FW: Animal Rights - Divide and Conquer

[Guest guest]

" Let us not forget, there is a reason why human rights groups do not develop

or endorse “humane” methods of torturing and executing political prisoners,

and why children’s rights advocates do not collaborate with the

international pornography industry to develop standards and special labeling

for films that make “compassionate” use of runaway teens. To do such things

is to introduce moral ambiguity into situations where the boundaries between

right and wrong must never be allowed to blur. To be the agent of such

blurring is to become complicit oneself in the violence and abuse.

 

Let us be clear. When we endorse the consumption of any kind of animal

product, we’re not only encouraging an act we ourselves know to be

immoral—not only blurring the line between right and wrong—we’re also

willfully ignoring animal agriculture’s massive contribution to global

warming, world hunger, chronic disease, worker abuse, desertification and

third world poverty. Let us not be too quick to assume that others are not

ready to absorb the full force of truths we ourselves hold as self-evident.

The world has seen quite enough cynicism by now, and is ready for something

new. Let us freely share with everyone the best truth we have, and let us do

so with the courage, altruism and integrity of the unapologetic idealists

who have come before us—those whose historic words and deeds have redefined

the limits of human potential. "

 

 

 

Animal Rights - Divide and Conquer

 

<http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/laveck.html>

 

http://www.satyamag <http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/laveck.html>

..com/oct06/laveck.html

 

Invasion of the Movement Snatchers:A Social Justice Cause Falls Prey to the

Doctrine of “Necessary Evil”

 

By James LaVeck

 

 

 

PHOTO of a ram [from online article]: Devlin, at Woodstock Farm Animal

Sanctuary. Photo by Wiebke Wiechell, courtesy of www.flickr.com/

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkedyogachick> photos/inkedyogachick

 

You never know when a PR agency is being effective; you’ll just find your

views slowly shifting.—PR Executive

 

Few of us realize that some U.S. industries pay hundreds of millions of

dollars to public relations firms charged with the removal of any and all

obstacles to their acquisition of profit. High on the list of those

obstacles are grassroots social justice movements.

 

In a 2002 article on their Center for Media and Democracy website, authors

and social activists John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton described the

activities of MBD, one such PR firm involved in the dismantlement of citizen

movements concerned about problems ranging from acid rain, dioxin,

biotechnology and toxic wastes, to apartheid, nuclear energy, endangered

species and oil spills.

 

“Their favorite method,” wrote Stauber and Rampton, “is a ‘divide and

conquer’ strategy heavily dependent on co-optation: First identify the

‘radicals’ who are unwilling to compromise and who are demanding fundamental

changes to redress the problem at hand. Then, identify the

‘realists’—typically, organizations with significant budgets and staffs

working in the same relative area of public concern as the radicals. Then,

approach these realists, often through a friendly third party, start a

dialogue and eventually cut a deal, a ‘win-win’ solution that marginalizes

and excludes the radicals and their demands.

 

“Next, go with the realists to the ‘idealists’ who have learned about the

problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists that a

‘win-win’ solution endorsed by the realists is best for the community as a

whole. Once this has been accomplished, the ‘radicals’ can be shut out as

extremists, the PR fix is in, and the deal can be touted in the media to

make the corporation and its ‘moderate’ nonprofit partners look heroic for

solving the problem. Result: industry may have to make some small or

temporary concessions, but the fundamental concerns raised by the ‘radicals’

are swept aside.” [Emphasis added.]

 

What does this troubling scenario have to do with animal advocates and our

movement to end the exploitation of sentient beings? Well, it turns out the

first time Stauber and Rampton wrote about MBD, it was in reference to a

presentation given by Ronald Duchin—the “D” in MBD—to none other than the

Cattleman’s Association (see page 66 of Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies,

Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry). The year was 1991, and Duchin,

a graduate of the Army War College and former special assistant to the

Secretary of Defense, was outlining the most effective strategy for “dealing

with” the meat industry’s biggest irritant: us.

 

Duchin recommended the following three-step plan:

 

1) Isolate the radicals

 

2) “Cultivate” the idealists and “educate” them into becoming “realists”

 

3) Co-opt the opportunists into agreeing with industry.

 

Duchin acknowledged in his speech that idealists were hard to work with, and

that because of their inherent altruism and the fact that they gain nothing

personally from holding their views, the public tends to believe in them. He

then offered the cattlemen a clever strategy. He said that if idealists can

somehow be convinced that their opposition to a product or an industry

inadvertently caused harm to someone, they could not live with the

contradiction and would be forced to change their views, to adopt a more

“realistic” position.

 

Duchin next told the cattlemen about how to work with movement

“opportunists,” people he described as engaging in activism for “visibility,

power, followers, and perhaps, employment... The key to dealing with

opportunists is to provide them with at least the perception of a partial

victory.”

 

The widespread adoption of “cage-free” eggs? A few seats at the table with

the group developing standards for producing “Animal Compassionate” lamb?

Uncrated “pink” veal? Today, these and similar developments are being widely

characterized as victories by organizations with reputations for staunchly

opposing animal exploitation.

 

The Bilk of Human Kindness

 

It’s not pleasant to think about the possibility that our movement could be

in the process of being co-opted and neutralized according to a blueprint

laid out 15 years ago by a meat industry consulting firm. But for the animal

exploiting industries, there are billions of dollars at stake, and it stands

to reason that they are going to commit serious resources to the protection

of their interests, and they are going to play to win. Consider how the

relentless pressure to bring stock performance ever higher, quarter after

quarter, can drive corporate executives into a hypercompetitive frenzy. As a

result, one regularly reads of industrial espionage, media smear campaigns,

attempts to corrupt political leaders, accounting scandals and brutal

takeover battles. Is there any reason to believe that people caught up in

such a system might be any less ruthless when dealing with a citizens’

movement that seeks to put them out of business?

 

Stauber and Rampton, after years of investigating the activities of the PR

industry, point out the tendency of activists to deny the possibility that

we could be duped, “activists like to believe that we are too committed to

our causes, too worldly and aware to be sweet-talked into unwitting

submission by sitting down and partnering with the enemy.” But according to

PR industry guru Denise Deegan, notes Stauber, “industry continues to regard

this sort of ‘dialogue’ as its most effective method for managing

activists.”

