How to dismantle speciesism?

Speciesism

– is not something unintentional, even if automatized for a big part in peoples thinking,

– it’s embedded in human history, it did not come overnight,

– it has many forms and problematic facets,

– and it is interconnected.

If we look at the foundations of this concept of species hierarchy (i.e. speciesism), we can see that a.) their fallacies can be dismantled, and b.) there is no option of not trying.

On what does speciesism base?

Different key aspect of speciesism lay in our perspectives and epistemologies coming from our angles of Religion/Spirituality, Rationality/Science, Philosophy, Culture/Civilization, Individuality/Society, in other words: the same factors that influence our outlooks on other humans and nature/the natural world.

The conflicts stemming from the systems underlying our views are comprehensive. Speciesism however is an expression of the fallacies of such systems.

This fragment as a PDF

TIERAUTONOMIE / Gruppe Messel

A not so clear relation: Animal Agency and Morality

Animal Agency and Morality

IS “MORAL AGENCY” A VALID CRITERION FOR CLASSIFYING DIFFERENT FACETS OF ANIMALITY?

The idea of “moral agency” resumes similar anthropocentric allocations in terms of biological and cultural demarkers, such as the conservative (species-hierarchical) hypotheses about Nonhumans have done.

The construction of “morality” as an act, should however ideally draw on non-anthropocentric perspectivic angles, to enable itself to touch upon the grounds of the large spectrum of co-existential modalities.

Questions:

1.) Which features, abilities and attributes are typically assumed as making up “animal agency” and, respectively, as typically making up “not-animal-agency”?

2.) On which criterions do these classifications base?

3.) What would a map of “animal agency” look like from a nonanthopocentric perspective?

TIERAUTONOMIE / Gruppe Messel

Mitgefühl als bedingter Gerechtigkeitsaspekt

Überlegung zu: Pazifismus

Zum Schutz von Leben hat Mitgefühl erst dann einen effektiven Sinn, wenn die Gerechtigkeit als Inhalt und Ziel dabei nicht aus den Augen verloren wird.

(HUMANITY) Im rechtlich durch Menschenrechtskonventionen abgesichterten Bereich, braucht das sensible Gleichgewicht des „Friedens“ eine gewisse Absicherung durch Maßnahmen, die „schützende Gewalt“ nicht immer und nicht gänzlich ausschließen.

(ANIMALITY) Im Falle oppressiver Gewalt gegen Nichtmenschen erwarten wir von Menschen die Freiwilligkeit und appellieren an das Mitgefühl, weil wir die Nichtmenschen in einer speziesistischen Gesellschaft und Welt gegenwärtig auf keiner gesellschaftlich und politisch konstituierten rechtlichen Grundlage schützen können.

Mitgefühl allein reicht in der Konfrontation mit nakter Gewalt aber in keiner Form aus.

Die einzige Grundlage, die eine Chance auf das Recht des Schutzes vor Gewalt (systemischer oder individueller Natur) bietet, ist die grundlegende Einforderung von Gerechtigkeit.

(Pazifismus im Kontext mit‚Humanity’ und ‚Animality’ als politisch definitorische Bereiche.)

TIERAUTONOMIE / Gruppe Messel

What is Animality, and what it isn’t

You are at risk of engaging in rhetorical branding if:

… ANIMALITY equals:

pigeonholing nonhuman animal otherness in (philosophical, religious, scientific, biologistic, aesthetic, anthropologic) terms of excluding zoopolitical spaces of animal autonomy.

… and if HUMANITY amounts to:

“we”, the “Homo sapiens”.

A new discourse needs fresh approaches – not just a new labelling system for an ongoing current of stable fallacies.

 

Kritisches Weißsein, Rassismus und Veganismus

Kritisches Weißsein / kritische Weißseinstudien / kritische Weißseinsforschung und Rassismus sind immernoch unbearbeites Gebiet im akademischen und aktivistischen Bereich in der Tierbefreungsbewegung / Tierrechtsbewegung im deutschsprachigen Raum. Wir haben zum Thema einige Texte und Autor_innen vorgestellt. Hier soll nochmal darauf hingewiesen werden, und wir möchen den Lesern zum Themengebiet “vegane Intersektionalität unter dem Gesichtspunkt kritischer Weißseinsforschung” empfehlen:

Dr. A. Breeze Harper: Die Sistah Vegan Anthologie.Eine Buchvorstellung Vortrag: Vegane Nahrungsmittelpolitik: eine schwarze feministische Perspektive

Anastasia Yarbrough: Weißes Überlegenheitsdenken und das Patriarchat schaden Tieren.

 

A vegan economy? Where to start.

Human society annexes every ‘natural’ space, primarily through societal economic processes.

‘Nonhuman Animal Rights’ thus have to cover all spaces on the globe – within human communities and within the natural environment overall.

In regards to creating a ‚vegan economy’:

1. First of all we should address the history of ‘rule and possession’.

a.) Different economic models have been historically existent. Which components came into play for forming current economical models (i.e. the capitalist economies and socialist inspired economies) in pure economic terms, politically, socially?

b.) Which forms of political rule went along with ‘ownership’ and ‘dominion’ (annexation of ‘nature)? And what created the basis of legitimization in rule, such as in: monarchies, democracies, tyrannies, as grounded for example on: religion, ideology, philosophy?

c.) How did forms of ‘rule’ and ‘authority’ interact with exploitative contractualist agendas such as imperialism, colonialism, nationalism?

An aspect to highlight: Legitimization falters or ends where the ‘entitlement’ for ‘rule and possession’ excludes and comes into conflict with interests / rights of other human beings, other animals and the ‘natural’ realm / ‘nature’.

