While the following will be quite obvious to many people, I think it never hurts to reiterate the arguments for our stance. So what will follow is the case for anti-racist policies within the movement. It's going to be quite a long post but I hope you will read it through and let me know what you think in the comments.
The Pragmatic Case
In terms of the advancement of non-human animal rights alone (without bringing any 'human rights' aspect in to it) there is a very strong case for an anti-racist stance within the movement. Most obviously, racism means that potential new activists and vegans can be turned off to the message if they feel there are people that hate their race hanging around. No one wants to join a group with members that hate you for an aspect of you that you can never change! The animals will suffer because certain communities will feel excluded.
Perhaps slightly less obviously, having racists in the movement will effect the movements expansion in general. Activists from other movements are perfect new animal activists. They have already shown they are motivated enough to turn up for demos and clearly are concern about the world around them. We should encourage cross-movement solidarity. People from human rights causes will be put off animal rights if the movement is seen to harbour racists. Additionally, most good people (who are the sort of people that would care about non-human animals) will be put off by any racists lurking around. By putting them off we would be only harming the animals.
If animal rights does not transcend colour, religion and national origin the animals, to put it bluntly, are stuffed! On the other hand if a few racists feel put out about being made unwelcome in animal rights there is not going to be a big problem for the animals. So the pragmatic animal rights stance against racism alone make sense for the animals.
The Ideological Argument
Animal rights is based on the principle that irrelevant characteristic should not be used to preclude individual rights. Quite simply a being deserves rights because he or she can suffer and otherwise experience life. The fact such a being has four legs or two has no bearing on whether their interests should be taken into account.
This basic logic rests upon an acceptance that picking characteristics at random (such as species) is not an acceptable way of drawing a moral line. It also rejects the idea that one can choose only to protect his or her own group and exclude others.
Racism is a morally irrelevant characteristic just like species. Races are groups of people and are not significantly genetically distinct. Therefore they do not have a specific way of behaving, each individual is different. They all can suffer and experience life, which is the basis for animal rights. Therefore the very logical pillar on which animal rights stands precludes racism.
It Is An Animal Rights Issue
But we can go further. Animal rights at it's most basic level is an understanding that all sentient animals have rights. To discriminate against a species is speciesism. Humans are just another species of animal. To discriminate against humans (or a group thereof) is a direct form of speciesism. We would not allow discrimination against one type of cat because they came from a certain country so to allow an analogous form of discrimination against human animals is clearly speciesist.
This is not a flippant point or a question of semantics it is something at the very core of animal rights that discrimination based on species membership is unacceptable. Therefore racism is specifically a breach of animal rights. It is an animal rights issue. Clearly the animal rights movement shouldn't support actions that breach the rights of animals, that would make no sense!
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
Anti racist ....
22.09.2010 14:22
Not racist ? Acceptable - no
But Facist?
slaves?
22.09.2010 15:53
also non bigot
Good post
22.09.2010 17:10
Several things though;
What is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia? Some things I have recently seen have been blatantly racist but there are other levels, some unintentional, some not.
What do we do with proven, unrepentant, racist individuals apart from exclude them? What damage limitation steps should we take?
This needs discussion and thankyou to whoever wrote this.
Lynn sawyer
Jerry Vlasak
23.09.2010 08:35
On the other hand, maybe it is quoted out of context or was badly worded? He could have just been criticising the US or Catholic reluctance to donate family planning materials as aid because of religious ideological objections. In places where there are famines, food aid on its own can be just a chance for the US to create a dependency and future revenue stream for themselves. Is there a copy of the full quote anywhere? I can only see it on pro-animal abuse sites.
Overpopulation is a very real problem - you don't have to be racist or fascist to realise that. We live in a world with finite resources, we share them with other animals and we are using way more than our share. The more of us there are, the more suffering there will be now or in the future, for both animals and humans. It's up to us to regulate our breeding to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening.
I'm not sure that praising China as a beacon of goodness when it comes to overpopulation policy is a good thing though...
vegan
No thought policing please within AR
23.09.2010 10:06
So why are pro-abortion people allowed to be AR? They discriminate against very young humans. I see no difference between this and racism.
You either thought police totally or you don't thought police the movement at all, you can't just cherry pick racism as some kind of special case so I favour the latter, no thought policing, which inevitably means we may get a few racists (but not enough to be a real problem)
Lesley Dove
e-mail: Lesley@vegan4life.org.uk
Actually it is endemic...
23.09.2010 11:16
For almost three decades, indie rock icon Morrissey has made almost as many enemies as devoted fans willing to hang on his every melancholy-drenched lyric. Described by one high court judge as "devious, truculent and unreliable", the former Smiths frontman is no stranger to controversy and criticism. But tomorrow he reignites a simmering row about his views on race in an interview in Guardian Weekend magazine, in which he describes Chinese people as a "subspecies" because of their treatment of animals.
Morrissey, a vegetarian and animal rights advocate who last year abandoned the stage at the Coachella festival in California because of the smell of cooking meat, described the treatment of animals in China as "absolutely horrific", referring to recent news stories about animals in Chinese circuses and zoos. He told interviewer Simon Armitage: "Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies."
In AR
Re Morrisey
23.09.2010 12:03
I agree to an extent with Lesley and we often discuss this but I personally reluctantly adopt the right to choose side in that a fetus is not an independent being until birth and is part of another's body. I abhor forcing a woman to give birh or a non human animal to give birth to young who will be abandoned, I also abhor the sometimes flippant approach some people have to abortion. Abortion is one of those things I think that we have to agree to respectfully differ on like alcohol, religion and other things that are being debated at present.
Lynn Sawyer
Racism endemic amongst animal abusers
23.09.2010 14:38
LOGIC FAIL!
vegan
Replies
23.09.2010 22:48
Morrissey is alleged to be racist but he has donated to Love Music, Hate Racism – whatever the truth is he is not part of the AR movement. Please tell me the last demo he was spotted at? He is veggie and has been for years, he hasn't moved on to veganism. He had leather shoes for a long time, I think he sometimes still does. He isn't a member of an local animal rights group. Sure he has a progressive view on animals but he is no animal rights activist.
@ Lesley, it is not 'thought policing' it just makes sense not to have people who do not support the aims of the movement (i.e. racists) in the movement.
The abortion issue is not analogous. Firstly as AR is based on the beings objective ability to feel and experience life - rights certainly don't start at the moment of conception. Secondly, once the being does start to feel it is dependant on the mother for survival, to live inside of her. The baby can't be remove and survive. Arguably, within an AR frame work, the woman has a right not to sustain that life.
We don't have to sustain life which is directly living off us, without such a principle what gives us the right to kill lice or other parasites?
The abortion issue is a complex one but both views are compatible with AR - depending on how you argue it.
Animal Warfare
Homepage: http://animalwarfare.blogspot.com/
Animal Protection Party are anti-Semitic
26.10.2010 15:30
anon
Homepage: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466797.html?c=on#c258402
Change of view point.
09.09.2013 22:58
Animal Warfare
Homepage: http://animalwarfare.blogspot.com/