George Guimarães, VEDDAS - Ethical Vegetarianism, Defense of Animals and Society

Sao Paulo, 28 October 2007.

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a communist, so I did not speak on their behalf.

Then they came for the socialists and trade unionists, but I was not one of them, so I did not speak on their behalf.

Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak on their behalf.

And when they came for me, there was no one to speak on my behalf.

– Poem Shepherd Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals as they watched the Nazi party came to power and eliminate each group that was opposed to the Nazi regime.

The facts

Last week brought news that caused the mobilization of some representatives of the black movement and the animal rights. The text that started the controversy was published on 21/10/2007 in http://www.afropress.com/noticias_2.asp?id=1371 reports and made a complaint to the Public Prosecutor of São Paulo against an animal advocacy group that published the image of the slave Anastasia alongside the image of a dog subjected to human cruelty.

On 26/10/2007 was published in the same news agency, maintained by the NGO whistleblower, an editorial entitled "Fury vegan and our right"Which reads a generalization between the image considered offensive by the complainant and NGOs throughout the animal rights movement. On the wording of that editorial (which can be read http://www.afropress.com/editorial.asp with copy www.veddas.org.br / editorialafropress.htm ) I comment further on this letter. Per hour, report that was after the publication of the editorial that I could see the content that was taking the complaint filed by representatives of the black movement,, Configuring a huge extrapolation of facts.

Reflection and true parallel

Is there a human who is not shocked to see pictures of how the Nazi concentration camps or the slave Anastasia referred to the use of an iron mask? I doubt there is anyone who can be indifferent to these images, but I may just be being naive. What I can say for sure without running the risk of being naive is that animal rights activists do not look at these pictures with indifference. And, if some groups choose to use these images to draw a parallel to the abuses committed against non-human animals, are not doing to lessen the relevance of torture and rape that these images of blacks and Jews represent. They do so because they understand that the pain and misery experienced by animals in our society is immense, and use that parallel search rescue in the collective mind of the information complete rejection of slavery and the atrocities of the Nazi Holocaust and so invite people to reflect on the Holocaust daily living non-human animals that our society subjugates the same way as before already subjugated other ethnicities and religions manifest within our own species. Therefore, the comparison is not pejorative, given that it does not compare the different beings depicted here, but the suffering and injustice that both were and continue to be submitted until a representative portion of society take it upon themselves to fight that is, really, a struggle for the benefit of others who have minority representation (black, Jews, women, Indians, homosexuals, children, animals). So was the case with the emancipation of blacks, so is the case for animal liberation.

The comparison that is being currently debated aims to condemn both situations, considering an injustice to be as unquestionable as the other. If the average person to the images of the Nazi Holocaust and slavery of blacks represent atrocities and injustices, an activist for animal rights Pictures of butchers and slaughterhouses represent a similar feeling of pain and injustice. Although we can not compare the feelings of pain and suffering, even among individuals of the same species, it is prudent to reflect the insensitivity to the suffering of others and disconnection with the natural environment are essential deviations that lead some (really, many) humans to commit acts of indifference against human animals and non-human also. Injustice is the common bond that unites them in their plight members of these different species: a humana e a não-humana.

The movement that struggle for the abolition of animal exploitation emerged after the tragic episodes of our civilization that made victims blacks and Jews. And it is precisely because of this chronology that the movement in defense of animal rights has much to learn from the struggles victorious strenuous movements that preceded.

Observing other social justice movements nodes animal rights movement can learn a lot about the perversity, indifference and human greed and the mechanisms that make them operate and also that destabilize. The perversity of the atrocities that cometem, the indifference of those who do nothing to combat them and the greed of those who profit from them. These are common features in different forms of animal exploitation, humana e não-humana. The outrage that these movements is also common experience, whether the movements for women's rights, rights of children, black rights, human rights or animal rights. All have the same motivation and all want the same thing: justice. Justice for the victims of oppression, independente the Etnia, religion or species. Because we have learned so much watching the villains and heroes of movements that preceded us, the idea is inconceivable that an animal rights activist intends to lessen the martyrdom of the victims of historical atrocities such as slavery and the Nazi holocaust, for he sees not only martyrdom already clear to common sense. He goes further and extends this perception also to non-human animals.

I insist that the comparison of black dogs and Jews to pigs was not the intention of the group that used the comparison of images of the victims of the atrocities against blacks and Jews with images of atrocities against non-human animals. If any group was offended, was because they did not understand the message, it was actually comparing two forms of injustice, both unacceptable, both reprehensible. The group that was offended could have invited the leaders to dialogue and certainly would have come to an understanding. Unlike, the route chosen was the conclusions and not understanding, what really surprised me, because I did not expect that a portion size as representative and knowledge about what is discrimination and the importance of this dialogue act rashly without seeking to understand what the message was indeed. A quick search would have revealed that such a comparison is widely used by Nobel laureates, philosophers and survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, others. Books The Dreaded Comparison and Eternal Treblinka are two examples of articles that operate as a means of comparison for both causes sensitization, without thereby alleviating any of them.