 

Stauber and Rampton’s work is hardly based on armchair theorizing. Rather,

it is derived from exhaustive study of the history of real-life grassroots

movements that, like the animal movement, have attempted to confront

industry abuse. They studied, for example, how the MBD PR firm grew out of a

successful campaign to neutralize a massive boycott of the Nestlé

corporation. In the late 70s, Nestlé was attempting to persuade millions of

third world women to use synthetic infant formula instead of breast-feeding

their babies. “In activist lore,” note Stauber and Rampton, “this boycott is

touted as a major victory, but in the corporate world it is understood that

industry really won the day by pulling the rug out from the campaign. By

making selective concessions to the activists, Nestlé succeeded in

negotiating an end to the boycott. Later, activists were dismayed to

discover that its infant formula marketing practices are continuing with

only token changes. Third world children continue to die, but today their

plight receives little attention, and activists have found that a boycott,

once terminated, is not easily turned back on.”

 

Translate this to the animal movement, and the call for a boycott is, very

simply, vegan advocacy. When we switch from asking people to eliminate or

reduce their consumption of animal products, to publicly endorsing “humane”

animal products, are we not, in effect, calling off our own boycott? Think

about it. “A boycott, once terminated, is not easily turned back on.”

 

Playing to Win-Win

 

So this is serious. Let’s go through it again and reflect upon how recent

developments in the animal movement might map onto the PR industry playbook

as summarized by Stauber and Rampton.

 

First identify the ‘radicals’ who are unwilling to compromise and who are

demanding fundamental changes to redress the problem at hand.

 

Hypothetically, that could be anyone who believes animals have rights, that

exploiting them is wrong, and that the solution is encouraging people to

boycott all animal products, with a long-term goal of abolishing the

property status of animals. We’re not talking about radical tactics, but

radical ideas. We’re talking about community educators, amateur

investigators, protesters, attorneys, bloggers, artists, nurses, animal

rescuers, merchants, writers, leafleteers, clergyfolk, dieticians, former

farmers, humane educators, college students, sanctuary workers, yoga

instructors, teenagers, musicians, doctors, and all kinds of everyday

activists who practice veganism as an expression of Gandhian nonviolence, as

a refusal to cooperate in any way with those profiting from the oppression

of others.

 

Then, identify the ‘realists’—typically, organizations with significant

budgets and staffs working in the same relative area of public concern as

the radicals.

 

Hypothetically, that could be a number of large multi-million dollar animal

protection organizations with significant farmed animal campaigns.

 

Then, approach these realists, often through a friendly third party, start a

dialogue, and eventually cut a deal, a ‘win-win’ solution that marginalizes

and excludes the radicals and their demands.

 

Hypothetically, this could be an offer made by someone like John Mackey, CEO

of Whole Foods, one of the nation’s leading retailers of both meat and

organic produce, to partner with animal advocates and meat industry

“visionaries” to develop new standards for the “humane” exploitation of

animals. However, in order to participate, the “realists” must de facto

contradict their own position that sentient nonhuman animals should not be

used for human purposes, for to negotiate the details of their exploitation

with those who will do the killing and make the profits dramatically

undermines the integrity of this fundamental principle.

 

Now, through the combined efforts of industry and the participating animal

organizations, the “reasonable” person’s response to being made aware of the

plight of farmed animals becomes not veganism, not reduction of meat, dairy

and egg consumption, but rather, the purchase of “humane” animal products.

 

Simultaneously, the focus of public dialogue irrevocably shifts from the

questionable morality of using and killing animals, to an elaborate, endless

wrangle over how the deed will be done—conditions, treatment, standards and

regulation.

 

In this new framework, public calls by animal advocates for the boycott of

all animal products, for nonparticipation in exploitation, have no place.

Such talk is now an embarrassment for the participating animal groups, and a

joke for the meat industry people. Such talk is now relegated to the realm

of “radicalism.”

 

Next, go with the realists to the ‘idealists’ who have learned about the

problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists that a

‘win-win’ solution endorsed by the realists is best for the community as a

whole.

 

Hypothetically, these could be the small, idealistic organizations that are

convinced to join the larger organizations in endorsing the “‘humane’

standards mini-revolution.” Together, they persuade frontline educators and

citizen activists that solely advocating for veganism is no longer the right

approach. Activists must now simultaneously support “humane” meat and

“cage-free” eggs as a purported transitional step for people who won’t give

up consuming animal products today. To do otherwise, it is argued, is

tantamount to abandoning billions of animals now trapped in the existing

meat industry system.

 

Confronted with this seeming “contradiction,” large numbers of movement

idealists shift their views and begin adopting a more “realistic” position,

a textbook application of Duchin’s turn-idealists-into-realists formula.

This new “realism” includes public advocacy of non-vegan

behavior—consumption of “humane” animal products—alongside public advocacy

of vegan behavior—boycotting of all animal products. Eerily, these newly

transformed idealists even begin to refer to themselves as “realists,” and

to those who hold on to their own former values for non-participation as

“purists” and “absolutists,” sometimes even “selfish” or “self-righteous” in

their “moral rigidity.”

 

Meat-ing People Where They Are

 

It is striking, and deeply troubling, how this new way of thinking of

ourselves and our advocacy conform so perfectly to Mr. Duchin’s roadmap for

our future, and how it so precisely echoes the “dilemma” of Whole Foods’

John Mackey, who talks of how he would lose his position as CEO, the very

basis of his ability to make a difference, were he to impose his personal

values and deny his customers the opportunity to purchase a wide variety of

animal products. Therefore, given his concern for animals, Mackey is morally

obligated to do what he needs to do in order to maintain his position at the

top, and to use the power he has to create a new line of “animal

compassionate” meat products, while working with participating animal groups

to convince the public to buy them—thus, in Mackey’s own words, “pioneering

an entirely new way for people to relate to farm animals, with the animals’

welfare becoming the most important goal.”

