know, but where do you get your protein?"
Posted by Jenny Palmer at 5:29 PM 0 comments
Monday, October 1, 2007
More cage-free thoughts
This article from Vegan Outreach sums up beautifully why vegans should
endorse reforms like cage-free eggs.
"Instead of wishing for a different world, we must honestly evaluate
the world as it currently is, and then do our very best to reduce as
much suffering as possible. We must reach and influence the people who
might be willing to go vegan; reach and influence people who might be
willing to go vegetarian; reach and influence the people who won't
(now) go veg, but who might stop buying meat from factory farms -- and
help support all of these people as they continue to evolve as
consumers."
And Bruce Friedrich of PETA's take on the effectiveness of reforms:
"I am constantly shocked at the implication of some activists that we
should leave the animals in crates and cages so that we can use that
to shame meat-eaters into not eating veal or eggs (and also that the
crates and cages are not such a big deal--that removing animals from
crates and cages is a small gain)."
No comments:
Post a Comment