Micah Metz
Dr. Stephanie Brown
English 306
November 3, 2016
Historical Context of Animal Rights
Movement
The history of animal rights, in
America and worldwide, is a modern one, emerging only within the past few
centuries, and only taking on its current shape even more recently. With the
development of technology and the correlating population increase, the access
to, desire, and necessity for ample food sources has increased exponentially.
This change in the social and economic dynamic over the 20th century has led to
a more vocal, radical movement because of these technological and anthropogenic
developments, and this in turn has affected the moods toward the treatment of
animals as a food source. With increased technological prowess of our
generation comes the ability to rely less on meat-sources for sustenance, and
advocates of animal rights argue that such a course of action is reasonable,
for a variety of reasons. While the use of animals for human purposes has a
variety of perspectives on it within the animal rights movement as a whole,
with some arguing complete abolition of their use, and others touting a
propaganda of legislative reform that would just limit it, the popularity of
the notion that animals are more than just foodstuff seems to be on the rise.
Among the many movements that began in the past two centuries, American Meatout
has remained consistent as an annual pro-animal rights event ever since its
inception 1985. Its logos is to encourage people to drop meat from their diets
and live a vegetarian lifestyle. American Meat Out is among a long list of
similar-minded societies created.
It was the beginning of the 18th
century that writers began discussing the feelings of animals; how they feel
pain and suffering, cruel treatment of animals, vivisection, and the slaughter
of them for food were topics within the conversation at the time. But not surprisingly,
this early adventure of animal rights philosophy was not born out of the rural
country where the cultivation of animal products took place, but rather in the
cities by the type of professionals far removed from that business. As Harold
Guither summarizes in his text regarding the subject, "The pressure to
change methods of treating animals did not come from the owners, the grooms,
the servants, and cab drivers. Educated country clergymen and well-to-do
townsmen remote from the agricultural operations first expressed this new
sentiment toward animals" (1). Hunting and meat-filled diets have long
been a marker in class-distinction, and for this reason there was disjunction
within the upper class in regards to the rising notion of treating animals differently,
and likewise it seemed unfair to impair the livelihood of farmers who depended
in their use of animals for food and other products. There was reason for
aversion against this humane rhetoric in both classes, but after many
unsuccessful attempts, the first society for animal protection arise in 1824,
later to become the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
These are early European steps toward the movement, from which America would
later get involved into an equal extent. (Guither, 1-2)
While the animal rights concept was
born in eighteenth century England, and humane societies continued to sprout up
in America and England throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the serious
social movement as it is known now in the United States began in the 1970s. The
aims of this modern movement are different from the traditional societies that
still work to prevent animal cruelty and to shelter impoverished creatures.
Traditional animal rights syndicates focused on the fair treatment and humane
use of animals, while the modern American movement is more closely tied with
the philosophical understanding that animals, like humans, possess similar
inalienable rights that humans are entitled to. There is a divide on this issue
between various interest groups in the overall movement that will be discussed
later, but this philosophical notion as a whole is closely associated with this
era as opposed to more traditional proponents of animal welfare movements in
Europe (Guither, 4). Within this vein of thought comes the practice of
vegetarianism and similar ideologies of refusing to use animal products on the
basis of respecting an animal's right to life; it is a lifestyle that is
arguably most closely synonymous with the entire animal rights movement as a
whole, even though not all proponents of humane treatment of animals are
vegetarian. It is also the lifestyle that the protest under later discussion is
entire based on.
Vegetarian literature contains
multiple definitions. Traditional vegetarians do not consume meat, but may
consume dairy products; for these, the uncommon term 'lacto-vegetarians' is
applicable. Recently, the term for people who do not consume any animal
products, nor wear animal skins or anything else that involves an animal as a
source for productions, are referred to as 'vegan.' While vegetarian
communities have existed since the 19th century, the popularity of this
lifestyle in the United States primarily took wind in the 1960s. In this era,
the food increased production of meat in the industry served as a rallying
point for vegetarians to proselytize their lifestyle, and argue for a
repurposing of resources to utilize the plant products for the population's
food supply. Writers such as John Robbins argues that if the amount of grain and
farmland used to feed animals were repurposed to feed the regular population,
then it would be enough to meet the necessities for survival, and there would
be enough left over to export; meat, then, is a staple food of a wealthy
society that can afford the luxury and isn't something that is required to
survive. And it is true that the meat industry is so affluent because of the
economic prosperity of the nation in which this industry is primarily housed.
America was and is the number one consumer of meat, and the love for the food
is culturally appreciated. The cultural acceptance, affirmed by national
institutions themselves (such as the proposal of ‘National Meat Week’) sparked
a slew of rhetorical stances on the socially accepted ways of treating animals.
(Guither, 113-114).
Rhetorical
Context
The history of the animal rights
movement is filled with changes in the philosophical understanding of morality
as it pertains to the ethical treatment of non-human life. As a result of these
views and the changing lifestyle of the modern age, private societies united in
the effort to affect change in the political realm arose. This growing,
intensifying climate of animal-rights proponents helped create a more socially
acceptable atmosphere for later movements to engage in their displays with more
publicity.