2. Secondly we should see how ‘economy’, as a societal material construct, and ‘nature’, as an borderless/undefined space, conflict.

a.) What stands at the centre of the conflict between our human-centred economic matrices (as systems of ‘rule and possession’) versus ‘natural’ and autonomous life? What are core reasons for conflict? (The reasons might stand alongside the questions of legitimization.)
b.) Society’s inability for groundbreaking political change, and the inability for change on the private scale (in the individual’s life in society) as being part of society, extends the need for the legitimization of ‘dominion’/’rule’, exploitation and destruction – it otherwise leads to rebellion.

What can be alternative forms of economic societal organization?

3. How does veganism – as entailing some of the key aspects needed to form a pacifist eco-consciousness – offer ways out of economic systems that utilize ‘nature’, nonhumans and “powerless” humans, in different degrees, as resources or as in the case of humans, as partly involuntary collaborators?

a.) Discuss the need for veganism to become aware of its own politicalness, in problem-solving and problem-creating terms.
b.) The core of veganism, taken as a social revolutionary ‘movement’, mainly differs from other liberation movements because of its primary focus on nonhuman animal exploitation and nonhuman animal murder / zoacide … .

Economic ethics or non-ethics:

Where does profiteering from (or/and voluntary collaboration with) ecocide and zoacide mainly begin?

How are humans affected today by the consequences of economically driven ecocide and zoacide, ethically?

How do you think should ethical vegans work against ecocide and zoacide, despite the “vegan revolution’s” minority constellation within society?

Vegan Türkiye about intersectional vegan outreach and Nonhuman Animal Rights

Four Questions … we asked Vegan Türkiye about intersectional vegan outreach and Nonhuman Animal Rights within the struggle for a redefinition of what an ‘all-encompassing’ political freedom would ideally mean

A compact interview N. Eyck (NiceSwine.Info) led with the progressive Turkish vegan activist group Vegan Türkiye, with some pressing questions about a country’s movement that is bringing impulses for redefining veganism from an activist level as an ethical / political tool.

This text as a PDF (link opens in a new window)

Visit Vegan Türkiye’s blog on: http://veganturkiye.blogspot.de/, join them on Twitter: @veganturkiye.

N Eyck: Do you think that the vegan Animal Rights / Animal Liberation movement in Turkey is in a sense “forced” to be intersectional, i.e. are human rights and environmental justice issues inevitably a core part of the vegan AR/AL movement in circumstances of political oppression on a scale such as you currently face them within Turkey?

Vegan Türkiye: First of all, we can say that people inTurkey are under political pressure about what they eat, what they wear, with whom they make love and even how many children they should have. Today inTurkey human rights can be discussed frankly especially after the coups done. However, many people think that the struggle for animal rights should not be started before the end of human rights violations. That is, it should be known that there are human rights instead of ”earthlings rights”. By referring to Tom Regan we tell them that if we wait for the developments of human rights, time for animal rights will never come.

The Vegan movement in Turkey refuses species and class discrimination, it defends LGBTI rights, opposes each kind of urban renewal done for the purpose of annuity and each kind of ecological destruction. On the other hand, working class and traditional reflexes of the left focusing on labor struggle open their doors to this Vegan movement. Collective consciousness occurred with Occupy Gezi (Gezi Park Resistance) shows itself also in the vegan movement. For instance, in occupiedGeziParkthere was a vegan cuisine, which became both a meeting point of Vegans and a place where some met with veganism for the first time.

Some infirmaries, vets those were open and free for 24 hours were set for the animals affected by tear gas used during the occupation, and also announcements to take the animals in safer places were done during the day. One other bad memory from those days was that, the people supporting the animal rights were taken into custody from the commemoration done for all living beings killed / died during occupation.

Streets, squares, academies are not the places where people talk what kind of groups are marginalized, anymore. Vegans naturally reflect their political ideas to every area of life; but, the matter is actually being able to reach the main idea and giving animals right to be free. Furthermore, it is important to be able to make people believe that it is not only activists’ business; it is also each person’s business to deal with animal rights invasions.

N. Eyck: Blogging and social networking plays an essential role in the vegan AR/AL outreach work and info exchange and distribution inTurkey. On a parallel level, could a closer international reciprocal exchange (of ideas and about problems faced), create a new momentum and open up new possibilities for our movement’s progress everywhere? In other words: is there a need for a “round table” in the global vegan AR / AL community to learn from each others experiences, etc.?

Vegan Türkiye: As you said before Internet is a vital tool to make the animal rights movement known all over the country and to share materials related to the movement.  By using the Internet animal rights supporters make brainstorming and inform others as an individual, as a group and even as a civil defense organization. Although each of us has different ethics – it is obvious that we have different action and discourse types. There are sometimes misunderstandings and fierce quarrels, but we haven’t experienced that those quarrels have turned into scandal, yet. We all follow us as online, and support one another. Animal liberty movement is being continued by ceaseless information shared via Internet. In this context, we will not be wrong if we say that the animal liberation movement is fed by social media and blogs.

Globally, more crowded, radical or creative communities are already being followed. A big form of an entity in which different experiences from different countries are shared can be installed instead of a ‘global online’ as a single entity; because, animal rights supporters sometimes ignore the local socio-economic and cultural differences, that is, the kind of struggle for animal rights in a place can be harmful in another place, that is why, everybody should be careful about the movement. Besides having connection via internet, animal rights supporters can also keep in touch face to face even a few times in a year in order to share their knowledge, experiences and problems that they have faced.

N Eyck: Is Animal Rights theorizing and having ones own outspoken (or thought) standpoint about Animal Rights popular within the vegan community inTurkey?

