Luis Pérez is the founder and president of DefensAnimal.org. He regularly gives talks in schools to promote respect for animals. While we don't agree with everything he says, we believe his ideas are worth considering for all teachers.
– Can it be said that DefensAnimal.org is an educational project?
Sí, total y absolutamente.
En DefensAnimal.org somos plenamente conscientes de que la solución al problema que padecen los no humanos pasa por educar a la gente para que deje de ser especista (http://www.defensanimal.org/especismo/). En realidad, lo que tratamos de hacer es “reeducar”, porque, salvo los niños y niñas que están siendo educados por padres y madres no especistas, la gran mayoría de los humanos hemos sido, y estamos siendo, educados/as para ser especistas, y para perpetuar esa discriminación hacia los demás animales.
La educación especista la recibimos de modo institucional (en colegios, institutos, facultades…), y de modo no institucional (familia, amigos/as, medios de comunicación, organismos públicos, etc).
Desde DefensAnimal.org entendemos que los/as que damos voz a los no humanos debemos dedicar “todos” nuestros recursos económicos, así como nuestro tiempo y energías en la labor educativa, porque esto será lo que haga que las cosas cambien de verdad, desde la raíz.
En la revista DefensAnimal, que editamos semestralmente y se puede ver gratuitamente online, hemos dedicado artículos al Especismo en el sistema educativo, en la infancia (en la página 28 del nº1, http://issuu.com/defensanimal.org/docs/revista-defensanimal-1/1) y en los libros de texto (página 20 del nº3, http://issuu.com/defensanimal.org/docs/120713093525-1bc9d1067d7247dc83131024e0d18798/1)
– You have given lectures in educational centers of very different characteristics (schools, institutes, universities), what is the common idea that you try to convey in all of them?
In all our talks and lectures, we strive to ensure that students clearly grasp a few simple ideas that explain the harm suffered by non-human animals. As we tell them, we provide objective, scientific data and information, not based on beliefs or subjective opinions. Our aim is that by the end of our presentation, they will understand:
- That humans are also animals, and that we are not special or superior to other animals.
- Animals differ from plants –among other characteristics– in that, in addition to being alive, we have a nervous system, which means we have the ability to feel, which in turn gives rise to interests that should be respected.
- Therefore, we clarify that what we ask for is respect for those of us who have interests, that is, for sentient living beings (animals).
- We point out that, objectively, it is just as unfair to discriminate against someone based on race or sex as it is to do so based on species or size.
- We explain what speciesism means and show how we are taught to discriminate against all non-human animals as a whole, simply because they don't belong to our species. But we also point out that we are taught to create hierarchies among non-humans, respecting, or demanding respect for, some but not others. This leads to situations where, for example, we demand the abolition of activities that harm some animals (bulls, dogs, seals, minks, etc.), while simultaneously demanding the regulation of activities that harm others (cows, sardines, mice, worms, etc.). We ask them to reflect on how unjust and discriminatory—speciesist—this attitude is.
- Mostramos que,“For the sake of justice, we must stop being speciesist, and for the sake of consistency, we must be vegan.”, es decir, debemos tener una actitud de respeto en nuestro día a día hacia los demás animales con los que compartimos el planeta, y eso debemos aplicarlo a cualquier aspecto de nuestra vida (alimentación, ropa y complemento, ciencia, ocio, etc).
- We want to clarify that DefensAnimal.org does not denounce industrial exploitation, but rather any type of speciesist activity or attitude. In fact, whenever we have the opportunity to inform someone (including at street protests), we ask them not to think of factory farms, but instead to think of a village, of the shepherd with "his" sheep, and we explain that the mere act of considering someone as the property of another is already unjust, regardless of any "additions" that industrialization may entail. We ask them to always think in the most welfare-oriented scenario possible (a concept adopted by speciesist society), so that they can see that even in those cases, injustice still exists.
- Finally, we ask you to put yourselves in the place of the victims, and at that moment think about whether you would accept, ask for or applaud reforms in legislation or denunciations of how they are used or exploited, or whether on the contrary you would clearly, directly and explicitly demand the “abolition” of all speciesist activities, regardless of the treatment received.
– How do students receive these ideas? And teachers or professors?
In all cases, the presentations have been very well received. The teachers' attitude was even better after the talks and lectures than before. There could have been a negative reaction after hearing our presentations, but instead, they told us they hadn't expected or been familiar with what we were presenting, and they informed us—and we have confirmation of this—that they would be holding class discussions about the topics covered in the following days.
When DefensAnimal.org began its activities in 2004, we were told that we wouldn't achieve anything that way, that people would be outraged, and that information had to be given out little by little.
Desde el principio hemos demostrado que se puede -y debe-, dar toda la información, sin restricciones, sin lanzar ideas o mensajes populistas, sin censuras (en todo momento hablamos de asesinatos, violaciones…). Que podamos constatar, la gran mayoría de la gente que ha recibido la información que hemos facilitado en conferencias, actos en la calle, programas de radio (http://www.defensanimal.org/podcast), revistas, webs y otros medios, no se ha escandalizado ni se ha reído (como mucha gente cree aún que harán cuando pedimos, por ejemplo, explícitamente respeto para los invertebrados), sino que por el contrario es habitual que nos digan que lo que decimos es coherente.
– How do you adapt the talks to the different educational levels?
The talks are virtually identical regardless of the educational level. This is because we deliver presentations that can be heard, followed, and understood by audiences of any age. We don't believe that this topic necessarily requires using highly academic language when addressing a university audience and very childish language when presenting it to children.
We try to give simple talks and lectures, with basic, practical ideas, with plenty of examples that facilitate audience interaction so that they can imagine at all times what we are presenting, both at the level of the victims and at their level, as consumers, and the implications that their daily actions have or do not have for other animals.
The way we present our work is so accessible that anyone can understand us, regardless of their age or cultural background.
We use virtually the same language when addressing any educational level, so that, for example, we talk about "murders" in both schools and universities.
Obviously, when we address a children's audience we try to use more colloquial expressions, but without censoring or hiding terms, and without ceasing to talk about those that are not usually talked about (invertebrates, for example).
Por cierto, en los centros educativos no sólo hemos realizado charlas (http://www.defensanimal.org/actividades/12/260312/charla-instituto-novelda.htm), sino también Video-fórums y Talleres de cocina vegana (http://www.defensanimal.org/actividades/10/310310/)
– You've given several lectures explaining the difference between the "welfare" and "abolitionist" perspectives. Could you briefly explain it to us? Why do you think it's so important for society to understand the difference between these viewpoints?
DefensAnimal.org places great importance on consistency because it is fundamental when representing the victims of speciesism.
Since the NGO was founded, we have tried to express ourselves and act in the way that victims would if they could do so for themselves, and in a way that is applicable to any of them. In other words, it is inconsistent to demand something for some but not for others (simply because they are considered more "loving" individuals—like seals—, their killings are televised—like bullfighting—, or their deaths are seen as a whim by the general population, but not as something "necessary"—like mink). We believe that all animals deserve the same respect for their interests, regardless of their appearance or whether they are more or less interesting to others.
There is a great deal of confusion in the messages that are usually transmitted both individually and from associations or groups.
Durante siglos, y más aún en las últimas décadas, se ha transmitido la idea de ser compasivos con los demás animales, y eso ha conllevado a tratar de mejorar su bienestar sin cuestionar el hecho de utilizarlos.
