Last night on Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days, an avid hunter, George, leaves his home in North Carolina and joins the Karpel family, who are vegan animal rights activists, for 30 days. As Mary Martin writes,
"[George] participates in some demonstrations, rescues a calf, goes to a dairy farm, and works at a farmed animal sanctuary."
Overall, the show was good. George's experience with Sugar, a dairy calf rescued from a factory farm, was quite moving. The time George spends at an animal shelter - a dog pound - wherein he gains an understanding of the plight of dogs, and the extent of human indifference and disloyalty, make's George noticeably uncomfortable and upset. George admits that he "believes animals have rights"; what this means to him is unknown, however, I believe he was changed by his experience. (I'm knocking on wood as I write this - I hope George was forever altered, for the sake of nonhumans and himself.)
This said allow me to express some hostility I have for Mr. Spurlock. A seemingly intelligent person, Mr. Spurlock begins his show with some statements that absolutely disproves whatever belief I once had that he wasn't an idiot:
"Should animals have the same rights as us (human beings)? Should they have the right to vote, the right to bear arms, the right to not be deep-fried, battered and eaten?"
Who the hell believes that nonhumans ought to have the right to vote!? How does Mr. Spurlock rationalize his efforts to analagize the right to vote and the right to bear arms, to the right to not be treated as a thing that counts as much in our moral decision-making as a key chain?
I'm filing this post under "Fuck Off" for a good reason: Mr. Spurlock's statements caricaturize those who believe that the interests of animals ought to be given equal consideration, e.g., their interest in not being forced to consume heroine therefore becoming addicted and suffering limitless pain and psychological distress ought to trump my interest in forcing them to do so because I'm seeking a way to better understand how to help those individuals who freely choose to do heroine in the first place.
How Mr. Spurlock could extrapolate from the basic right to have your interests given equal consideration (a right to be considered a person not a thing) to the right of a pig to vote, defies reason. Mr. Spurlock is an idiot. He has no excuse because his girlfriend is vegan. Why didn't she say to him, "You know babe, you're a fucking dumb ass if you believe this shit your saying."
Indeed, I believe, given the obviousness of how ridiculous it is to suggest that an individual who doesn't stand upright, or have arms, or hands ought to have the right to shoot a weapon, Mr. Spurlock is purposefully attempting to mock those who believe animals have a right to be free from unnecessary suffering. This assertion that some people actively strive to ensure a pig the right to vote is so stupid it's telling of the intelligence of those who would make such a statement. Just as it's ridiculous to suggest that a human infant has the right to bear arms lest we make a complete mockery of this right - making this right completely unintelligible - it's equally inane to say that we in the animal rights movement want to give a chicken the right to freely speak his/her mind.
All sentient beings have the right to equal consideration of their interests - they're entitled the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - Mr. Spurlock. That's what we want you jack ass; it's what justice demands. If you disagree, let's have a conversation but don't begin with statements that suggest you're unwillingness to have a rational thought. Perhaps you should just remove yourself from the table, so-to-speak, and allow the grown-ups to have this conversation. Idiot.
Don't try to make fun of us, we're smarter than that - and some of you are too. We are talking about billions of sentient individuals, billions of lives. It's not funny; this is an amount of suffering unknown to this earth until now. I find nothing humorous in that - Charles Manson and Ted Bundy probably would though (?).
Quote:
"Should animals have the same rights as us (human beings)? Should they have the right to vote, the right to bear arms, the right to not be deep-fried, battered and eaten?"
That quote is fucking absurd. Did he actually say that? Of course animals shouldn't have the right to vote, nor should they have the right to carry guns around with them! They do, however, have the right not be deep-fried, battered, turned on a spit, confined in cages of their own feces, and slaughtered with a rusty nail gun. Any sane and semi-intelligent person knows that cows should not carry guns. It seems to me that Mr. Spurlock is cheapening and degrading a serious situation in the interest of ratings. Obviously this man is not thinking rationally and perhaps has never heard of the word logic.
I didn't see the show since we don't have cable here, but that quote could be construed in a different way. I HAVE been asked that question, and people have been very serious about it. Couldn't Mr. Spurlock simply be trying to set people straight?
Let's be real. Many people don't know anything about animal rights, and may very honestly believe that we expect rights like those for animals. Did Mr. Spurlock set the matter straight in this documentary? Were the appropriate positions presented and iterated? Did he explain WHY we believe animals deserve basic rights, and what those entail? I think that this statement taken at face value is annoying and silly, but think of how nice it would be if these questions were answered on national television. And in order to answer those questions, someone has to ask.
