One of the post-industrial discourse’s foremost aspects is that, as time goes on, more and more people in Western countries declare their formal willingness to cease assessing the significance of the surrounding reality’s emanations exclusively through the perceptual lenses of euro-centrism.
Nevertheless, there a number of good reasons to think that the people’s endowment with the perceptual euro-centrism (reflected by their predisposition towards criticizing the ‘moral inappropriateness’ of non-Western patterns of a societal behavior), is not merely the byproduct of their upbringing.
Rather, the Westerners’ obsession with landing their views on the morality-related controversial subject matters should be regarded as such that reveals the hypocritical and deeply racist workings of their unconscious psyche.
In order to illustrate the legitimacy of the earlier suggestion, one would not have to go far. After all, it does not represent much of a secret that, while striving to protect animals from being subjected to cruel treatments, the so-called ‘animal rights’ activists (consisting of predominantly White people), go as far as defining the practice of eating dogs utterly ‘barbaric’.
Yet, since being a ‘barbarian’ presupposes the concerned individual’s cognitive arrogance and his or her lack of intellectual flexibility, it would be so much more appropriate to apply the term ‘barbarians’ to those who, while finding it appropriate to consume the flesh of pigs, cows and chickens, scream ‘bloody murder’ over the fate of dogs, eaten in Chinese restaurants.
The reason for this is apparent – one’s ability to exercise a particular social right (such as the right of not being eaten) implies his or her ability to secure it. Rights are not given but taken. What it means is that animals cannot have ‘rights’, by definition. On a subconscious level, the ‘animal rights’ activists are being well aware of it.
This is because, despite having adopted the posture of particularly ‘progressive’ individuals, reflected by their tendency to drink gallons of ‘organic’ coffee at Starbucks, to hug trees and to practice ‘alternative’ sex-styles; these people never cease being whom they really are, in the biological sense of this word – Caucasians, endowed with the so-called ‘Faustian’ mentality (Greenwood 53).
In its turn, being ‘Faustian’ presupposes the concerned individual’s unconscious strive towards subjectualizing itself within the environment and consequentially – towards assuming a full control over the surrounding reality.
This is exactly the reason why, as opposed to what it is being the case with people endowed with the ‘Apollonian’ (Oriental) mentality (known for their ability to coexist with nature peacefully), the White people’s attitude towards the nature has always been marked by their willingness to exploit it in just about every imaginable way. Do we (Whites) want to have hundreds of different kinds of fishes in supermarkets?
Then we design truly effective fish-catching methods, made even more effective by the mean of relying on satellites to track the movements of the shoals in the ocean. Do we want to be able to choose from thousands of different types of sausages? Then we invent chemicals that facilitate the cows’ growth. Are our crops appearing endangered by mice? Then we use other chemicals to exterminate mice, etc.
Nevertheless, while being thoroughly comfortable with the idea that it is fully appropriate to exploit the ‘eatable’ representatives of the animal kingdom, the ‘animal rights’ activists deny the same right to those, who due to the specifics of their ethno-cultural affiliation, consider dogs eatable.
As the main justification of their stance, in this respect, Western ‘animal lovers’ refer to the dogs’ socially upheld status of pets. Apparently, these people believe that pets are just too cute to be used as food. Yet, the notion of ‘cuteness’ is utterly subjective – whereas, some people consider dogs very cute, others prefer to assign ‘cuteness’ to crocodiles and snakes.
However, despite the fact that this suggestion cannot be referred to as anything but self-evident, the ‘animal rights’ activists nevertheless continue to insist that eating dogs is a taboo. Why would it be the case?
This is because, even though that these people’s stance on the issue is being formally concerned with the protection of animals they consider pets, their actual agenda is different – while imposing their highly subjective views (in regards to which animals may be defined pets) upon others, the ‘animal rights’ activists are able to derive an emotional pleasure out of the process.
