steven
This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Posts by steven
The audience is everybody
May 29th
If we want a vegan world, then I don’t think it’s effective to limit our audience to certain age groups, racial groups, social classes, political affiliations, or other “demographics.” I want everyone to hear the vegan message.
For some, veganism will be a natural and easy fit. I want those people to hear me, so they can join in and make a difference. For others, veganism will seem radical or impossible. But I want those people to hear me, too. These “others” may in fact be most affected by our perspective. Even if their current lifestyle is the opposite of veganism, they may be on the cusp of a life-changing experience. And if their lifestyle is the opposite of veganism, that might also mean there’s more to gain from their eventual veganism. (Think of an avid hunter who goes vegan and surprises everyone around them; suddenly the whole community is a lot more curious about veganism!) And this all stands in addition to the obvious problem of prejudice (literally prejudging people as “receptive” or “unreceptive” based on factors like gender and race). My proposition is that we can reach out lovingly and respectfully to anyone who is willing to listen.
Of course, this kind of assertion—“the audience is everybody”—begs for some qualification.
Embracing an audience of everybody doesn’t mean I purposely seek out an audience that I feel will be unreceptive. It doesn’t mean I completely forget about prioritization and spend hours talking to people who aren’t even listening to me. And embracing an audience of everybody doesn’t mean that I enter communities as a cultural outsider, declare the righteousness of veganism, and then leave. No, I think this “touring activist” model may well ignore the importance and value of community-based activism and grassroots, person-to-person outreach.
Embracing an audience of everyone doesn’t mean I promote veganism as a single-issue cause, telling individuals and institutions, “I’m fine with your racism and heterosexism; I just want you to stop oppressing nonhumans!” No, it just means I don’t let that existing racism and heterosexism turn into an assumption on my part that those people will “never change.” It simply means I don’t give up on people or shun people. It means I try to stay open to anybody who will consider the vegan ideal. So an audience of everyone doesn’t mean I sacrifice my integrity or my idealism: No, it means I take my idealism to the streets and share it with people—anybody who will listen!
New information or new perspective?
Apr 13th
Lately I’ve been reviewing slaughterhouse investigations and other footage in order to compile an anti-oppression, anti-speciesist video clip for online activism. Much of the footage I’ve reviewed has come from animal welfare organizations, and most of it has included narration from those groups. In reviewing these videos, I’ve noticed a big difference between the approach to narration in those videos and the approach I plan to use.
In these videos, the general method is to “expose” specific practices on factory farms, fur farms, puppy mills, and other such places. Facts and figures are inevitably involved, and credible sources are required to prove that this is really what happens to other animals. Along with the intended purpose of creating awareness of specific cruel practices, I think the effect of this approach is to reinforce the idea that, if the specific practices weren’t so cruel, then confining and killing other animals would still be O.K.
One short video advertisement was over-dubbed with the song “Old McDonald Had a Farm” and showed factory farming footage. The message, of course, is that most animal foods don’t actually come from family farms like “Old McDonald’s”—they come from farms that confine and kill other animals in much more brutal ways. This specific move is common among animal welfare groups. Peta2 prints a pamphlet titled “What They Never Told You” that starts with the same declaration: “This is Not Old McDonald’s Farm. The meat, eggs, and dairy products that you consume no longer come from the small family farms that you see in children’s books.” These arguments criticize factory farms, yes, but only at the cost of reinforcing the idea that it’s harmless to eat meat, eggs, and dairy from smaller, family-owned farms.
If we want to end speciesism and animal exploitation everywhere—not just the most cruel instances of it—then I don’t think a focus on exposing specific cruelties is effective. Due to the excessive emphasis on specific details, there ends up being nothing said about the underlying problem of use without consent (which exists with or without the specific practices). When we focus on “exposing” all the specific details of factory farming, I think we end up telling the public that what they already know about meat—that other animals are killed in order to produce it—is not worth opposing in itself.
I propose an alternative: When using footage or images of specific speciesist practices, we can couple it with text and narration that question people’s whole worldviews, not just their stance on a single product. Instead of getting into so much detail about a specific practice—“Did you know that chickens on factory farms are bred to grow so fast that…?”—we can ask people to reconsider what they already know: “Have you ever thought about how human animals kill other animals—take away their lives—just because we like the taste of their bodies?”