I agree Jen, a discussion about basic rights or equal consideration of interests would have been appropriate; indeed necessary. However, aside from a brief statement by Mrs. Karpel during the show about how she doesn't believe animals are ours to be used as things, which by implication is a challenge to the property status of nonhumans, there was not a single mention of clarification.
Neither Mr. Spurlock, nor any other person really articulated our position. It was an effort to expose George to the suffering; an effort that while necessary, doesn't challenge Mr. Spurlock's ridiculous statements that preceded the show. Granted, perhaps this was done off camera - as I'm certain it was between George and Mrs. Karpel - but Mr. Spurlock did not clarify his statement. He left it hanging if you will.
Quote:
"It seems to me that Mr. Spurlock is cheapening and degrading a serious situation in the interest of ratings."
I think Emily is right on here.
I also did not see the show and my comments are solely based off the information in the entry. I agree with you Jennie that there are a variety of different ways that this statement could be perceived and like Alex said, perhaps all different connotations were discussed off camera. But in the short time frame that the network had to run the program, they chose to broadcast a statement that is absurd, for what seems to me, to be shock-value. I don't think it would be far from the truth to say that people who heard that statement said, "Oh, those crazy hippies." It's just that kind of statement.
I hope Mr. Spurlock set all those matters straight in the documentary and I completely agree with you Jen when you say those questions should be addressed on national television. I just think there could have been a more rational and appropriate way for those questions to be answered.
"George admits that he 'believes animals have rights'; what this means to him is unknown"
I think he means they have a right not to be abused, not to be tortured, not to be abandoned. That isn't the meaning most of us chose when we use the phrase "animal rights," but that is one very valid interpretation and he's not wrong to claim he believes in animal rights. Much like the development of children's rights, the right not to be abused is a very good first step.
"Rights" is a complex subject and there are various interpretations.
But, as you eloquently pointed out, Spurlock's statements about rights are different in nature to George's statement. You're right, Spurlock caricaturizes animal rights advocates by his statement. He belittles, mocks, and misinterprets the notion of animal rights. George doesn't. George, though he doesn't fully embrace animal rights and he doesn't accept the AR foundational belief that animals should not have to live, breed, and die according to human whims, but he does actually seem to care about animals and he doesn't want to see them suffer. Spurlock on the other hand, according to this statement as well as his "experiments" eating animal flesh, doesn't seem to care about animals at all.
Quote:
"I think he means they have a right not to be abused, not to be tortured, not to be abandoned. That isn't the meaning most of us chose when we use the phrase "animal rights," but that is one very valid interpretation and he's not wrong to claim he believes in animal rights. Much like the development of children's rights, the right not to be abused is a very good first step."
Indeed, Elaine. I believe the conversations between George and Mrs. Karpel were important. I do believe that George was moved away from his initial position where he viewed nonhumans as "food animals."
However, he does say that he's still going to hunt, and he's "no more a vegan today than he was when he first began the process." Which implies that abuse and suffering may be defined in a way that George can still exploit animals as he pleases. Although I may be wrong - again, I'm knocking on wood.
Spurlock bothered me with his inanities here, too.
The biggest problem with this episode is that it perpetuated and widened the misunderstanding of what animal rights really means. Evidently you can hunt, kill, and eat animals and still be an animal rights activist. Silly me for thinking believing in animal rights meant you should be vegan!
Disaster. I even have had vegans tell me that animals have a right not to be kept in a small cage. Am I to take it that anything we do to change how an animal is treated is a right? That is ridiculous. I have a right not to be kept in a small cage, too, but it's not because I have the right not to be kept in a small cage. It's because I have a right to freedom and bodily integrity, a right not to be the property of another. What a mockery of animal rights.
Quote:
"The biggest problem with this episode is that it perpetuated and widened the misunderstanding of what animal rights really means.
I have a right not to be kept in a small cage, too, but it's not because I have the right not to be kept in a small cage. It's because I have a right to freedom and bodily integrity, a right not to be the property of another."
I agree, Eric.
Although I understand the purpose of exploring the details of animal exploitation - it's difficult to justify once you encounter what you are justifying. However, a conversation about the arguments that provide the foundation on which we have decided to condemn these practices, aside from "It make's me sad because nonhumans are cuddly," is not only appropriate but necessary.