Legitimate Animal Activism

In light of Mr. Spilman's blog, "Whale Wars - Eco Terrorism as Reality TV," I am compelled to ask what he would consider to be legitimate activism? In his opinion, I wonder if there is such a thing. Because to label the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society "terrorists" is a very bold statement, and a reckless one at that. After all, it is a curious terrorist organization that hasn't actually killed anybody. So perhaps we can dispense with these exaggerations?

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer is credited with saying there are Three Stages of Truth: first, ridicule; second, violent opposition; and third, acceptance. This was certainly true for the abolitionists, who were told that to abolish slavery would threaten the entire economy of the United States. Indeed they were ridiculed and violently opposed long before there was any acceptance. We look back now at human slavery as one of the darkest periods in American history. Women seeking the right to vote, known as the suffragettes, experienced a similar fate. They too were ridiculed, and violently opposed, until finally, after long grief and pain, they were accepted.

You could say there is a parallel today with animal activists, who are often ridiculed and violently opposed. Therefore, what is legitimate activism? Mr. Spilman suggests we stop illegal whaling by observing, documenting and taking the perpetrators to court. Obviously, Sea Shepherd is observing and documenting, but the courts aren't interested. Furthermore, Mr. Spilman concluded his piece by saying "Whale Wars...has nothing meaningful to do with saving the whales." That's another bold statement. After all, what more should Sea Shepherd do than place themselves between the harpoons and the whales? And on top of that, produce a show that raises awareness of the issue, and documents the events. Is this not legitimate activism? I couldn't help but wonder if Mr. Spilman would accuse the Boston Tea Party of "Eco-Terrorism."

So before we condemn shows like "Whale Wars" as "nothing less than eco-terrorism," we might ask ourselves: what is its meaning? And in order to arrive at meaning, one has to look at the content as well as the context. For example, was the Boston Tea Party nothing more than an event -- they simply dumped tea in the ocean, and that's it? No, it's not just about tea, or taxation without representation, (that's the context). This was a protest! They felt they were being treated unfairly, (that's the content). And now we have arrived at meaning.

As it turns out, I know a thing or two about content and context when it comes to the treatment of animals by human beings, both on land and sea. Between 1999 and 2005 I labored on a documentary on the subject entitled Earthlings, a film which I wrote, produced, directed and edited. Not only did I shoot footage myself, but I also spent a great deal of time acquiring material from around the world -- hours and hours and hours of horrific footage showing unspeakable cruelty to animals raised as pets, food, clothing, entertainment, and for scientific research. We call this research "traumatic knowledge" because much of it is difficult to stomach. However, the research allowed me to concentrate on this issue for a period of years. Therefore, I know something about it.

So I do hope you'll pardon me, Mr. Spilman, because I truly mean no disrespect, but I can say with some authority that your blog was reckless. It was nothing more than personal opinions publicly expressed, which you are entitled to, (after all, such is the nature of blogging). But that doesn't make it true, my friend. Arriving at truth should be our primary focus, as opposed to being right and proving others wrong.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who collaborated with me on Earthlings and whose members I know personally, are a group of dedicated individuals that spend months at sea, freezing their butts off, quite frankly, way out there in the middle of nowhere, and they have been doing so for the past 30 years. In short, "Whale Wars" is the culmination of all that experience, and is therefore much more than another flashy, new reality program, which you so readily dismissed as "eco-terrorism." "Whale Wars" has the benefit of a long history at sea, decades in the making. It is a history of wisdom and traumatic knowledge, I'm sorry to say, which Animal Planet has now seen fit to broadcast. I applaud them both, for their bravery in the face of whalers, and strong opinions like yours, which shoots them down as nothing more than "terrorists."

One final point: just remember that it wasn't the government who set out to end slavery -- the abolitionists did. And it wasn't the government who fought to grant women the right to vote -- the suffragettes did. And it isn't the governments of the world today striving to protect animals -- the animal activists are. All of this, which we call "direct action," has been undertaken by individuals and groups such as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. In other words, what you are witnessing is a modern day Boston Tea Party, my friend. Perhaps you could try to see it that way.