If our goal is to challenge speciesism, then any specific details we present aren’t the main point. The main point is to bring people to face what they already know—that other animals are killed in order to produce meat—and make them look at it closer, see it for what it really is, really confront it and examine it.
If we can make people question oppression this directly, then we are actively working to disrupt the ideology of speciesism—the ideas ingrained in us by traditions, media, and social norms that make us think it’s normal or reasonable for humans to confine and kill other animals.
When we disrupt the ideology of speciesism like this, we’re not only affecting the other animals that new vegans save with their plant-based diets—we’re putting whole worldviews into circulation. We’re giving people the realizations necessary for them to start questioning every speciesist practice they encounter from there forward. We’re actively laying a foundation for the vegan world we want to create.
Putting it out there
Mar 18th
As one who works for social change, I’m often involved with affecting the worldviews of others. I’m involved with spreading ideas, philosophies, and perspectives. (For anti-oppression veganism, I think this means presenting the vegan ideal and challenging its antitheses—exploitation, human supremacy, and speciesism.) Victor has written in another post about opening our minds to everyday forms of activism that all vegans can do. I want to focus now on forms of everyday activism that help to spread the ideas of veganism and anti-oppression in order to affect the worldviews of others.
If we can break down traditional barriers for how we spread ideas through activism—maybe even adopting another name for it, like simply “putting it out there”—then the possibilities for presenting the vegan worldview are endless. Every day, most of us have at least a few different means to spread such a message: If we talk to co-workers, friends, classmates, or family, we can speak up about social or ethical issues when relevant. If we have a bike or car, we can apply stickers to them—same goes for buttons on a bag. If we have access to bulletin boards at work, school, or anywhere else, we can hang fliers. If we use e-mail, we can add a signature to our messages with online links or quotations. If we have Facebook, Myspace, or similar accounts, we can utilize both our profile space and our comments to others, writing about our beliefs as well as posting videos and pictures. If we’re taking classes, we can speak up about relevant issues, bringing a vegan perspective into the picture when it may be otherwise ignored. If we’re buying a friend a gift, we can consider a thought-provoking book or film. If we’re near a college campus or attending one, we can chalk anything we want on the sidewalks (which is, of course, very fun also). And many of us can use other, more specialized means to “put it out there,” depending on our individual opportunities. Even if we’re shy or we have little activism experience—or if we don’t have much money or time to put toward activism—many simple options for getting our message out in the world are available to us right now.
To help bring about a vegan world, we can each work continually to utilize more of these simple options for “putting it out there”—even if we don’t consider ourselves “activists” in the traditional sense. We can inject (or at least tint) these communication opportunities with messages that spread an awareness of (and aversion to) power imbalances, violence, hate, force, exploitation, and use without consent. And we can spread positive alternatives, as well: an appreciation for the Earth and fellow life, a perspective that looks critically at inherited attitudes and practices, an excitement toward creating change in peaceful ways, and a worldview that embraces freedom and respect.
I think that this view of activism, or “putting it out there,” can be a source of continual hope and reassurance for us. Maybe the world is full of oppression right now. Maybe we disagree with much of what happens in the world. But as individuals—“activists” or not—we have every chance to make a difference. We have every waking moment to work at being who we want to be—to embody and radiate the values in which we believe.
Effectiveness and Striking at the Root
Feb 27th
First, a disclaimer: I think it’s important to remember that effectiveness is only one part of what makes a form of activism viable. We could, for example, analyze whether or not it’s “effective” to bomb the homes of vivisectionists to create change. If we did, I would argue it’s probably not effective; others may argue that it is. However, there’s a bigger reason aside from “effectiveness” why I’d never bomb the home of a vivisectionist: It is an act of violence, and I’m against violence. So yes, I could say that “it’s not effective to use bombs,” but I give caution about focusing on effectiveness in that case, because I think there’s a bigger issue to consider.
Defining “effectiveness”
Arguments based on “effectiveness” arise frequently in discussions about activism and social change efforts. Countless decisions are based on what we judge to be the most effective or efficient plan of action. Many people shun their own intuition or ethical ideals because another path is assured to be more effective. Because this term is central to so many discussions about activism, I think it’s important to reflect on what it really means to us.
