June/July
2002
Special
Section: Animals and the Holocaust
Reviews of Eternal Treblinka
Book Review by Beth Gould
|
|
|
Humans are protective of their tragedies. They guard access to who has
the right to discuss and disseminate personal experiences and pain,
and resist comparisons to the experiences of others. Eternal Treblinka seeks
to compare one of the most painful times in modern history, the Holocaust,
with an ongoing moral travesty—animal slaughter for
human consumption. Charles Patterson’s book seeks to move the
animal advocacy movement onto a different moral plane alongside the
widely
accepted horror of human genocide. This is an intellectual endeavor
that is both earnest and heartfelt, but one that risks alienating its
audience as it tries to convince them about the cruelty of the animal
slaughter industry.
The danger of alienation rests in the question of whether great sadnesses
should be held up to each other, and used as an intellectual comparison.
It’s true that by holding them up to each other we can often learn
more about their causes. But it is also possible that by comparison,
the individual and very different elements become obscured. The debate
becomes centered on ‘how’ rather than ‘why.’ Problems
often don’t get solved when the result is addressed, rather than
the reason. The Holocaust started with anti-Semitism and German racial
nationalism. Animal slaughter begins with the desire to use animals
for human consumption, with no regard for their right to exist as autonomous
beings. Does comparison to the Holocaust increase consciousness about
animal suffering? Perhaps. Will it convince people to change their habits
regarding the subjugation of animals? Probably not. It is a much larger
hurdle to convince people that animals are their equals, than it is
to convince them that animals don’t deserve a brutal, tortuous
and unnecessary death.
For those involved in the animal rights movement, the silence from
those we are trying to reach is deafening. Those who either don’t believe
in the truth about slaughterhouses and unnecessary animal suffering,
or seemingly don’t want to know, is perplexing. ‘Converting’ people
away from the use of animals for food, clothing, sport and medicine
is extremely difficult. Animal advocates have tried many different
methods
to educate and change the majority of the population. The media seems
resentful of animal advocates, and unwilling to fairly report on the
conditions of slaughterhouses and research centers. The personal cost
of those who undertake direct action, such as vandalism, is too high
for most. Many valiant people devote much of their own time, money
and
caring to rescue the animals that they can, but the numbers are meager
compared to those who actually meet their doom in cruel conditions,
for unnecessary reasons. The frustration is enormous. The animal advocacy
movement has been unable to impress the general population with evidence
of the cruelty imposed upon animals. In order to make people understand,
some have turned to other historical atrocities, to draw parallels
and
therefore make people understand.
In Eternal Treblinka, such a parallel rests largely on the passage
in Genesis 1:26 in which God gives man dominion over animals, which
Patterson argues has allowed humans to feel justified in treating creatures
they deem to be below them as expendable. He traces from ancient times
the need of humans to see both their human and nonhuman victims as
inferior,
prior to their murder. Patterson is correct in this observation, but
it is not a new one, nor does it aid in advocating against cruelty.
Perhaps it is human nature to put ourselves apart from the other, as
this has been a pervasive pattern throughout recorded human history.
Patterson views the Judeo-Christian spiritual tradition only in light
of its decree regarding dominion over animals, and in Judaism’s
largely unheeded admonitions regarding cruelty to animals. In his attempt
to bring animal suffering into a new light, it is unreasonable to think
that the spiritual teachings that the Judeo-Christian tradition affords
its followers is irrelevant and contrary to a compassionate worldview
towards animals.
Whether or not to equate the Holocaust with the use of animals for human
use is in itself a passionate discussion. There are parallels, but those
parallels run throughout the description of all the ways that humans
have found to harm each other and their fellow creatures. The relevant
question is what the comparison does to our understanding of animal
advocacy and the Holocaust as separate events that are a constant contradiction
to the basic goodness of humanity. And most importantly, whether this
comparison aids understanding of the issues, and gives humanity a greater
chance of ending such evils.
One of the attributes of both the Holocaust and animal slaughter that
Patterson describes in detail is the effort by the oppressor to alienate
its victims by isolating them from the greater whole of living beings
deserving of respect. Great efforts were undertaken by the Nazis to
broaden the pervasive anti-Semitism that was rampant in Germany at
the
time. Jews were characterized as animal-like, specifically swine-like.