 

Likewise, some leaders of participating animal groups might reason that,

were they to “impose” veganism and the abolition of animal exploitation on

the public by refusing to offer them an approved “humane” animal product

alternative, they too would lose the money and members that they believe are

the basis of their ability to make a difference. Rather, in order to have

clout and credibility with the widest range of funders, legislators,

journalists and other “mainstream” people, they need to “meet people where

they are,” and offer “options.” They seem to believe that they are, in fact,

morally obligated to work with industry to develop and market “humane”

animal products that they claim will help the public and the meat industry

transition away from the most egregious forms of animal torture.

 

In order to see where this new “meet-people-where-they-are” approach is

leading our movement, we need go no further than the latest labeling scheme,

this one launched in Australia by an international animal organization. It

is called “Humane Choice,” and the press release enthusiastically declares

that the new label “will guarantee the consumer that the animal has been

treated with respect and care, from birth through to death... The Humane

Choice label will denote the animal has had the best life and death offered

to any farm animal... They basically live their lives as they would have

done on Old MacDonald’s farm...”

 

Humane Choice? Old MacDonald’s farm? See how the roles are reversing? Animal

advocacy is no longer about ethics and social justice—it is now about

consumer choice. The selling of meat is no longer about commodification,

exploitation and profits—it is now about animal welfare. Veganism is no

longer a moral imperative—it is now a charmingly eccentric lifestyle choice.

 

 

Bringing us to Stauber and Rampton’s finale: Once this has been

accomplished, the ‘radicals’ can be shut out as extremists, the PR fix is

in, and the deal can be touted in the media to make the corporation and its

‘moderate’ nonprofit partners look heroic for solving the problem. Result:

industry may have to make some small or temporary concessions, but the

fundamental concerns raised by the ‘radicals’ are swept aside.

 

The Animal Welfare Industrial Complex

 

Whether our movement came to its present state in whole or in part through

PR industry machinations, or if it is simply self-destructing of its own

accord, we should be shocked and deeply concerned that the structure of

today’s animal movement so closely resembles the vision of moral compromise,

division and debilitation put forth by a meat industry PR consultant so many

years ago. However it was accomplished, it is undeniable that the firewall

of linguistic precision, critical thought and philosophical integrity needed

to protect our movement from such degradation has been all but torn down.

 

It’s troubling to think about how things could have gone this far so fast,

but it stands to reason that Mr. Duchin and his ilk haven’t been twiddling

their thumbs for the past 15 years. As animal organizations and the meat

industry co-mingle their affairs in an increasingly bewildering tangle,

their language, values, interests and goals are becoming indistinguishable,

creating a kind of “animal welfare industrial complex” in which the

“players”—dominant figures of the industry and the corporate animal

movement—will regularly meet in private to negotiate the price of public

concern for animal suffering.

 

To the industry will go animal organization endorsements of an ever more

bizarre array of “humane” products and “compassionate” practices. To the

animal groups will go a pocketful of “partial victories” as well as a few

gratuities like conference sponsorships and high profile publicity

opportunities. By making the process so orderly and rational, by whittling

it down to a few key players with an unspoken understanding of the

arrangement, all parties involved will receive a regular supply of what they

need to keep growing at a rapid clip. More money. More customers/members.

More political connections. More ability to dictate the terms of public

discourse.

 

The workings of this hypothetical animal welfare industrial complex fit

comfortably into the Orwellian culture of our post-9/11 society, where civil

rights and the rule of law are being systematically undermined in the name

of protecting our “freedom.” Central to it all is our acceptance of the

doctrine of “necessary evil,” which leads us to go against our core values

and rationalize our complicity in acts of violence and injustice committed

against others—acts that are often described as “sad” and “regrettable,”

but, let’s be realistic, unavoidable and absolutely necessary if we are to

accomplish our righteous mission. Under the doctrine of necessary evil,

there is nothing fundamentally wrong with indefinitely incarcerating

thousands of people suspected, but not charged, tried or convicted of any

crime, in a worldwide network of secret prisons, and even torturing them—as

long as all of it is done for noble reasons, and according to the proper

“standards.”

 

Consider the parallelism of these two passages, the first from the New York

Times, and the second from the website of a new animal industry marketing

campaign in England:

 

Although the C.I.A. has faced criticism over the use of harsh techniques,

one senior intelligence official said detainees had not been mistreated.

They were given dental and vision care as well as the Koran, prayer rugs and

clocks to schedule prayers, the official said. They were also given reading

material, DVD’s and access to exercise equipment.

 

This is not veal from dimly lit crowded pens. These animals enjoy a very

full life, with plenty of space and light, inside suitable buildings over

winter and outside at pasture for the rest of the year; a varied diet; and

the care of a foster cow when available.

 

Yes, poor orphaned calves destined for the butcher’s knife are now going to

be lovingly nurtured by a “foster mom” before their lives are prematurely

snuffed out. And lest anyone feel bad about the brevity of the baby cows’

existence, the industry helpfully points out that “with a life span of six

months, they live twice as long as even the slowest growing chicken; they

have the same life span as a good organic pig, and longer than many organic

lambs.”

 

So those who consume the flesh of these coddled calves are actually

humanitarians solving an “animal welfare problem.” By eating the unwanted

male offspring of dairy cows, we will spare these unlucky newborns from the

morally repugnant alternative, a shorter and more brutal life in a crate.

One cannot help but recall the quote attributed to an army lieutenant during

the Vietnam War who declared, “We had to destroy the village, in order to

save it.”

 

According to a newspaper report, nine days after the launch of this “Good

Veal” campaign, veal sales at one English supermarket chain rose 45 percent.

Notably, the campaign’s website features the endorsement and logo of a

large, well-respected European animal advocacy organization whose name

begins with the word “compassion.”

 

Hence, a decades-long boycott is all but neutralized. Think of how many

people worked, and for how long, to educate the public about why the eating

of veal should be taboo. Just how much specially labeled “Good Veal” does

one have to eat before the distinction dissolves, and it simply becomes good

to eat veal?

 

Once again, our movement’s fundamental concerns…artfully swept aside.

 

The Art of Relentless Compassion

 

In this new era, to be a vegan advocate, to successfully encourage others to

boycott participation in the exploitation of animals, one must do so much

more than expose people to the injustice of animal exploitation, help them

overcome the force of their own personal habits, resist family and societal

pressure, and see through the outrageous deceptions of the meat industry.

