.gif)
The blogger for "Animal Rights" at Change.org has left amid questionable changes at that so-called progressive Web site.While I don't know the behind-the-scenes details, Stephanie Ernst's last post at Change.org was Thursday.
On Friday a woman named Stephanie Feldstein posted an entry in the "Animal Rights" section, thanking Ernst and attempting to lead "Animal Rights" readers to Feldstein's new blog on Change.org -- "Animal Welfare."
Change.org is home to several progressive blogs, with such topics as global warming, gay rights, homelessness and women's rights. (Ever since its launch in August 2008, I've wondered why Change.org doesn't have a Civil Rights blog.)
Apparently, though, animal rights is just a bit too progressive for the powers-that-be at Change.org.
Last month the Web site launched Feldstein's "Animal Welfare" blog. (Click on the image to learn how animal rights and animal welfare differ.) Her first post attempted to appease vegans while at the same time give meat-eaters a pass for the cruelty they support.
I have so much respect for the vegans of the world. In over a decade of working with animal rescue, I've also learned a lot from people who love their pets and love meat, too.I'm sure most vegans have heard similar sentiments. I have. I've been told that so-and-so respects my lifestyle, so I should respect hers. But I can't respect a lifestyle that's fueled by murder.
I have no doubt that what Feldstein wrote is true. I'm sure she has respect for some vegans and has learned a lot from some meat-eaters. However, the love the omnivorous rescuers feel for their pets doesn't absolve them from the suffering they contribute to multiple times a day.
As animal lovers we have to help others realize that a pet's ability to feel love and pain is the same as a chicken's ability, or a cow's or a pig's.
And that's what Ernst's "Animal Rights" blog had been doing.
Looking at ourselves and recognizing our missteps can be hard. But those are steps we have to take to improve our world. I used to eat meat. When I was a kid, my family bought a kitten from a pet store and two dogs from a breeder. I've brought my groceries home in countless plastic bags.
But there's a saying: When you know better, you do better. I no longer eat meat. I now know that animals should be adopted from shelters or animal rescues. I bring cloth bags with me when I go shopping.
We need to be educated, not placated. An animal-rights blog will do the former. An animal-welfare blog can still educate -- ie. telling people to adopt from shelters -- but it can also mislead. Sure, factory farms are horrendous, but chickens in "cage-free" facilities may not have better lives. Eating an "organic" cow may make people feel like they're doing good, but that cow never wanted to be murdered.
In Feldstein's invitation to "Animal Rights" readers, she notes that "writers specializing in animal rights issues" will bring "new perspectives" to her "Animal Welfare" blog.
The animals don't need "new perspectives" in an animal-welfare blog. They need an animal-rights blog. Period. Murdering an animal because her flesh tastes good is not right. It doesn't matter whether she lives in a cramped cage or roams a pasture. It's wrong. Yes, I support measures that would abolish those cages. But I don't support the murder of animals. Animal welfarists do.
Change.org wouldn't support a blog that advocated domestic violence as long as it's not too severe. Change.org wouldn't support a blog that advocated for gay rights -- just as long as homosexuals aren't allowed to adopt children.
No, progressives fight for freedom from oppression. It shouldn't matter whether those being oppressed are human animals or non-human animals. Oppression and slavery are wrong.
"Animal Rights and AntiOppression"
Ernst, the former "Animal Rights" blogger at Change.org, won't be silenced, though.
With the help of a few other animal-rights activists, she's launched a blog called "Animal Rights and AntiOppression," which "[challenges] oppression and injustice, against nonhuman animals, humans, and earth."
In today's post Ernst writes about how cattle ranchers are destroying the Amazon rainforests, thereby killing animals, enslaving people and worsening climate change.
Social-change movements are stronger if they all support one another. It's a shame that some progressives don't realize this.
Discloser: I have written a couple of guest posts for Change.org's "Animal Rights" blog.
(Image courtesy of AnimalSuffering.com.)
