1

______________________________
] Karen Dais. PhD. is the ounder and President o United Poultrv (oncerns
www.upc-online.org,. a nonproit organization that promotes the compassionate
and respectul treatment o domestic owl. She is the author o Pri.ovea Cbic/ev..
Poi.ovea gg.: .v v.iae oo/ at tbe Moaerv Povttry vav.try: . ove tor evvy: More
)bav a Meat: )be )vr/ey iv i.tory. Mytb. Ritvat. ava Reatity: and v.teaa ot Cbic/ev.
v.teaa ot )vr/ey: . Povttryte.. Povttry Potpovrri a cookbook,. Karen is currentlv
writing a book titled )be otocav.t ava tbe evvaia`. )ate: . Ca.e tor Covparivg
.trocitie.


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

A 1ale of 1wo Holocausts

Karen Dais. PhD]

Abstract
.v vvaer.tavaabte re.evtvevt cav cove trov tbe .ev.e tbat tbe vviqveve.. ot
ove`. orv grovp`. eperievce ritb .vtterivg i. appropriatea to tit tbe eperievce ot
avotber grovp. Ove grovp`. eperievce ritb .vtterivg i. vviqve. bvt vot iv .vcb a
ray tbat it prectvae. covpari.ov. or avatogie. ritb tbe .vtterivg ot otber grovp..
or tbi. rea.ov. av eperievce ot oppre..iov. .vcb a. tbe otocav.t. vay .erre a.
av appropriate vetapbor to rereat .ivitaritie. ivberevt iv otber torv. ot
oppre..iov. .vcb a. tbe oppre..iov ot vovbvvav avivat. by bvvav beivg..
_________________________

otocav.t rictiv. !R treatea ti/e avivat.. ava .o togicatty re
cav covctvae tbat avivat. are treatea ti/e otocav.t rictiv.. - Matt
Prescott. creator o PL1A`s lolocaust on \our Plate`
campaign

)bey are beivg treatea a. it tbey rere avivat.. International Red
(ross (ommittee about prisoners in Iraq under American
superision.

A metaphor is a igure o speech in which a word or phrase
denoting one kind o object. action. or experience is used in place o
another to suggest a likeness between them. A purpose o metaphor
is to proide a amiliar language and imagerv to characterize new
perceptions. In the case o atrocitv. a kev purpose o these
perceptions is to generate concern and inspire action on behal o the
ictims. \hen the oppression o one group is used metaphoricallv to
illuminate the oppression o another group. justice requires that the
oppression that orms the basis o the comparison be comprehended
in its own right. 1he originating oppression that generates the
metaphor must not be treated as a mere igure o speech. a mere
point o reerence. It must not be treated illogicallv as a lesser matter
than that which it is being used to draw attention to.
loweer. i these requirements hae been met. there is no
good reason to insist that one orm o suering and oppression is so
2

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

exclusie that it mav not be used to raise moral concerns about anv
other orm o oppression. A perect match o oppressions or calculus
o which group suered more isn`t necessarv to make reasonable
comparisons between them. I a person is oended bv the
comparisons regardless. it mav be that the resentment is more
proprietarv than just. and therebv represents an arbitrarv delimiting o
moral boundaries.
1hat there could be a link between the 1hird Reich and
societv`s treatment o nonhuman animals is hard or most people to
grasp. 1hat nonhuman animals could suer as horriblv as humans in
being reduced to industrialized products and industrial waste and
treated with complete contempt- a clear link between Nazism and
actorv arming - contradicts thousands o vears o teachings that
humans are superior to animals in all respects. Not onlv is this a
humans ersus animals` issue in the minds o most. but bv this time
the lolocaust has become iconic and historical.` whereas the
human manuacture o animal suering is so normal` and perasie
that manv people ind it hard een to regard the slaughter o animals
as a orm o iolence. \et the continuitv is there. In this article I
argue that comparing our svstemic abuse o nonhuman animals to
the lolocaust can enable us to gain some concrete knowledge about
the destructie elements in human nature and what it means to be at
the mercv o these elements. And I ask whether we hae the abilitv -
the will - to transorm ourseles since we claim to hate iolence and
to alue lie.

Invoking the Pain of Others
Manv Jewish people resent the comparisons that are currentlv
being made bv some animal adocates between the human-imposed
suering endured bv millions o Jews under the Nazis and billions o
nonhuman animals each vear at the hands o animal exploiters. lor.
as Susan Sontag savs in her book. Regaraivg tbe Paiv ot Otber.. It is
intolerable to hae one`s own suerings twinned with anvbodv else`s`
2003. 113,. 1ellinglv. Sontag does not include animals in her book
on the iconographv o suering or submit her particular claim about
the intolerabilitv o twinned` suering to analvsis. She does.
howeer. cite the reaction o the Sarajeans to a photo gallerv o their
plight that included images o the Somalians` plight. lor the
Sarajeans. it was . . . simple. 1o set their suerings alongside the
suerings o another people was to compare them which hell was
worse,. demoting Sarajeo`s martvrdom to a mere instance. 1he
atrocities taking place in Sarajeo hae nothing to do with what
happens in Arica. thev exclaimed` Sontag. 113,.
\hile noting that |u|ndoubtedlv there was a racist tinge to
their indignation` 113,. Sontag assumes that suerings can be
legitimatelv compared. but she does not pursue the matter.
3