Vegan Türkiye: Animal rights movement is so new in terms of organization. Even if some animal liberation activists are in the movement for so long time it can be said that we are now in trial and error period. Some approaches and works done in abroad lead us in this movement. InTurkey we have failed to have a common main discourse and the reason is actually not to be able to create a cultural base. Meanwhile, the first Turkish work written on veganism was published last year. The book written by Zülal Kalkandelen and Can Başkent was made with readers as online. It’s not a theoretical book, but it’s important for the readers to shed light on animal rights.

N. Eyck: Do you think that a practical and basically political vegan approach can establish a form of veganism that is less convenience foods and less consumerism-orientated? And can veganism become what it wishes to be: a cornerstone for food justice for our entire planet?

Vegan Türkiye: Of course, after a while what I wear, what I eat questions bring other questions, such as how much and from where I consume. You start to question the system established on exploitation. There is a growing bazaar for Vegans and corpus is taking advantage of it. As everybody’s consumption habits and cultures are not the same, we are offering alternatives for vegans.

Some people think that they can share the movement without giving up their comforts. This side of the movement is definitely open to be questioned but we warn them to use the ecological products. We also remind people that they themselves can minimize the ecological damage of the products that they buy. According to the system that we are in, we have some problematic issues. At that point brainstorming should be done with other political and ethical vegans.

People love statistics. It would be tangible if you talk to people about what percentage of agricultural land planted to feed farm and diary animals or what percent of animal testing worked for humans in fact. It is effective to say that a century ago some rights which were deemed impossible, we have today, and that it is possible to turn into a vegan world, perhaps inevitably.

N. Eyck: Thank you so much for this interview!

Besitznahme durch Abwertung und Definition. Beraubung tierlicher Autonomie.

Wenn Nichtmenschen nicht autonom wären, und nur der Mensch es wäre, wann in der Evolution und womit hätte diese menschliche Autonomie dann angesetzt, und warum sollte tierliches Handeln und Denken nicht als vom Menschen und seiner Objektivitätswahrnehmung autonom anerkannt werden?

„Seinen eigenen Gesetzen folgend / early 17th cent.: from Greek autonomia, from autonomos ‘having its own laws,’ fromautos ‘self’ + nomos ‘law.’“ – Zoe Autonomos

Besitznahme durch Abwertung und Definition. Beraubung tierlicher Autonomie.

(Fragment)

Wir sprechen eher den Tieren ihre tierliche evolutionäre Autonomie ab, statt dass wir an totalitäre Strukturen in der Menschheit im Bezug auf Nichtmenschen und die natürliche Umwelt glauben. Unser Blick auf Nichtmenschen und die „Natur“ ist in einer Art verstellt, dass unsere Abwertungen vor uns selber akzeptabel erscheinen.

Der Missstand der Ungerechtigkeit ist, dass wir versuchen die tierliche Autonomie zu zerstören (physische Eingriffe und Maßnahmen) und mittels Speziesismus (geistig ideologisch) zu unterminieren.

„Besitz“ ist die Folge der Absprache tierlicher Autonomie.

„Tierverteidiger“ die für die physische Unversehrtheit von Nichtmenschen plädieren, den Nichtmenschen aber weiterhin ihre eigene tierliche Autonimie (vom Menschen und an und für sich) absprechen, betreiben eine unbewusste radikale Form des Anthropozentrismus und des Speziesismus.

Wir verbinden den Würdebegriff mit der Fähigkeit eines eigenen, unabhängigen Daseins (Autonomie).

Durch speziesistische Kunstgriffe bereiten wir den geistigen Boden in einer Gesellschaft vor, um den Besitzstatus eines Lebewesens zu legitimieren und als vertretbar erscheinen zu lassen.

Was ist unserem allgemeinen Verständnis nach Autonomie, siehe z.B. Wikipedia (für den vielleicht breitesten Allgemeinplatz) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomie?

Wenn Nichtmenschen etwas haben – „the wild and tamed beast“ – dann ist es Autonomie. Sie leben „von Natur aus“ in der Natur autonom – wenn wir sie nicht ihrer Freiheit berauben. Wir behaupten, Nichtmenschen seien Instinktbestimmt, und genau da setzt die Besitznahme durch arbitäre Abwertungsmechanismen ein: Wir machen uns Tiere nutzbar und „Untertan“, indem wir sie ihrer Existenzautonomie mit der Behauptung des Instinktverhaltens (kausaltiätsbestimmtes Verhalten) zu berauben versuchen.

Die Abhängigkeit von Lebensnotwendigkeiten als Instinktgeleitetheit zu interpretieren, ist eine Form der Minderbewertung der Angreifbarheit, der Verletzlichkeit und Bedingtkeit des Lebens – jedes Lebens. Jedes Lebewesen ist abhängig und bedingt, aber gleichzeitig auch autonom. Autonomie ist der zarte Keim der Verletzlichkeit tierlicher und menschliche Würde … .

Da ein Tier autonom handelt und denkt, ist es autotom. Der Vesuch der Eingrenzung tierlichen Denkens in anthopozentrisch definierte Parameter, ist eine Besitznahme durch die definitorische Interpretation tierlichen Denkens und Handelns.

Tierautonomie – tierliche Autonomie; ein paar eklektisch ausgewählte interessante Aspekte

Animal Autonomy:

In Veterenary Care:

Here I would simply suggest that “animal autonomy” is worthy of careful attention from philosophers and scientists and veterinarians. Animals are self-governing and make meaningful choices, in ways very similar to humans. As with our fellow humans, we should strive to understand and respect the preferences of other creatures. Research in ethology is continuing to explore how to understand animal preferences and how these preferences are expressed in observable behaviors. It is worth noting, too, that although the language of “autonomy” has not yet been strongly present in the veterinary literature, the concept has been important in the animal ethics literature more broadly. Tom Regan, for example, talked in his ground-breaking The Case for Animal Rights(1983) about animals as autonomous beings, with their own interests and desires. Regan even includes a very interesting discussion of what he calls “preference autonomy” and explores some of the ways in which autonomy in animals is different from autonomy in humans.