At this point, I see “effectiveness” as a measure of how far, how quickly, and how assuredly an action brings us toward our final goal. That is, if we want to accomplish something, I think our “effectiveness” means how quickly, directly, and assuredly we accomplish it. This can be difficult to estimate, to be sure, but this is what makes the most sense to me right now.
I’ve written that my “final goal” is a vegan world. I want to clarify that a vegan world, to me, is not just “the practical application of animal rights” or a something used “to reduce suffering” but instead the actual goal in itself. My goal is for the vegan ideal of non-exploitation—the philosophy and practice of anti-oppression—to be adopted on the large scale.
I intend to write several posts exploring ways to maximize effectiveness by this definition, but I want to propose one guiding principle right now.
Striking at the root
I care deeply about every instance of suffering, but I refuse to see that suffering as faceless and random—as if it’s by chance that human animals routinely enslave and kill nonhuman animals. I think when we notice suffering, we can ask, “What is the cause of this suffering?” and “What allows this suffering to continue happening?” Then we are looking for the root of the problem.
I think this strategy makes sense. We identify and work directly on the problem itself instead of working on the symptoms of the problem. This is where some amount of my criticism for anti-cruelty activism comes from. Anti-cruelty, anti-suffering activism seems so caught up in the “what” of nonhuman suffering that the “how” and “why” are ignored. But I think the “how” and “why”—the system of oppression that breeds the suffering—are the keys to understanding how we can effectively stop it from persisting. As L.O.V.E. member Victor pointed out: Making this criticism does not mean we are pro-suffering. We just see suffering as rooted in oppression. Without the oppression, the suffering doesn’t occur. If we get at the root (oppression), then the tree (suffering) falls.
We can get more specific yet, seeking the root causes of oppressive systems and asking how oppression is sustained and reproduced. Many of us at L.O.V.E. have been convinced by David Nibert’s model for a theory of oppression in Chapter 1 of Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Dani at The Vegan Ideal has summarized this theory of oppression and paired it with an analysis of veganism’s role as a theory of anti-oppression.
Acknowledging deeper roots
A deeper root arises when we acknowledge that speciesism is only one form of oppression among many. It can be enlightening to see speciesism in this context, especially for vegans who have already been involved in activism as a single-issue effort. For many, there’s a “click” and everything makes a lot more sense—veganism has so much more context than before.
Acknowledging the interconnection, we can seek out and support other liberation struggles, building bridges and forming coalitions, knowing that this only strengthens our ability to see, understand, and oppose oppression of all kinds—human and nonhuman. We can learn from other anti-oppression efforts about what works and what doesn’t. We can all strive to eliminate any of our beliefs that may be tinted with ableist, ageist, classist, heterosexist, racist, sexist, or transphobic attitudes. (And again, this is a situation where my disclaimer applies: We don’t just oppose sexism to make us more “effective” as vegans—although I think it does make us more effective as vegans. Sexism is worth opposing for its own reasons, before and after “effectiveness”!)
I’ll here note that I don’t think of true liberation as “expanding the circle” but abolishing the circle. I see the circle itself, the doctrine of respecting some and oppressing others, as a problem. This leads me to the deepest root I know to discuss: respect for all life and existence.
I see respect as the reason for my vegan stance and my anti-oppression stance. For example, Why am I opposed to exploitation? Because exploitation disrespects the individual, and I want to respect all life. So we can acknowledge this root by working to respect everyone of all species, races, genders, and classes—all struggles. And we can practice respectful activism and nonviolence, so as to respect the audience of our outreach (even those who mock us and work against us!).
Real, long-term change
“Striking at the root” is important to me because I think it’s the best (only?) way to achieve real, long-term change. I think it’s great to save any number of individuals from immediate threats of violence and exploitation, but what I really want is to solve the problems that create and sustain violence and exploitation in the world. What I really want is a world without violence and exploitation—a vegan world. So I judge my activism by how much closer it brings us to that world.
Toward a Vegan World
Feb 2nd
The goal of a vegan world
I want a vegan world because I want oppression to be really gone. I don’t just want to eliminate the most “cruel” kinds of oppression in the short-term, leaving the larger structures in tact or allowing new forms of oppression to arise in the future. I want to get at the root. I want to dig out the root and do my best to make sure nothing grows there again.
