The Phelps piece

[Guest guest]

It is interesting to consider the original abolitionists, that is, the

anti-slavery activists of the 19th century. I would be surprised if the

majority of them were ethical vegetarians. It seems that they do not fit your

definition of abolitionist. But I'm grateful that they were around at the time,

for otherwise the end of legal slavery in the US would probably have been

delayed.

 

, Victor Tsou <victor wrote:

For abolitionists, their values simply ask them not to

> engage in campaigns that support speciesism, racism, or sexism. I don't

> think that's much of a sacrifice to pragmatism; it simply means certain

> " options " are off the table because they conflict with one's values.

[Guest guest]

aside from many other similarities, the abolitionists of today, just as the anti-slavery activists of the 19th century, differ from the welfarists in that they simply ask for the complete abolition of those they seek to help, and not improvements upon, yet continuation of the enslavement in question.

 

that's the key distinguishing aspect of abolitionism these two have in common. and, true enough, despite all the welfarist reforms attempted before the abolitionists came around, slavery stayed in effect. soon after the rise of abolitionism, however, slavery did, in fact cease...at least in the forms which were being protested at the time.

 

hope that helps to explain the terminology a little. otherwise, for a much more complete description, check out www.abolitionistapproach.com.

 

~will

 

 

 

Henry Chen <dwem Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:23:51 PM Re: The Phelps piece

 

It is interesting to consider the original abolitionists, that is, the anti-slavery activists of the 19th century. I would be surprised if the majority of them were ethical vegetarians. It seems that they do not fit your definition of abolitionist. But I'm grateful that they were around at the time, for otherwise the end of legal slavery in the US would probably have been delayed.@ .com, Victor Tsou <victor wrote:For abolitionists, their values simply ask them not to > engage in campaigns that support speciesism, racism, or sexism. I don't > think that's much of a sacrifice to pragmatism; it simply means certain > "options" are off the table because they conflict with one's values.

[Guest guest]

Though certainly a minority, there were some prominent vegetarian members of the anti-slavery movement in 19th century America, including Susan B. Anthony, Bronson and Abigail Alcott, and Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Mat Thomaswww.animalrighter.orgOn Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Henry Chen <dwem wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is interesting to consider the original abolitionists, that is, the anti-slavery activists of the 19th century. I would be surprised if the majority of them were ethical vegetarians. It seems that they do not fit your definition of abolitionist. But I'm grateful that they were around at the time, for otherwise the end of legal slavery in the US would probably have been delayed.

 

 

, Victor Tsou <victor wrote:

For abolitionists, their values simply ask them not to

> engage in campaigns that support speciesism, racism, or sexism. I don't

> think that's much of a sacrifice to pragmatism; it simply means certain

> " options " are off the table because they conflict with one's values.

[Guest guest]

as i understand it, the abolitionism of today (now defined to include nonhuman-animal rights) is thought to be the natural progression of the abolitionism that ended slavery, amongst other things.

 

so, it's not so much a question as to who was a vegan and an abolitionist in regards to slavery in the 19th century, as much as a question of the next steps us human animals are taking to abolish all forms of exploitation.

 

~will

 

 

 

Mat Thomas <ma> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:11:29 AMRe: Re: The Phelps piece

Though certainly a minority, there were some prominent vegetarian members of the anti-slavery movement in 19th century America, including Susan B. Anthony, Bronson and Abigail Alcott, and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Mat Thomaswww.animalrighter. org

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Henry Chen <dwem wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

It is interesting to consider the original abolitionists, that is, the anti-slavery activists of the 19th century. I would be surprised if the majority of them were ethical vegetarians. It seems that they do not fit your definition of abolitionist. But I'm grateful that they were around at the time, for otherwise the end of legal slavery in the US would probably have been delayed.

@ .com, Victor Tsou <victor wrote:For abolitionists, their values simply ask them not to > engage in campaigns that support speciesism, racism, or sexism. I don't > think that's much of a sacrifice to pragmatism; it simply means certain > "options" are off the table because they conflict with one's values.

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

This has been an interesting discussion.

 

Although, I tend to be more practical than philosophical in my approach to activism. So, with that in mind ...

 

Victor, in reference to your earlier post on Tuesday, could you share links to the pamphlets and more information at the activities undertaken by grassroots abolitionist organizations?

