The following message was sent to the VARI email account. It was written by Michael Couchman, who is, from what I could gather from him being on the 1st year Film DSC, a second year film major (but maybe not). Anyway, that isn’t important, what is important is the email. I am writing a reply right now and if anyone is interested in helping out, I can send it to you when it is done and we can go through some edits.
“I am sending you this message to relay to you my objections with the content of your recent animal rights posters on campus. I find your use of the word “abolitionist” to be an insult to all those who have suffered the injustices of oppression. Historically this term was attached to opposition against such things as slavery and apartheid. As I’m sure you’re aware, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has used holocaust imagery on their website, comparing the treatment of Jews in concentration camps to the plight of factory farm chickens. Why more animal rights activists haven’t been greviously offended by the common citation of ethnic cleansing and human suffering to demonstrate the wrongs of the meat industry escapes me. Moreover, I fail to see how you can so self-righteously call yourselves “abolitionists”, thereby likening your movement to the deeds of such significant figures as Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela. Veganism should be seen as a dietary choice, not a revolutionary statement.
Being a former vegetarian, I can understand to a degree your perspective on animal cruelty and rights abuses. However, I do not comprehend the need for such melodramatic theatrics in order to get your message conveyed. Personally, I believe that people should first and foremost be dedicated to humanism. I become suspicious of anyone’s true agenda when radical ideology begins to overtake this simple principle.
In conclusion, I respect your right to protest the issues closest to your heart, but politely ask of you to change the terminology on your next edition of promotional posters. I have no reservations against taking this problem to The Journal, the African Caribbean Association, the Hillel Foundation, Amnesty International at Queen’s University, and the Committee Against Racism and Ethnic Discrimination.
Regards,
Michael Couchman”
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
My reply (yet to be sent). Tell me what you think.
Hi Michael,
First of all, I am going to be forwarding your email to our group’s email list and post it on our blog, I hope you don’t mind. We like to discuss any and all objections to our cause communally so everyone can learn from them.
As per your passive aggressive threats at the end of your email, which I feel like I should address first, please go ahead. I would enjoy either a debate about the uses of the term “abolition” with regards to animal rights or to write articles in response to your wild assumptions about what VARI, and abolitionist animal rights generally, is, what they seek to accomplish and what they do or do not condone. Rest assured that, regardless of what you do, neither will our stance change nor will our promotional material change. In fact, nothing you have said has lead me to believe that there is any good reason for VARI to question its position at all, not even calling us racist anti-Semites (which is what I assume you mean by saying that using abolition is “insulting” yet threatening to advance your case with student groups who represent those traditionally oppressed minorities. Next time, you may want to be more honest and not use such thinly veiled niceties.). So why don’t we discuss your specific claims more thoroughly.
The main thrust of your argument is that it is “insulting” (by which you mean racist and anti-Semitic) that VARI uses the term “abolitionist” to describe our moral and philosophical position with regards to the treatment of animals. A good starting point, then, would be to explain to you what exactly it means for someone to be an abolitionist animal rights advocate. It means, simply, that we seek the ABOLITION of the animal exploitation industry. But not only that, we also do so in a way which respects the rights of animals (including human animals, may I add) in the process by being vegans, not engaging in violence in any way, and not participating in ineffectual so-called animal rights campaigns a la PETA, HSUS, etc. So, we could call ourselves eliminationists, terminationists, destructionists (just go to a thesaurus and find some synonyms for abolition and add an “ist” on to the end), but this would fail to recognize one very central aspect of the animal rights movement: that we are, like abolitionists such as Lincoln, engaged in a fight to end the existence of the institutionalized exploitation of beings which have a moral status. Regardless of whether or not you recognize this status, it still exists, and we have good arguments supporting us (none of which you have read, I assume). So, you see, we are actually trying to make connections between past social movements and our own.