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

Nonetheless. two important issues emerge. lirst. members o an
oppressed group oten resent comparisons o their suering with
members o another oppressed group because thev beliee that the
analogv demotes their suering rom something unique to a mere
instance` o generic suering. Second. more than this. a group mav
eel that their suering actuallv is more important than that o anv
other group. 1he question o just comparisons between or among
dierent groups is important. since it is not just anv suering. but the
unjust. deliberatelv imposed suering one`s group has alreadv
endured suering intentionallv imposed bv humans as opposed to
suering incurred in the wake o a natural disaster such as an
earthquake, which adds to the resentment one eels in haing to
protect one`s own group experience rom appropriation bv another
goup. 1he original injustice should not be compounded bv the
urther injustice o being used. in Richard Kahn`s words. merelv as
an emblem or more pressing matters` Kahn 2004,.
A problem that remains to be soled. notwithstanding. is how
to win attention to suerers and suering that most people do not
want to hear about. or hae trouble imagining. or would just as soon
orget. One wav is to use an analogv a logical parallel,. or a metaphor
a suggested likeness, that alreadv has meaning and resonance in the
public mind. lor example. oppressed people. such as slaughterhouse
workers. sav o themseles. \e are treated like animals.` and people
who raise chickens or the poultrv industrv likewise compare
themseles in the situation thev are in to animals.`
Matt Prescott. the creator o the controersial lolocaust on
\our Plate` exhibit or People or the Lthical 1reatment o Animals
PL1A,. argues that the analogv works both wavs. lis exhibit. which
consists o eight 60-square-oot panels. each juxtaposing photographs
o actorv arm and slaughterhouses with photographs rom Nazi
death camps. depicts the point made bv \iddish writer and Nobel
laureate Isaac Basheis Singer. who in his short storv 1he Letter
\riter.` wrote. In relation to |animals|. all people are Nazis.`.
Prescott. who is himsel a Jew with relaties who died under the
Nazis. savs that when lolocaust suriors todav trv to relate the
horrors thev lied through. this is the erv irst analogv that comes to
mind. 1hev sav. we were treated like animals`` Sept. 12. 2003,.

1reatment versus Lxperience
loweer. the appropriation o animal suering to express
human suering is seldom accorded the justice o reciprocitv. On the
contrarv. at the time o this writing. manv Jewish people hae
expressed indignation oer comparisons that are being made bv
animal adocates between the human-imposed suering endured bv
billions o nonhuman animals each vear and the suering endured bv
millions o Jews under the Nazis. At the same time. manv Jews
4

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

support the comparisons and were sensitized to animal slaughter
ater experiencing or conceptualizing the massacre o Jews. as (harles
Patterson demonstrates throughout his book. tervat )rebtiv/a: Ovr
)reatvevt ot .vivat. ava tbe otocav.t 2002,. Mv own stance on the
issue appeared in a 1999 proile o mv work in )be !a.bivgtov Po.t. In
lor the Birds.` !a.bivgtov Po.t writer 1amara Jones declared at the
outset: \es. Karen Dais is serious when she savs the extermination
o billion broiler chickens is the moral equialent o the lolocaust`
Jones 1999. l1,. Ater publication o the article. I receied a oice-
mail message denouncing mv stance as anti-Semitic. een though the
article stressed how mv preoccupation with the eils perpetrated on
innocent ictims under litler had eoled to illuminate mv
awareness o humanitv`s relentless institutionalized assault upon
nonhuman animals Jones. l5,.
In a letter to the editor. an indignant writer justiies using
animals to express human lolocaust suering. but not the reerse:
\es. the Nazis treated us like animals. mavbe worse than animals.`
she writes. But it`s just an expression we use` Jacobs 2003,. It is
acceptable. in other words. to appropriate the treatment o
nonhuman animals to characterize one`s own mistreatment. but not
the other wav around. Adocates o this position beliee that thev
can legitimatelv use the experience o nonhuman animals to
characterize their own experience. een when the animals` experience
has not been dulv acknowledged or imaginatielv conceied o to anv
degree. and perhaps has been dismissed without urther inquirv. I so.
it mav be asked whv anvone would compromise the case or the
incomparabilitv o one`s own suering bv comparing it to the
suering o animals. gien that nonhuman animals and their suering
are regarded as astlv inerior.
But it is preciselv the distinction between treatment` and
experience` that uels resentment. 1o be treated like animals` is an
insult because the experience o animals is assumed to be astlv
inerior to that o anv human being. most o all one`s particular
group. 1he worth o animals has traditionallv been regarded as
instrumental worth onlv. Animals were put on earth or humans to
use` is the standard ormula. with responsiblv` or humanelv`
tacked on as an aterthought. Presuming an immeasurable gul
between humans and animals allows one to appropriate animal abuse
as a metaphor or one`s own mistreatment while simultaneouslv
dismissing the metaphor. and hence the animals.` as just an
expression.` In this igure o speech the term animal` has no
concrete or independent meaning een as animal.` It is simplv a
code word or humans badlv treated bv other humans.` though not
necessarilv in a sense that is troubling to the speaker. who mav be as
likelv to dismiss the suering o nonhuman animals with another
ormula. 1hev`re onlv animals.`
5

