draft 04.12.2022
German „Animal Lib“ (?) archive
provides Konrad Lorenz (the „I have always been a nationalsocialist“ behaviourist; https://sciencev1.orf.at/science/news/27585), Bernhard Grizmek, famous ex-zoo director and speciesist Tierfreund. Amongst its English titles it lacks a lot
I write this in English for obvious reasons. I never looked at this before, because the German animal advocacy scene-cluster avtively supports Turkey’s oppressive politics on the level of cultural exchange and personal ties. And: since I have some vegan friends in Turkey who are politically active, the German vegan and „AR/AL“ scene-cluster is a no go to us.
Anyway. Today I looked for the first time on the website of the Saxony based and „Die Tierbefreier“-run or hosted: „Animal Liberation Archive“ https://tierbefreiungsarchiv.de/fachbibliothek/
@vegansofcolor see how this German „Animal Liberation Archive“ collects/curates:
no Aph Ko,
no Breeze Harper,
no Gary Steiner,
no David DeGrazia,
no Richard Ryder,
yet
Konrad Lorenz (their obligatory statement against support or ties with Nazis seems quite limited thus); the „I have always been a nationalsocialist“ beaviourist > https://sciencev1.orf.at/science/news/27585)
Grizmek (Ex-Zoo Frankfurt director, speciesist Tierfreund),
Agamben, yes
English titles, yes
E. Drewerman, yes … an esoteric self-declared animal friend who advocates brain research
H. Kaplan, yes … making the analogue comparisons of Shoa and Theriocides, which at other instances is heavly denounced by German AR/AL activists.
oh and
Leathermuseum Offenbach, yes
A bunch of texts by: Die Tierbefreier author Emil Franzinelli, yes
who states in: „Hauptsache für die Tiere? Wie unkritisch und unpolitisch dürfen die Tierrechtsbewegung und ihre Repräsentierenden sein?“ ( https://www.tierbefreiung.de/pdf/tb67.pdf , 04.12.22) von Emil Franzinelli, in TIERBEFREIUNG, Heft 67, 2010,
that he can understand people who’d not „want to know“ about „the afro-american’s problems“ [sic], in an ambiguous article in which he again criticises the Austrian autor Helmut Kaplan > who chose to write in support for a German sect, that has or had a bunch of affiliations in the German AR/AL-scence-clusters.
Kaplan is generally being criticized for making simplistic analogous comparisons between the Shoa and Theriocides, yet Kaplan is also featured in the archive of the Tierbefreier.
A German animal rights activist who sadly recently passed away, Andreas Hochhaus later Andreas Bender, wrote in his self-published and widely distributed journal „Voice-Magazin“ about this sect, accused them heavily of implicit antisemitic messages and complained they’d seek to undermine the „AR/AL-scene“ in some way. He gave up on publishing his journal as a consequence of the ongoing fight in context with the sect’s activities.
The Tierbefreier author Franzinelli agreeing with a German activist about quote: „Afro-Amerikaner-Probleme“
Drewermann titles
B. Grizmek titles
H.F. Kaplan titles
German Leathermuseum title „the animal in african sculpting“ from 1967, alone the title is somehwat problematic
Several Lorenz titles
Oh, they do have English titles, they have Regans case for Animal Rights by the way in English too.
Kaplan on the mentioned sect
And here the Franzinelli quote in its full length – typically inconsistent or in an undermining manner he cited his educational work about „single-issuedness“. He writes:
„I still have some sympathy for a ’single issue‘ animal rights activist that Hochhaus echoes in his 2004 announcement: ‚[who does] not wish to be educated about African-American issues. […] In addition, I distance myself from political groups that promote their do-gooder right-wing or left-wing spin even into the animal rights scene. ‚Animal rights commitment‘ means
’straight ahead‘ – independent of other personally represented craziness.‘ Quite a few animal rights activists do not want to deal with leftist issues and ideologies and be associated with them or even have to follow them as part of a common movement,“
Franzinell obviously depolitizises and decontextualizes Animal Rights here, which means he must obviously use some kind of narrow frame (…) > see for national dynamics and reductiveness in Animal Rights approaches our comment on > Völkisch whiteness and reductive views on animality – which helps also in unterstanding the mechanisms underlying the restrictive curation methods applied by a self-declared „Animal Lib“ network, describing it’s policies with the highest aspirations, and that are yet contrariwise principally wide open to conservative speciesist literature stuff.