I want a world where people consider force and exploitation wrong by principle; I want a world where, because of that, slavery is really gone—the poor aren’t at the mercy of the rich, women aren’t at the mercy of men, people of color aren’t at the mercy of whites, the “Third World” isn’t at the mercy of the “First World,” other animals aren’t at the mercy of human animals.
In a vegan world, ableism, classism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, speciesism, transphobia, and all other forms of oppression are gone, because if people reject force and exploitation by principle, and reject violence by principle, then they reject all oppression by principle. If we rejected the use of other animals without consent, don’t you think we’d also reject the use of human animals without consent? Don’t you think sweatshops would finally be out of the question? Don’t you think we’d take poverty more seriously? This is the world I want.
The problem with animal welfare as a “stepping stone”
Many activists say bigger cages and reduced-meat diets are “stepping stones” to a vegan world. These activists think better treatment now will lead to liberation in the future. I don’t agree with this because these efforts don’t challenge human supremacy. I think human supremacy needs to be confronted for a vegan world—a world opposed to human supremacy—to emerge.
Vegans reject, by principle, the privilege of choosing how other animals live and die; we work to give up our power over them. A vegan world is not just a world with less suffering. A vegan world is a world where humans refuse to impose on the lives of other animals. In a vegan world, humans relinquish control, power, and superiority over other animals. We stop making choices for them.
But the “stepping stones” approach is based on making choices for other animals. If we decide that, for now, family-farms eggs are acceptable, we’re making decisions for other animals (the decision that “humane” exploitation is still acceptable). The same goes for promoting lacto-ovo vegetarianism and reduced-meat diets. While I don’t condemn anyone for their efforts, a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet does not challenge human supremacy. By saying, “It’s still acceptable to eat eggs and dairy,” we make decisions about other animals’ lives for them.
The “stepping stones” approach to animal activism focuses on the surface issue of overt cruelty, leaving the underlying issue of oppression alone. Therefore, this “stepping stones” activism only works toward a world without overt cruelty, not a world without oppression. A vegan world is a world without oppression.
Why the time is ripe
As explained by the Vegan Society, “If the vegan ideal of non-exploitation were generally adopted it would be the greatest peaceful revolution ever known, abolishing vast industries and establishing new ones in the better interests of [humans] and [other animals] alike.” Considering this, there are obvious rejections to the goal of a vegan world: “This will never happen.” “This is an impractical goal.” “It’s too soon for this.” But I think the time is right for veganism.
1) Regardless of our “chances,” I think the time is always right for doing what feels right. Even if I can’t guarantee a “victory” from the start, veganism feels right to me.
2) I think we have a pretty good chance. We are here on this blog having this discussion right now, and you and I came from separate ways to make clear our position against oppression. Our movement is growing.
Walt Whitman wrote that, among the many problems in our lives, there’s a core worth appreciating: “That you are here—that life exists, and identity; / That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.” This is our verse. We are here today—maybe not tomorrow. Let us say what we really want.
On Suffering and “Unnecessary Harm”
Jan 12th
As long as vegans base activism on suffering, I don’t think other animals will see liberation. The suffering of other animals, as I understand it, is only the effect of a bigger problem—humans wielding power over other animals—and is not the problem itself. Focusing on suffering takes activists with good intentions away from the issues that can really effect change, the issues upon which nonhuman animal oppression is really based.
Here is an example I recently came across online: Gene Baur of Farm Sanctuary appeared on Larry King Live in 1991 to discuss factory farming. Many vegans currently focus on factory farming in their advocacy materials. However, if the specific “cruelties” of these facilities—instead of general human supremacy and dominance—is the focus, then endless reforms are a natural result, delaying and challenging deeper change. Here is a transcription of one exchange between Baur and King (video interview here):
Larry King: “Are you opposed to the eating of animals?”
Gene Baur: “Personally, I’m a vegetarian. But that’s a decision each of us has to make for ourselves.”
Larry King: “So those who want to be able to eat it [meat] should be able to eat it. You’re just saying there’s a more humane way of treating them and killing them.”
Gene Baur: “Absolutely.”
This is from the president and co-founder of a so-called “vegan” organization—one that “has never and will never support so-called ‘humane’ meat”—one that “maintain[s] that the words ‘humane’ and ‘slaughter’ are mutually exclusive” (from their website).