 

 

"I've been impressed at how active and lively a group abolitionists have been; they offer free, full color abolitionist-oriented pamphlets for activists to distribute and there are a growing number of grassroots abolitionist organizations."

 

Cheers,

Tammy

My two cents, vegan-style .. - today or read it on GenerationV.org

Save a life today - help us with public education & outreach

07/25 Plant-Powered Hikers: Redwoods! - Woodside 08/09 Food for Thought Philosophy Discussion: Case for Animal Rights - SF 09/19 Food for Thought Book Club: Ethics Into Action (new members welcome) - SF

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Victor TsouMonday, July 13, 2009 10:54 PMSFBAVEG The Phelps piece

 

 

This Phelps piece gets brought up from time to time and it's too bad, because it's full of straw person arguments, ad hominem personal attacks, and logical leaps.* For context, this appears to be an attempt to blunt the increasing popularity of Gary Francione's animal rights framework. I don't to Francione's ideas, but from reading the piece, it seems Phelps misunderstands the abolitionist position he is criticizing.The excerpted quote is revealing: "[The abolitionist] approach to activism reverses the logical order of things. Instead of saying, 'This strategy works; therefore, it is right,' they say 'This strategy is ideologically pure; therefore, if we just stick with it, it will have to work eventually.'" Once we read past the caricaturization of the abolitionist position, we find that Phelps promotes an ends justifies the means thinking**. Phelps contrasts that with the abolitionist position, which asks that the means match the ends.Phelps writes: "Letting our means be determined by ideological preconceptions is a formula for self-righteous failure." It's almost surreal reading Phelps mock abolitionists for trying to maintain their ethical consistency, as if that's a bad thing. I mean, isn't ethical vegetarianism about trying to consciously live in accord with our ethics? Phelps presents a false choice between ethical consistency and "pragmatism." For abolitionists, their values simply ask them not to engage in campaigns that support speciesism, racism, or sexism. I don't think that's much of a sacrifice to pragmatism; it simply means certain "options" are off the table because they conflict with one's values.The original poster called abolitionists people who "sit around and complain about everyone else while not actually doing anything constructive activism." I think we can do better than to disparage abolitionists personally while avoiding addressing their ideas. In fact, I've been impressed at how active and lively a group abolitionists have been; they offer free, full color abolitionist-oriented pamphlets for activists to distribute and there are a growing number of grassroots abolitionist organizations.Victor* If you would like a detailed deconstruction of the article, please email me.** The comments in this email are independent of whether the ends justifies the means is considered desirable or not. From an anti-oppression perspective, ends justifies the means reasoning (e.g. the act-utilitarianism advocated by Peter Singer) is problematic because it always benefits the one with power. It is commonly used in animal advocacy by those in the power position to justify campaigns that support speciesist, racist, sexist, and other forms of oppression.--- Henry Chen wrote:I wonder if Gandhi was one track? Was John Brown? Maybe the best thing is to have many one track activists all pursuing different tracks. , Alex Bury <alexbury1 wrote:>> *...**there is a desperate need to pursue a variety of nonviolent tactics> that offer promise of contributing to both the wellbeing and the liberation> of animals. By attacking those who want to expand our approaches to animal> advocacy as they try to hit upon the combination of tactics that will work> best, one-track activists have abandoned reason and wedded themselves to> blind faith. Their approach to activism reverses the logical order of> things. Instead of saying, "This strategy works; therefore, it is right,"> they say "This strategy is ideologically pure; therefore, if we just stick> with it, it will have to work eventually."*>> Full essay here:> http://www.veganoutreach.org/articles/normphelps.html>> I think Mr. Phelps has coined a very kind term, "one-track activism." I've> been calling it, "Sit around and complain about everyone else while not> actually doing anything constructive activism." I'll start using the new> Phelps term right away. >> This is an excellent, thought-provoking read. Enjoy!>> Alex-- Veganism as Anti-Oppression: http://loveallbeings.org/

[Guest guest]

hi everyone.

 

i know this question was posed to victor, by tammy, but i happen to also know of pamphets available around the world, and that there are abolitionist activists in just as many places.

 

here's a good link which contains references to many pamphlets, including th abolitionist approach site's pamphlet, now available in 11 different languages:

 

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/2009/05/

 

just wanted to point those interested in the answer to that question...toward the answer!

 

cheers!

 

~will

 

 

 

"Tammy, BAVeg" <tammyVictor Tsou <victor; SFBAVEG Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:25:07 PMRE: The Phelps piece

 

Hi all,

 

This has been an interesting discussion.