Now, one must also debunk the patent fallacy of “humane” happy meat products

enthusiastically endorsed, promoted and in some cases even developed by a

number of organizations that are, essentially, the public face of animal

advocacy.

 

If abolition of exploitation is our ultimate goal, as is so often claimed,

and if veganism is the single most powerful personal expression of

opposition to animal exploitation, why on earth would any animal

organization participate in making the job of vegan activists and educators

so much harder?

 

Already, sanctuary workers, educators and frontline vegan activists are

reporting that members of the public, when confronted with the reality of

farmed animal exploitation, increasingly indicate that they will express

their concern for farmed animals, not by boycotting or reducing their

consumption of animal products, but by purchasing animal products marketed

as “humane.” Whole Foods, not surprisingly, is often mentioned by name.

 

“ Humane” animal products appear to be a nearly perfect antidote to the

inner conflict brought about by awareness of one’s own complicity in the

exploitation of animals. But sadly, by trading a sacred truth for a clever

lie, “humane” labels make a mockery of an authentic moment of conscience.

 

If we step outside the mindset of the animal welfare industrial complex, and

choose instead to model our approach on successful social justice movements

of the past, it becomes clear that our job is to relentlessly investigate

and expose the industry’s exploitation; to rescue animals and offer

sanctuary; to educate the public about who animals are and why it is wrong

to use and kill them; and to create and promote ideas, products, social

values, commercial practices, traditions, artworks, language, philosophy,

and laws that are wholly nonviolent, that do not in any way participate in

or reinforce the legitimacy of the exploitation of any being.

 

Such a time-tested way of working for peaceful change is both practical and

powerful, and well suits the dignity of the cause we serve. It speaks to the

best in human nature, and produces ever-growing waves of change. Each person

who joins in signals a reprieve for a large number of animals, adds to the

common pool of creativity and wisdom, and becomes another caretaker of a

vision uncontaminated by pessimism or self-interest. This naturally grows

our movement without diluting the strength or clarity of our message, and

wins the respect of those vast numbers of people who are willing to listen

and learn from us, but are not yet ready to join our cause. To them—the

people working through doubt or lifestyle transition—we respectfully offer

opportunities to learn more while experiencing the joy of our nonviolent

culture, as well as constant encouragement to reduce their consumption of

the products of suffering. Over time, by transforming more and more

individual lives, we can, and will, transform an entire society.

 

Walking this path, we can be confident that each step we take, large or

small, is a step in the right direction, a step toward liberating countless

beings from a life of exploitation and suffering. And rest assured, under

the mounting pressure of public outrage at the cruelty and injustices our

work relentlessly exposes, the meat industry will have no choice but to

respond by “improving” their practices. If history is any guide, in many

cases their claims of making things better for the animals will be little

more than self-serving fabrications. But sometimes the changes they make

will actually decrease the suffering animals endure before slaughter, and of

course, we can all agree that’s a good thing.

 

But we don’t need to be a part of dreaming up the details of the industry’s

new and improved systems of exploitation, and we certainly don’t need to put

our good names and our movement’s credibility behind the questionable

products that result. Let the industry pay people like self-described animal

advocate and slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin to do that. And let such

professional apologists “take the credit” for creating more efficient and

more profitable methods of “killing with kindness.”

 

Let us not forget, there is a reason why human rights groups do not develop

or endorse “humane” methods of torturing and executing political prisoners,

and why children’s rights advocates do not collaborate with the

international pornography industry to develop standards and special labeling

for films that make “compassionate” use of runaway teens. To do such things

is to introduce moral ambiguity into situations where the boundaries between

right and wrong must never be allowed to blur. To be the agent of such

blurring is to become complicit oneself in the violence and abuse.

 

Let us be clear. When we endorse the consumption of any kind of animal

product, we’re not only encouraging an act we ourselves know to be

immoral—not only blurring the line between right and wrong—we’re also

willfully ignoring animal agriculture’s massive contribution to global

warming, world hunger, chronic disease, worker abuse, desertification and

third world poverty. Let us not be too quick to assume that others are not

ready to absorb the full force of truths we ourselves hold as self-evident.

The world has seen quite enough cynicism by now, and is ready for something

new. Let us freely share with everyone the best truth we have, and let us do

so with the courage, altruism and integrity of the unapologetic idealists

who have come before us—those whose historic words and deeds have redefined

the limits of human potential.

 

A principle is a principle, and in no case can it be watered down because of

our incapacity to live it in practice. We have to strive to achieve it, and

the striving should be conscious, deliberate and hard.—Gandhi

 

James LaVeck is cofounder of the nonprofit arts and educational organization

Tribe of Heart and producer of award-winning documentaries The Witness and

Peaceable Kingdom. A substantial revision of Peaceable Kingdom, which will

include an examination of the ethics of “humane” meat, is currently in

post-production. To learn more, visit www.tribeofheart.org.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr:

 

Thanks for that! James LaVeck has all his –ism's and –ist's in the

right place and makes for an interesting and challenging read. But

perhaps if we separate animal activism from any other we are

already " divided & conquered, " turning the entire picture into a loss

for all beings in the planet. The connection between social activism

and animal activism can't be ignored…it is certainly not by the PR

firms mentioned! Earth people eat meat because it's cheap and they

are most likely starving and/or poor as judged by CIA statistics.

Having a debate about Whole Foods seems silly in this light. One

might argue that combining efforts from all radicals around the globe

on all radical issues relating to sentient-being suffering is

impossible. But this cynical regard is exactly the root cause of all

dividing and conquering. Western philosophy has been

compartmentalized to an alarming degree in the past 50 years, and

this cubical approach to trying to figure out global problems will be

the death of us all, including the demise of the planet. So centric

western-bloc PR firms matter little in the grand scheme of things,

and adapting or counter-acting their approach is an utter waste of

time. Something else is needed. But what is that?

 

Jigs

AnimalNepal.org

 

 

aapn , " Dr John Wedderburn " <john wrote:

>

> " Let us not forget, there is a reason why human rights groups do

not develop

> or endorse " humane " methods of torturing and executing political

prisoners,

> and why children's rights advocates do not collaborate with the

> international pornography industry to develop standards and special

labeling

> for films that make " compassionate " use of runaway teens. To do

such things

> is to introduce moral ambiguity into situations where the

boundaries between

> right and wrong must never be allowed to blur. To be the agent of

such

> blurring is to become complicit oneself in the violence and abuse.