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.


Invisible Mass Suffering
None o us knows. omniscientlv. who suers more in
conditions o horror. human or nonhuman indiiduals. It mav be that
bevond a certain point. we cannot ullv apprehend the realitv o
anvone else`s suering. In her book )be oay iv Paiv. Llaine Scarrv
savs that A person whose pain it is. knows it eortlesslv. the person
whose pain it is not. cannot know it een with eort.` \hile Scarrv`s
point is about human pain and the inabilitv o other people to athom
it. what she savs could applv to nonhuman animal pain and suering
as well: It is easv to remain whollv unaware o its existence: een
with eort. one mav remain in doubt about its existence or mav
retain the astonishing reedom o denving its existence: and inallv. i
with the best eort o sustained attention one successullv
apprehends it. the aersieness o the it` one apprehends will onlv be
a shadowv raction o the actual it`` Scarrv 1985. 4: quoted in
Adams 1996. 183,.
1he problem o apprehending the pain o others is increased
when the others are in a situation o mass suering. 1he indiidual is
submerged in a sea o suering rom the standpoint o onlookers.
1his is the opposite o the personal experience o being inside one`s
priate hell while enguled bv the hell o others. No wonder people
who hae suered as whole populations are desperate to be .eev. No
wonder thev resent haing their suering compared to the suering
o another group. \hat is elt to be een worse than being twinned`
with another group is to be indistinguishable to all orms o
consciousness outside one`s own consciousness. which will be
obliterated in one`s own death.
1

A undamental diicultv in drawing attention to the plight o
actorv-armed animals is. similarlv. that eerv situation in which thev
appear is a mass situation. one that appears to be. as in realitv it is. a
limitless expanse o animal suering and horror Dais 2004,. Lerv
actorv-arm scene replicates this expanse. mirroring its magnitude o
unmanageabilitv. Lxcept or the eal` cal. whose solitarv
coninement stall and large sad eves draw attention to him or hersel
as a desolate indiidual. all that most people see in looking at animal
actories are endless rows o batterv-caged hens. wall-to-wall turkevs.
thousands o chickens or pigs. \hat thev hear is deathlv silence or
indistinguishable "noise.` 1hev see a brownish sea o bodies without
conlict. plot. or endpoint.
1o the public eve. the sheer number and expanse o animals
surrounded bv metal. wires. dung. dander. and dust renders all o
them inisible and impersonal. 1here are no indiiduals` and no
drama on which to ocus. onlv a scene o abstract suering. 1heir
horriving pain is not een minimallv grasped bv most iewers. who
are socialized not to perceie animals. especiallv ood` animals. as
6

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

indiiduals with eelings. 1hese dispassionate onlookers hae no
concept o animals as sentient beings. let alone as indiiduals with
projects o their own o which thev hae been stripped. such as their
own amilv lie and the comort it brings. which was their birthright
in nature.
2


Notwithstanding. it is reasonable to assume that animals
imprisoned within coninement svstems suer een more. in certain
respects. than do humans who are similarlv conined. 1his occurs in a
similar wav that a mentallv impaired person might experience
dimensions o suering in being rough-handled. imprisoned. and
shouted at that elude a person capable o conceptualizing the
experience. Indeed. one who is capable o conceptualizing one`s own
suering mav be unable to grasp what it eels like to suer without
being able to conceptualize it. o being in a condition that could add
to. rather than reduce. the suering. It is in this quite dierent sense
rom what is usuallv meant. when we are told that it is meaningless`
to compare the suering o a chicken with that o a human being.
that the claim resonates. 1he biologist. Marian Stamp Dawkins. savs
that other animal species mav suer in states that no human has
eer dreamed o or experienced` Dawkins 1985. 29,. Matthew Scullv
writes in Doviviov o the pain and suering o animals in human
coninement svstems:
lor all we know. their pain mav sometimes seem more
immediate. blunt. arbitrarv. and inescapable than ours. \alk through
an animal shelter or slaughterhouse and vou wonder i animal
suering might not at times be all the more terriving and all-
encompassing without beneit o the words and concepts that or us.
ater all. coner not onlv meaning but consolation. \hateer`s going
on inside their heads. it doesn`t seem mere` to them. 2002. ,

