From: ra-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr (Ronald Creagh, Moderator, Research on Anarchism List)
Date: 31 Jan 1997 15:04:33 UTC   (11:04:33 AM in author's locale)
To: ra-l-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:52:05 -0330 (NST)
>From: Alka Chandna <ac-AT-math.mun.ca>

> >From: Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba-AT-sn.no> :
I don't think it is a coincidence
> that most of the promoters of "animal rights" comes out of this background,
> nor that this movement
is especially strong in the US along with all kinds
> of escapist "new ageism". Neither that there are far more centres for
> mistreated animals in the US than for battered women and so on.
This is patently false! While the animal rights movement as perceived
through the windows of such philosophers as Peter Singer and Tom Regan
may fit your box, one should not forget that many of the world's major
religions put forward the notion that animals possess souls. As such,
ethical treatment of animals, in respecting their *rights*, is central to
these faiths (Hinduism, Jainism). There may be half a dozen (very good)
centres for abused and mistreated farm animals [read: all of them] in the
U.S. There are *hundreds* in India. India has been the cradle of
vegetarianism, which is certainly a cornerstone of animal rights. And
while people may be quick to dismiss the vegetarianism of Indians as
being cultural or religious, if one goes deeper into what these labels
mean, you're talking about a very deep-seated respect for animals.
Many progressive people in North America question the validity of animal
rights. Some of my friends have even questioned my priorities, knowing
that I'm an effective organizer and wondering why I don't channel my
energies into human-related issues. I think it's interesting that when I
was visiting my extended family in India (and various members of our
family are located at different positions in the socio-economic ladder),
NO ONE asked about my priorites. If anything, my actions were lauded.
So, I'm a bit suspicious when people say that some people can't *afford*
to have a certain morality. Why not just say that you're lazy? or that
you don't care? or that you *are* cruel?
Not
>surprisingly, the vanguard of the "animal rights" movement, like the Animal
> Liberation Front, has the same kind of elitist approach, willing to kill
> human beings for their sacred cause. This kind of thinking lends;itself
> easily to a total moral relativism and thereby also to all kinds of right
> wing movements. Along this line of unreality there is no difference between
> the nazis and the "child-eating" Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homo-sexuals,
> anarchists and others who ended their lives the nazi extermination camps.
Again, this is patently false!!!! The Animal Liberation Front very
specifically makes the distinction between violence against property and
violence against sentient beings. They support the former, and loathe
the latter. Anyway, your comments certainly put the shoe on the wrong
foot! I mean, what's more fascistic: embracing the philosophy of animal
rights (respecting its proud history of such followers as Tolstoy,
Gandhi, Schweitzer, and Shelley) or requiring the brutal confinement,
torture and murder of an animal just because you happen to like the taste
of his/her flesh? I also don't think that you should be slinging around
the word "Nazi" so flippantly, but I might remind you that Isaac Bashevis
Singer once wrote that to the animals of the world, all humans were Nazis.
genocide..
> > The resources of this planet are limited.. What makes you believe that
> youcause the death of less animals being an vegan. When you grow vegetables
> grain etc. you steal the food and living grounds of animals and cause painful
> starvation, not drinking milk makes you even more murderous, because it
> causes you to take even more of their pastures.
I really wish you'd do a bit of research before you posted these
comments! The animals that we raise for food in turn must be fed grains,
etc. In fact, in the U.S. some 80¨f all of the major grains and beans
are grown for animals so that we can eat their flesh. So, if you truly
care about displacing wild animals, you should go vegan, since there will
less requirement of land for the production of your food. This is to say
nothing of the war which is actively being waged against wild animals by
the livestock industries. An excellent book on this topic has been
written by Lynn Jacobs. The book is called, "Waste of the West" and in
it, Jacobs details the existence of the prairie dog as a keystone species
in the natural order of animals in western U.S. states like Montana,
etc. Cattlemen have *selectively* killed the prairie dog, knowing that
the entire chain of species will collapse around it. They are willing to
biologically sterilize the region for the sake of a few filthy dollars.
What's more, the cattlemen's lobby has actively promoted the wholesale
slaughter of wolves, coyotes, moutain lions, bison, and other species in
protecting "their" land.

> in solidarity, >
Harald Beyer-Arnesen > haraldba-AT-sn.no > >

In solidarity with whom? Certainly not with me, and not with the
millions of species on this planet whose only crime was to be born other
than human.
For the animals,
alka

TO SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE write to RA-L-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, WRITE TO : listserv-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr
with the text SIGnoff RA-L (no subject nor signature).

Moderator/Moderador/Moderateur : Ronald Creagh
Co-Moderator : John P. Clark
e-mail : rcreagh-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr
snail mail/correo ordinario/courrier ordinaire : Ronald Creagh, Universite
Paul Valery, B.P. 5043, 34032, Montpellier-Cedex, France.
fax : (33) 67 64 77 23