>

> Let us be clear. When we endorse the consumption of any kind of

animal

> product, we're not only encouraging an act we ourselves know to be

> immoral—not only blurring the line between right and wrong—we're

also

> willfully ignoring animal agriculture's massive contribution to

global

> warming, world hunger, chronic disease, worker abuse,

desertification and

> third world poverty. Let us not be too quick to assume that others

are not

> ready to absorb the full force of truths we ourselves hold as self-

evident.

> The world has seen quite enough cynicism by now, and is ready for

something

> new. Let us freely share with everyone the best truth we have, and

let us do

> so with the courage, altruism and integrity of the unapologetic

idealists

> who have come before us—those whose historic words and deeds have

redefined

> the limits of human potential. "

>

>

>

> Animal Rights - Divide and Conquer

>

> <http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/laveck.html>

>

> http://www.satyamag <http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/laveck.html>

> .com/oct06/laveck.html

>

> Invasion of the Movement Snatchers:A Social Justice Cause Falls

Prey to the

> Doctrine of " Necessary Evil "

>

> By James LaVeck

>

>

>

> PHOTO of a ram [from online article]: Devlin, at Woodstock Farm

Animal

> Sanctuary. Photo by Wiebke Wiechell, courtesy of www.flickr.com/

> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkedyogachick> photos/inkedyogachick

>

> You never know when a PR agency is being effective; you'll just

find your

> views slowly shifting.—PR Executive

>

> Few of us realize that some U.S. industries pay hundreds of

millions of

> dollars to public relations firms charged with the removal of any

and all

> obstacles to their acquisition of profit. High on the list of those

> obstacles are grassroots social justice movements.

>

> In a 2002 article on their Center for Media and Democracy website,

authors

> and social activists John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton described the

> activities of MBD, one such PR firm involved in the dismantlement

of citizen

> movements concerned about problems ranging from acid rain, dioxin,

> biotechnology and toxic wastes, to apartheid, nuclear energy,

endangered

> species and oil spills.

>

> " Their favorite method, " wrote Stauber and Rampton, " is a `divide

and

> conquer' strategy heavily dependent on co-optation: First identify

the

> `radicals' who are unwilling to compromise and who are demanding

fundamental

> changes to redress the problem at hand. Then, identify the

> `realists'—typically, organizations with significant budgets and

staffs

> working in the same relative area of public concern as the

radicals. Then,

> approach these realists, often through a friendly third party,

start a

> dialogue and eventually cut a deal, a `win-win' solution that

marginalizes

> and excludes the radicals and their demands.

>

> " Next, go with the realists to the `idealists' who have learned

about the

> problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists

that a

> `win-win' solution endorsed by the realists is best for the

community as a

> whole. Once this has been accomplished, the `radicals' can be shut

out as

> extremists, the PR fix is in, and the deal can be touted in the

media to

> make the corporation and its `moderate' nonprofit partners look

heroic for

> solving the problem. Result: industry may have to make some small or

> temporary concessions, but the fundamental concerns raised by

the `radicals'

> are swept aside. " [Emphasis added.]

>

> What does this troubling scenario have to do with animal advocates

and our

> movement to end the exploitation of sentient beings? Well, it turns

out the

> first time Stauber and Rampton wrote about MBD, it was in reference

to a

> presentation given by Ronald Duchin—the " D " in MBD—to none other

than the

> Cattleman's Association (see page 66 of Toxic Sludge is Good for

You: Lies,

> Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry). The year was 1991,

and Duchin,

> a graduate of the Army War College and former special assistant to

the

> Secretary of Defense, was outlining the most effective strategy

for " dealing

> with " the meat industry's biggest irritant: us.

>

> Duchin recommended the following three-step plan:

>

> 1) Isolate the radicals

>

> 2) " Cultivate " the idealists and " educate " them into

becoming " realists "

>

> 3) Co-opt the opportunists into agreeing with industry.

>

> Duchin acknowledged in his speech that idealists were hard to work

with, and

> that because of their inherent altruism and the fact that they gain

nothing

> personally from holding their views, the public tends to believe in

them. He

> then offered the cattlemen a clever strategy. He said that if

idealists can

> somehow be convinced that their opposition to a product or an

industry

> inadvertently caused harm to someone, they could not live with the

> contradiction and would be forced to change their views, to adopt a

more

> " realistic " position.

>

> Duchin next told the cattlemen about how to work with movement

> " opportunists, " people he described as engaging in activism

for " visibility,

> power, followers, and perhaps, employment... The key to dealing with

> opportunists is to provide them with at least the perception of a

partial

> victory. "

>

> The widespread adoption of " cage-free " eggs? A few seats at the

table with

> the group developing standards for producing " Animal Compassionate "

lamb?

> Uncrated " pink " veal? Today, these and similar developments are

being widely

> characterized as victories by organizations with reputations for

staunchly

> opposing animal exploitation.

>

> The Bilk of Human Kindness

>

> It's not pleasant to think about the possibility that our movement

could be

> in the process of being co-opted and neutralized according to a

blueprint

> laid out 15 years ago by a meat industry consulting firm. But for

the animal

> exploiting industries, there are billions of dollars at stake, and

it stands

> to reason that they are going to commit serious resources to the

protection

> of their interests, and they are going to play to win. Consider how

the

> relentless pressure to bring stock performance ever higher, quarter

after

> quarter, can drive corporate executives into a hypercompetitive

frenzy. As a

> result, one regularly reads of industrial espionage, media smear

campaigns,

> attempts to corrupt political leaders, accounting scandals and

brutal

> takeover battles. Is there any reason to believe that people caught

up in

> such a system might be any less ruthless when dealing with a

citizens'

> movement that seeks to put them out of business?

>

> Stauber and Rampton, after years of investigating the activities of

the PR

> industry, point out the tendency of activists to deny the

possibility that

> we could be duped, " activists like to believe that we are too

committed to

> our causes, too worldly and aware to be sweet-talked into unwitting

> submission by sitting down and partnering with the enemy. " But

according to

> PR industry guru Denise Deegan, notes Stauber, " industry continues

to regard

> this sort of `dialogue' as its most effective method for managing

> activists. "

>

> Stauber and Rampton's work is hardly based on armchair theorizing.