Animals and Autonomy. Can this vitally important ethical concept be meaningfully applied to animals? Jessica Pierce, Ph.D. in All Dogs Go to Heaven

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-dogs-go-heaven/201303/animals-and-autonomy

 

Animal Sanctitiy and Animal Sacrifice: How Post-Dawinian Fiction Treats Animal Victosm by Marian Scholtmeyer, Dissertation, 1989, pp. 57.

Animal Ethics:

Kantian ethics is normally not the place to look for an account of  direct moral obligations towards animals, as Kant claimed that we only owe animals indirect moral duties, out of respect towards the rest of  humanity. In chapter four, I consider modern reinterpretations of Kant’s arguments to provide support for the claim that animals should be  considered ends-in-themselves. I argue that despite the strength of these accounts, the concept of agency and selfhood that I support provides a better foundation for claiming animals as ends-in-themselves, and that respect for animal autonomy can be grounded on a Kantian argument for the respect of autonomy more broadly. I claim that in virtue of their agency and selfhood, animals should be considered ends-in-themselves, thereby including them in the moral community. My view is novel in that it includes agency, selfhood and autonomy as those features which make anyone, human or nonhuman, morally considerable.

Agency and Autonomy: A New Direction for Animal Ethics by Natalie Evans. Dissertation.

https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/8158/evans_natalie.pdf?sequence=1

Animal Rights / Animal Liberation

How can I save an Animal today or stop these atrocities now? Even for just a few critters. Because that’s the context we so often miss. It’s about Animal autonomy, not about how the government turns on the people that care about the Animals. But while I’m on the subject, it’s nothing new!

Walter Bond, Green is the New Rage, http://supportwalter.org/SW/index.php/2011/06/24/green-is-the-new-rage/

Animal Caregiving

Kerulos Center Caring for the Caregiver  Project. The project’s overarching goal is to foster awareness and support for animal care organizations and caregiver wellbeing to help achieve the vision of a compassionate, ethical, trans-species society founded on mutual wellbeing.

http://kerulos.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kerulos-Caring-for-Caregiver-Report-Final.pdf

Alle Links: 25. März 2014.

 

Animal Knowledge

Animal Knowledge

Palang LY

This text as a PDF (Link opens in a new window)

It’s astonishing, why are we willing to accept that the burden of proof lies with the nonhuman animals and their allies, to make clear who they are, when a human-centred society doesn’t even have the will and ability to see the full spectrum. Why do we, their allies, bow in to human methods of research on things that can’t be proven and that don’t have to be proven?

Their individual life’s dignity does not need to be proven; it needs to be acknowledged, without restrictive conditions.

What the AR community should learn is to claim the rights, the foundation of dignity, the freedom that really lies outside of paradigms that were (and are) installed to quite contrarily draw lines as aggressive borders.

We tie our human standards and insights on a.) language and b.) on our specific capacity to utilize nature, and we see both these things as qualifiers that are intertied: Language plus the capacity to utilize nature as a resource!

It never occurs to us that other beings could have a more sustainable and clearly wise concept of how to live on planet earth, that their ancestral relation over millions of years has given them insight on how to interact in other ways with nature and their natural environment.

We would deny that, because we don’t accept that nonhumans have concepts. We think concepts can only occur with certain qualifiers … , and we think that nature couldn’t have possibly taught nonhuman animal ancestors things they decidedly built their cultures on.

We think nonhuman animals don’t decide these things.

I could go on, but my point is that we as AR people err so bad, because we don’t want to take the stance that would make us jump in the cold water of radical new perspectives in terms of: de-humanfocusing and thus deconstructing sources we refer to as basis of knowledge about life.

We keep putting new wine into old bottles when we don’t come up with a new architecture of basic knowledge.

 

Why speciesism is evil

Why speciesism is evil

Palang LY

We don’t need to discuss whether a person or group is evil in all aspects, when we want to evaluate if an act of speciesism (committed by a person or group) is evil and condemnable.

In general often people who commit any type of evil, do not seem to their social environment like they would hold an “evil” potential, meaning, that a person can have different aspects about them, or also purposely mask their not-so-good sides. Another thing to keep in mind is that every chapter of human history taught us, that what some might have felt as beneficial to them, was plain evil to others who were negatively affected by a “gain” of someone else.

Speciesism is a (specific) form of oppression – and as such it is evil:

A.) Assuming that speciesism was merely a historical accidence, would mean to deny that nonhuman animals could have ever been perceived as something else than “objects”, and with that as “objects of speciesism”. Acts of speciesism are conscious acts of violating other (animal) individuals. Nonhuman animals are not automatically only viewable as objects.

My position is, that our degrading views of nonhuman animals today and in our shared history (i.e. the arguments with which we mark the nonhuman animal world as less- or non-relevant), are kinds of attitudes based on a totalitarian layer that society continuously enacts and that is functioning by society’s willingness to accept this form of a system; we compel and force members of our society to adopt speciesist attitudes, that however we can step out of such a system and resist, like we can equally resist to take part in other forms of oppressive structures.

B.) To assume that speciesist acts could be done without any conscious form of evil will and behaviour, means that we rule out the quality of evil which we face in the given oppressive context that speciesism marks. Every “procedure” done, that violates the physical and mental integrity of a nonhuman animal individual (directly or indirectly), is a conscious act and an act of will – even when the human individual who commits this act, finds and is offered and taught excuses to rationalize his or her deeds as necessary or non-evil.

Speciesism is evil because it masks as being an acceptable form of viewing nonhuman animal others as:

ownable, definable, edible, usable, ignorable … as passive objects.

