1247:
Many years ago, if a child
came from a poor family that child would be put to work, to help the family
eat. Later, there were protests, and
laws were made to protect working children, arguing that children should not be
working. But if they didn’t, their
families would starve. This exact
problem still exists in many parts of the world today, where kids are working
as little more than slaves.
We, where this sort of
slavery isn’t evident, can’t understand how it could be. But we need to understand what enslavement
signifies. In the West, it’s not so much
a problem of human slavery or child slavery but the enslavement of domesticated
animals that’s so ugly. But, we’re safe
to do this, since animals don’t rebel. They’ve
been made so docile that liberation-wise they don’t stand a chance. Animals are helpless to fight their situation,
and they’ll continue to be slaves until enough of the enslavers change their
attitudes. But is it likely? Will enough humans stand up for them? Will we protect domesticated animals and give
them sanctuary, with the aim of returning their species to the wild? Animal liberationists want animals to be free.
But freedom is not welfare. While the idea of ‘animal welfare’ looks good,
it’s usually a feel-good, partial respect for animals. Now, vegans might be particularly sensitive to
freedom, so our ‘fighting for the animals’ means more than just campaigning for
better prison conditions for them.
What does ‘no-animal-use’
mean? To most of us, it means doing
without hundreds of commercial products and constantly making ethical choices
about what food we'll eat, clothing we’ll wear and toiletries we'll use. The avoidance-list is a long one, and
includes everything from not patronising horse racing, not visiting zoos, and
avoiding buying meat, cheese and fish.
That’s one huge shift away from an omnivore lifestyle product list, but
imagine the suffering we cause, with even one decision to exclude anything from that list.
If any group dared to promote
a comprehensive avoidance policy, they could reckon on alienating just about
everybody, and ending up with no support at all. So animal groups tend to favour a more pragmatic
course. They target the worst abuses and
leave ‘the preposterous idea of no-use-of-animals’ well alone. They want to be seen to be doing something
worthwhile. They don’t want to be
mistaken for radical abolitionists.
How easily we lose sight of
ideals when we engage in ‘sensible compromise’.
Amongst animal activists and
environmentalists, faith in our own abilities to transform Society is low. Set this against our own great need for recognition
from one another, and there’ll have to be a fair bit of watering-down
done. And that’s probably why so few
people support true animal rights.
If indeed the animals
themselves had a voice and could vote on what rights they most wanted, number
one would be for protection from being used by humans, in any way whatsoever. Thank goodness animals are voiceless!
Those people who don’t
advocate for animals, who eat and wear animal body parts without a second
thought, can’t be expected to legislate to protect the animals, since they are
so useful. Humans won’t pass laws
forcing ourselves to leave animals alone, for at the end of the day, we look
after our own interests. With docile
domesticated animals we’re safe, since they can’t stand up for themselves.
This is why vegans are their
advocates, and why only vegans can BE their advocates.
No comments:
Post a Comment