Jason Hribal's no.1 fan

sideblog for animal studies posts 🐄🌿 vegan for the animals 🌿 🐑 🐾 animal/human liberation ✊ header from the northumberland bestiary

[the-animal-tern]

But no one can eat the flesh of a slaughtered animal without having used the hand of a man as slaughterer. Suppose that we had to kill for ourselves the creatures whose bodies we would fain have upon our table, is there one woman in a hundred who would go to the slaughterhouse to slay the bullock, the calf, the sheep or the pig? ... But if we could not do it, nor see it done; if we are so refined that we cannot allow close contact between ourselves and the butchers who furnish this food; if we feel that they are so coarsened by their trade that their very bodies are made repulsive by the constant contact of the blood with which they must be continually besmirched; if we recognize the physical coarseness which results by the brutalization of others, and demand that some should be brutal in order that we may eat the results of their brutality? We are not free from the brutalizing results of that trade simply because we take no direct part in it.

Annie Besant. Speech given at Manchester, 18th October 1897.

[the-animal-tern]

But ultimately this erasure of Tilikum’s history is symptomatic of something much greater: the long-standing belief that animals have no history to begin with. They can certainly play a role in history, but only in the sense that they are being used and manipulated by humans. Animals are, historically speaking, little more than passive objects. You could just as easily be talking about a hammer, “a hammer shaped history,” and still have the same meaning. Why is this? Well, I can give you 2500 years of argument condensed into a nutshell. Animals have no history because they have no intentionality. Why? Because they have no rationality or language. Why? Because they have no soul. Why? Because God made humans in his image and only they can be special. Indeed, everything in regards to this argument can be traced back to this one well-spring: the idea of human exceptionalism.

Jason Hribal. The Tilikum Effect and the Downfall of Seaworld. From https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/the-tilikum-effect-and-the-downfall-of-seaworld/

[the-animal-tern]

Resistance is defined as “in opposition”—one side opposing the other side. Tilikum knew his job. He had done that routine hundreds of times, probably more. He knew the rewards and punishments. But he and the other orcas, on that day five years ago, were not cooperating. They were skipping parts of the shows and refusing to acknowledge commands. Sometime later, Tilikum grabbed his trainer and drowned her. This was a purposeful act. Nor has he been alone in carrying out such violent actions. Call the orcas criminals. Call them heroes. Call them assholes. But don’t say they are victims who didn’t understand what they were doing. This was, on Tilikum’s part, a knowing act of opposition versus his trainers and imposed captivity at Sea World. It was an act of resistance, and one that has shifted the trajectory of history. Tilikum deserves recognition for this. He is the main character in the story about the downfall of Sea World.

Jason Hribal. The Tilikum Effect and the Downfall of Seaworld. From https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/the-tilikum-effect-and-the-downfall-of-seaworld/

[the-animal-tern]

Yet for every qualification, equivocation, or outright denial, a little truth always finds its way through. My personal favorite is when people complain that they are being treated like an animal. If you pay close attention, you will hear this consistently, and it occurs across all languages and cultures. “I am being treated like cattle,” “. . . a dog,” “. . . a donkey.” You might even catch yourself saying this. It is a fact that historically other animals have been exploited and abused exponentially worse, making such comparisons by humans seem misplaced and appropriative. It is also most ironic that, when the situation is reversed and say the suffering of dogs is compared to that of humans, many individuals recoil in horror and exclaim this to be an appropriation of their unique suffering. However there is no need for exceptionalism here. When people say that they are being treated like an animal, they are revealing commonalities and making connections. It may be happening on a deeper cognitive level, but it is happening. Just a little push would be needed to start some reflective thinking and bring new questions about our relations with other animals to the forefront.