Rather,

> it is derived from exhaustive study of the history of real-life

grassroots

> movements that, like the animal movement, have attempted to confront

> industry abuse. They studied, for example, how the MBD PR firm grew

out of a

> successful campaign to neutralize a massive boycott of the Nestlé

> corporation. In the late 70s, Nestlé was attempting to persuade

millions of

> third world women to use synthetic infant formula instead of breast-

feeding

> their babies. " In activist lore, " note Stauber and Rampton, " this

boycott is

> touted as a major victory, but in the corporate world it is

understood that

> industry really won the day by pulling the rug out from the

campaign. By

> making selective concessions to the activists, Nestlé succeeded in

> negotiating an end to the boycott. Later, activists were dismayed to

> discover that its infant formula marketing practices are continuing

with

> only token changes. Third world children continue to die, but today

their

> plight receives little attention, and activists have found that a

boycott,

> once terminated, is not easily turned back on. "

>

> Translate this to the animal movement, and the call for a boycott

is, very

> simply, vegan advocacy. When we switch from asking people to

eliminate or

> reduce their consumption of animal products, to publicly

endorsing " humane "

> animal products, are we not, in effect, calling off our own

boycott? Think

> about it. " A boycott, once terminated, is not easily turned back

on. "

>

> Playing to Win-Win

>

> So this is serious. Let's go through it again and reflect upon how

recent

> developments in the animal movement might map onto the PR industry

playbook

> as summarized by Stauber and Rampton.

>

> First identify the `radicals' who are unwilling to compromise and

who are

> demanding fundamental changes to redress the problem at hand.

>

> Hypothetically, that could be anyone who believes animals have

rights, that

> exploiting them is wrong, and that the solution is encouraging

people to

> boycott all animal products, with a long-term goal of abolishing the

> property status of animals. We're not talking about radical

tactics, but

> radical ideas. We're talking about community educators, amateur

> investigators, protesters, attorneys, bloggers, artists, nurses,

animal

> rescuers, merchants, writers, leafleteers, clergyfolk, dieticians,

former

> farmers, humane educators, college students, sanctuary workers, yoga

> instructors, teenagers, musicians, doctors, and all kinds of

everyday

> activists who practice veganism as an expression of Gandhian

nonviolence, as

> a refusal to cooperate in any way with those profiting from the

oppression

> of others.

>

> Then, identify the `realists'—typically, organizations with

significant

> budgets and staffs working in the same relative area of public

concern as

> the radicals.

>

> Hypothetically, that could be a number of large multi-million

dollar animal

> protection organizations with significant farmed animal campaigns.

>

> Then, approach these realists, often through a friendly third

party, start a

> dialogue, and eventually cut a deal, a `win-win' solution that

marginalizes

> and excludes the radicals and their demands.

>

> Hypothetically, this could be an offer made by someone like John

Mackey, CEO

> of Whole Foods, one of the nation's leading retailers of both meat

and

> organic produce, to partner with animal advocates and meat industry

> " visionaries " to develop new standards for the " humane "

exploitation of

> animals. However, in order to participate, the " realists " must de

facto

> contradict their own position that sentient nonhuman animals should

not be

> used for human purposes, for to negotiate the details of their

exploitation

> with those who will do the killing and make the profits dramatically

> undermines the integrity of this fundamental principle.

>

> Now, through the combined efforts of industry and the participating

animal

> organizations, the " reasonable " person's response to being made

aware of the

> plight of farmed animals becomes not veganism, not reduction of

meat, dairy

> and egg consumption, but rather, the purchase of " humane " animal

products.

>

> Simultaneously, the focus of public dialogue irrevocably shifts

from the

> questionable morality of using and killing animals, to an

elaborate, endless

> wrangle over how the deed will be done—conditions, treatment,

standards and

> regulation.

>

> In this new framework, public calls by animal advocates for the

boycott of

> all animal products, for nonparticipation in exploitation, have no

place.

> Such talk is now an embarrassment for the participating animal

groups, and a

> joke for the meat industry people. Such talk is now relegated to

the realm

> of " radicalism. "

>

> Next, go with the realists to the `idealists' who have learned

about the

> problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists

that a

> `win-win' solution endorsed by the realists is best for the

community as a

> whole.

>

> Hypothetically, these could be the small, idealistic organizations

that are

> convinced to join the larger organizations in endorsing

the " `humane'

> standards mini-revolution. " Together, they persuade frontline

educators and

> citizen activists that solely advocating for veganism is no longer

the right

> approach. Activists must now simultaneously support " humane " meat

and

> " cage-free " eggs as a purported transitional step for people who

won't give

> up consuming animal products today. To do otherwise, it is argued,

is

> tantamount to abandoning billions of animals now trapped in the

existing

> meat industry system.

>

> Confronted with this seeming " contradiction, " large numbers of

movement

> idealists shift their views and begin adopting a more " realistic "

position,

> a textbook application of Duchin's turn-idealists-into-realists

formula.

> This new " realism " includes public advocacy of non-vegan

> behavior—consumption of " humane " animal products—alongside public

advocacy

> of vegan behavior—boycotting of all animal products. Eerily, these

newly

> transformed idealists even begin to refer to themselves

as " realists, " and

> to those who hold on to their own former values for non-

participation as

> " purists " and " absolutists, " sometimes even " selfish " or " self-

righteous " in

> their " moral rigidity. "

>

> Meat-ing People Where They Are

>

> It is striking, and deeply troubling, how this new way of thinking

of

> ourselves and our advocacy conform so perfectly to Mr. Duchin's

roadmap for

> our future, and how it so precisely echoes the " dilemma " of Whole

Foods'

> John Mackey, who talks of how he would lose his position as CEO,

the very

> basis of his ability to make a difference, were he to impose his

personal

> values and deny his customers the opportunity to purchase a wide

variety of

> animal products. Therefore, given his concern for animals, Mackey

is morally

> obligated to do what he needs to do in order to maintain his

position at the

> top, and to use the power he has to create a new line of " animal

> compassionate " meat products, while working with participating

animal groups

> to convince the public to buy them—thus, in Mackey's own

words, " pioneering

> an entirely new way for people to relate to farm animals, with the

animals'

> welfare becoming the most important goal. "

>

> Likewise, some leaders of participating animal groups might reason

that,

> were they to " impose " veganism and the abolition of animal

exploitation on

> the public by refusing to offer them an approved " humane " animal

product

> alternative, they too would lose the money and members that they

believe are

> the basis of their ability to make a difference. Rather, in order

to have

> clout and credibility with the widest range of funders, legislators,

> journalists and other " mainstream " people, they need to " meet

people where

> they are, " and offer " options. " They seem to believe that they are,

in fact,

> morally obligated to work with industry to develop and

market " humane "

> animal products that they claim will help the public and the meat

industry

> transition away from the most egregious forms of animal torture.