1he 9/JJ Controversy
lor manv Americans. the worst. most unjust suering to
beall anvone happened on September 11. 2001. Mark Slouka. in his
essav A \ear Later.` in arper`. Maga.ive. puzzled oer how it was
possible or a man`s aith to sail oer Auschwitz. sav. onlv to ounder
on the \orld 1rade (enter` Slouka 2002. 3,. low was it that so
manv intelligent people he knew. who had lied though the 20
th

centurv and knew something about historv. actuallv insisted that
eervthing is dierent now.` as a result o 911. as though. Slouka
mareled. onlv ovr sorrow would weigh in the record` People who
said thev`d neer be the same again neer said that while watching on
teleision or reading in the newspaper about other people`s and other
nations` calamities. In saving that the world as a result o the 911
attack was dierent now.` thev didn`t mean that beore the 911
attack I was blind. but now I see the suering that is going on and


___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

that has been going on all around me. to which I might be a
contributor. God orbid.` No. thev meant that an incomparable and
superior outrage had occurred. It happened to Americans. It
happened to them: Rwanda Bosnia (ouldn`t help but eel sorrv
or those olks. but let`s ace it: Rwanda did not hae a coenant with
God. And Jesus was not a Sarajean.` Slouka spooed 39,.

lollowing the 911 attack. I published a letter Dais 2001:
2002, that raised such consternation in the mainstream media that it
got me on the loward Stern show April 10. 2002: August 2. 2004,.
\ithout seeking to diminish the horror o 911. I wrote that the
people who died in the attack arguablv did not suer more terrible
deaths than animals in slaughterhouses suer eerv dav. Using
chickens as an example. I obsered that in addition to the much
larger number o innocent chickens who were killed more than 8.5
billion chickens in the United States in 2001,. and the horrible deaths
thev endured in the slaughter plants that dav. and eerv dav. one had
to account or the miserv o their lies leading up to their horrible
death. including the terror attack thev had suered seeral hours or
davs beore thev were killed. euphemisticallv reerred to as chicken
catching.`
I compared all this to the relatielv satisving lies o the
majoritv o human ictims o 911 prior to the attack and added that
we humans hae a plethora o palliaties. ranging rom proclaiming
ourseles heroes and plotting reenge against our maleactors to the
consolation o amilv and riends and the relie o painkilling drugs
and alcoholic beerages. Moreoer. whereas human animals hae the
abilitv to make some sort o sense o the tragedv. the chickens. in
contrast. hae no cognitie insulation. no compensation. presumablv
no comprehension o the causes o their suering. and thus no
psvchological relie rom their suering. 1he act that intensielv
raised chickens are orced to lie in svstems that relect our
dispositions. not theirs. and that these svstems are inimical to their
basic nature as reealed bv their behaior. phvsical breakdown. and
other indicators,. shows that thev are suering in wavs that could
equal and een exceed anvthing that we hae known. Industrv
sources note. or example. that hens caged or egg production are so
oerwrought that thev exhibit the "emotionalitv` o hvsteria.` and
that something as simple as an electrical storm can produce an
outbreak o hvsteria` in our-to-eight-week-old broiler` chickens
conined bv the thousands in buildings Bell and \eaer 2002. 89:
(lark. et al. 2004. 2,.
I wrote mv rebuttal in response to comments made bv
philosopher Peter Singer. who in a reiew o Joan Dunaver`s book.
.vivat qvatity: avgvage ava iberatiov 2001, challenged the
contention that we should use equallv strong words or human and
8

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

nonhuman suering or death. le wrote: Reading this suggestion
just a ew davs ater the killing o seeral thousand people at the
\orld 1rade (entre. I hae to demure. It is not speciesist to think
that this eent was a greater tragedv than the killing o seeral million
chickens. which no doubt also occurred on September 11. as it
occurs on eerv working dav in the United States. 1here are reasons
or thinking that the deaths o beings with amilv ties as close as
those between the people killed at the \orld 1rade (entre and their
loed ones are more tragic than the deaths o beings without those
ties: and there is more than could be said about the kind o loss that
death is to beings who hae a high degree o sel-awareness. and a
iid sense o their own existence oer time` Singer 2002. 36,.
1here are reasons or contesting this statement o assumed
superioritv o the human suering caused bv 911 oer that o the
chickens in slaughterhouses. starting with the act that it is not lotv
tragedv` that`s at issue in Dunaver`s book Singer is challenging. but
raw suering.
3
Moreoer. there is eidence that the highlv social
chicken. who is endowed with a complex nerous svstem designed
to orm a multitude o memories and to make complex decisions`
Rogers 1995. 218,. has sel-awareness and a sense o personal
existence oer time. And who are we to sav what bonds chickens
liing together in the chicken houses might or might not hae
ormed 1he chickens at United Poultrv (oncerns the sanctuarv that
I run, orm close personal attachments. Len chicken exploiters
admit that thev do Dais 1996. 35. 148,. 1he aian cognition
specialist. Leslev J. Rogers. quoted aboe. savs in her book. )be
Deretopvevt ot raiv ava ebariovr iv tbe Cbic/ev. that modern studies o
birds. including chickens. throw the allacies o preious
assumptions about the inerioritv o aian cognition into sharp relie`
Rogers. 218,.