With that aside, lets move onto your more specific claims. First, you say that PETA uses holocaust imagery. That is true, lots of so-called animal rights groups use holocaust imagery. However, we are not PETA and we are not those other groups. We are abolitionists which PETA is not. We do not associate with PETA nor do we condone any of what PETA does. We are our own separate entity with our own philosophy. A philosophy which clashes deeply with that of PETA. So it will do no good to try and liken us to them or to say that we condone the likening of animal exploitation to the Holocaust. You are just building a strawman.
Next you claim that we are “self-righteous” because we liken our movement to the deeds of people such as Lincoln and Mandela. I am not sure I understand your argument. I think what you are trying to say is that, because we think that the animal exploitation industry is as gratuitous a harm as say apartheid or slavery, then, because we are wrong about this claim, we are being self-righteous. This only works if you don’t take the moral status of animals seriously, which you clearly do not. And while your position isn’t an uncommon one, it doesn’t make it right. Thus, unless you can show, without resorting to rhetorical ploys, why it is the case that we should not care about animals at all, then your argument fails. Self-righteousness is when someone smugly displays their moral judgments as clearly superior to other peoples without arguing for their position or taking the contrary position seriously. In fact, that sounds like exactly what you are doing. You are telling us that it is wrong to use the word abolition, yet you give no good evidence for why it is in fact wrong. You just call it insulting, and then go on using empty arguments. If anything, you are being smugly moralistic because you reject our position outright without even considering that it may actually be true.
Next, you say that veganism should be a dietary choice rather than a revolutionary statement. Why? Because it is self-righteous? Why is it self-righteous? Because we are wrong? Show us that we are wrong, try and actually contend with the ideas instead of using empty gibberish. Furthermore, veganism is a choice: it is one which either affirms your commitment to promoting the torture and death of billions of animals or one which rejects all of that. All moral requirements are choices, that is how we become cruel or vicious or disrespectful, etc–because we choose wrongly.
Then you claim that we use melodramatic theatrics. Where? I don’t see anything that resembles drama nor theatrics. We aren’t protesting or going naked rather than wearing fur. We aren’t blowing up laboratories. We are simply an educational group who tries to inform ignorant people such as yourself that consuming animal products is disgusting.
Then you say that we should first and foremost be dedicated to humanism. This would mean that we would take the interests of humans, in most cases, as being prior to the interests of all other species. While this may be the case, though it probably isn’t, that does not mean that being an abolitionist doesn’t mean you don’t take human interests seriously. Abolitionists aren’t anti-human. The moral values which ground our obligations to humans are the same ones which ground our obligations to animals. To take the moral status of animals seriously is to take the moral status of humans seriously. They cannot be disconnected. So just as focusing on the oppression of women isn’t excluding the moral obligations we have to, say, Africans, even though they to are being oppressed, so too does being an animal rights advocate not exclude the rights of humans.
You then say that we are “radical ideologues”. I am assuming you mean this in the most pejorative way imaginable, so I will take it as that. Your only evidence for thinking that we are radical ideologues is that we don’t take humanism seriously and that this is a principle. First, I already showed that the former claim is false, we do take humans seriously. Second, your so-called principle is not a principle at all, it is your opinion. Just because you “believe” that we should be dedicated to humanism doesn’t mean we ought to. Your opinions don’t count as reasons.
In closing, I’d like to explain to you why I have taken such time in responding to your scandalously vacuous email. This is because using the injustices committed against other moral persons (which animals are), either in the past or present, to further your project of undermining and censoring current justice movements is despicable. Alan Dershowitz does similar things by denouncing the use of the word “apartheid” to describe the situation of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. What he is doing is using the plight of people in the past to further his Zionist agenda. Similarly, you use the plight of people in the past to further your agenda to stifle a moral position that conflicts with your own bankrupt principles. I really have no patience for this type of vile behaviour.
Regards,
Abolitionists Everywhere (but more specifically, Peter Saczkowski)
The reply has been sent after a few minor revisions (thanks Daphnee). I can’t wait to see what he says.
To be honest, I doubt you’ll even receive a reply. It would be fairly unusual.
I would suggest that most people who put forth such complaints (as opposed to genuine queries) about anything at all veganism-related, and specifically, abolitionism-related, rarely have intelligent discussion at the forefront of their motivates.