>

> In order to see where this new " meet-people-where-they-are "

approach is

> leading our movement, we need go no further than the latest

labeling scheme,

> this one launched in Australia by an international animal

organization. It

> is called " Humane Choice, " and the press release enthusiastically

declares

> that the new label " will guarantee the consumer that the animal has

been

> treated with respect and care, from birth through to death... The

Humane

> Choice label will denote the animal has had the best life and death

offered

> to any farm animal... They basically live their lives as they would

have

> done on Old MacDonald's farm... "

>

> Humane Choice? Old MacDonald's farm? See how the roles are

reversing? Animal

> advocacy is no longer about ethics and social justice—it is now

about

> consumer choice. The selling of meat is no longer about

commodification,

> exploitation and profits—it is now about animal welfare. Veganism

is no

> longer a moral imperative—it is now a charmingly eccentric

lifestyle choice.

>

>

> Bringing us to Stauber and Rampton's finale: Once this has been

> accomplished, the `radicals' can be shut out as extremists, the PR

fix is

> in, and the deal can be touted in the media to make the corporation

and its

> `moderate' nonprofit partners look heroic for solving the problem.

Result:

> industry may have to make some small or temporary concessions, but

the

> fundamental concerns raised by the `radicals' are swept aside.

>

> The Animal Welfare Industrial Complex

>

> Whether our movement came to its present state in whole or in part

through

> PR industry machinations, or if it is simply self-destructing of

its own

> accord, we should be shocked and deeply concerned that the

structure of

> today's animal movement so closely resembles the vision of moral

compromise,

> division and debilitation put forth by a meat industry PR

consultant so many

> years ago. However it was accomplished, it is undeniable that the

firewall

> of linguistic precision, critical thought and philosophical

integrity needed

> to protect our movement from such degradation has been all but torn

down.

>

> It's troubling to think about how things could have gone this far

so fast,

> but it stands to reason that Mr. Duchin and his ilk haven't been

twiddling

> their thumbs for the past 15 years. As animal organizations and the

meat

> industry co-mingle their affairs in an increasingly bewildering

tangle,

> their language, values, interests and goals are becoming

indistinguishable,

> creating a kind of " animal welfare industrial complex " in which the

> " players " —dominant figures of the industry and the corporate animal

> movement—will regularly meet in private to negotiate the price of

public

> concern for animal suffering.

>

> To the industry will go animal organization endorsements of an ever

more

> bizarre array of " humane " products and " compassionate " practices.

To the

> animal groups will go a pocketful of " partial victories " as well as

a few

> gratuities like conference sponsorships and high profile publicity

> opportunities. By making the process so orderly and rational, by

whittling

> it down to a few key players with an unspoken understanding of the

> arrangement, all parties involved will receive a regular supply of

what they

> need to keep growing at a rapid clip. More money. More

customers/members.

> More political connections. More ability to dictate the terms of

public

> discourse.

>

> The workings of this hypothetical animal welfare industrial complex

fit

> comfortably into the Orwellian culture of our post-9/11 society,

where civil

> rights and the rule of law are being systematically undermined in

the name

> of protecting our " freedom. " Central to it all is our acceptance of

the

> doctrine of " necessary evil, " which leads us to go against our core

values

> and rationalize our complicity in acts of violence and injustice

committed

> against others—acts that are often described as " sad "

and " regrettable, "

> but, let's be realistic, unavoidable and absolutely necessary if we

are to

> accomplish our righteous mission. Under the doctrine of necessary

evil,

> there is nothing fundamentally wrong with indefinitely incarcerating

> thousands of people suspected, but not charged, tried or convicted

of any

> crime, in a worldwide network of secret prisons, and even torturing

them—as

> long as all of it is done for noble reasons, and according to the

proper

> " standards. "

>

> Consider the parallelism of these two passages, the first from the

New York

> Times, and the second from the website of a new animal industry

marketing

> campaign in England:

>

> Although the C.I.A. has faced criticism over the use of harsh

techniques,

> one senior intelligence official said detainees had not been

mistreated.

> They were given dental and vision care as well as the Koran, prayer

rugs and

> clocks to schedule prayers, the official said. They were also given

reading

> material, DVD's and access to exercise equipment.

>

> This is not veal from dimly lit crowded pens. These animals enjoy a

very

> full life, with plenty of space and light, inside suitable

buildings over

> winter and outside at pasture for the rest of the year; a varied

diet; and

> the care of a foster cow when available.

>

> Yes, poor orphaned calves destined for the butcher's knife are now

going to

> be lovingly nurtured by a " foster mom " before their lives are

prematurely

> snuffed out. And lest anyone feel bad about the brevity of the baby

cows'

> existence, the industry helpfully points out that " with a life span

of six

> months, they live twice as long as even the slowest growing

chicken; they

> have the same life span as a good organic pig, and longer than many

organic

> lambs. "

>

> So those who consume the flesh of these coddled calves are actually

> humanitarians solving an " animal welfare problem. " By eating the

unwanted

> male offspring of dairy cows, we will spare these unlucky newborns

from the

> morally repugnant alternative, a shorter and more brutal life in a

crate.

> One cannot help but recall the quote attributed to an army

lieutenant during

> the Vietnam War who declared, " We had to destroy the village, in

order to

> save it. "

>

> According to a newspaper report, nine days after the launch of

this " Good

> Veal " campaign, veal sales at one English supermarket chain rose 45

percent.