Cognitive Distance from Nonhuman Animal Suffering
But een i it could be proen that chickens and other
nonhuman animals suer less than humans condemned to similar
situations. this would not mean that nonhuman animals do not suer
prooundlv. nor does it proide justiication or harming them.
Scientists tell us. or example. that hens in transport trucks hae been
shown to experience a leel o ear comparable to that induced bv
exposure to a high-intensitv electric shock` Mills and Nicol 1990.
212,. \hat more do we need to know Our cognitie distance rom
nonhuman animal suering constitutes neither an argument nor
eidence as to who suers more under horriic circumstances.
humans or nonhumans. Len or animal adocates. words like
slaughter.` cages.` debeaking.` orced molting.` and ammonia
burn` can lose their edge. causing us to orget that what hae become
routine matters in our minds - like the killing o seeral million
9

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

chickens that occurs on eerv single working dav in the United
States.` in Peter Singer`s realitv-blunting phrase - is a resh
experience or each bird who is orced to endure what these words
signiv.
In anv case. the cognitie distance can be reduced. Vicarious
suering is possible with respect to the members o not just one`s
own species but also other animal species. to whom we are linked
through eolution. As Marian Stamp Dawkins savs in her essav. 1he
Scientiic Basis or Assessing Suering in Animals.` just as the lack
o absolute certaintv does not stop us rom making assumptions
about eelings in other people. so it is possible to build up a
reasonablv conincing picture o what animals experience i the right
acts about them are accumulated` Dawkins 1985. 28,.

Animal Sacrifice and the Holocaust: Ialsifying the Iate of
Victims
In 1aking Lie or 1aking On Lie.`` (arol J. Adams and
Marjorie Procter-Smith cite the ollowing anecdote rom the 19
th
-
centurv women`s moement:
\hen Pundita Ramabia was in this countrv she saw a hen
carried to market with its |.ic| head downward. 1his (hristian method
o treating a poor. dumb creature caused the heathen woman to crv
out. Oh. how cruel to carrv a hen with its head down!` and she
quicklv receied the replv. \hv. the hen does not mind it`: and in
her heathen innocence she inquired. Did vou ask the hen` Adams
and Procter-Smith 1993. 304,
Similar to the mvths circulated bv US slaerv owners about
their human propertv` during the nineteenth centurv. animal
ictimizers tvpicallv insist that their ictims don`t mind their plight. or
that thev don`t experience it as vou or I would.` or that the ictims
are complicit in their plight. een. on occasion. to the point o
gratitude. 1he ictims. in other words. are not reallv innocent.`
1hus. or example. at his trial. Nazi leader Adol Lichmann pleaded.
regarding his deportation o tens o thousands o Jews to their
deaths. that the Jews desired` to emigrate. and that he. Lichmann.
was there to help them` Arendt. 48,. 1his is not exceptional
psvchologv. as students o sexual assault - one orm o rape - are
well aware. Indeed. ictimizers are erv oten likelv to represent
themseles. and to be upheld bv their svmpathizers. as the innocent
parties in their orchestrations o the suering and death o others. In
icbvavv iv erv.atev. lannah Arendt cites an Lgvptian deputv
oreign minister who claimed. or instance. that litler was innocent
o the slaughter o the Jews: he was a ictim o the Zionists. who had
compelled him to perpetrate crimes that would eentuallv enable
them to achiee their aim - the creation o the State o Israel``
Arendt 1994. 20,. I vou want to hurt someone and maintain a clean
10

