I appreciate this continued discussion, but I want to point out that the conversation seems to have drifted away from this thread’s original topic and become more of an evaluation and discussion of Francione. We already have another thread that addresses Francione’s work in more detail, and so I would direct you both to that thread for any further discussion of his approach:

http://loveallbeings.org/blog/anti-oppression-and-animal-rights/

Thanks! steven

Maybe this is a discussion for the mailing list.

Anyway, I just want to say that what I originally brought up about agreeing with the Vegan Outreach video is part of my personal struggle with vegan activism and that I should not have generalized because I was still trying to understand my own struggle. I realize that victor and the rest of the LOVE team have been in activism for a lot longer than I have and have been down the paths I am just discovering. I have only been vegan for five months! And I can see why, when 99.5% of the world is not vegan, and a large portion of those that are not will be hostile without either great care or great concessions to their views, it’s so easy to become an enthusiastic supporter of welfare campaigns if not forsake veganism altogether. What turns into a generalization comes right back to our own personal experiences with disagreement, and I think it’s important to remember how very personal activism is and how our own weaknesses may be affecting whether we give in or hold out.

But I have been re-reading the posts here because I think that I can develop a more practical understanding of them now that I am actually experiencing a lot of vegan activism myself! I think the arguments made sense to me, but didn’t stick in my head because it was less personal to me first time around!

Thanks so much for the discussion! Only by communicating persistently with like-minded activists have I been able to formulate a durable argument myself in this inconvenient world.
karuna. metta. _/\_
aiko

You say, “You have Gary Francione who says that “the root of the problem” is property status (abolitionism), which his followers claim is the logical conclusion of opposing unnecessary suffering.”

I don’t feel that this statement is accurate and would just like to, once again, clarify the abolitionist position (Francione’s version) as I understand it. Or actually, since I was just reading the Vegan Freak blog, I’ll use the words of Bob Torres to explain why a focus on the property status of other animals is important – “Francione argues that there is no way to guarantee any significant protection for animals as long as they are property. As long as animals are property, Francione argues, the interests of the property holder will always override the interests of the property. Thus, until we can overcome this barrier of the property status of animals, any reforms we make will ultimately fail to accord animals any true recognition as persons in the long run.”

http://blog.veganfreak.com/ (March 11th entry)

To Francione and other “abolitionists”, or those that adhere to the Francionian abolitionist theory, the property status of other animals has to be abolished before we can provide any meaningful protection to them. The abolition of the property status is not the desired end result but it is an essential step to achieving the abolition of institutionalized exploitation of other animals (or an “incremental step” if you will). That is why Francione and other “abolitionists” (Francione “followers”) focus on the property status. I’m not certain about other “abolitionists”, but Francione himself recognizes that there will be other problems related to speciesism that need to be tackled after other animals are no longer legally considered the property of humans (just how abolishing the property status of human slaves in the United States didn’t end racism, and the many problems that arose as a result of institutionalized racism, but was essential as a step toward them being given any meaningful legal protection at all). So, indeed, the “root of the problem”, is speciesism (or what I would refer to as human supremacy or human power and privilege over other animals). There is a focus on, and stressed importance of, the property status of other animals for these reasons I mentioned above.

If you don’t have access to Francione’s books, I would recommend listening to some interviews with him. In particular, the several interviews on Veganfreakradio are excellent introductions to his work and will give you a better understanding of his position.

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?page_id=56
(pack a lunch because they’re kind of long)

Peace

This is what I conclude from reading up a little bit on Gary Francione and abolitionism, though I still haven’t read any of his books. I am just trying to clarify things so I can explain to people the differing approaches instead of just presenting an argument with ambiguous context. But I don’t know how accurate my analysis is, so I wonder what others think. I apologize for my need to label things, but I don’t think it would hurt too much to simplify things once in a while.

Until then.

Peace

I could go ahead and refute so many things that page brings up, but I won’t because I know that everyone here is educated enough to do a basic analysis themself. I will just say that there is something far too simplistic about concluding, “Put yourself in their feet. What would you want?” I don’t think someone in that position could be coming up with complicated theories about liberation.

I am occasionally included in a gathering of people, let’s just say they’re experts in land and wildlife ‘management.’ My involvement is just social but they are all working on a huge land management project. Interesting that there’s only one vegan in the group. I’m SO glad she’s there and speaking from that perspective. I also have a friend who’s in that group who likes Michael Pollan and his ‘approach.’ I am very gradually broaching vegan-ish topics with her. Anyway, I just see that the group works very hard trying to make the ‘on the ground’ decisions: balancing human needs with habitat and animal needs. It looks very complex from where I sit.

I happened upon this book: “Animal Rights vs. Nature” by Walter Howard. He’s a UCDavis Professor Emeritus who self-published what reads like a diatribe against animal rightists. It’s a great brain/heart exercise for me to read this. I just wish he were here for discussion. He makes SOME good points like that when we change an environment by living in it, animals do suffer. When we try to fix what we’ve done, we may be causing more suffering. Nature is not kind so we don’t want to leave everything to ‘nature’ in all cases. I’d love to read something by a vegan who really understands human/wildlife ecology. Hmmm. I’ll put that on my reading list.

Anyway, I just want to say that I think it’s important for vegans, if we want to be taken seriously by academics and scientists, to have some familiarity with real life animal/people interface issues. But maybe the whole vegan movement, if you want to call it that, is happening on a spiritual/emotional/social… level and the intellectual side of it is just the fluff–the noise among an elite minority who is trying to make it all sound rational.

Thank-you for the stimulating discussion.

marian

As you pointed out with the house-building example, the specifics of making our world less and less oppressive are not always obvious or perfect. Some necessary changes are very difficult to imagine from where we are right now. But I don’t think that’s a reason to turn away from the path. You’re right that it will create new difficulties for us to think–ah, we have to stop killing mice–but I don’t think that means it’s OK for us to forget about the problem of mice killing all together. I think human beings are incredibly creative and, if we have the right outlook, we will find more and more egalitarian solutions over time. (Also–this gets confusing and probably inconsequential– In my opinion, if ‘the most gentle living’ person still occasionally hurts or kills beetles and mice [say, by walking or running through the woods], then I don’t really feel like that’s oppression.)

From a practical, developmental (?) angle: There are many confusing and controversial subjects for vegans to confront right now and over the coming years. But I think if we have the right ideals–which, in my opinion, are a firm belief in non-exploitation and a respect for all–then I think the details will emerge slowly as more and more people start recognizing the need for change. (And in terms of house-building and city-building, it may take many professionals working together.) Right now I’m personally most interested in increasing the number of people (vegans) who recognize the need for change (via recognizing a problem with human supremacy), but you bring up an important point, I think: The transition to a fully established vegan world will take many people working on creative solutions to many different ‘problems’ over (probably) some amount of years or even (for some changes) generations.

hope that helps?
I’d love to hear anything more on this issue, as I think the whole idealism/pragmatism thing is big for a lot of people who have concerns about accepting our view of veganism/activism.

peace&love,
steven

It seems like a worthwhile ideal to strive for abolishing oppression, but I don’t think of it as a pragmatic goal. I think of it as a practice to ask oneself: Is this action I’m taking, oppressing anyone? If at all reasonably possible, can I choose a different action that is not potentially harmful to others?

marian

Great point, Victor. That’s the very question I asked myself that led me to go, and stay, vegan. And I was a person who was *very* resistant to the idea of veganism.