Some words are just powerful. Because of the way they look, the way the sound, and because of what they mean. One of them is “revolution”. The strong “r”, to round vowels, the “on” ending. Very few words signify “change of status quo” as this one, and since the status quo is basically the reality of the moment, this word really means changing the world, turn it (or “revolve” it) upside down. Another one is “stop”. Short, sharp, loud. The most imperative of all the words. It drains its power from the “action” that tries to affect. Stopping a rumour may not sound that much, but stopping a meteorite destroying Earth is another story, isn’t it? See what happens when we merge these two words together: “stopution”, “revolstop”, “restoplution” and yes, you guessed it, “abolition”. I know, it doesn’t look at all as if it comes from the merge of these two words, but it does “mean” the merge of their meanings. Stop something forever, so it is not longer part of the world. Like “stop”, it’s an “imperative” verb, although doesn’t have such an “instantaneous” effect. Like “revolution”, it has a “social” taste, the result of the will of the people. This is why I like to be an abolitionist. It makes me feel a bit like a super-hero.
Many people know me for my animal rights abolitionism. I like it. I do my best to remind everyone about it. Because it shows that I’m sensitive and I care for animals, that I have a social and political opinion about how people treat them, that I’m not content with juts complaining about it but I want the world changed, and that I belong to a cultural tradition of social heroes and ethical fighters who, perhaps because of a mix of optimistic audacity and calculating tenacity, they achieved good things which history honours. For me the term “abolitionist” has no connotations of “extremism” whatsoever. Neither has the term “animal rights”, but some people do seem to link it to a more “radical” attitude – which is quite misguided since advocating for the rights of anyone, in any context, is a very considerate and civil thing to do, which is what one would expect the “mainstream” people would like. However, it’s true that the first thing that people think about when they see the word “abolition” is not animal rights, but “slavery”.
Despite the fact the term abolition can be used in any social and political context and against any constituent of the status quo, there is no doubt that the abolition of slavery is the most notorious of all abolitions. Firstly, because it actually happened, since, comparatively speaking, slavery “as we knew it” is practically gone from the world, and definitively gone from most modern societies –although some relics from it remain and some “derivations” of the original concept still lurk in the dark alleyways of our societies. Secondly, because it did revolutionise humanity, changing the socio-economic paradigm by altering the way we relate to those humans we don’t consider “us”. Finally, because it’s one of the few international economically relevant endeavours where the “ethical” good guys prevailed over the “pragmatic” bad guys, despite what some “bitter” historians may told you.
Is really the abolition of slavery a historical “oddity” or a moral “exception”? I’m not so sure. There have been many more types of abolitions that did happen and also were very important in revolutionising the world. Perhaps they are less “talked about”, and some may be less obvious, but I feel equally agreeable with them as I do with the abolition of slavery (regardless the species the slaves belong to).
For instance, the abolition of Monarchy. Compared with the medieval status quo, we can certainly say that the modern world is one where monarchies have been practically abolished –everywhere where they used to flourish anyway. You’ll find that today there are more nations that call themselves republics that kingdoms; and, to be honest, who can argue against being more democratic, having fewer tyrannical rulers, valuing people for what they do and not for the colour of their skin or their blood, and spreading a bit more the wealth and power. That’s why I also subscribe to this type of abolitionism. However, as explained in the first article of this series, we shouldn’t forget that abolitionism is a “process”. We can still see different “degrees” of democracy, despotism, elitism, and power-sharing, definitively more than different degrees of human slavery, anyway. This abolition, as the abolition of animal exploitation, is quite far to be close to its final cross line.