My point is not to criticize a single organization or individual. My point is to direct vegans away from the idea that “humane” is what we want—that “suffering” is what we’re against. These are popular views in animal activism today, even among “vegan” groups.
Another “vegan” group, Vegan Outreach, claims the following: “[I]t is naïve, at best, to believe that any system will really take good care of the animals we pay them to slaughter. If you say an individual is just meat, they will be treated as such” (from their website). I think this rhetoric lures in many vegans because it seems to staunchly oppose all meat, and it seems to suggest a consideration of other animals as individuals, not just the products taken from their bodies.
But notice that the complaints VO makes are only about how other animals are “treated” on farms—not the fact that they are forced to stay on those farms in the first place. VO does not complain about human supremacy; they only complain about particularly cruel instances of human supremacy. They are O.K. with the master-slave relationship—just against specific, “cruel” manifestations of it.
I haven’t read as much from Francione, and I would be unfounded in any sweeping claims about his work. But from what I have read, I’ve seen a similar trend in focusing on “harm,” specifically “unnecessary harm.” I realize that some L.O.V.E. members currently espouse Francione’s beliefs. In critiquing these ideas I want to emphasize that I am not personally attacking anyone or their work. I only want to start a discussion about these issues because I consider them vital to our achieving liberation in the long run.
I recently wrote the following about an abolitionist definition of “vegan” on our mailing list:
E mentioned something that has been on my mind lately:
“[W]e ought to unequivocally draw the issue back to veganism (as the expression of one’s belief that it’s wrong to unnecessarily harm any animal, not just this one or that).”
I noticed this definition a couple of days ago at veganpamphlet.com, too, but I don’t feel like that’s what veganism means to me. (This is, of course, no offense to E or anyone else who currently understands veganism this way–only an observation and something to discuss.) I feel like avoiding harm is only one aspect (or result) of vegan living, but veganism as a whole suggests a larger respect, beyond “‘harm’ versus ‘no harm.’” I think veganism is more like one’s belief that it’s wrong to impose on the life of any animal–that it’s wrong to force, control, or otherwise disrespect any animal. This is, I think, largely why and how L.O.V.E. distinguishes ourselves from other animal rights groups (in our website’s F.A.Q.); our understanding of veganism includes an understanding of power. We consider control over another’s life/body problematic in itself, regardless of pain.
I think “harm” is often a result of imposing on other animals’ lives, but not always. For example, I would be opposed to sterilizing free-living bears (Dani has discussed this, too–I probably first understood this concept from Dani’s writings), because sterilizing them means we are in control of their bodies and their lives. Because we choose for them whether they can have children; we impose on their natural life. But sterilization doesn’t necessarily cause “harm” (at least not pain, suffering). Many claim such sterilization even prevents harm in the long run, because fewer bears will be hurt and killed for “getting in the way” of humans. I would be concerned about vegans supporting this sterilization based on ‘avoiding unnecessary harm.’
[Dani at The Vegan Ideal also wrote that this sterilization couldn’t be seen as a manifestation of “animals as property” (another Francione concept). So far in my own understanding, I feel like “animals as property” seems to hint at a bigger problem with power and control, but again I just don’t see it getting at the root. That is, power abuse also exists between people who are not each other’s “property,” so I don’t think “property” status itself is the problem.]
Notice that when we focus on suffering (or “harm”), we are not focusing on the underlying issue of power (control, force, oppression). I don’t think the massive animal suffering in our world is faceless and random; it exists in such quantities because we humans assume control over other animals’ lives. We assume a position of power over other animals, instead of living side-by-side with them respectfully. A vegan world is not just a world with less pain; it is a world in which we live side-by-side with other animals respectfully.
Activism as being, not doing
Dec 29th
This past summer I read a lot books and articles about “veganism”—mostly from Vegan Outreach, some from Peter Singer—that suggested what we “must” do as vegans: that is, we “must” reduce the most suffering possible with our time; it is our “moral obligation.”
I think I became addicted to this sense of moral obligation. For most of the summer I tried to justify my actions by this standard: “Is it ethical for me to write poetry? Activism reduces more suffering.” “Is it o.k. to spend so much time with my girlfriend? People are starving.” I “broke down” several times over my internal conflict. I went leafleting when school started in the fall, which made me feel a little better. I was nervous, but it was the ethical thing to do. I was doing my duty.