I do think that as an Animal Liberationist one is accountable to tell the facts about the forms of conscious human evil that we face in speciesist oppression.

Neue Texte zur Tierethik, Tierrechten und veganer intersektionaler Theorie und Praxis

Hier sind einige unserer letzten Tätigkeiten im Bereich Tierethik, Tierrechte und Theorie (abgesehen von der Teilnahme an einem spannenden neuen TR-Projekt der Gruppe Messel, das uns auch dazu anregte unseren RoundAbout-Blog umzubetiteln zu: “In neuen Territorien denken.” Aber mehr dazu später.)

Unsere Gäste waren in den letzten Wochen:

Eigene Texte auf Deutsch waren:

Zum Thema vegane Pädagogik, Ein Tierrechts-FAQ anlegen, und eine Fortsetzung dessen. Zudem ein philosophisches Essay: Wert und Willkür – kontrastierend gegen „das Naturhafte“.

Der Scan oben stammt aus einer Illustation der Geschichte “Moosh va Gorbeh” von Obayd Zakani.

Steve from the The Drag Hook about the urgency of ethical veganism to make the U-turn against global destruction

Steve, vocalist of the vegan hardcoreband The Drag Hook from Cleveland, told us about ethical veganism:

Veganism is an important step on the road to acknowledging and ending suffering worldwide. The fact that the human body has evolved to run most efficiently on a completely vegan diet is a side benefit of living as close to a cruelty free life as is humanly possible in the world today.

Once we stop ignoring the fact that creatures with the capacity to love and enjoy their lives are being tortured and murdered every day in the name of gluttony and greed, we can start addressing this problem and every other form of needless destruction we inflict on this planet and all those we share it with.

We as human beings have a long history of doing terrible things to each other and to all of our fellow earthlings. We must right these wrongs or go extinct trying.

-Steve Osborne XVX
The Drag Hook

Ignorance Is Complicity

they live in the space you ignore
they die on the killing room floor
because they’re born for you to waste
they give their lives for the way they taste
this is real monstrosity
ignorance is complicity
Breed them in new mutated forms
so fat they cant lift themselves off the floor
dying in numbers too large to record
sold to your plate before they are born
this is real monstrosity
ignorance is complicity
everyone knows the difference
between chained and free
there will be a war
until every cage is empty

Not In My Name

let them suffer no more for me
let the walls that cage them topple over, let them be free
let the hand that grips the whip be severed clean
let eyes that witness and do nothing, no longer see
carry their cries out to every ear
let no one enjoy their pain without having to hear
Bread to be tortured and killed
raped into existence then fed to the world
this will not be my legacy
i wont go down with the rest of my species.

Both these tracks are from their January 2014 release: Lethal Dose.

Connect via
Bandcamp: https://thedraghook.bandcamp.com

Dr. Vandana Shiva: Wie das Wirtschaftswachstum zu etwas Lebensvernichtendem geworden ist

Die Göttin Ma’at von Farangis G. Yegane.

Wie das Wirtschaftswachstum zu etwas Lebensvernichtendem geworden ist

Eine Sucht nach Wachstum hat unsere Sorgen über Nachhaltigkeit, Gerechtigkeit und menschliche Würde in den Hintergrund gedrängt. Menschen sind aber keine Wegwerfware – der Wert von Leben liegt außerhalb der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung.

Dr. Vandana Shiva (http://www.navdanya.org/)

Dieser Artikel ist im The Guardian vom 1. November 2013 veröffentlicht: How economic growth has become anti-life, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/how-economic-growth-has-become-anti-life.

Übersetzung: Palang LY, mit der freundlichen Genehmigung von Dr. Vandana Shiva.

Unbegrenztes Wachstum ist die Fantasie von Ökonomen, Unternehmen und Politikern. Man betrachtet es als Maßstab von Fortschritt. Hieraus hat sich das Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP), das angeblich das Wohl einer Nation bemißt, sowohl als die mächtigste Variable als auch als das herrschendste Konzept unserer Zeit hervorgetan. Dennoch trägt das Wirtschaftswachstum verborgen in sich die Armut, die es durch die Zerstörung der Natur verursacht, die widerum zur Folge hat, dass Gemeinschaften außerstande sind, für sich selbst zu sorgen.

Das wirtschaftliche Wachtstumskonzept wurde als ein Maßstab eingesetzt um während des Zweiten Weltkriegs Ressourcen zu mobilisieren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Gross_domestic_product_.28GDP.29). Das Bruttoinlandsprodukt fußt auf der Schaffung einer künstlichen, imaginären Grenze, die unter der Annahme funktioniert, dass, wenn einer etwas produziert das er selbst konsumiert, er eigentlich gar nichts produziert. Tatsächlich bemisst das „Wachstum“ die Umwandlung von Natur zu monetären Werten und von öffentlichem Gut zu Handelsgütern … DIESEN ARTIKEL ALS PDF WEITERLESEN (Link öffnet sich in einem neuen Fenster).

 

Holy on their AR veganism, on belief systems and intersectional approaches


Holy vegan hardcore from Milan

Stefano, singer of Holy told us about animal rights, veganism, belief systems and intersectional approaches:

The four of us approached veganism in very different ways and time, I think that mostly what we share is that we all became vegans because we have a critical view of the world around us.

The biggest strength of the meat industry is the “don’t question” approach, consuming animals or animal product is something that in most cases is done without consciousness, no one ever wonders about how cows turned into steak, it’s not something considered questionable at all. Just part of the everyday normal life.

It happened in a certain moment of our life that we started questioning it, of course punk has had a huge influence in the process of making this choice. It’s because of punk that we perceived veganism for the first time as a political choice, and not only as some kind of fashionable hippy diet. When we started this band, we’ve put our opinion about animal rights in the spotlight, so we knew that there could have been misunderstandings about our band name’s origin and meaning.