Posts
22 comments:
Yeah, I thought it was strange when the Animal Welfare blog showed up. It's a poor replacement for Stephanie's blog, though. I'm glad she's got her own webspace now. And thank you so much for the animal rights v. animal welfare chart--makes it so much easier to explain to people!
Hey there. I came here to see what Steph's FB status update was in reference to. Yeah, I'm nosy. :)
This is a great post. Very well-said, and I agree with every last bit. Thanks for writing what everyone is thinking!
Thank you, both, for reading and commenting! :)
Thanks for this, Tracy. You and Stephanie are such a gift to our community.
Aw, thanks, Marla!
Well written, I dig it. =)
Go animals! Especially squirrels, they're cute as hell!
Thanks, Michael!
And I have to agree with you about the squirrels. :)
Thanks for the heads up. Added the new blog to my list of favorites, dumped the new/old blog.
I'm not interested in being placated.
Although I've been working for about eighteen years trying to stop animal slaughter, I quit going to Change.org largely because of Stephanie's rigid views. I maintain a spiritual practice in the Hare Krishna (Vaisnava) tradition, a part of which is offering all our (vegetarian) food to Krishna, including milk.
I even keep a protected cow along with a small herd of sheep and goats, but apparently some people think theoretical protection of animals is better than real, positive service. She and her fan club could not accept milk as part of an ethical diet, and they were unnecessarily disrespectful about it. Several of them made the accusation that there is no such thing as an ethical vegetarian, and Stephanie prohibited me from arguing to the contrary. Finally I just went away.
Oddly enough, I was similarly alienated from the Sustainable Food blog there for being too much in opposition to animal slaughter.
p.s. I just noticed the chart, and I don't see where my views would fit there. I believe in employing animals only for mutual benefit. For example, our animals are given a large pasture with protection from predators, high quality hay in the winter, and good shelter. We take from them only what they do not need, and do it in ways that do not harm them. We also use their products in our spiritual practice so that they benefit from service to God just as we do. We do as much as we can to help them live their natural lives in reasonable comfort and without violence.
Materially we appear implicated by involvement with commercial dairies, but the Vedic scriptures that hold our faith indicate that by offering milk to Krishna, the animals (which are otherwise outside our reach) are spiritually protected, whereas avoiding milk does not actually accomplish anything for real cows.
I wonder who Change.org's sponsors are. It would be interesting to look deeper into their organization. Changing from "Animal Rights" to "Animal Welfare" just sends alarms ringing.
Paul, thanks for taking the time to comment.
I don't know enough about your religious situation to say much about it. However, avoiding animals' milk _does_ help real cows. If we reduce the demand, the supply will decrease, thereby sparing some cows from being born into such cruel conditions.
You say the cows don't need the milk you take from them, but surely their calves need it?
Ana, I don't know where the money to run Change.org comes from.
Thanks for the news! I was never a fan of Change.org and therefore didn't follow Stephanie's posts there as closely as on her old blog but I've now added the new site to my list.
Tracy,
First, I've been reading your blog for a long time (years?) and appreciate very much. Thank you. Now, to the subject...
The benefit to cows brought by abstaining from milk is theoretical. Otherwise, what cow is benefitted? In vedic culture, the cow is viewed as a mother because we drink her milk. This is the basis for an actual loving relationship with the cow protected for life.
A few years ago I edited a book on cow protection published by the International Society for Cow Protection (www.ISCOWP.org). Perhaps if you have some time you can take a look at the cow protection standards (http://www.iscowp.org/Cow%20Protection%20Standards/Cow%20Protection%20Standards.htm) and let me know what you think.
Anyway, my point is that the principles of animal rights and animal welfare can be combined and strengthened based upon mutual interests. The animals we keep are not exploited at all, but each of them contributes. It's a natural life close to nature and to God at the same time, and everyone is happy.