Germans were encouraged to see Jews as inhuman, logically making their
role in extermination morally easier for those actually carrying out
the final solution. The removal of any vestige of dignity and autonomy
is also practiced upon slaughter animals: workers in slaughterhouses
are encouraged to see animals as raw material, rather than as fellow
creatures. I believe that this practice of separating ourselves into
groups of ‘us’ and ‘them’ is an invalid comparison
because it exists throughout human social history, and by its mere
pervasiveness
is much more a function of social grouping. Perhaps this instinct was
born in an early desire for protection from the unfamiliar. This trait
is also not limited to humans. Canines are extremely wary of those
not
in their pack, and will fight to preserve the status quo of their social
grouping. Small children, who have not yet digested the hatred and
prejudice
of their elders, will often cruelly isolate other children whom they
see as different.
Another major theme in Eternal Treblinka is the similarity between
the methods used in the mass killing of human and nonhuman animals.
It is indeed true that the assembly line method of production removes
the workers from the end result of their task, and this removal is vital
to ensuring that Nazis and slaughterhouse workers do not feel as if
they are actually murdering their targets. But this argument is resting
on the effect, rather than the cause. People have to want to kill before
they figure out how to do so as easily as possible. Perhaps because
the means that are used to carry out the killing of animals are so horrific
that animal advocates often use this as the crux of their argument against
animal consumption. But the issue should be not how we kill animals,
but that we desire to kill them at all. It is proven in a myriad of
ways that humans can be extremely cruel, and that they are largely unfazed
by institutional murder. Patterson proves this well with his descriptions
of mutilation practiced by people all over the world throughout history
on both humans and nonhumans. But it probably surprises no one that
humans have the ability to be cruel. While the methods are horrible,
it is the intent that is the most appalling feature of the Holocaust
and animal slaughter.
In fact, it is upon the idea of intent that the most vital difference
between the Holocaust and animal slaughter rests. The intent of the
Nazis during the Holocaust was to end Judaism by murdering every single
person affiliated to the religion or racial classification. There was
no desire to continue the existence of Judaism. If every Jew had been
killed, the concentration camps would have closed. Slaughterhouses exist
to keep killing animals. They do not want to kill all the pigs, cows,
chickens, horses in the world. Rather, they want to produce more in
order to kill more. Breeding is as important a component to the animal
slaughter industry as the killing, packaging and shipping. It is the
appreciation for intent that has been left out of discussions tying
together animal slaughter and the Holocaust, and it is our understanding
of our intent that will determine whether or not we will prevent another
Holocaust and stop animal slaughter.
How to change intent? The world is shamed by the fact that it allowed
the Holocaust to happen, yet genocide is not an historical relic. But
a big difference between the Holocaust and animal slaughter is that
the world sees the former as bad, and the latter as acceptable. And
perhaps this is why many animal advocates seek to compare the two. With
the exception of Holocaust revisionists, Americans believe the Holocaust
was a tragic smear on our self-perception as humans. To affiliate animal
advocacy with an historical and moral certitude gives it credence. To
point out the similarities is an attempt to borrow the horror that most
Americans feel about the Holocaust in an attempt to expand it to their
dinner tables. But this comparison does a disservice to both the Holocaust
and the animal advocacy movement, and, most importantly, to the animals.
The Holocaust destroyed so many people and scarred so many lives that
it deserves to stand alone. This does not mean it is the only horror,
or even the only genocidal horror. It should serve always as a warning
of what humans are capable of, and a teacher to inspire people to behave
with compassion. It should not be expanded to be used as an argument
for a movement that does not need it. The truth about animal slaughter
is horrible enough, overwhelmingly so, that it deserves its own vernacular
to describe the sorrow and hopelessness that is its very nature. Comparison
with the Holocaust obfuscates the intent of animal slaughter, which
differs greatly because humans seek to make their lives better on the
backs and flanks of animals, while the Nazis were intending absolute
annihilation. The challenge for animal advocates is to bring the issue
of unnecessary cruelty and consumption into focus in its own right.
This has been a frustrating task, without a blueprint or an answer.
But in similarity to those who resisted the Holocaust, the animal advocates
are on the side of kindness and respect, and these qualities can prevail.
 |
|
|
 |
