Ellie’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hi Ruxandra,

  I think I felt the same way about other groups as you do about Vegan Outreach, when I realized they weren't acting on behalf of animals.  Imo, it's a good idea to write VO about their support for Whole Foods, when this obviously doesn't support veganism, their stated purpose.  

  I've wondered how these things happen.  Do one or two groups at the top of the mainstream hub decide what most other groups should do?  And well intentioned, but misguided activists just follow?  

  After all, the company of "in" groups can be a powerful connection, if that's their goal.  And attracting members can be a strong incentive, but at the bottom line they either use their time and money for animals, or they betray them.  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Speaking of misguided activism,

  here's a specific example of how activists help abusers:

  As many of us know, John Mackey is the CEO of  Whole Foods Market.  Although Mackey says he's a vegan, and claims to care about animals and the environment, his company earns millions of dollars from the sale of living beings who are killed for the taste of their flesh.  Astute businessman that he is, Mackey knows how to promote his products-- not just by appealing arrangements in stores and the usual advertising, but by tapping into the booming market of what's come to be known as "animal welfare".

  To this end, Mackey created Whole Foods Animal Compassion Foundation, which gives consumers the chance to "help animals" by eating "compassionate" meat.  Although the Foundation states it is "a dynamic hub for ranchers, meat producers and researchers", and these producers will set and judge it's standards-- not to worry, because we're told "they care".  No matter that farming and killing animals is inherently cruel.  

  Just to prove it, Mackey asked for animal husbandry activists-- aka "animal welfare" or "animal rights" groups-- to back his Foundation.  The list of collaborators is long-- they include:

  Animal Rights International (ARI)

  Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)

  Animal Place

  Animal Protection Institute (API)

  Association of Vets for Animal Rights (AVAR)

  Bay Area Vegetarians

  Christian Vegetarian Association

  Compassion Over Killing  (sorry Ruxandra)

  Doris Day Animal League

  East Bay Animal Advocates

  Farm Sanctuary

  Humane Society of the United States  

  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals  

  Mercy for Animals

  Northwest In Defense of Animals

  Vegan Outreach

  Viva!USA

  And to this day, none of the above groups have withdrawn their support for the Animal Compassion Foundation, even though they claim to promote vegan/vegetarianism.  The only group that refused to endorse it on behalf of the well being and rights of animals is Friends of Animals.  

  Following are links to the action taken by Friends of Animals with regard to the Animal Compassion Foundation.  As Priscilla Feral (President) explains, "An interest in other animals' welfare doesn't mean paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to concoct new ways of relating to them on farms before baking, broiling, stir-frying or sautéing them. A day of 5% discounts on the store's vegan products would be far more appropriate."

  http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2005/january/whole-f ...

  http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2005/january/respons ...On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ruxandra,

  As you've clarified it, I agree with you.   The idea is not to turn our backs on cruelty.  Even in my very average life, I've had to intervene against violence and cruelty on behalf of humans and non-humans, more than I care to remember.  

  What you're saying about helping women in these situations is, I think, similar to rescuing animals.  When it's honest and gives priority to animals, I support it 100%.    

  As you said, it's very different from activism which promotes alternative abuse as "compassionate", and which collaborates with abusers.  

  I can't even count the number of people I've met, on and off-line, who are proud of eating "free-range" meat and dairy.  I mean they actually believe they're doing animals a favor by eating them!  This can only come from the activism you and I oppose, where activists become advertisers for the meat industry.

  And I think the misogyny and anti-vegetarian messages re: PeTA's ad are very sad.  Selling sexuality is no way to promote the vegan ethic, but I was naively unprepared for the hostility that goes with it.  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bruce,

  If animal welfare improvements lead to animal liberation, why has more than a century of this activism only led to more efficient and profitable ways of commodifying and killing animals?  Why is meat consumption increasing?  

  The reasons to me are obvious.  Animal welfare requires non-human beings be seen as products, and this is precisely why groups like PeTA and HSUS can make deals with animal enterprise.  It also allows conscientious consumers guilt-free meals.

  Let's also be honest about activism.  PeTA and HSUS have never promoted welfare improvements as "less vile".  If they did, they wouldn't encourage most activists to support their campaigns.  And both PeTA and HSUS promote so-called "humane euthanasia", which is wrong on both counts.  They may not call every regulation "humane", but they promote them as if animals will somehow enjoy their lives if these measures are in place-- and as if reformed farming is not cruel.  

  Will gassing chickens be so much better?  Will their legs break when they are crammed into a truck and into the gas chamber?  Will veal calves live in a room like "free-range" chickens, where they can still barely turn around?  Can small family farms supply a nation of meat eaters?  

  In my view, it's very unrealistic to think millions of animal consumers can be supplied without mass production.

  So I don't think these are substantial gains by any means, and that's to say nothing of the impossibility of enforcing them.  

  You say opposition to animal welfare is based on purity of vision.  I think it's based on realizing how little these measures improve animal lives, and that animal rights requires they cease to be seen as products.

  The paternalistic movement which advocated better treatment for human slaves is not regarded highly these days.  Was it a stepping stone to abolition?  I doubt it because paternalists believed Africans were suited to slavery, just as most people believe animals are suited to being exploited.  

  However it came about, abolition had to reject this paternalism in order to end human slavery.  Better treatment of slaves did not bring freedom.

  Unlike advocacy for human prisoners, animals rights challenges the foundation of dominion, as the abolition of human slavery did.  The only way to liberate non-human animals is to support their right to be free of human dominion.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  About cruelty and compassion......

  Yes indeed, Ruxandra, I feel strongly that animal rights is not about extreme cruelty.  As horrible as it is, focus on the worst treatment of animals is almost always about modifying animal husbandry.

  It's not about animal rights because it doesn't challenge the use of animals.  And when it singles out one perpetrator, I think people like to believe animals are treated better by others, which is probably not true.  

  The undercover investigation of Tyson farms comes to mind. Plenty of people were shocked by the cruelty, but that didn't stop most of them from eating chicken.  If they cared, they bought a different brand, but who's to say that brand is not just as bad, or worse?  

  I've even thought, well, maybe at least it puts animal industries on alert, but if they're worried about undercover investigations, I bet they'd be extra careful about who they hire.  Anyway, it's impossible to monitor how billions of animals are farmed and killed. That's why I think regulations and investigations can't work, even from the animal welfare perspective.

  Also, I think you're right about terms like "cruelty" and "compassion"-- what they encompass is more important.  True compassion toward animals would not be considered cruelty to humans in their place.   But if it's the usual "compassion" of speciesism, then I think we wind up just promoting lesser degrees of cruelty.  

  In fairness, what I remember about Compassion Over Killing goes back at least 4 years, so I might be wrong.  The important thing is I don't see anything that suggests they support "compassionate killing" now.  

  Are you familiar with the Asilomar Accords?  To their credit, Compassion Over Killing is not a signatory.  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses