Category Archives: human rights

Strump it!

in the neighbourhoodA couple of blocks from our house someone has put a sign out the front of their unit saying ‘Pick up your dog shit you selfish pigs’. It used to also say ‘Smile! You’re on camera’ but this has been removed, possibly because it is against the law to film people without their consent. Someone has gone to some effort to make this sign permanent: it is stuck in the ground with two metal poles and the words are composed of those block letter stickers, which are stuck onto a plastic board that is held to the poles with black plastic bracelets. It’s an affront to read the sign every time we walk past but quite amusing when our dog does a poo right in front of it. The ‘shit’ is not so offensive as the ‘pigs’ and I wonder at why they’ve chosen the word ‘selfish’ to preface it, aside from the fact that ‘selfish pigs’ are two words that are often put together. This persistent linking of a negative human trait to a particular non-human animal makes me wonder: 1) are pigs really selfish? 2) why do we invoke pigs when we are really describing humans? 3) has anyone even seen a pig in the suburbs? 4) why is it so offensive to be called a pig?

At some point during the US election campaign Hillary Clinton described Trump as a pig. This was after the recording came out of him talking about how he can’t stop himself around beautiful women. We all had to reach deep into the recesses of our vocabularies to come up with an insult that could capture just how repugnant it was. ‘Pig’ was the word we all reached for, even Hillary, who otherwise was able to refrain from direct insults most of the time, though no doubt the temptation was ever present. ‘Pig’ seemed to capture the full misogyny of the man (remember when men used to be called ‘chauvinist pigs’?). It also seemed to convey how deeply unattractive Trump is – which is not to say that pigs are not attractive – and how dare such an ugly man think he can ‘just start kissing’ women he finds beautiful? (He also said something about when you’re famous and rich women find you irresistible – bleurgh.)

A few posters on the Women’s March took up the theme: Humans vs. Trump; Trump is an offense to human dignity; Dog whistle politics don’t speak to me; and the reminder that ‘Women are people’, as if Trump has relegated us to the status of non-people or, perhaps, non-humans. The intention behind the posters I think was to say it is not only women that oppose Trump’s sexism and racism, but the effect is to say that Trump is not human, that there is some kind of animality that envelops him which is repellent to the rest of humanity and which we dissociate ourselves from. But we are all animals (the human and the non-human). Here we are using the metaphor of the animal to say that humans are a special kind of animal, a superior type of animal, and if you don’t live up to the rest of humanity’s expectation you are dropped down into the cesspit that is animality.

But Trump is human, all too human. He is one of us and, as much as we try with our imaginative slurs to disown him from the human species, we cannot get away from the fact that everything he does and says are things that humans do and say. Do we really think male pigs go around saying, ‘I’m going to move on that sow like a bitch’? Trump himself uses animal metaphors to describe his disgusting behaviour, as if the part of himself that does and says those racist and sexist things isn’t actually him but an alter-animal self that he cannot keep at bay.

Last year during the days of activism highlighting violence against women, respected Australian anti-DV campaigner Rosie Batty was quoted as saying something to the effect of ‘men are not always animals’. The focus of her campaigning is that violent men need help to change their behaviour, that it is not something inherent in their characters, or that it is ‘natural’, to be violent. This is an incredibly important point. Yet, when we use animal terms to describe the worst of men’s behaviour, we are buying into the same misogynist ideology we are trying to call out. By calling men ‘animals’, we disown violence as something that humans are capable of and we say that only animals are capable of violence. This is because animals are supposedly driven by instinct and have no ‘culture’ or respect for their fellow animal beings. Whatever they do is ‘natural’. When we say a man is animal, we are saying that he has lost his ‘human’ culture and etiquette; he has devolved into his natural state. But this gives a rationale for the behaviour: I cannot help my nature. Tackling violence against women is all about changing violent behaviour. How can we hope to change behaviour when we call men animals and perpetuate the idea that violence is somehow natural?

Tagged , , , , , ,

And the gold logie goes to …

logie1_1904

Do what you have to do

It’s happened again: an invocation to eat meat for the ‘national interest’. Only this time it’s Lee Lin Chin who is the face of the promotion. What a coup for Meat and Livestock Australia! No one else could say ‘vegans’ in such a deliciously despising tone. The tone is so despising that ‘vegans’ have made the news by lodging a record number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau about this year’s Australia Day lamb promotion. Perhaps the MLA hoped nobody would mess with Lee Lin Chin, not even hard-core, militant, extremist vegans, and let’s be frank: the only other kind of vegan is the bearded hipster variety. MLA, you got us in a corner. But you have also named us, and by naming us you empower us. Mwah-ha-ha.

The ad brings in all the usual tropes of MLA’s annual lamb promotion: getting together with your mates, having a barbecue, playing backyard cricket and drinking cold beer. What could be more Australian than that! The message is that if you don’t eat lamb on Australia Day, then Australia doesn’t want you. If you needed any other illustration of how exclusionary Australian nationalism is, look no further than ‘lambassador’ Sam Kekovich’s response to the vegan complainants. It’s in the same vein as male politicians responding to allegations of sexual harassment from female staffers (that is, ‘it’s all a bit of fun’). Lee Lin Chin commands Operation Boomerang from special ops headquarters. The boomerang on the campaign logo is made of two lamb chops. The big guns have been called out to recall all Australians who are overseas to rescue them from the sad fate of having to ‘lamb alone’ on Australia Day. Isn’t it precisely this parochialism that gives Australians a reason to emigrate?

How funny that this special operation takes as its moniker an Aboriginal word for an Aboriginal object that returns. But where are the Aboriginal people in MLA’s ad? Ah, they don’t need to be recalled because they haven’t even left. Indigenous people in colonised countries somehow missed out on the international mobility that their compatriots take for granted. Let alone this fact, perhaps the inclusion of Aboriginal people in an ad timed with Australia Day would raise the unsettling fact that the day in question is often called Invasion Day by Aboriginal groups and others of settler ancestry who choose not to whitewash our country’s bloody history. Australia as a ‘nation’ still has a lot of reconciling to do.

Exactly what form of nationalist pride are we meant to feel when we eat lamb? How exactly does eating lamb fit into the imaginary of ‘Australia’? The illogic of how eating meat could possibly turn you into a good citizen becomes clearer when you look at Australia’s colonial past, a history that can be seen everywhere we look today. There were 29 sheep aboard the First Fleet when it arrived at the so-called Botany Bay (some 15 evidently dying on the journey from the Cape of Good Hope, among the first victims of live export). By 1800, there were 6,124 sheep in the colony. Two hundred and a bit years later, Australia has approximately 80 million sheep and lambs. All those animals need a hell of a lot of land.

Land was the main reason that Europeans killed Aboriginal people: the land was needed for animals to graze on. Taking over this land meant taking over Aboriginal food sources. Death, whether by massacre or by starvation, was the result. Australia’s agricultural industry was founded on unpaid indigenous labour, also known as slavery. Land clearing also meant loss of biodiversity (half of woodland birds are extinct, for example) and exacerbation of the impact of drought and erosion. Kangaroos and wild dogs are known as pests today not because they are overpopulated but because their habitats and food sources have been taken over by farming, which uses about two-thirds of Australia’s land mass. The sheepmeat industry accounts for a third of all farms with agricultural activity. Given these disastrous impacts and shameful history, is it really in the national interest to support a handful of powerful farming companies?

This year’s ad is a slight change of tack for MLA, with a dose more humour than bullying tactics. The slogan ‘you’ll never lamb alone’ is far more palatable than the aggressive ‘unAustralianism’ – a springboard for racist violence – of campaigns past. But let’s not forget the invisible violence at the heart of the promotion and its victims: sheep’s young. Another example of how the fact of animal farming and animal killing is made invisible, even in a campaign that is so explicit about eating animals. The MLA is happy to tell you how many kilograms of lamb meat the average Australian eats (no doubt the vegans are bringing these numbers down) but if you’re looking for actual numbers of lambs killed, you have to go to animal advocacy groups. According to Animals Australia, about 20 million lambs are killed in Australia each year.

The MLA is always going to run into trouble when trying to tap into something as vague, abstract and fraught as the ‘national interest’ and what it means to be Australian. Let’s not let the MLA have the last and only word on what Australia Day is all about. But let’s thank them for naming a group that has the power to upset its agenda: ‘Vegans’.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Big Mac strikes again

Amy Lamé has been touring her contribution to the canonisation of Morrissey, Unhappy Birthday, around England. It is a personal comment on his enduring influence on the lives of queers via The Smiths with a hardy dose of hairspray. Then ‘Bigmouth strikes again’ fills the studio, an apt time to say something political, in line with Moz’s tendency to mouth off.  Lamé gives an audience member a paragraph to read into the microphone, an excerpt of news on Morrissey’s stage talk following the bomb and shooting in Norway in 2011. Without googling the exact quote, what he said was something like ‘what happened in Norway is nothing compared to the massacre of animals that happens every day’. This quip earned the feted vegetarian (or is he vegan? Mrs Lomez cannot be sure) worldwide scorn, from fans and detractors alike. He’s a tough guy to love. Lamé is a fan who distances herself from her idol because of this. As if to refute the statement entirely, she stuffs a Big Mac in her mouth then ejects the masticated mince patty into the paper takeaway bag. A lot of people in the audience applauded at this point.

What is wrong with what Morrissey said? Why is it so offensive that even quiff-loving queers want to disown him?

Mrs Lomez suspects that it is the comparison of animals with humans that wounds so. Humans are special and because of this status, humans should not kill or inflict violence on other humans. To do so is to offend the special status of humans. But animals are not special, so any violence directed at them is acceptable. Further, to say that animals endure more harm than humans is to disrespect those humans that have been killed or have suffered because it suggests that they are less than human, as low as animals. Even using the word ‘massacre’ to talk about animals is offensive because this is a ‘human’ word, only appropriate when talking about humans. Its significance is too great to describe mass animal slaughter. Conversely, if we were to say that humans were slaughtered, this would mean that they were killed like animals.

Morrissey wasn’t quite so explicit, typically leaving himself open to interpretation. Perhaps he didn’t intend to be interpreted this way, as if devaluing human life. Maybe he was just thinking of the animals who, according to M, are just as special as humans are.

Lamé’s response is a great illustration of the absent referent in action. The reality of animal massacre that Morrissey speaks of becomes a trope in Lamé’s performance. Instead of a war of words, she eats a piece of meat, the dead animal disappearing in her rejection of Mozza’s moral values. By stuffing the Big Mac in her mouth she says that animals do not matter, that their deaths are insignificant, and we are meant to forget that an animal has died in the making of this hamburger. The Big Mac represents solidarity with the Norway victims and their families and every person with a sense of humanity, whatever that may be. McDonald’s becomes the harbinger of justice. But it isn’t a moral imperative to align yourself with either humans or animals, though Morrissey has clearly made his choice.

Until next time,

Mrs Lomez

 

Further reading:  The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol Adams

Tagged , , , , , ,