Apparently, it reinforces their latently racist conviction that they are indeed superior beings, in charge of bringing the ‘light of civilization’ to savages – pure and simple.
Had this not been the case, we would be able to draw parallels between today’s ‘animal rights’ activists and the Nazis. Yet, these parallels are obvious. After all, the Nazis were also obsessed with the protection of ‘cute pets’, while passing laws that provided lengthy sentences in jail for those they considered animal-abusers.
As Silberman noted, “Germany passed its first Animal Protection Law in 1936 under the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler, who expressed his great love for animals” (166). Simultaneously, the Nazis were introducing other laws, according to which, Jews could not be considered fully human, which in turn created objective preconditions for the people, which Nazis considered ‘social parasites’, to be murdered en mass.
In a similar manner, the self-indulgent protectors of animals’ ‘rights’ find it fully appropriate to set on fire Chinese restaurants, where the dog’s meat is believed to be served, without giving any thought to the possibility that such their activities may well result in the deaths of many innocent people.
This simply could not be otherwise – just as the Nazis used to refuse to recognize the humanity of Jews, Western ‘animal rights’ activists refuse to recognize the humanity of dog-eaters, especially given the visually observed ‘otherness’ of the latter.
Therefore, there is nothing utterly odd about the fact that, while advocating the cause of animal protection, PETA’s (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) activists often cannot help exposing their deep-seated racism.
For example, they found it fully appropriate to compare the mistreatment of domestic animals in today’s America with the mistreatment of Black slaves during the course of the 19th century, which means that on a subconscious level, the ‘animal rights’ activists believe that Black people are not fully human (Zenitha A1).
Thus, it will not be much of an exaggeration, on our part, to suggest once again that the Westerners’ obsession with the protection of ‘cute animals’, reflected by their objection to the idea that dogs can be eaten, is being subliminal of these people’s deep-seated racism.
After all, it is a well known fact that many White ‘animal rights’ activists also never get tired of proclaiming their adherence to the ideals of multiculturalism. This, however, does not prevent them from preferring to reside in the racially secluded ‘white suburbia’. Apparently, even though that these people do in fact consider themselves open-minded, this is far from being the de facto case.
We can even hypothesize that by applying a great effort into promoting the idea that eating dogs is morally wrong, the ‘animal rights’ activists simply explore their subliminal anxieties, regarding the societal implications of their racial self-identity.
Being deprived of their predecessors’ existential vitality (it is very rare for White parents to have more than one child in the family), today’s Whites realize themselves increasingly incapable of applying any active measures to assure their continual mastery in Western countries.
This is the reason why more and more of them tend to indulge in the different forms of a social escapism, such as participating in the ‘animal rights’ movement, for example. Therefore, when assessed from a psychoanalytical perspective, these people’s preoccupation with protecting ‘cute pets’ appears to be nothing but the extrapolation of their deep-seated existential insecurity.
In other words, by denying ‘barbarians’ the right to consume dogs as food, the ‘animal rights’ activists expose themselves self-righteous and psychologically weak decadents.
What it means that the fallaciousness of these people’s claims, related to what they consider the appropriate/inappropriate ways to treat domestic animals, cannot only be illustrated within the context of what appears to be their ill-concealed racist agenda, but also within the context of the Darwinian laws of evolution.
The reason for this is simple – people who have grown weak and decadent, are being in no position to expect that their ethical views on the treatment of animals represent a discursively legitimate value.
I believe that the provided line of argumentation, in regards to the subject matter in question, fully correlates with the paper’s initial thesis.
Works Cited
Greenwood, Susan. Anthropology of Magic. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2009. Print.
Silberman, Morton. “Animal Welfare, Animal Rights: The Past, the Present, and the 21st Century.” The Journal of Zoo Animal Medicine 19.4 (1988): 161-167. Print.
Zenitha, Prince. “PETA Generates Outrage: Equating Blacks with Mistreated Animals.” Afro – American [Baltimore, Md] 27 Aug. 2005: A1. Print.