During these years, more than once we had to make ourselves clear about the fact that we are not a religious band, but we are 4 rationalists/atheists. The way we practice veganism, as I said, is as a conscious lifestyle, and I can’t imagine anything further from this than religion.
It is a CHOICE, not an act of faith, and we’re committed to this not to save our souls, or empower our karmic whatever. We are vegan because we care both for human and for non-human life; we don’t see humanity as the center of the universe, nor the top of food chain.

I grew up in Italy, which has still a Catholic culture. This made me think how deep the roots of speciesism are. If you try to think about the idea that men are created in the image and likeness of God, you realize that this people is basically telling you “you are not an animal.” You’re something above all life, and below God only, and this is not only because this is written in the Old Testament, this is because the Catholic Church is still against evolution theory, and still supporting and spreading this shitty idea of creationism. This is a hetero-normative patriarchal Church of a god that created man out of clay (but not women of course, who are just a product of an extra rib.)

You have to know that in Italy the relations between church and state are still regulated by a 1929 agreement Between Mussolini and Pope Pio IX. Catholicism is still considered the main religion, is still a class in primary school (although it is optional), and we still have crucifixes in our classrooms. This means that the Christian imprinting is pretty effective on children at first, and also on the whole population.

Some eastern religions are known for being more “animal friendly” or even for preaching explicitly not to eat meat. Through the years these religions fascinated western people because for some reason they’re perceived, as more “human” and peaceful compared to monotheist religions.

What really depress me is not religious people themselves (as an Atheist, I stand for the freedom of questioning), but the fact that most of the people (to be honest 100% of the ones I’ve met) who approached vegetarianism through religion, seem to be incapable of connecting it to other aspects of life and politics. I mean, I don’t care if the Bhagavad Gita tells you to eat cheese and yoghurt, but how can you consider yourself and intelligent person if you stop eating meat to spare animal lives on one side, and on the other you are still contributing to death, consuming dairy products, because your god told you so? An act of faith is weak by definition: an individual makes choices and reinforces those choices, themselves, even thou it’s oblivious that the choice could be wrong.

This is one of the many ways of how veganism is intersectional to me, it’s both the result of many choices that lead me to what I am today and one of the foundations of what I will be tomorrow. As a thinking person, not just as a vegan.

Asleep

Give us today / our poisoned bread / our daily piece of trash / our dose of forgiveness / altars for those who torture / gallows for those who care / how long will the lambs / be so bloodthirsty? / the sleep of consciousness / built cities and gold paved streets / monuments to its own failure / to praise / to bless / to sleep / forever.

Album: Self Titled 12″ released by Hell Yes! (2012 release)

FREE DOWNLOAD: www.mediafire.com?a5bt7rzkz7rhnae

Restless

I’ve been told a better place awaits
I’ve been told we’ll lay and rest in peace
I’ve been told love lasts forever
Over our dead bodies
I’ve been told no more suffering
I’ve been told no more pain
I’ve been told but if I ask now nobody answers
And my knuckles hurt, my nails are worn
There’s no gold at the end of the road
I’ve been told but if I ask now
Nobody answers
Is anybody out there?
It’s only gravity
Pushing us down so fucking down
Until the ground will swallow us

Album: The Age Of Collapse (2013 release)

Live at Aladdin Jr in Pomona CA (USA) June 2013

Connect via:

Bandcamp: http://holyvegan.bandcamp.com/
FB: https://www.facebook.com/holyvegan

“Joy” and “pain” are reductionary concepts about the rainbow shadedness of animal sentience

The independence of Animal Liberation

We – nonhuman animals and humans – understand the questions of LOVE and VIOLENCE. Whereby “joy” and “pain” are reductionary names for the “same” thing.

Fragment as a PDF (link opens in new window)

A liberation that depends on an approval by scientists? Or alternatively on a religious doctrine?

Sentience can’t be only fathomed by suffering or joy – it’s rainbow shaded.

Sensuality

The separation of sensuality and reason is a man-made one. And tied inasmuch to scientific shortsightedness as to the religiously driven degradation of the earthenly versus the notion of an elated human spirit.

Both anthropocentric paradigms – be they through the lens of objectivism that works within an anthropocentric framework, or the lens of an arbitrariness in the spiritual spheres – any severely anthropocentric paradigm, deconstructs the holistic body and mind connection … for reasons, obviously.

The problem lies with our constructs, and not with animal reality!

Painting: Spanish Dog by Farangis G. Yegane

 

Davey xSABOTEURx on vegan AR intersectionality!

xSABOTEURx at the Asylum 2 – Birmingham, 8.04.2013

We asked Davey, the bassist of the former UK vegan band xSABOTEURx, about his view on ethical veganism and animal rights intersectionality:

Basically for me veganism has always been for the animals and that’s how I would imagine it would stay. The band tackled issues of homophobia and sexism too with our vocalist at the time being gay.

We also come from a background where there’s a lot of privilege and consumerism in hardcore and honestly that’s just never been what it’s about for us.