El bienestarismo es el planteamiento de mejorar el trato y las instalaciones en la que son utilizados los animales no humanos. Esto se puede ver reflejado en las reivindicaciones de muchas asociaciones que supuestamente luchan por los no humanos, al pedir que se transporten en mejores condiciones al matadero, o que las jaulas sean más espaciosas, conllevando que, por ejemplo, pidan a los consumidores que compren huevos de categoría cero (ecológicos), cuando las víctimas nunca pedirían un mejor trato sino que dejaran de ser usadas y ser libres. Esto lo exponemos en un artículo titulado “Si yo fuera gallina…”, en el que exponemos que “las gallinas no pedirían huevos cero sino cero huevos” (http://www.defensanimal.org/articulos/si-yo-fuera-gallina.htm).
It's curious that many of the people who advocate for the welfare of cows, pigs, or chickens also call for the abolition of activities that harm bulls. Why demand abolition for some and regulation for others? That's not fair, and even less consistent, coming from someone who claims to defend non-human animals.
There is a noteworthy aspect that is often overlooked, and which we at DefensAnimal.org believe is very important. For decades, there have been documented video investigations of factory farms, showing small cages, self-mutilation, injuries, beatings, kicks, and insults from exploiters to the victims. This focuses attention on the victims' lack of welfare, but it doesn't question the exploitation itself. Calls are made to close "a specific" farm that exploits "specific" animals, implying that "that" farm deserves to be shut down because of the "treatment" they receive. Or, in other cases, calls are made to close zoos because they don't comply with Article X of the animal welfare law.
At DefensAnimal.org, we are clear that Animal Rights are not about this. They are not about denouncing or exposing the conditions or treatment that non-humans receive when they are used, but rather they must be based clearly, directly, and explicitly on denouncing speciesism; that is, doing something that would not be done or permitted if the individuals affected were of another species, for example, humans. So, let's imagine we are in a country where homosexuals are imprisoned and sentenced to death simply because of their sexual orientation. Let's suppose an investigation is conducted in a prison where they are deprived of their liberty in small cells, with almost no water or food, and where they are murdered with insults and beatings. Let's suppose that this investigation leads to a demand for the closure of "that" prison because of the treatment received by the homosexuals there. What would the victims in other prisons say? Is the injustice the size of their cells or the treatment they receive? Is the injustice the way in which someone is murdered? Isn't the injustice simply in depriving someone of their freedom and murdering them for the mere fact of being homosexual?
We recommend watching the video of a lecture we gave to students and teachers of Dietetics, in order to see, in a practical way, what we say and how we present it:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGmFj-T6e2o&feature=youtu.be]
– What advice would you give to educators to teach their students respect for animals?
We remember that years ago, an educator recommended that we use the system of concentric circles, so that in talks in schools we would talk about dogs and cats, in high schools we would talk about bulls, seals and minks, and at university we could talk about veganism.
We appreciated their advice, but -of course- we didn't heed it, because we know that's a big mistake that's often made.
Today—in theory—children are educated in school not to be sexist or racist, being taught that their female classmates are no less than them for being girls, or that their immigrant classmates deserve no less respect for being from another country or belonging to another race. But unfortunately, speciesism continues to be perpetuated and encouraged in schools in various ways:
- The first stories and texts are already speciesist.
- Speciesist language is used. They are led to think and express themselves under the mistaken notion of speaking of animals and humans, as if humans were not human. They also speak of animals and people, as if other animals, non-human animals, were not also people.
- They are still being told that to be strong and healthy they must include animal-based ingredients in their diet, based on the speciesist food pyramid.
- Extracurricular activities include visits to non-human prisons (zoos, aquariums, etc.).
- And as we were saying, they continue to be taught to make distinctions between non-human animals, so that they believe they shouldn't harm pets or affectionate creatures, like dogs, cats, or other animals that fall into the category of "domestic" (that is, human household property). They continue to be led to believe that respect for other animals is a matter for "animal lovers," or that we should respect those animals that we find cute, affectionate, or, in short, those that are "kissable."
Therefore, the advice we would give to educators is to stop using speciesist language, and to clearly and explicitly state that a human deserves the same respect as a dog or a pig, but in the same way as a mouse, a sardine or a fly.