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

conscience about it. chances are vou will inoke arguments along one
or more o these lines: the slaeanimal doesn`t eel. or doesn`t know
or care. is complicit. or isn`t een tbere. In the latter case the ictim is
conigured as an ittv.iov.
1his is a commonplace o ictimizer psvchologv: the
transormation o the sacriicial ictim into a maniestation o
something else in disguise. a being or spirit imprisoned in the
maniestation that wants to be let out.` a ermin` or iral inection
that requires a bloodletting ceremonv o purgation to protect the
communitv. race.` or nation. In such cases. not onlv is the ictim
reconigured to suit the ictimizer`s agenda. but the ictimizer too is
dierent rom what he or she appears to be - a murderer. sav. as in
the portraval o litler is. in realitv.` the benignlv-motiated liberator
o a spiritual wish within the Jewish people to be ree think also o
U.S. president George \. Bush as the alleged liberator` o the Iraqi
people,.
1o this dav. animals are rituallv sacriiced bv lindus whose
practice is based on the idea that the sacriice o an animal is vot
reatty tbe /ittivg ot av avivat.` 1he animal to be sacriiced is not
considered an animal.` but is. instead. a svmbol o those powers or
which the sacriicial ritual stands` Lal 1986. 201,. Nor are lindus
the onlv ones who transmute animals rhetoricallv in this wav.
(onsider the idea presented bv (hristian theologian Andrew Linzev.
who in trving to rescue nonhuman animals rom the traditional
(hristian opprobrium and moral indierence cites an interpretation
in which animal sacriice is best seen as the reeing o animal lie to
be with God` Linzev 1986. 130,.
Indeed there is a tradition o thought in ancient Greek
religion. in Judaic mvsticism. and in other sectors o human culture in
which nonhumans are said to beneit rom being sacriiced bv
humans to the point o oluntarilv stretching out their necks` to
assist in being slaughtered Porphvrv 1965. 36-3: Schochet 1984.
236-244: Schwartz 2001. 124-12,. Adertisers tell us that pigs want
to become Oscar Mever wieners. and in the sacriicial language o
\estern science. animals who are but tools o research` under one
aspect stand orth as engaged` in animal experimentation Paul-
Murphv. et al. 2004. 9,. As Schochet savs about the doctrine o
metempsvchosis the belie that human souls can become trapped in
lower` lie orms as punishment or their misdeeds,. this doctrine.
rather than promoting egetarianism. militated in aor o the
consumption o lesh. or one therebv did the animal a aor` in
releasing the human soul within to pursue its higher destinv
Schochet 244,.
(hallenges such as the lolocaust on \our Plate` exhibit.
and (harles Patterson`s book. tervat )rebtiv/a: Ovr )reatvevt ot
.vivat. ava tbe otocav.t 2002,. help to restore a more likelv ersion
11

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

o the animals` point o iew. 1hev stimulate people to conront how
animals must eel being torn rom their mothers at birth. mutilated.
dumped in ilthv dark buildings. treated like trash and brutallv
murdered. 1hev orce us to recognize that these animals. powerless
to deend themseles. are condemned to the same excremental
unierse. the same abvss o abasement. loneliness. pain. and terror o
imprisonment as were the Jews. Gvpsies. homosexuals. and others
characterized as lie unworthv o lie` under the Nazis. 1hev lout
the taboos and expose the rationalizations. 1hev puncture the
solipsism in which we surround ourseles. in order to rescue billions
o unacknowledged animal ictims rom anonvmitv and the ignominv
and injustice o being consigned to the ate o a alse and inerior
existence in our minds.

1he Absent Referent
1he holocausts - burnt oerings - o the ancient lebrews
consisted o countless nonhuman animals. as did the religious animal
sacriices conducted throughout the ancient world bv the Greeks.
lindus. Muslims. Natie Americans. and other cultures Regan 1986:
Dais 2001. 33-43,. \et we are not supposed to regard those animals
or their counterparts in todav`s world. where the consumption o
animals or ood rises to eer-greater leels. \e are not supposed to
contemplate the experience o animals in being turned into burnt
oerings.` meat. metaphors. and other orms that obliterate their
lies. personalities. eelings. and identities that we choose to coner.
1he lolocaust on \our Plate` exhibit restores what
eminist writer. (arol Adams. reers to in )be evat Potitic. ot Meat as
the absent reerent` Adams 1990: 2000. 40-48,. An absent reerent
is an indiidual or group whose ate is transmuted into a metaphor
or someone else`s existence or ate` without being acknowledged in
its own right. According to Adams. Metaphoricallv. the absent
reerent can be anvthing whose original meaning is undercut as it is
absorbed into a dierent hierarchv o meaning.` 1he rape o women.
or example. can be applied metaphoricallv to the rape` o the earth
in such a wav as to obliterate women. As Adams explains:
1he absent reerent is both there and not there. It is there
through inerence. but its meaningulness relects onlv upon what it
reers to because the originating. literal. experience that contributes
the meaning is not there. \e ail to accord this absent reerent its
own existence. 1990. 42,
In the role o absent reerents. nonhuman animals become
metaphors or describing human experience at the same time that
the originating oppression o animals that generates the power o
the metaphor` is unacknowledged Adams. 43,. as when people sav.
\e`re treated like animals.` 1he meaning o the animals` ate. or
the animals themseles. or each indiidual him and her. is absorbed
12

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

into a human-centered hierarchv in which the animals do not count.
or een exist. apart rom how humans use. or hae used. them. Our
use becomes their ontologv - this is what thev are` - and their
teleologv - this is what thev were made or.`
1his process o obscuring the ace o the other.` as Maxwell
Schnurer describes in his essav. At the Gates o lell.` is ital to
the reduction o liing beings to objects upon whom atrocities can be
heaped` 2004: 109. 11,. And it is not species-speciic. As Schnurer
explains the process o obscuring the ace o the other to achiee
sel-exoneration:
In the case o the lolocaust. it was necessarv to sustain a
complex inrastructure that enabled each participant to disguise his or
her responsibilitv. In the case o animals. as Adams notes. it is
essential that the acts o killing. enslaing. and torturing animals be
well hidden rom sight. so that the consumer onlv eer sees the
inished product.` lor both svstems o oppression. it is critical that
the process be as compartmentalized as possible. 1he reason to
obscure the ace o suering is as obious as it is hidden - the ision
o terrible actions can elicit svmpathv and compassion. and oten call
or remedv. 11,