 

Comments

[GretaJean]

This is so well put, Shaun, thank you.
Applying this word 'terrorist' to people doing their best to protect animals who are being terrorized, while at the same time doing no physical harm to the true abusers, is appalling and all too common ignorance. Protecting animal rights is protecting human rights in many ways; particularly when it comes to animals used for food. Robbing the ocean and every other natural ecosystem of it's wildlife in order to eat animals that are completely unnecessary for; in fact, detrimental to, human health is killing us all. Sea Shepherd as a small but radiant ray of hope for a possible continued future of life on earth.

[CanisLatrans]

I agree-- to call Sea Shepherd "terrorists" is a mockery to people who suffer under real terrorism.

Sea Shepherd respects life, and has taken pains to avoid inflicting human casualties. Can the same be said of others that have used physical violence to further their political aims? Perhaps if Baader-Meinhof or Shining Path had simply thrown rotten tomatoes at their targets the comparison might be apt.

Sea Shepherd displays a respect for life that their targets cannot comprehend. The only thing Sea Shepherd "terrorizes" is the operating overhead costs of the Japanese whaling fleet. I guess to them, threatening their balance sheet is probably akin to death or holding a loved one hostage, because that's as far as their value system can expand.

I hope they continue to fight the good fight. I hope they can find the ships in harbor one day and scuttle the Japanese whalers-- send the ships to the bottom with no loss of human life. That's activism. At worst-- property damage, vandalism, destruction of private property. But terrorism? I suggest Emile Zola's "Germinal" to see how bad it could really get.

[dayala]

funny...where is Mr. Spilman's outrage on the killing of Dr. Tiller..an act of "REAL TERRORISM".
where is Mr.Spilman's outrage on an administration that killed 4300+ Americans in a war based on lies.

Sea Shepherd, ALF, ELF, SHAC7 have never harmed or killed a human being.

Mr. Spilman and his mindless-spouting ilk regurgitate the same nonsensical propaganda garbage against Sea Shepherd and other forms of environmental activism yet have nothing to offer the world but b*tch and whine about others who fight for a cause they believe in and have the 'testes' to go and actually do something instead firing off ad hominem attacks like e u n uchs sitting at a computer keyboard.

maybe Mr.Spilman can share with us A CAUSE HE ACTUALLY ACTED ON to right a wrong in this world....I eagerly await his response or anyone else here spouting the same garbage.

thanks for posting Shaun and defending Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd, they are heroes in my world.

[KooroshR]

Bravo Shaun, Bravo.

So true and to the point.

[GoldenAgeMaster]

Holy Cow.

You can never compare a human injustice with an animal injustice, unless of course you think animals are more important than... let's say, you're 3 month old daughter.

[gmphil]

Please learn the difference between "you're" and "your"....

That aside, your comment pre-supposes that abusing animals is in some way going to save your 3-month old daughter. May I suggest you do some unbiased research on the subject of vivisection. You may then come to realise that not only are you not helping your hypothetical daughter's cause by investing your hope and money in this fraudulent "science", but are actaully harming it.

There is no contradiction at all in caring for both animals and humans.

[CanisLatrans]

Is it an either/or proposition? Is the human mind too shallow or fragile to hold the notion that more creatures besides ourselves have the right to not be hunted to death?

[MikeAR]

Your reasoning is terribly flawed.

Your condition is: if you compare human injustice with animal injustice
And your conclusion is: then you think that animals are more important than [your offspring, your family, humans]

If you read through your statement again, I bet you, too, will also be able to find the red herring in your non-argument. If you truly believe that the two injustices cannot be compared logically, then please defend your position logically. An appeal to my feelings towards our daughters doesn't add to a sensible discussion.

[MikeAR]

JeanRR,
You draw a parallel between the actions of PeTA and an entire social justice movement, as do all radical opposers the providing of natural rights to all sentient beings. To extend that line a little, suppose I said that Rush Limbaugh is the sole representative for the sentiments of all members of the republican party. Would that have been accurate?
In addition, trying to break down the parallel by pointing out irrelevant differences is ridiculous. That's like saying there is no difference between the two abolitionist movements, because slaves were not milked, slaughtered for food in their early adolescence, and they didn't weigh in at roughly 1200 pounds. You've proven nothing here. You're full of red herrings.
Let's see if we can find some accurate parallels. African slaves were treated as property: check. African slaves were a seemingly indispensable commodity in American economy: check. For their status to change in the eyes of most, an entire social movement was required: check. There was no actual need for slaves, but they were merely for convenience and greater gains: check.
Next time you wish to derail an argument by throwing around words like "radical" and "insane extremes", please come with a well-developed argument to support your claims. Also, please research the Animal Rights movement a little more so that you don't make fallacious assumptions about the underlying theories of "the gang".