Jason Hribal. The Tilikum Effect and the Downfall of Seaworld. From https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/the-tilikum-effect-and-the-downfall-of-seaworld/

[the-animal-tern]

Of capitalism, [Murray] Bookchin wrote that persuading a green plant to stop photosynthesizing was probably an easier task than to get capitalism to desist from accumulation. We could say the same of animal industries and the commodification of animals. While we may be able to make that commodification "nicer" through "compassionate" or "happy" meat, or measures like eliminating gestation crates, commodification will never simply fade away on its own, as it is the foundational logic of the system itself. Provided it can continue to commodify animals as property, the system will adapt, even to the most stringent regulations. What's more, if those regulations become too onerous domestically, it seems likely that the industry will simply increase the already substantial offshore production taking place to skirt around these domestic regulations. For these reasons, our activism must fight the system at its roots, targeting property and the imposition of the commodity form on animals, rather than hoping that an ethically bankrupt system will do the impossible task of reforming itself given demands to do so.

Bob Torres. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. 2007.

[the-animal-tern]

The Delta Society, the largest organization dedicated solely to service dogs, describes its mission as “improving human health through service and therapy animals.” The manifold of collective and independent trainers focus similarly on the human concern. Within their manuals, the dogs receive merit in regards to their behavioral standards and training. ‘Look!’ they boast, ‘at the amazing dog, we trained.’ But the dogs themselves-their wants, needs, concerns-receive little to no attention. These organizations and individuals speak often of “retirement” for the dogs. But there is no standardized, financial planning for this. Rather it is voluntary-up to the owners and trainers to deal with or not. There are national and state laws regarding service animals. But, in reality, these legal measures are solely for the protection the owners from damage or loss of property. There are no labor laws regulating the working conditions or the health and well-being of these employees. These dogs may work, but they are not considered to be workers.

Jason Hribal. Jesse, a Working Dog. From https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/11/jesse-a-working-dog/

[the-animal-tern]

But something is amiss. For “every act of giving,” as the historian E.P. Thompson argued, “is an act of getting.” We know the gift: it is pity. But what about the getting? This is where animal-right’s philosophy fails miserably. Animals as actors: building, creating, and shaping society (i.e. the getting) are rarely, if ever, considered. In fact, their agency, as an historical and sociology reality, is not only neglected within the animal right’s community; it is oftentimes dismissed as undeserving of consideration. Instead, animals are perceived and presented as helpless victims and static characters. These creatures are, consequently, segregated from society. This is a top-down view-one which serves to reproduce and reinforce similar beliefs among the general populace. Indeed, this dominate perspective has not only ignored and marginalized the animals of the past and the present, but it has erected obstacles to the relationships we seek to establish with animals in the future.

Jason Hribal. Jesse, a Working Dog. From https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/11/jesse-a-working-dog/

[the-animal-tern]

In honor of Jessie, the next time you cross paths with a service dog, your perspective should be turned up-side-down. Don’t glance from above: “Wow, look at that beautiful, well-trained dog!” But instead, question for below: “Hey! does that dog ever get a fuckin’ day off?”

Jason Hribal. Jesse, a Working Dog. From https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/11/jesse-a-working-dog/

[thewrittenvegan-blog]

I’m honestly really tired of those posts that are like “this goat/cow/pig/etc thinks he’s a dog!! so silly!” because that’s not what’s happening. All that’s happening is you’re giving the goat/cow/pig/etc an opportunity to relax and be comfortable and forming a bond with them. They don’t “think they’re a dog” they’re just living their life and the only way you can see them as their own entity with thoughts and enjoyments of their own is to compare them to animals that are traditionally pets because you just can’t imagine that a Meat Animal™ could possibly have feelings. The cow is not on the couch because she thinks she’s a dog, she’s on the couch because it is soft and she likes it. The pig is not waiting for food with your dogs because she thinks she’s a dog, she’s ready for dinner and has learned the same things your dogs have: that you will provide it. The goat doesn’t lick your face because he thinks he’s a dog, he licks your face because he likes you and is showing affection. Dogs don’t have a monopoly on feelings they just have the privilege to be seen as having them.

[the-animal-tern]

For veganism to mean anything at all, it must be more than lifestyle politics and expensive consumer trinkets produced without animal-cruelty; it must be part of an integrative movement that seeks affinity with other causes promoting justice.

