I think the reason some of those comments have been rejected is because they promote indifference to how others are being exploited and oppressed. More than once comments have claimed that other humans who are the targets of social oppression are suffering from nothing more than “victim-mindedness,” implying that the oppression they experience is all in their head – i.e., not real.

While “love your neighbor as yourself” is a nice sentiment, I think it’s unfortunate how often this phrase is used as an empty platitude or tired cliché. The fact is, in many respects we’re not the same as our neighbors. Our neighbors have different life experiences and live in unique situations that call for our attention in different ways.

Yes, anyone can be compassionate regardless of race, creed, or color; yet when we fail to take race, sex, class, (dis)ability, gender identity, sexuality, religious beliefs, citizenship status, and so on into consideration we do more harm than good. That is, while “specialization” and “love thy neighbor” may be based on “equality,” I believe these concepts as they are being used here can easily foster inequity.

For instance, suppose our code of beliefs is based on veganism and we are attending a public picnic where everyone is treated the same as everyone else regardless of there beliefs. Since everyone is treated as equals we are all provided with the exact same things to eat, which happens to all be produced with the products of other animals’ bodies. So everyone is treated the same (equality), but because our veganism isn’t taken into account the outcome is that we are unable to meet our needs (inequity). How this sort of inequity is created is what I’m talking about when I say “specialization” seeks to limit “veganism” to a small, privileged group of people who are White, male(-identified), able-bodied, cissexual, heterosexual, upper/middle-class, Christian, and citizens.

Unfortunately, a statement like, “For me comparing vivisection, experimentation, caging, torture, exploitation and slaughter of non-humans brings about in me a greater sense of urgency than the plight of some humans claiming social oppression and inequity,” is harmful because of how it frames nonhuman animal advocacy. I see this statement needlessly creating a competitive conflict between addressing how other animals are oppressed and how other humans are oppressed. It assumes that meeting the needs of humans targeted by oppression is in opposition to ending the oppression of other animals, and thus perpetuates a status quo of inequity, exploitation and oppression.

Where’s the compassion in dismissing how social oppression and inequity affects other humans? I don’t think this is about any “victim-mindedness” on the part of those who experience oppression. Rather, it shows an apparent indifference on the part of those humans who don’t experience oppression towards those humans who do experience it. And that indifference is the opposite of compassion.

Thank you for your comment, I can see that you disagree with the position expressed in my post. I can tell the exploitation of nonhuman animal species is something you see as a great injustice and you favor their protection over other social justice issues, right? It is obviously important to you to concentrate on this single aim. I hope I’m describing your position accurately here. I’m not sure that I’ve successfully communicated to you how my position differs from your own, or exactly why I think it matters.

Specialization may be fine for cardiac surgery and prosthetic dentistry, but veganism is not the same as these specialized professions. Veganism is a social movement opposed to the exploitation of both human and nonhuman animals, and, unfortunately, “specialization” in this context means privileging how the existing social structure currently targets and oppresses certain groups of humans. So while we may not agree to what extent other humans are oppressed, or whether they are oppressed at all, I think it is important to recognize that how other humans are oppressed has always been a vegan issue.

Yet, saying veganism shouldn’t be “packaged” with concerns for other forms of oppression other than speciesism assume that only certain people – perhaps those most like ourselves – are or can be interested in veganism. For instance, as Whites you and I can say we are not interested in racism because we choose to focus exclusively on speciesism, but this only privileges the fact that we are Whites who live in a White supremacist society. That is, we can ignore racism because we aren’t members of a group that is targeted by racism. However, people of color can’t afford to ignore race or racism like you and I can – just as the Vegans of Color motto says so well, “Because [vegans of color] don’t have the luxury of being single-issue.”

So if you and I as Whites claim racism is a distraction that puts people (and lets be honest here and admit that we’re really talking about a group of White people, not all people) off of veganism, then what are we saying about people of color? People who experience racism on a day-to-day basis are obviously going to have more of an interest in vegan advocacy that is explicitly anti-racist. Assuming that advocacy like anti-racism don’t belong in veganism is to assume that the audience for veganism is exclusively White. That is, advocating “specialization” means advocating a position that says only the people with disproportionately more social privilege and political power matter. Furthermore, by advocating for “specialization,” and thus against concerning ourselves with other forms of oppression, we are essentially advocating that not only are other forms of oppression irrelevant to veganism, but also that there is no need for veganism to be relevant to the people who experience oppression, because people targeted by oppression are themselves deemed irrelevant by this flawed logic of “specialization.”

Veganism is for everybody, but “specialization” limits veganism to a privileged group of White, male(-identified), able-bodied, cissexual, heterosexual, upper/middle-class, Christian, citizens. So I think it is important that we question the validity of vegan advocacy as some sort of “specialization” that refuses to take into account other forms of oppression. In order for veganism to be relevant and equitable to all it is important that we avoid falling into single-mindedness that privileges a few of us at the expense of all others.

Hopefully this helps clarify the advocacy position that I’m attempting to present in the original post, and why it is I find advocacy of “specialization” to be dangerous in its complacent disregard for existence of other forms of social oppression.

With LOVE,
Ida

P.S. I also want to note that I think “denigrate” is an unfortunate word choice, especially as it’s used in reference to status and the dismissal of other forms of oppression. Denigrate comes from the Latin root meaning “blackened,” and I think etymology of the word is particularly relevant here. The original post is about question how “specialization” perpetuates inequitable social status – that is, how “specialization” privileges Whiteness, for instance. In turn this challenge is characterized as denigrating. Ironically, while denigrate is used to imply an unfair criticism, I think the term actually shows its White supremacist roots. That is, I believe that it is exactly because the original post challenges a status that is privileged by social inequity that it is said to “denigrate,” but I also believe for that very reason it is a just criticism, not an unfair one.