Since the summer I’ve started to experience activism differently. This fall, V pointed out to me a problem with “should/must” language. Telling others what they “must” do assumes things about their life and their personality that they have money to donate, or that they’re able-bodied). I tried shifting my language from “we must” to “I want.” I tried showing more respect to people who wouldn’t go vegan. I tried to stop judging others for the suffering they didn’t help stop.
Because leafleting felt so forced the first time, I didn’t leaflet again for two months. Then in the fall one day I woke up and thought, “I feel good. I want to do something to help others. I will leaflet.” The action came from “I want” instead of “I must.” I felt less nervous. Instead of doing my “duty,” I was doing what I wanted.
I recently realized that V has written to me about this difference before, referring to “internally driven” versus “externally driven” activism. V had pointed out that many people start doing activism with external motivation, trying to secure good feelings or a “do-gooder” image, but their motivation often shifts over time. V explained, “With internally driven activism, the activist is motivated by something inside themselves and activism feels much more integrated into the individual (as opposed to being an identity).” As V wrote, “activism is the external expression of the internal state.”
Activism as “being,” or internally driven activism, is also less directly focused on “results. “ If a person is “simply” “being” the love (or respect, compassion, peace) they feel, they’re not directly concerned with the number of leaflets they distribute. They’re concerned with being the most complete expression of love possible.
Allowing my activism to become more internally driven has been healthy for me. Instead of hating myself for the suffering I don’t stop—holding myself responsible for changing the world—I can focus on who I am. I can focus on my effort and my actions.
L.O.V.E. on Myspace
Dec 20th
This past week I launched a L.O.V.E. Myspace profile adapted from our pamphlet in order to promote anti-oppression veganism online. I invite everyone to visit the page at myspace.com/stopoppression.
The profile primarily works to promote veganism to non-vegans in the general public. It may also be helpful to vegans who want to better understand anti-oppression. The profile has pictures from factory farms, but the argument is not about “reducing suffering” or banning the “worst abuses”—the argument is for respect for all individuals, and for ending exploitation. If you want to promote veganism to non-vegans online and you don’t like the rhetoric of “reducing suffering,” consider directing people to this page.
I have been adding friends to the profile regularly as an online equivalent to mobile video projection or leafleting. I will occasionally share feedback through our COMMUNITY mailing list. Depending on the results, I could make similar profiles for others who also want to do this kind of outreach.
Who I am, why I’m here
Dec 7th
My name is Steve. I’m a poet, student, and writing tutor living in Mount Pleasant, MI. I’ve been eating vegan for a year and a half, but I’ve been more involved in veganism for the past eight months. I’ve done some leafleting and tabling, and I’ve created a Myspace tool for online activism, to be relaunched soon [now up]. Online activism holds “a special place” for me because it was how I learned about veganism.
My interest in L.O.V.E.’s mission arose from an e-mail conversation with L.O.V.E. member V, who wrote about veganism as anti-oppression. Initially I struggled to understand how power and privilege connect to nonhuman animal use, probably because I have a very privileged (white, male, able-bodied, heterosexual, middle-class) background. At the time I advocated Peter Singer’s understanding of veg*nism, which centers suffering and happiness.
I kept writing to V because of an intuition I had about promoting veganism as opposed to reduced meat consumption. Singer’s philosophy said promoting veganism was “asking too much,” but I felt the opposite way: I felt I wasn’t asking enough when people said they had a reduced meat diet and walked away. I felt dishonest not to say more; I felt I had to silence a “crying out” in me. The same thing happened when I found an insect in my apartment. Singer’s logic said it’s o.k. to kill an insect, but killing the insect felt wrong to me. I didn’t want to be the person Singer’s logic told me I should be.
I started to appreciate anti-oppression veganism once I understood that preventable nonhuman suffering is only a result of speciesist oppression. Then instead of asking, “Would I rather end suffering or end oppression?” I thought, “If I want to end suffering, then I need to end oppression.” I read from more anti-oppression writers. I thought more about racism, sexism, and homophobia, as well—I always opposed these things, but I had never thought about them in relation to veganism.
I feel I am now a “testament” to the fact that even the most privileged people can understand and reject privilege. I feel I am a “testament” to the fact that a person doesn’t need to be part of an oppressed group to want liberation for all oppressed groups.