"Humane" Oppression

I recently came across this article regarding a history text book in Massachusetts. Parents were upset that the book seemed to minimize the oppression inherent in the institution of U.S. slavery. Specifically they objected to a statement that said: “Slaves were treated well or cruelly depending on their owners. Some planters took pride in being fair and kind to their slaves.”

Parents objected to the statement as downplaying the realities of slavery and the implication that a good slant can be put on "one person owning another person."

I would agree with these objections, and very few people today would try to justify slavery based on how well the slaves are treated.

Nevertheless, we continue to tell ourselves these same lies. We continue to attempt to justify oppression based on our treatment of the oppressed.

In recent years, as more and more details about the realities of animal agriculture have come to light, people who are concerned about these realities -- but don't want to give up their cheese and bacon -- attempt to justify their exploitation of nonhuman animals based on treating them humanely. There are nearly 10 million results in Google for "humane meat." The news is filled with stories like this recent one about farmers who try to justify their slaughter of other individuals based on how well they are treated while they are alive. The reality is that even so-called "humane meat" is rarely humane. It is simply a marketing ploy to allow us to feel a little bit better about our oppression of others.

And the truth is that there is nothing humane about raising animals for the sole purpose of killing and eating them. Slavery is still slavery.