The exceptionality of hunting and fishing

[Guest guest]

Some of the responses have veered from the original point ( " assuming

everybody hates Palin is harmful and excludes people " )* to a tangent

( " but Palin deserves ridicule because she hunts, fishes, supports aerial

hunting, etc.! " ).

 

I'm curious about these tangential messages. I wonder how those who

support ridiculing Palin because she hunts, etc. differentiate between

Palin's actions (hunting, fishing, etc.) and those of our family and

friends** who eat, wear, or otherwise using non-human animals. Why does

one merit vilification when the other one (hopefully) doesn't? As

activists, how do we decide who to deride and who to advocate to?

 

Victor

 

P.S. Ajay, respecting people doesn't mean agreeing with their actions or

not expressing disagreement with them. This is a common

misunderstanding. Here is an essay about respectful activism:

http://loveallbeings.org/living-veganism/on-respectful-activism/

 

* My post was confusing and could have been clearer on this point.

** As well as ourselves, since none of us is perfect!

 

--

The Vegan Ideal: http://veganideal.org/

Veganism as Anti-Oppression: http://loveallbeings.org/

[Guest guest]

Victor,

As someone who has hunted and fished in the past,

I can assure you I have no problems with people who do that.

Living in Western New York, I also knew quite a few people for

who hunted every year.

 

There is a difference between your average hunter, and a person

like Sarah Palin. The hunter does what he does to support himself,

and to support his loved ones. Many times s/he has little choice;

the hunt provides for crucial sustenance.

And the hunter's impact is limited to the animals s/he kills.

 

But Sarah Palin is different. She's an enabler. She's an advocate

of senseless slaughter. Shooting wolves from the air doesn't really

benefit the subsistence hunter (it helps the trophy hunters, for

whom I have nothing but derision). Fighting to prevent the

Polar Bear from being classified as " endangered " is not something

your average hunter does. The list could go on.

 

So yes. I don't respect Sarah Palin. She's a sham; a cunning politician

who wouldn't mind condemning a million animals to death if it

got her a few votes. She appeals to the worst in people, and milks

it for political and economic gain. I don't want anything to do

with her, and I wouldn't want to even be in the same room as her.

 

Finally, to the original email. Anyone with any sense of humor would

know that Alex meant it in jest. Even if she did not; so what? Is

someone like Sarah Palin really worth fighting over? Do you

really think Sarah Palin is tossing and turning in her bed right now,

agonizing over the fact that she wasn't invited to the Vegans' Valentine's

bash?

 

Best,

 

Ajay

 

On 02/07/2010 07:12 AM, Victor Tsou wrote:

> Some of the responses have veered from the original point ( " assuming

> everybody hates Palin is harmful and excludes people " )* to a tangent

> ( " but Palin deserves ridicule because she hunts, fishes, supports aerial

> hunting, etc.! " ).

>

> I'm curious about these tangential messages. I wonder how those who

> support ridiculing Palin because she hunts, etc. differentiate between

> Palin's actions (hunting, fishing, etc.) and those of our family and

> friends** who eat, wear, or otherwise using non-human animals. Why does

> one merit vilification when the other one (hopefully) doesn't? As

> activists, how do we decide who to deride and who to advocate to?

>

> Victor

>

> P.S. Ajay, respecting people doesn't mean agreeing with their actions or

> not expressing disagreement with them. This is a common

> misunderstanding. Here is an essay about respectful activism:

> http://loveallbeings.org/living-veganism/on-respectful-activism/

> <http://loveallbeings.org/living-veganism/on-respectful-activism/>

[Guest guest]

On Feb 7, 2010, at 7:12 AM, Victor Tsou wrote:

> I'm curious about these tangential messages. I wonder how those who

> support ridiculing Palin because she hunts, etc. differentiate between

> Palin's actions (hunting, fishing, etc.) and those of our family and

> friends** who eat, wear, or otherwise using non-human animals. Why

> does

> one merit vilification when the other one (hopefully) doesn't?

>

 

The two situations aren't anywhere near the same thing. Sarah Palin is

a public figure and a politician, who uses her power and influence to

shape public policy and public opinion. She isn't just a lone hunter

out there with a single rifle; she arranged for ariel wolf hunting at

the state level on a large scale, using the resources and wealth of a

state government to execute her wishes. And now that she's out of

public office, she's spreading hatred towards vegans and vegetarians

using her considerable fan base and media access. My meat eating mom

doesn't have that power, nor does my sheep farming uncle.

> As activists, how do we decide who to deride and who to advocate to?

>

 

Here's my handy cheat-sheet:

 

(1) Do Not Vilify: Friends, family, and other private citizens who

happen to eat meat. These people are your targets for persuasion.

 

(2) Absolutely Should Vilify: Public figures, politicians, pundits and

other opinion makers who use their power to actively push a pro-meat /

anti-animal / anti-vegan agenda.