After reading the “former vegetarian” section it seemed pretty reminiscent of a “here we go again…” vibe. The welfarism v. abolitionism debate aside, with his questions/critique in mind, I’d ask why exactly was he vegetarian in the first place? Would it be going too far to say that he was vegetarian for the wrong reasons
?
Regarding your reply, I have nothing to add or comment on – you’ve covered all the bases quite aptly.
I can only hope we get the chance to host Michael – and perhaps some cohorts – in a public debate of somesort.
Obviously situations like these are very frustrating (I cringe at the thought of my posters advertising our meetings being torn to shreds…and that’s the least important implication of all this), but hopefully some useful discussion/debate/dialogue might come of it.
Then again, maybe I’m being too optimistic…but I concur, Peter, your response was well-written and said what should have been said.
i prefer to link the abolitionists to john brown, more than lincoln, as john brown actually believed in the mission, while abe’s ‘emancipation’ affected only those slaves in the states comprising the CSA.
John Brown is known, I think, for being a violent abolitionist. Though maybe he wanted to emancipate all slaves, as opposed to Abe, I think that his position is still rather controversial. Myself, I don’t think, and I have good reasons for thinking thus, that we should use or advocate violence as a means to achieve rights for animals. Do you think that John Brown’s position was better because he advocated violence? Or because he wanted to emancipate all slaves?
aiee. i just checked back here and saw you replied to my comment.
i’m getting ready to go feed the strays, and don’t have much time. i’ll respond in detail later. but yes, john brown most definitely violent. more so in ‘bleeding kansas’ than in the raid on harper’s ferry.
Hey there. I’m back.
Not to split hairs, but I think, John Brown is known for the raid on Harper’s Ferry as a whole, including his capture, trial, and execution, not just for the fact that he was violent. I could be wrong on that count, though. I’m sort of an ‘American Civil War phile’, and so my view may deviate from the norm.
I understand that there are strategic and moral reasons for abstaining from, or even actively working against the use of, violence when pursuing the goal of abolition. I’d be interested in hearing your arguments in that vein, as I respect anyone struggling for freedom for our cousins, and want to contribute in the most effective way that I can.
I don’t take the route of violence myself, not because I believe it to be wrong, but because I am too cowardly and selfish to accept the consequences. I’m too well institutionalized, socialized, and programmed not to obey the rules. It makes me feel about three inches tall.
That said, I’d never condemn someone who followed in Brown’s footsteps.
I think that the most effective liberation movements – the IRA, the PLO, even, though I disagree with them, the Anti-abortion groups, best achieve, or at least move towards their goals because they have both military and political wings.
It’s hard to write this the way I want, with the political and legal climate in the U$ being what it is.
I’ll satisfy myself with answering your questions.
I don’t think JB’s position was better b/c he advocated violence. I do think his motives were more pure than those of Abe, but just like animals don’t care _why_ people don’t eat them, only that they aren’t eaten, I don’t think the people freed by the Emancipation Proclamation cared that it was a political action, not a moral one. The slaves in Union territory that were not emancipated by it were probably troubled, though. I think to them, John Brown was more a hero than Lincoln. Though for them, both Lincoln, and John Brown failed to deliver, and ultimately, what matters in this war is results, not intentions.
Ya, I am very pro-nonviolence. It would take a while to try and articulate my position, and even then it may not be very clear. In any event, there is a good piece on abolitionist online by Jeff Perz that I have taken a lot from, it is here:
http://www.abolitionist-online.com/article-issue05_exclusive.non.violent.jeff-perz.shtml
Or, you can read what I published a little while back, it is here:
http://varikingston.wordpress.com/files/2007/09/syndicus-piece.doc
thanks peter. i’ll read them as soon as i am able.
oh! i read this bit today. it’s entitled “LOVE DOES NOT IMPLY PACIFISM”
http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/16-Love-Pacifism.html
it’s pretty good. i’d like to get the book, but it’s like 20USD per volume!