Our politics have always been about liberation, both human and animal, and that’s something that should always continue on for us.

xSABOTEURx – Reaction

“In a world that’s fueled by the suffering of others,
ignorance is no longer an option. I would rather see
the world for what it really is than blind myself with
excuses. No longer will I stand by and watch as the
innocent fall victim to selfish desires. No more.”
Abstinence from a culture guilty of atrocity,
industries that profit off other beings misery,
mind altering substances that keep thought distracted,
pay heed to our crimes,
this is my reaction.
How many more have to suffer?
I can no longer stand by and do nothing,
as life is destroyed by human consumption,
slaves to convenience,
faith in a bottle,
this is my reaction in a world so hollow.
VEGAN STRAIGHT EDGE
Rape,
Vivisection,
Murder,
Exploitation,
Suffering,
Misery,
This is my reaction,
I won’t stand still.
Won’t stand still.
Won’t stand still.

xSABOTEURx – Unjustified

Compassion for those you once called friends,
lost among false notions of survival,
tradition is delusion in a modern age,
where substitute can take deaths place.
Slaughter, unjustified.
Slaughter, unjustified.
Animals aren’t commodity
or ours to control
industry to industry,
all will fall.
The hunters hunted,
the demons exposed,
no compromise for those who oppose.
Mass liberation from the hands of moral corruption,
those who’d brand a currency on sentient life.
Now is the time!
Mass liberation
from the hands of moral corruption.
Righteous vengeance on those who oppress.
It’s time for us to recognize,
retribution of nature’s calling.
Every second that’s spent waiting,
leads to another demise.

Both track are from xSABOTEURx – Demonstration, released in May 2013.

Via FB: https://www.facebook.com/saboteurxvx

Orel Ofoi, singer of Paris-based vegan band FTA, on animal ethics and veganism as global ethics

Orel Ofoi is the singer of the Paris-based vegan band FTA. We asked Orel about how she sees animal- and vegan ethics and their contexts:

My idea of the ethic regarding the respect of animals and animal protection is really a global ethic: The respect for animals will have an impact on environmental protection and on the respect for human beings themselves.

In the Judeo-Christian religion, for instance, the majority of people read the biblical text with the notion that humans stand at the centre of the world, and that they have to dominate the earth and the animals, thus dismissing the image of the human as a shepherd: who is a friend and protector face to face, on the same ground with the environment and other lives … .

I think that we should see the relationship between humans and animals as a relation of “co-creatures”, based on respect, love and protection of the others.

The Earth is our mother, and the human is the most dangerous animal for her and her environment.

An individual awareness all over the world would be necessary to see a real evolution; one, by fighting those who’ve become cancerous to the planet, who murder us physically and alienate us on a daily basis; I speak about Monsanto for example or also the lobbyists (pharmaceutical or agro food, etc.).

I believe that it is necessary to support ethical producers and to not hesitate with sharing the message, because we need to stick together and to be united to see a real revolution and a real ethical evolution.

Not merely human attributes! Friendbeast’s Koala Largess on vegan intersectionality

We asked Friendbeast from Baltimore about vegan intersectionality

Koala the vocalist of Friendbeast told us:

As an anarchist, I look at the relationships of power. This doesn’t preclude the relationship that humans have to the world around them. If we want real anticapitalist structural change, we need to look at the most basic part of our lives, what we eat and how we relate to it – our food. Bodies, hearts, and minds are not merely a human attribute, and forcing deprivation, sexualization, and then death upon other creatures debases our humanity and throws us deeper into a capitalist web.

Friendbeast – Caged

I could sell her to a lab
Euthanize her tomorrow
Society says she’s property
All I want is an end to this.

CHORUS:
Bought
Sold
Kept in a cage

There is no freedom in the exploitation of another

Bought
Sold
Kept in a cage

There is no dignity in the ownership of another

Systems of power
Desire to control
Fuck your disregard
Fuck this domination
No one should have ownership over another
Animals shouldn’t be confined
Alone…
Cold…
Waiting for your curiosity

Connect through
Bandcamp: http://friendbeast.bandcamp.com/
FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Friendbeast/465040923548720

Animal Thealogy: Man-Machine? Animal Reason! (Part 1)


Vulnerable by Farangis Yegane

Animal Thealogy:

Man-Machine? Animal Reason! (Part 1)

Palang LY

The basic question about the categorical division into (nonhuman) “animals” and “humans” (Homo sapiens), brings up probably before the question of its moral implications, the question about what exactly hides beneath both these big generalized identities.

Why has the view about that what-animals-are and that what-humans-are finally lead to us only viewing animals under biological terms today?

Is it enough to attribute only an instinctual behaviour to nonhuman animals?

Is it thus the ‘fault’ of animals that humans won’t relate to them in any further way than how they are relating to them today?

What other options are there?

Animal = instinctual? Human = reasoning? Attributed identities in a human-centered narrative

If we don’t accept the view that nonhuman animals are those who have to stand below humans, within a frame given by e.g. a biological, philosophical or even divine hierarchy-of-being, then such a claim doesn’t have to be solely morally motivated. It can also mean that we question the way in which both identities („animal“ and „human“) are understood, that we question the separation and qualifications of these identities, even before the questions of our wrongdoings enter the floor of debate.

We can ask if the interpretation of the characteristics that are considered to make up the marking dividers within a human-animal hierarchy, are in reality a negation of the autonomous value of otherness in nonhuman animals.

We know that the single criterion that serves as our standard, is the human parameter, i.e. the human model counts as the ideal, as the standard, for creating norms.

So what happens if we put this standard of measurement into doubt?

It’s a question of perspective!

Conclusions deduced in the fields of biology and psychology, with those being the main academic sectors that deal with the explicability of animal identity, nail the perspectives:

  1. on relevant characteristics
  2. on how animal characteristics (in either, the case of humans or nonhuman animals) have to a.) express themselves and b.) in which exact correlation they have to become „measurable“, in order to reach a certain relevance or meaningfulness from a human point of perspective.

So the problem lies in the question why humans won’t accept nonhuman animal autonomy when it can’t be made fathomable through the perception of a value-defined comparison.

Why are own animal criterions and why is their independent meaningfulness (for the sake of themselves and for their situation within their natural and social inter- and co-specific contexts) rendered irrelevant, when they cross our perspectivical glance, and when these animal criteria could also be understood and accepted to fully lay outside of our hierarchical-framework?