 

Although, I tend to be more practical than philosophical in my approach to activism. So, with that in mind ...

 

Victor, in reference to your earlier post on Tuesday, could you share links to the pamphlets and more information at the activities undertaken by grassroots abolitionist organizations?

 

 

"I've been impressed at how active and lively a group abolitionists have been; they offer free, full color abolitionist- oriented pamphlets for activists to distribute and there are a growing number of grassroots abolitionist organizations. "

 

Cheers,

Tammy

My two cents, vegan-style .. - today or read it on GenerationV. org

Save a life today - help us with public education & outreach

07/25 Plant-Powered Hikers: Redwoods! - Woodside 08/09 Food for Thought Philosophy Discussion: Case for Animal Rights - SF 09/19 Food for

Thought Book Club: Ethics Into Action (new members welcome) - SF

 

 

 

 

 

@ .com [] On Behalf Of Victor TsouMonday, July 13, 2009 10:54 PMSFBAVEG The Phelps piece

 

 

This Phelps piece gets brought up from time to time and it's too bad, because it's full of straw person arguments, ad hominem personal attacks, and logical leaps.* For context, this appears to be an attempt to blunt the increasing popularity of Gary Francione's animal rights framework. I don't to Francione's ideas, but from reading the piece, it seems Phelps misunderstands the abolitionist position he is criticizing.The excerpted quote is revealing: "[The abolitionist] approach to activism reverses the logical order of things. Instead of saying, 'This strategy works; therefore, it is right,' they say 'This strategy is ideologically pure; therefore, if we just stick with it, it will have to work eventually.' " Once we read past the caricaturization of the abolitionist position, we find that Phelps promotes an ends justifies the means thinking**. Phelps contrasts that with the

abolitionist position, which asks that the means match the ends.Phelps writes: "Letting our means be determined by ideological preconceptions is a formula for self-righteous failure." It's almost surreal reading Phelps mock abolitionists for trying to maintain their ethical consistency, as if that's a bad thing. I mean, isn't ethical vegetarianism about trying to consciously live in accord with our ethics? Phelps presents a false choice between ethical consistency and "pragmatism. " For abolitionists, their values simply ask them not to engage in campaigns that support speciesism, racism, or sexism. I don't think that's much of a sacrifice to pragmatism; it simply means certain "options" are off the table because they conflict with one's values.The original poster called abolitionists people who "sit around and complain about everyone else while not actually doing anything constructive

activism." I think we can do better than to disparage abolitionists personally while avoiding addressing their ideas. In fact, I've been impressed at how active and lively a group abolitionists have been; they offer free, full color abolitionist- oriented pamphlets for activists to distribute and there are a growing number of grassroots abolitionist organizations.Victor* If you would like a detailed deconstruction of the article, please email me.** The comments in this email are independent of whether the ends justifies the means is considered desirable or not. From an anti-oppression perspective, ends justifies the means reasoning (e.g. the act-utilitarianism advocated by Peter Singer) is problematic because it always benefits the one with power. It is commonly used in animal advocacy by those in the power position to justify campaigns that support speciesist, racist, sexist, and other

forms of oppression.--- Henry Chen wrote:I wonder if Gandhi was one track? Was John Brown? Maybe the best thing is to have many one track activists all pursuing different tracks.@ .com, Alex Bury <alexbury1@. ..> wrote:>> *...**there is a desperate need to pursue a variety of nonviolent tactics> that offer promise of contributing to both the wellbeing and the liberation> of animals. By attacking those who want to expand our approaches to animal> advocacy as they try to hit upon the combination of tactics that will work> best, one-track activists have abandoned reason and wedded themselves to> blind faith. Their approach to activism reverses the logical order of> things. Instead of saying, "This strategy works;

therefore, it is right,"> they say "This strategy is ideologically pure; therefore, if we just stick> with it, it will have to work eventually." *>> Full essay here:> http://www.veganout reach.org/ articles/ normphelps. html>> I think Mr. Phelps has coined a very kind term, "one-track activism." I've> been calling it, "Sit around and complain about everyone else while not> actually doing anything constructive activism." I'll start using the new> Phelps term right away. >> This is an excellent, thought-provoking read. Enjoy!>> Alex-- Veganism as Anti-Oppression: http://loveallbeings.org/