Who Owns the Holocaust?
1he word holocaust is not species-speciic. and thereore Jews hae
no ownership rights oer it. lrom whateer source the word
lolocaust.` as it is now emploved. came rom. Jews hae taken it
oer rom the Greek word. boto/av.tov. which in ancient times
denoted their own and others` cultural practice o sacriicing animals.
to designate the Nazi extermination o the Luropean Jews.
4

(onceiablv. those animals could complain that their experience o
being orciblv turned into burnt oerings and to please or sate a god
thev would not necessarilv hae acknowledged as their god, has been
unjustlv appropriated bv their ictimizers. who are robbing them o
tbeir original experience o suering. 1hrough PL1A`s lolocaust on
\our Plate` exhibit. the animals reclaim tbeir experience. past.
present. and uture. 1aking the animals` iew it mav be said o them.
as Bruno Bettelheim said o the millions o Jews and others who
were svstematicallv slaughtered bv the Nazis. that while these
millions were slaughtered or an idea. thev did not die or one`
Bettelheim 1980. 93,.
In .vivat. iv tbe )bira Reicb: Pet.. capegoat.. ava tbe otocav.t.
Boria Sax obseres that the erv word otocav.t pertains to animal
sacriice.` lolocaust means burning o the whole` Sax 2000. 156,.
Sax explains that among the people o the ancient Mediterranean. the
slaughter o animals was generallv a estie occasion with the
inedible parts. bones. and gall bladder together with a little meat let
on the altar or a deitv. while the rest was consumed bv human
13

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

beings.`
In lebrew sacriice. a lolocaust was the entire animal gien
to \ahweh to be consumed bv ire. 1he prototvpe was the sacriice
o the shepherd Abel to \ahweh rom his lock.` Use o the word
holocaust or the Nazi murders. according to Sax. is based on an
identiication between the Jewish people and the sacriiced animal.
1he imagerv parallels the wav (hrist is traditionallv represented as the
sacriicial lamb. In a strange wav the term otocav.t equates the Nazis.
as those who perorm the sacriice. with priests o ancient Israel`
Sax. 156,.
Sax savs that the term holocaust was irst popularized in the
1960s bv American Jews` 156,. 1here was a elt need in the late
1950s. according to James L. \oung in !ritivg ava Rerritivg tbe
otocav.t. to distinguish between the particular Jewish experience
under litler and the general experience o being a prisoner or killed
in \orld \ar 1wo. Len so. the term holocaust. in being inoked to
capture the essence o a unique catastrophe. was borrowed rom
ancient sacriicial usage and Jewish historv in order to grasp the
unamiliar in amiliar terms` \oung 1988. 8,.
Nor did the term holocaust arise strictlv in reerence to
ancient historv. lolocaust` came to demarcate the experience o
Luropean Jews under the Nazis at a time when the term holocaust
was used to characterize eervthing rom \orld \ar I that
holocaust swept oer the world`, to the holocaust o housework`
crashing glassware,. as shown bv numerous examples taken rom the
Pate.tive Po.t rom 1938 to 194 Petrie. 2-3,. According to Jon
Petrie`s inestigation o the etvmologv o the word. in the earlv
1960s. the most common reerent o holocaust` was nuclear war
and destruction. lor example. the coer o the Noember 4. 1961
magazine )be ^atiov announces: SlLL1LRS \lLN 1lL
lOLO(AUS1 (OMLS.`
Petrie thinks that American Jewish writers probablv
abandoned such words as disaster.` catastrophe.` and massacre` in
aor o holocaust` in the 1960s` because holocaust` with its
eocation o the then dreaded nuclear annihilation eectielv
coneved something o the horror o the Jewish experience during
\orld \ar 1wo Petrie 2004. 4,.
Nobel Prizewinning author Isaac Basheis Singer. who grew
up in a Polish illage where his ather was a lasidic rabbi. has one o
his ictional characters. lerman Gombiner. sav in the storv. 1he
Letter \riter.` that towards the animals. all humans are Nazis. and
or the animals. eerv dav is 1reblinka. 1reblinka was a Nazi death
camp in Poland that began operating in 1942., lerman. who lost his
entire amilv to the Nazis. is thinking about a mouse he beriended
whose death he beliees he caused. and his sadness leads to a larger
thought:
14