Our activists

But having been taken to the fact that now the scope of a legal dispute and followed by attacks on a website editorial representative of the black movement, what we do? I still believe the path of dialogue. It is important that animal rights activists do not lose focus on the discussion. We're talking about a misunderstanding? So it should be treated as such? When you call a farmer Killer, he will understand that we are accused of having murdered a human? Maybe he understands well, because if not contextualize, never understand that we are referring to death (or murder) of an ox. He simply did not understand what was meant to mean, because for him the act of killing an ox is natural. Just as some slaveholders understood to be natural treatment that led to his "property". And what we would expect him to do? Before the report by Slander, he sought to understand what we were saying, some? After all, the said, hope he listen to the manner and with the intent that said, otherwise there would be no point in having it told. When an industry accuses activists Animal Liberation Front criminals, Whatever society understands? We want her to understand what motivated those activists to commit acts considered criminal by the existing system, so that, perhaps, people can understand the real meaning of the action performed.

Dialogue. Is this what we want between our movement and society, because without it the message is lost. The same is what we want between our movement and other movements, especially those that have many common aspects with our struggle, such as black movement. Attitudes like the activist quoted at the beginning of the editorial published in 16/10/2007 by Agence Afropress are not at all in keeping with the thinking of the members of the animal rights movement. I take here to register my disapproval to the comment sent by it to the said news agency.

I can say that this is not the norm in any wing of our movement. What we read in her speech is a threat, pure and simple, without any pretense of dialogue or understanding. If we want to assume that there was a misinterpretation by some representatives of the black movement, the only thing to do is to show that the images, our view, represented. Thereafter, we must seek to understand the reason for the offense of the other party and be willing to excuses us publicly if that is the case. This content has been predominant in the messages sent to Afropress to which I have had access through copies sent to me. Really, I can say that no the messages that I received contained the threatening tone of the message that was chosen by Afropress to set the tone of your editorial and move on comparing our move to a totalitarian and fascist movement. All messages that I've received a copy sought understanding, what should I say a lot I was glad to see them reflected the maturity we have achieved over the past years.

Common goals and unity

Although the agency has received the message that the tone in his editorial, I am sure that this was not representative of the majority of incoming messages. On this, I must confess I was intrigued about what they wanted the journalists who elected precisely the message in a threatening tone to set the tone of your editorial. But I'm still optimistic and convinced of the possibility of dialogue. Really, I can not conceive the idea that there might be some divergence between the two movements (the black movement and the animal rights movement), except for some specific issues as the rites that make use of animal sacrifice.

With regard to the fight against prejudice and injustice (be they in the form of racism or speciesism), I see no reason to divert. Really, there is a reference most commonly used in the animal rights movement than the reference to the movement for the abolition of slavery. This serves as a lesson in the rich learning, an example and a symbol of possibility of the victory of plots minority against ignorance and consequent modification status quo. Such is our proximity to the ideals of the movement that black word we use to describe the most advanced and consistent wing of our movement was just borrowed the black movement: abolitionists is the word.

While abolitionists and anti-speciesist inevitably compactuamos with the anti-racist and, therefore, not consider nor wish to consider the motion as a black enemy movement. We know that both the black movement and the animal rights movement are important issues that are urgent for our attention. All forms of injustice are urgent issues and to combat them must devote all our energy to what really matters. If the members of these two movements need debating, that is to arrive at joint solutions to common issues for which we fight, and not to widen and create friction that can be solved through dialogue clear and direct.

Quarrels and disputes over small delay only make the fight for the abolition of all forms of oppression who loses are not activists nor one nor the other and move, losers are the innocent people who count on us for its defense. I propose that this incident I insist on wanting to believe that it was only a misunderstanding can serve us as an opportunity to get to know each other better. I'm sure that the most representative of our movement is willing to dialogue and understanding and is able to appreciate the mutual benefits that arise from the union of our forces. The remnants of the long history of oppression experienced by blacks may be imposing a departure from the possibility of understanding our message and understand our goals. It is precisely in our objectives is our equality and is in our differences are our chances of coming. The very possibility of such differences co-exist interspersed our similar objectives already shows us that our movements have much to learn from each other. Our learning opportunities with the black movement certainly have been many and hope to repay them for it.

George Guimarães

VEDDAS - Ethical Vegetarianism, Animal rights advocacy and Society

www.veddas.org.br

veddas@veddas.org.br