Bob Torres. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. 2007.

[the-animal-tern]

If animals are going to be considered in our struggle for social justice, veganism is the first place where that struggle must start. As a direct protest against the commodity form and property relations that animals are subject to, it is a great refusal of the system itself, a no-compromise position that does not seek reform, but which seeks abolition. For anyone who wants to end animal exploitation, living as a vegan is living the end that we wish to see - no one will exploit animals for mere choices of taste and convenience.

Bob Torres. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. 2007.

[the-animal-tern]

As a needless and unnecessary form of hierarchy, anarchists should reject the consumption, enslavement, and subjugation of animals for human ends, and identify it as yet another oppressive aspect of the relations of capital and a needless form of domination. Anarchist or not, anyone concerned about the cruelty animals experience at human hands should take the first and most immediate step to stem that suffering by going vegan.

Bob Torres. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. 2007.

[the-animal-tern]

The early 1800s witnessed a significant growth in the social acceptablity of a natural diet or vegetable regimen. By the middle of the century, the word "vegetarian" itself became an active term. The first vegetarian society was founded in 1847 in the United Kingdom, and the first in the United States was founded three years later. But through this process of assimilation, this practice lost much of its radical tendencies. ... As for advocacy, its historical development was similar. The first call for "the rights of beasts" occured in 1796. It was made by the foremost specialist in the care and medical treatment of horses, John Lawrence. Two years later, the Cambridge physician Thomas Young argued likewise for "the foundation of the Rights of Animals." These were proclamations for political rights: to provide lawful protections for "the brute creation" that regarded both "humanity and profit" (Lawrence 1796, 131). Yet, these liberties in no way equated equality or fraternity. In other words, in a reversal of the Pythagorean tradition, liberty (in this case, political rights) now provided the base from which equality and fraternity may, or may not, grow forth. The relations between humans and other animals became one increasingly based upon legality. This was middle-class reform, and animals were part of the working class.

Jason Hribal. Animals, Agency and Class: Writing the History of Animals from Below. 2007.

[cherrypitgoddess]

“Any choice that deprives someone else of their life or liberty is not a personal choice.”

— Vegan Future Now (via nonconformist-vegan)

[the-animal-tern]

This inclination to purchase one's activism is certainly larger than the animal rights movement (in truth, the environmental movement pioneered its use several decades ago), but it has impacts within the movement that cannot be ignored. First and foremost, leaving activism to the "professionals" creates an environment where most people assume that the only way to be effective is by following the lead of the big organizations, the ideas and thinkers they promote, and the campaigns they head up. With the broad feeling that activism is being handled by responsible and capable professionals, many people do not feel the need to do activism in their own communities, in their lives, or in other places where it might count the most. This donor-member model of activism is radically disempowering at an individual level.

Bob Torres. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. 2007.

[the-animal-tern]

Be it the junk mail or the web plea from PETA, your "activism" is reduced to a mere financial transaction, and doing something to combat animal exploitation becomes a question of joining the right organization, attaching the right signifiers to your particular little identity kit so that you can proudly tell the world that you support PETA, while blithely going about your life as you otherwise would have without the trouble of actually doing any activism on your own. [...] In order to be an "activist," one need only give money to organizations like PETA, and - if you're feeling really daring and radical - buy the right stickers, t-shirts, and leaflets from their online shop over at petacatalog.org.

Bob Torres. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. 2007.

[the-animal-tern]

Animal doesn't just mean "cat" or "squirrel" or "cow." Animal is a label. It's a social construct the dominant class created to mark certain bodies as disposable without even a second thought. Animal as a term does not exist on its own ... it's relational. It only makes sense in relation to the white human. Those who deem themselves the superior humans decide who falls within the category of animal by using their own group's traits as the standard measurement. Animal is a signifier that is always convenient and changing, and any group the dominant class deems unworthy is immediately branded with this label.

Aph Ko. Racism as Zoological Witchcraft: A Guide to Getting Out. 2019.