However, the abolition of monarchy is further in its way out that many people may think. For instance, believe it or not, we already abolished monarchy in the United Kingdom –the most archetypical monarchic nation there is. Well, some may see it has been “reformed”, but in fact the monarchy here –because this is where I live– is, for all intent and purposes, practically gone. Sure, we let them keep their houses, their clothes, and their trumpets –it wouldn’t be civilised otherwise– but we took from them all their power. The process of monarchy abolition started with the “Magna Carta” in 1215, and since then we have been peeling away everything that makes monarchy a monarchy, leaving only the harmless bits that have some decorative and sentimental value. We have not finished yet. Not long ago we took from them one of their favourite “field sports” –you know, hunting with dogs– and we are still on the case of their other “blood sports”, and on the case of their outrageous “blood hats”. However, we are not treating them badly. We let them be, and we even put them in our stamps and notes, so they don’t feel too left out. If we approach them, we even bow to them–so not to startle them– and if we need any distraction, we let them run loose –does this ring any wedding bells? Most of the time, though, we make fun of them, or of those that take them too seriously. Yes, we abolished the monarchy here, but kept some of the aristocratic furniture, just “for fun”.
In other countries they still have it; not necessarily the ones most people have in mind. There are many “republics” that still have “uncrowned” kings and queens, and they are taken very seriously indeed. Their fortresses were demolished and their drinks were thrown to the sea, but this doesn’t mean that their power was removed. Their names and appearances changed, as did any superfluous ritual that made them look “too old fashioned”, but they kept their power, their reverence, and their control. Hereditary rules were in theory eliminated, and yet sons keep succeeding their fathers, and ordinal numbers keep being added to their dynastic names. Sceptres and orbs were thrown away, but only to be substituted by red button devices and locked leather suitcases. They no longer pompously travel with golden coaches driven by wigged footmen, but still do with shinny limos driven by sunglassed gunmen. Besides, it is in these countries where you find the most obsessive monarchists of all –as I can testimony directly since I saw them all when they came in mass to London this spring to do their “if wish I was your subject” sighs.
Well, I haven’t been entirely fair, have I? There is the so called “democracy”, the four-year terms limit, the “check and balances” thingy, liberté, égalité, fraternité, and some more important constitutional stuff that I’m sure many people would point out to me. But the analogy kept you going for a while, didn’t it? The thing is that the abolition of human autocracy, as is the abolition of divine autocracy, isn’t really a physical endeavour, but a psychological revelation. When you see that the emperor has no clothes, he’s no longer in charge of you. The abolition of “real” monarchy, real imperialism, can be lead from “within”. Like being vegan, it is something we all can do, in our everyday lives.
When I became British citizen many years ago, as a formality I had to go to Court to give an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign –since I was born overseas, and that was “the law”. However, thanks to living in a “liberated” nation, I had the choice of “Swearing to Almighty God”, or just “Asserting” –to “insignificant man”, I guess. It may surprise you that I chose the swearing. I didn’t do the “Quaker thing” (who traditionally oppose to oaths), I did the “republican atheist thing” –the good kind of republicans, that is– which means not to take it too seriously, and say whatever makes them happy. To make my home really “Home”, I satisfied the legal requirements of my up until then “hosts”, declaring to a false Queen and a false God my “allegiance”. And the good thing is that they all let me do it, and nobody ever asked me whether “I meant it”. No lighting came from the sky to pulverise me for my “irreverence”, nor anybody demanded my head to be “off” because my “sarcastic insubordination”. I gave to those words the importance they deserved, and I treated them as they are, just meaningless old fashion words which nonetheless somehow expressed my profound wish to make Britain my permanent home, and to show my acceptance of the truly liberal British values –at least as a “starting point”. In my mind, abolition had prevailed.
Let’s talk a bit more of the biggest power of all. As Cervantes made Don Quixote say, “Here is the Church we are now facing”. I don’t want to put off all the animal rights supporters that believe they themselves are supported by any deity. If that helps you to be kind to animals and makes you try to help them beyond what any of the books you worship prescribe, I will not take that away from you. But you’ll have to admit that, all things considered, if we put on an end of gigantic scales all those religious people actively involved in animal rights, and on the other all those non-religious doing the same thing, the former would be very much “up there”, with their legs hanging about. And this is not because the believers are less sympathetic to animals than the non-believers, or are happier with the current situation. It’s just because too many religions preach the “we are better than the others” mantra, the “do not eat these animals but please do eat many of those” creed, and, especially, “humans are the best!” chant.