The first private humane society in
the United States was The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (ASPCA) in 1866. It's major objective was to provide an effective means
of preventing cruelty to animals throughout the country. It's 1994 membership
was 350,000. Throughout the existence of this society, up until the year of
1994, the ASPCA offered shelter to estranged animals. In 1994, when the
contract for the upkeep of the shelter expired, the ASPCA notified the city of
New York that it would not renew the contract; from then on their objective of
preventing inhumane conditions for animals separated from dealing with the
aftermath and went to to providing information on how to prevent the
overpopulation of urban pets that lead to these effects. However, the ASPCA
extends these concerns to other areas of animal interest, including farm
animals. the ASPCA opposes raising any animal under inhumane conditions. As
outlined in Guithers historical survey of animal rights movements,
"practices in [the ASPCA's] view falling under this definition include
veal calf farming when the calves are raised in indiviidual crates r stalls,
branding of the faces of cattle, and intensive food animal production"
(Guither, 36). As will be seen other organizations may take a stronger,
abolitionist stance on views of animal consumption, and views concerning the
extent to which animals should be farmed, if at all, vary. But the ASPCA is an
example of an original, long-running organization that seeks for a reformation
of animal treatment more so than touting a philosophy of vegetarianism.
Closer to the inception of the Great
American Meatout, and likely one of the most well known and influential
organizations in the animal rights movement, is the People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals. PETA is arguably the largest animal rights organization
to date, with membership being around 500,000 members (although in this case
any contributors are considered to be members) and it's philosophy of the
treatment of animals is more bold than that shown by the ASPCA. The philosophy
of the founder of the organization, Ingrid Newkirk, posits a doctrine that
calls for abandoning animal testing of cosmetics and household products, promoting
vegetarian diets, supporting animal shelters, and boycotting souvenirs that may
contain animal products. While the growth of PETA is a notable step towards a
vegetarian ideology within the overall movement, some of the organizations
escapades cross lines that onlookers (perhaps even those within the larger
movement of animal rights) find ridiculous; for example, in 2011 PETA argued
that performing whales in seaworld were subjugated in a slavery-like servatude,
and threatened to file a lawsuit claiming that seaworld's use of whales
violated the 13th amendment's ban on slavery. While later film productions,
such as Blackfish, also portray
performance-animals in a negative light, comparing the act of using animals for
entertainment to the actual cases of human slavery in the country garnered some
negative attention, including mockery from political humorists such as Stephen
Colbert. PETA's stance on the use of animals has a slight level of notoriety
for a few stunts such as this one, but they're indicative of a growing
confidence in the justification in their cause that seems to have been more
adopted and tolerated by the public. (Guither, 48-49) The notion of absolute
refraining from meat consumption, by around the time PETA was born, took a
primary role in protests, and such groups like the Farm Animal Reform Movement
(FARM) after PETA would continue these sorts of demonstrations.
The Farm Animal Reform Movement
(FARM) began in 1981, and their objective was to strive to end all exploitation
of animals for food, and as an interim goal, they strived to improve the
conditions under which farm animals are housed. Specifically, the organization
wanted to take a look at how animal-agriculture had negative effects on human
health, world hunger, and natural resources. FARM has been outspoken on these
issues through their sponsorship of various annual conferences that are
purposed to counter the prevailing meat-eating culture; the list of their
sponsorship includes the Action for Life conference on animal rights, the Veal
Ban campaign, World Farm Animals Day, and the Great American Meatout conference
that will be under further discussion. As a long term goal, The philosophy
behind this organization, and the conferences which they helped create and
sponsor, is very much an abolitionist perspective on the use of animals for
food in all capacities. (Guither, 51,--52)
The Great American Meatout is an
annual conference with the goal of encouraging Americans to quit eating meat
for the day of the conference while teaching vegetarian perspectives on healthy
diets. The number and consistency of regular protests on this subject hasn't
seemed to be on the decline since the popularity began to rise. The Great
American Meatout is an annual event that is still consistent to this day, and
the meat industry is still relevantly prosperous as to be a worthy opponent of
these activists. But considering the length of this annual event, approximately
26 years old now, the effect of its impact and those like it still seems
underwhelming and met with sympathy from onlookers on their plight to secure
animal safety, but indifference in the face of actually having to give up the
diet that is so beloved by the society. The protest, while having a sympathetic
message, is one that appears to barely
make a dent in the overall issue.
- To what extent should the eventual protest, The Great American Meatout, but outlined in the introduction and referenced throughout the rest of the contextual information?
- Is this information relevant, and does it prepare you to discuss the protest that will come after it?
- Would more theoretical sources improve this portion of the paper, or should it be kept to solely historical information regarding major events and other rhetorical players?
Work Cited
Guither, Harold
D. Animal Rights: History and Scope of a
radical social movement. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, c1998. Print.
“PETA: Seaworld
Keeps Orcas ‘In Slavery.’” cbsnews.com.
October 26, 2011. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment