Educational elephant centric information plus fun and games.

THE REAL ANTI-CIRCUS AGENDA

page 3 of 6

INFLUENCE

By the mid-1990's Animal Liberation as a philosophical ideology disguised as "Animal Rights" and cloaked in the mantle of "Animal Welfare" enjoyed wide support in fund-raising, political action, and regulatory enforcement. Organizations like PeTA continued to raise millions of dollars a year from small pet owners while funneling money to campaigns attacking circuses, dairy farmers, zoos and fast food restaurants. Building on their earlier successes in campaigns against the fur and cosmetics industry, liberationists continued to suggest that their aims were directed at issues of cruelty or public safety without hinting at their broader agenda. Suggestions by watchdog groups like the Better Business Bureau that PeTA failed to meet the standards for a legitimate charity organization did little to dampen direct-mail fund raising successes by the organization. And as a generation of students bombarded with both overt and covert liberation propaganda entered college, aspects of the animal rights agenda infiltrated law school, medical school, and veterinary college coursework. Despite a broader public perception that liberation views were still far outside the mainstream - a perception fueled in part by outrageous PeTA campaigns suggesting that young people should drink beer instead of milk; or that eating meat was morally equivalent to the Holocaust against the Jews in the Second World War - , liberation ideology moves forward. By demanding the outrageous, the covert liberation agenda, bans on circuses, removing elephants from zoos etc. seems somehow more "reasonable."

DEBATE

Throughout its thirty-plus year history the doctrines of Animal Liberation have been subjected to surprisingly little public debate. As a philosophical school, liberation might be justly labeled a "utopian ideology." However, while many utopian ideologies of the past -- religious, economic, and political -- from the tenets of Federalism to the rise of Marx have undergone vigorous examination, Animal Liberation seemingly avoids genuine philosophical debate or acknowledgement of its true purpose. This lack of honest discourse has led critics of Liberation to label animal rights groups as disingenuous at best and out-and-out liars at worst. By repeatedly citing cruelty issues, safety issues, or in the case of anti-fur/anti-foxhunting efforts economic issues of "class", liberationists have successfully avoided the broader philosophical debate and forced their opponents to defend heretofore mainstream positions. Rarely have animal rights opponents turned the tables and the basic question: What does Animal Liberation really want? Exposing the weaknesses in the liberation case, and the contradictions in the stated positions or public histories of liberationist organizations can only begin when "Animal Rights Activists" are forced to acknowledge that they are liberationists, thus giving some hint to their real purpose.

LABELS

Just as Animal Liberationists avoid acknowledgement of their philosophical tenets and hide behind labels like "Animal Welfare", "Animal Defense," "Animal Protection," or even "Animal Rights" those in opposition to the liberation agenda frequently make the mistake of labeling activists as "Anthropomorphic", suffering from what has been called "The Bambi Syndrome." Anthropomorphism ascribes human characteristics to non-human species. The Bambi Syndrome, taking its name from a 1924 anti-hunting novel published in Hungary and later made into a wildly successful animated film by Walt Disney goes even further and suggests that all animals are really humans in furry costumes. Anthropomorphism to one degree or another is common among small pet owners - where our dogs and cats literally become members of the family - and in western countries the Bambi Syndrome is epidemic in children. Animal Liberation is not in and of itself anthropomorphic. As a philosophical school of thought, liberationists ascribe broad rights to all animal species regardless of behaviors. Only humans are enjoined from predation, solely on moral grounds. On the other hand liberationists have been wildly successful in exploiting anthropomorphism and the Bambi Syndrome to raise money, gain converts and followers, and to enact legislation based on dubious definitions of cruelty.

This article reprinted with permission of the author: B.E.Trumble -- 2005