> Notably, the campaign's website features the endorsement and logo

of a

> large, well-respected European animal advocacy organization whose

name

> begins with the word " compassion. "

>

> Hence, a decades-long boycott is all but neutralized. Think of how

many

> people worked, and for how long, to educate the public about why

the eating

> of veal should be taboo. Just how much specially labeled " Good

Veal " does

> one have to eat before the distinction dissolves, and it simply

becomes good

> to eat veal?

>

> Once again, our movement's fundamental concerns…artfully swept

aside.

>

> The Art of Relentless Compassion

>

> In this new era, to be a vegan advocate, to successfully encourage

others to

> boycott participation in the exploitation of animals, one must do

so much

> more than expose people to the injustice of animal exploitation,

help them

> overcome the force of their own personal habits, resist family and

societal

> pressure, and see through the outrageous deceptions of the meat

industry.

> Now, one must also debunk the patent fallacy of " humane " happy meat

products

> enthusiastically endorsed, promoted and in some cases even

developed by a

> number of organizations that are, essentially, the public face of

animal

> advocacy.

>

> If abolition of exploitation is our ultimate goal, as is so often

claimed,

> and if veganism is the single most powerful personal expression of

> opposition to animal exploitation, why on earth would any animal

> organization participate in making the job of vegan activists and

educators

> so much harder?

>

> Already, sanctuary workers, educators and frontline vegan activists

are

> reporting that members of the public, when confronted with the

reality of

> farmed animal exploitation, increasingly indicate that they will

express

> their concern for farmed animals, not by boycotting or reducing

their

> consumption of animal products, but by purchasing animal products

marketed

> as " humane. " Whole Foods, not surprisingly, is often mentioned by

name.

>

> " Humane " animal products appear to be a nearly perfect antidote to

the

> inner conflict brought about by awareness of one's own complicity

in the

> exploitation of animals. But sadly, by trading a sacred truth for a

clever

> lie, " humane " labels make a mockery of an authentic moment of

conscience.

>

> If we step outside the mindset of the animal welfare industrial

complex, and

> choose instead to model our approach on successful social justice

movements

> of the past, it becomes clear that our job is to relentlessly

investigate

> and expose the industry's exploitation; to rescue animals and offer

> sanctuary; to educate the public about who animals are and why it

is wrong

> to use and kill them; and to create and promote ideas, products,

social

> values, commercial practices, traditions, artworks, language,

philosophy,

> and laws that are wholly nonviolent, that do not in any way

participate in

> or reinforce the legitimacy of the exploitation of any being.

>

> Such a time-tested way of working for peaceful change is both

practical and

> powerful, and well suits the dignity of the cause we serve. It

speaks to the

> best in human nature, and produces ever-growing waves of change.

Each person

> who joins in signals a reprieve for a large number of animals, adds

to the

> common pool of creativity and wisdom, and becomes another caretaker

of a

> vision uncontaminated by pessimism or self-interest. This naturally

grows

> our movement without diluting the strength or clarity of our

message, and

> wins the respect of those vast numbers of people who are willing to

listen

> and learn from us, but are not yet ready to join our cause. To them—

the

> people working through doubt or lifestyle transition—we

respectfully offer

> opportunities to learn more while experiencing the joy of our

nonviolent

> culture, as well as constant encouragement to reduce their

consumption of

> the products of suffering. Over time, by transforming more and more

> individual lives, we can, and will, transform an entire society.

>

> Walking this path, we can be confident that each step we take,

large or

> small, is a step in the right direction, a step toward liberating

countless

> beings from a life of exploitation and suffering. And rest assured,

under

> the mounting pressure of public outrage at the cruelty and

injustices our

> work relentlessly exposes, the meat industry will have no choice

but to

> respond by " improving " their practices. If history is any guide, in

many

> cases their claims of making things better for the animals will be

little

> more than self-serving fabrications. But sometimes the changes they

make

> will actually decrease the suffering animals endure before

slaughter, and of

> course, we can all agree that's a good thing.

>

> But we don't need to be a part of dreaming up the details of the

industry's

> new and improved systems of exploitation, and we certainly don't

need to put

> our good names and our movement's credibility behind the

questionable

> products that result. Let the industry pay people like self-

described animal

> advocate and slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin to do that. And

let such

> professional apologists " take the credit " for creating more

efficient and

> more profitable methods of " killing with kindness. "

>

> Let us not forget, there is a reason why human rights groups do not

develop

> or endorse " humane " methods of torturing and executing political

prisoners,

> and why children's rights advocates do not collaborate with the

> international pornography industry to develop standards and special

labeling

> for films that make " compassionate " use of runaway teens. To do

such things

> is to introduce moral ambiguity into situations where the

boundaries between

> right and wrong must never be allowed to blur. To be the agent of

such

> blurring is to become complicit oneself in the violence and abuse.

>

> Let us be clear. When we endorse the consumption of any kind of

animal

> product, we're not only encouraging an act we ourselves know to be

> immoral—not only blurring the line between right and wrong—we're

also

> willfully ignoring animal agriculture's massive contribution to

global

> warming, world hunger, chronic disease, worker abuse,

desertification and

> third world poverty. Let us not be too quick to assume that others

are not

> ready to absorb the full force of truths we ourselves hold as self-

evident.

> The world has seen quite enough cynicism by now, and is ready for

something

> new. Let us freely share with everyone the best truth we have, and

let us do

> so with the courage, altruism and integrity of the unapologetic

idealists

> who have come before us—those whose historic words and deeds have

redefined

> the limits of human potential.

>

> A principle is a principle, and in no case can it be watered down

because of

> our incapacity to live it in practice. We have to strive to achieve

it, and

> the striving should be conscious, deliberate and hard.—Gandhi

>

> James LaVeck is cofounder of the nonprofit arts and educational

organization

> Tribe of Heart and producer of award-winning documentaries The

Witness and

> Peaceable Kingdom. A substantial revision of Peaceable Kingdom,

which will

> include an examination of the ethics of " humane " meat, is currently

in

> post-production. To learn more, visit www.tribeofheart.org.

>

>

>

>

>