True, some religions do preach vegetarianism, but that is not enough, is it? I remember in one occasion when, while working on an abolitionist campaign in an overseas city, I was put up by religious devotees in a temple where only vegetarian food was served. I thought that it would be very easy for me to eat vegan there, but I was mistaken. Milk and butter was added to all their food, and my request for having a vegan version of it was actually dismissed. I was their guest, and they had “their ways”; their “immutable” ways –the trademark of religious doctrine.
However, it must be said that I have met religious followers that are very active in their fight for animal rights. It seems that their faith has not interfered with their ethics, and they are as upset about the support that some religions give to animal abuse as I am. They tend to be the minority among their peers, though. Even if they can dig out from their scriptures passages that support animal protection and stewardship, more often than not their faith colleagues tend to ignore them. Don’t think that I am talking only about Christianity –with their ignored Assisi fellow – but Islam and Judaism also had their ignored animal rights defenders (have a read of the 10th century truly animal rights book “The Animals’ Lawsuit Against Humanity”, which is “written first in Arabic by Muslims, then translated into Hebrew by a Jew at the request of a medieval Christian King, and recently translated into English and adapted by two Jews and a Christian, and illustrated by a Muslim lady from Pakistan in the employ of a Saudi princess”). What about the vegetarian Indus and their sacred cows, you may say? Well, why not vegan instead, and why only cows then. What about the Buddhist and their reincarnation, you may say? Well, claiming that if you do bad things you will be reincarnated into a “lesser” animal is not a very good argument against “speciesm”, is it? What about the Quakers and their role in the abolition of slavery, you may say? Ok, if you insist I’ll give you the Quakers, but you can’t deny they are the least religious-looking religious group there is –they even seem to accept atheists in!
I confess that when I recently saw an American animal protection campaign –or I think it was – that showed atheists offering looking after the pets of fundamentalist Christians after the “rapture” (when they are supposed to be taken from this world straight to Haven around the time of the Judgement Days, any day from now), it made me smile. However, I very much hoped for a “reply” from the Christians saying that they would take their animals with them to Haven, because they deserved it too. It never came –o at least it never reached me. So, I don’t feel that expressing unmistakably that an absolute abolition of all religions of the world would make me happy, would deprive me of the popularity and respect from the people I would like to be more popular with –the good people that wouldn’t need religion to continue doing “good”.
I am an atheist, I can’t help it. And if I could, I hope I would still remain one, since for me atheism is not the lack of a particular belief, but it’s also the desire that everyone else would also abandon their religious faith, because most of us atheists, contrary to most agnostics, do feel that the world would be a better place if common sense and logic would be taken far more seriously than common books and faith. I am an abolitionist atheist that wants to abolish animal exploitation and religious tyranny, and who is very lucky to live in a country where I’m not being persecuted because of such opinion, not even given a disproving look –and here is a toast to the multicultural secular liberal Britain.
Abolitionism is powerful, because it allows challenging the most powerful of all; the most powerful men and women, and the most powerfully gods and goddesses. An abolitionist works to un-throne those Lords and Masters that abuse others because they feel they are intrinsically superior to them. Those that feel untouchable because they belong to a class, a gender, a race, a species or to another “spiritual plain”, where there is no room for anybody else, and they can slave others as they wish. Abolitionism gives us the optimist power that can make us help the most abused and needed creatures of this world, and still feel that, even if it is going to take a very long time, even if we have to do it, reluctantly, step by step, in the end we are going to make the world much better.
Divine power must be abolished, for goodness sake.
Jaysee Costa
No comments:
Post a Comment