In the matter of a calf needing her mother's milk, yes that's true, but not the whole picture. A cow can naturally produce about ten times as much milk as the calf can drink. Too mich milk is not healthy for a calf, and the mother can produce milk for much longer than a calf needs. I have a friend who had a cow giving milk for nine years after giving birth one time. At around the six year point, the family left the country for six months, and the cow was not milked during that time. When they returned she started giving milk again, for nearly three more years. There can be no question that the cow was giving milk for the family, not her adult offspring. These things are possible in loving relationships between cows and people. Each happily supports the other according to their means. How can anyone say it is not ethical?
P.S. I'm typing on a BlackBerry here, and not sure if this comment was submitted, so I apologize if it's a double-post.
Paul,
A cow does not produce 10 times more milk than her calf needs. Not a normal one, anyways. Dairy breeds have been artificially selected to produce more milk, as beef breed have been artificially selected to produce more marbling. There is nothing natural about it, though.
In a natural cycle of nursing and weaning, a cow's milk production reduces around weaning. Calves have a natural predilection to try solids and eventually wean themselves of milk as well. This is normal and happens to wild bovines and domestic bovines under natural conditions.
Marji,
I'm not talking about "normal" cows; I'm talking about protected cows. Do you have experience with milk production from protected cows?
Krishna's devotees have been protecting cows and offering their milk to Krishna for thousands of years, and that is the figure ("ten times") that has been passed down. Our modern farms have been protecting cows for decades and have had to make careful calculations to figure the value of ahimsa milk so that a cow can be supported for life without being a financial burden, and they have confirmed this figure. Within the last year agricultural scientists have also confirmed that cows produce more milk when in relationships with people. (http://www.livescience.com/animals/090127-cows-names-milk.html)
Srila Prabhupada already knew this from tradition when he wrote in the mid 1970s, "Thus we find that in Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna advises go-raksya, the protection of cows. This is essential because if cows are cared for properly they will surely supply sufficient milk. We have practical experience in America that in our various ISKCON farms we are giving proper protection to the cows and receiving more than enough milk. In other farms the cows do not deliver as much milk as in our farms; because our cows know very well that we are not going to kill them, they are happy, and they give ample milk."
Of course, we don't just give the cows names, we give them love and first-class care. As I mentioned my friends' cow gave milk for nine years. "Normal" cows only give milk for maybe four years because their production drops to a point where they're no longer commercially efficient and so sent to slaughter. We are not after with that kind of efficiency. Cow protection is integral to our religion.
It seems like the vegan answer is for cows and other traditional farm animals to practically stop existing, except for perhaps on a few sanctuaries supported by charity. I don't know what your idea of "natural" conditions for cows is. They have been domesticated for thousands of years, and we have relationships with them. Our relationships can be friendly or exploitative, but there has to be some relationship as long as we both exist. Who can deny that in the modern world they need our protection to live; and if we have to serve them, then what is wrong with them contributing too? Would you be happy living as a free-loader? The cows aren't either. Our teamsters who work with oxen know well from experience that the oxen get pleasure from their work, just as the cows like giving milk to those who see the cow as their mother. These are ideal relationships.
Tracy, your post inspired me to write: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/are-you-one/
I think the divide between animal rights and animal welfare is mostly a false one, but I agree 100% with you that veganism is not at all extreme. Veganism is the natural, logical embodiment of the values purported by anyone who supports animal rights or animal welfare.
Veganism is BASIC. It's the first step in a life that expresses value, kindness, compassion, peace, truth, justice, meaning, and honor.
Thanks for the heads up, Tracy. Just back from holiday and learning about this. Censorship at Change.org but the Internet is to big to censor...not that there are those who will not try.
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
Thanks, Anonymous!
Hi thanks for the heads up... I was wondering what went on - But the holidays have me so behind on the investigating end.
Thanks for the details, the insights, and as usual - for all you do! :)
I know what you mean, Bea. I've been short on blog posts, but I plan to write two today.
Post a Comment