Animal individuality

To be willing to accept an autonomous meaningfulness of nonhuman animals, means to question the deindividualization, that our views and explanations about nonhuman animals purport.

Those are the views that allow us to set nonhuman animals in comparison to us, as ‘the human group’ of identity, instead of seeing otherness in itself as a full value. And those are also the views that seek to sort out how the existential ‘meaning’ of nonhuman animals might relate to anything that matters to us “humans” as a closed group of identity.

The deindividualized view of nonhuman animals almost automatically goes along with the subtraction of value in terms of attributed meaningfulness, and so we land at the moral question now, as the question of identities, individual existence and deinidivdualisation pose some ethical conflicts.

Nonhuman animals, and the attributed identities in the fields of “animal” and “human” social contexts

If we can view nonhuman animals, apart from their localization in the realm of biology, for example also in a sociological context, then we could ask the question: „How do people act towards nonhumans animals?“

Can we explain the behaviour of humans towards nonhuman animals solely by referring to the common notion that one can’t really behave in any particular way towards nonhuman animals because they are supposedly ‘instinctively set’ and ‘communicatively restricted’ compared to us, and that thus our behaviour towards them can’t contain an own quality of a social dynamic?

Can we legitimate our typically human social misbehaviour towards nonhuman animals by referring to the „stupidity“ that we interpret into nonhuman animal behaviour?

(Such questions would of course only feed themselves on stereotypes of animal identity, no matter from where they stem.)

However we probably can’t ask any of such questions a sociologist, though it could fall into their scope to analyse these relationships. Sociologists likely would prefer to deal with the Animal Rights movement and not deal with the interaction between humans and nonhuman animals, since everyone seems to be with the fact that a natural science, biology, has already determined what the identity of nonhuman animals “factually” is. And it must be said that even the Animal Rights movement seems the place moral question somewhere almost out of reach by accepting the explanation of the identity of animals as something more or less strictly biological.

End of part 1

Reaching far? Animal Thealogy – female animal deities, female human deities, on the terms of such angles.

 

Wolf x Down on vegan Animal Liberation and intersectionality


Wolf Down at Ieperfest 2013

We asked Wolf Down about their position on ethical veganism and intersectionality

This text as a PDF (link opens in a new window)

Wolf X Down guitarist Tobi stated it for us:

Veganism to us is not just a diet, as declared by lifestyle vegans that see it merely as a way to stay healthy. It’s a conscious ethical decision of causing the least suffering and harm done to the planet and its inhabitants. Thus, we don’t feel that veganism is “giving up your favorite products and food”, as meat-eaters like to put it into question: “Don’t you miss xy?”. No and no. No, because there’s just about every delicious meal in a tasty cruelty-free vegan version and no, because there’s just no other way. It’s not a choice that is open to anyone. You’re not free to choose if you wanna hold yourself a slave or not, are you? So why do we think it’s everyone’s personal decision to exploit, torture and murder animals?

Despite all this, veganism is a means, not an end. We don’t think real change is to come from simply boycotting products and sharing your favorite raw food recipes. Be honest to yourself, veganism alone is not even saving animal lives. Thus, veganism is to be used as a stepping stone only. The consensus of our society about animal exploitation will not be broken without further action. If we want to achieve animal liberation, the animal rights movement needs to become a political and social movement just like the abolitionist one. The abolition of slavery and struggle for Black people was not won by boycotting cotton. To be successful, a movement needs a broad bandwidth of actions. And the direct actions of sabotage, property destruction and animal liberation carried out by underground ALF activists are just as vital as the clean-cut vegan on the TV talk show. So let’s raise our voices to be heard, and never forget, thousands of individuals are being tortured, mutilated and killed right this second: “I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.” – William Lloyd Garrison, American abolitionist

In a wider context, veganism to us is part of a struggle for total liberation, including not only non-humyn, but also humyn animals. Just as humiliated womyn and people of color or of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds striving for true equality, the gay couple or queer- and trans-people striving for acceptance, people with disabilities for support, refugees for shelter and animals for a right to live without suffering and exploitation, we all aspire to be free and healthy. Not the same, but equal. Only by exposing the commonalities in the different forms of oppression and understanding the nature of the hierarchies and the mentality of the oppressing forces towards their subjects, we can find a way to mutually improve, amend and progress in fighting back, united and strong: “Unity of oppression”. When fighting our own separate fights, we may dismantle and maybe break out the one or two specific spokes that represent our pain in the wheel that is oppression, but it won’t stop the wheel from turning, it will still continue to roll over our comrades. Thus, to achieve our goal of true and lasting liberation, we need to reach hands and make it one common struggle for liberation, to build a unity of the oppressed and break all the spokes in this seemingly everturning wheel:  “So you can stay cool behind your window and choose the view you want to see. But as long as there are others held captive, do not consider yourself free.”

Wolf Down – No Silent Approval

while the blood drips off the blade the cries still resonate
estranged, cut into pieces – rediscovered on your plate
you stop at nothing for the privileg of taste
like a panel of judges you’re deciding their fate

born in misery, abused – got nothing to lose
exploited for profit therefore you breed by humyn greed
this machine that turnes lives to products is called tradition
your silent approval – what an imposition!
individuals – facing perversion by superior forces
social, sentient beings degraded to resources
you stop at nothing for the privileg of taste
like a panel of judges you’re deciding their fate

this is about freedom, this is about compassion,
abolish exploitation – animal liberation!
The time has come – to break this culture of death

From Wolf x Down’s 2013 album release STRAY FROM THE PATH.

FB: https://www.facebook.com/WOLFxDOWN
Bandcamp: http://wolfxdown.bandcamp.com/
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WOLFxDOWN
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WOLFxDOWN

stray from the path — escape prescribed conformity