[IsisCat]

Mike - as consise, logical and eloquent a response as I've ever read!

[Roryfreedman]

Beautifully articulated, Shaun.

I cannot say enough about the incredible commitment, dedication, and sacrifice made by Captain Paul Watson and the entire Sea Shepherd crew. That their efforts are criticized speaks volumes about those doing the criticizing. Whether one agrees with their tactics or not, Sea Shepherd is out there risking their liberties and lives. While the rest of us cheer or jeer from the warmth and safety of our homes, these volunteers are on an old, rickety ship in the middle of Antarctica.
I, for one, am overwhelmed with gratitude and respect for these heroes.
And like you, Shaun, I take issue with the cavalier and inappropriate use of the word "eco-terrorism."

I've previously deferred to this study featured in Psychology Today, and feel it is once again pertinent:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20081113-000008.html

Morality: From Sucker to Saint
Why you see your dunce cap as a halo and cast yourself as noble to avoid feeling naive.

By: Matthew Hutson

Original Study:
Psychology Today Magazine, Nov/Dec 2008
Last Reviewed 19 Jan 2009
Article ID: 4711

[JeanRR]

You draw a parallel between slavery and pet breeding, as do all the radical animal rights supporters. To extend that line a little. Suppose the Abolitionists had called for spaying and neutering of slaves to end the horror of children being born into slavery. Suppose they took a 'better dead than suffering' stance like PETA does and killed all the slaves that they could. Hmm, would that have been right? I don't think so. Animal Welfare groups work for humane treatment of animals without going to insane extremes like HSUS, PETA and the gang. And these groups are terrorists and supporters of terrorists. It is simply an accident that they haven't killed anyone because they had repeatedly stated that they don't really care whether they do. And terrorism is committed for the purpose of frightening people into submission, killing is just one method of terrorism.

[Suasoria]

At the risk of making a vegan joke...this post is a red herring. Calling various groups "terrorists," be they welfarist or abolitionist, doesn't make them so. And please provide references to animal activists stating they don't care if they kill people.

There's nothing about HSUS or PETA (both welfarist groups) in this article. However, Abolitionists did begin their campaigns with efforts to decrease cruelty to slaves...i.e., welfare campaigns.

[Lu Cee]

Awesome article! It's time for people to start Making the Connection.

[Nature1]

And flacon... there is a huuuuuuuuuuge difference between cattle and whales and their management. Whales are long lived and take many years to be able to reproduce and even today we don't fully understand where they all eat/breed/bare young.... cows are raised and put in fences.. there is no question how many there are... cows unfortunately don't have a big play in the ecosystem they are human made and tweaked... Whales on the other hand are a keystone species and they are still trying to recover from man's whaling from the old days... if the sea is their slaughterhouse, then it's mine and yours too... and I don't want that happening in my world when there are clearly other alternatives for food that are much more sustainable.

[Nature1]

Wonderful article Shaun!
I agree with all my heart and I look forward to seeing your film.....
That blog by Mr. Spillman was ridiculous... seems like someone paid him off to come up with such audacities. I'm thankful that you dedicated yourself and worked as hard as you did.

[GDS444]

What a wonderful article! Shaun does a great job of connecting the animal rights movement with past social and civil rights movements. Whale Wars is a wonderful show and The Sea Sheppards are doing honorable work. I highly recommend Earthlings as well. It will change your life!

[Suasoria]

It is said that animal rights is (are?) the 'youngest social justice movement.' Interesting how it parallels existing struggles...it threatens industry, thwarts corporate profits, and gives the FBI the jitters.

[flacon]

To use an overused cliche- You're putting lipstick on a pig! The protesters are ill-equipped, poorly trained naifs. They are tweaking the nose of a tiger without thinking of the consequences. Someone will get hurt and then the lawyers will take over.

The whalers are no different than cattle or beef farmers. The sea is their slaughterhouse.

[GoldenAgeMaster]

flacon,

Yes. Yes. Yes, and yes!

[IsisCat]

They are getting between an innocent life - often pregnant females or young calves - and whalers intrested only in money.

That's good enough for me.

They are heroes. And tomorrow's generation will see them as such.