I understand people object to calling what is happening to animals a “war.” By way of clarifying, in the U.S. alone, 10 billion land animals are confined, tortured, and systematically slaughtered. If this were happening to a group of human beings, in the U.S. or else anywhere in the world, we would have no difficulty calling it a war. It would be genocide, plain and simple.
This war is being waged by multi-national corporations using workers as soldiers, and is supported by the State in both its courts and its legislative bodies. It is being funded by people who consume animal products, and carried out in their names.
Certainly we don’t have a good track record of fighting “the war on” terror, drugs, cancer, etc. These culturally declared wars have been abject failures. The war on animals differs because it hasn’t been overtly declared. It’s still covert, tacit, and will remain that way until we see it for what it really is.
I appreciate each and every vegan activist and “freedom fighter” working to stop this war with the tools and resources they have.
*
Mary Cummins
February 8, 2011
I totally agree with you. The best way to fight the “war” is to go Vegan. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Julia
February 8, 2011
I’m a nerd, so I looked up the definition of war.
Based on the below, I don’t think what humans do to animals can technically be considered a war.
However, the terms genocide, holocaust and oppression are all pretty accurate.
war
noun, often attributive ˈwȯr
Definition of WAR
1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
Luis Tovar
February 8, 2011
“There is an undeclared war being waged everyday against countless millions of nonhuman animals.”
Tom Regan
http://veganireland.vegaplanet.org/essay-tom-regan.php
Kezia Jauron
February 8, 2011
Julia, the only thing missing is that this war is not between “states or nations,” unless you consider states and nations in a broader context besides geopolitical divisions. Otherwise it’s a pretty accurate definition.
The definition says
“Usually” open and declared – addressed in the post, it’s not been overtly declared, but that’s why it’s up to us to call it what it is. Still, “usually” indicates that sometimes it’s not necessary to declare it for it to be so.
Armed – it’s definitely that. One side is armed.
Hostile – absolutely.
A period of such – that’s what we’re in.
A state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism – definitely.
A struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end – yes. The ends that humans have when it comes to animals are to eat, wear, experiment on, and enslave them for entertainment or burden. Their opposing end is to live free.
So enlighten me: how does the definition you posted not square with this being a “war?”
Julia
February 9, 2011
Well, I guess you can interpret the definition in different ways, but to me a “war” is something where two parties are fighting each other. Animals don’t even have a chance to fight back.
Just to be clear, I have no issue with people using the term, it’s just that I choose not to. And not because it’s too extreme (I use the terms holocaust, genocide, slavery, rape, abuse etc in regards to animal issues all the time). I just feel that war is a bit inaccurate for what we’re talking about because it gives the impression that animals are actually involved in a struggle rather than completely oppressed and objectified by the human species.