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

In his thoughts. lerman spoke a eulogv to the mouse who
had shared a portion o her lie with him and who. because o him.
had let this earth. \hat do thev know - all those scholars. all those
philosophers. all the leaders o the world - about such as vou 1hev
hae coninced themseles that man. the worst transgressor o all the
species. is the crown o creation. All other creatures were created
merelv to proide him with ood. pelts. to be tormented.
exterminated. In relation to them. all people are Nazis: or the
animals it is an eternal 1reblinka. And vet man demands compassion
rom heaen` 1935. 21,.
Rather than triializing Nazi` and 1reblinka.` this usage
conceptualizes these terms and the eents to which thev reer.
making them stand or a certain tvpe o atrocitv - an extremitv o
inhumanitv. ictimization. and miserv - o which there mav be more
than one maniestation. i not in eerv respect. vet in signiicant
respects. In vevie.: . ore tory. the protagonist. lerman. isits a
zoo. le compares the zoo to a concentration camp:
1he air here was ull o longing - or deserts. hills. allevs.
dens. amilies. Like the Jews. the animals had been dragged here rom
all parts o the world. condemned to isolation and boredom. Some o
them cried out their woes: others remained mute Singer quoted in
Rosenberger 2004,.
Len animal rights author Roberta Kalechoskv declares.
despite her opposition to lolocaust comparisons. that Most
suering todav. whether o animals or humans. suering bevond
calculation. whether it is phvsiological or the ripping apart o a
mother and ospring. is in the hands o other humans. Pain is a
curse. and gratuitous pain inlicted bv humans on other humans or
on animals is eil` Kalechoskv 2003. 6-,.

An Atrocity Can Be Both Unique and General
Paradoxicallv. then. it is possible to make releant and
enlightening comparisons. while agreeing with the approach taken bv
the philosopher. Brian Luke. towards animal abuse. Luke writes: Mv
opposition to the institutionalized exploitation o animals is not
based on a covpari.ov between human and animal treatment. but on a
consideration o the abuse o the animals iv ava ot it.ett Luke 1996.
81,.
Paradoxicallv. while the words Nazi.` 1reblinka.` and
lolocaust` represent unique historical phenomena. thev can also
transcend these phenomena to unction more broadlv. And a broader
approach to the lolocaust would appear to hold more promise or a
more enlightened and compassionate uture. surelv. than attempting
to priatize the eent to the extent that its onlv permissible reerence
is sel-reerence. A broader approach also proides a more just
apprehension o past and present atrocities. while connecting the
15

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

Nazis and the lolocaust to the larger ethical challenges conronting
humanitv.
In . ittte Matter ot Cevociae: otocav.t ava Deviat iv tbe
.verica. ]12 to tbe Pre.evt. Natie American scholar \ard (hurchill
writes that the experience o the Jews under the Nazis is unique onlv
in the sense that all such phenomena exhibit unique characteristics.
Genocide. as the nazis practiced it. was neer something suered
exclusielv bv the Jews. nor were the nazis singularlv guiltv o its
practice` (hurchill. 199. 35-36,. lurthermore. (hurchill argues in
his lorward to )errori.t. or reeaov igbter.: Rettectiov. ov tbe iberatiov ot
.vivat.: Gien that the kev to the genocidal mentalitv` resides. as
irtuallv all commentators agree. in the perpetrators` conscious
dehumanization o the Other` thev hae set themseles to
exterminating. it ollows that remoal o the sel-assigned license
enjoved bv humans to do as thev will towith nonhumans can onlv
sere to better the lot o humans targeted or
dehumanizationsubjugationeradication` (hurchill 2004. 2-3,.
Matt Prescott. who directs the lolocaust on \our Plate`
exhibit. argues that (omparisons to the lolocaust are undeniable
and inescapable not onlv because we humans share with all other
animals our abilitv to eel pain. ear and loneliness. but because the
goernment-sanctioned oppression o billions o beings. and the
svstems we use to abuse and kill them. eerilv parallel the
concentration camps.` le explains:
1he methods o the lolocaust exist todav in the orm o
actorv arming where billions o innocent. eeling beings are taken
rom their amilies. trucked hundreds o miles through all weather
extremes. conined in cramped. ilthv conditions. and herded to their
deaths. During the lolocaust. hundreds o thousands o men.
women and children died rom heat exhaustion. dehvdration.
staration or rom reezing to the sides o cattle cars. 1hose who
arried at the concentration camps alie were orced into cramped
bunkers where thev lied on top o other dead ictims. coered in
their own eces and urine. 1hev were orced to work until their
bodies couldn`t work anvmore. and were then herded to their deaths
in assemblv-line ashion. 1en billion animals a vear in the U.S. suer
through these same horrors eerv single dav. \e must ask ourseles:
sixtv vears later. hae we learned nothing \hv are we still
transporting animals through all weather extremes. orcing them to
endure extreme heat and cold \hv are we still conining them in
conditions so dirtv. the onlv wav to keep them alie is through the
extreme oeruse o antibiotics \hv are we still ripping children awav
rom mothers and leading them bv the necks and legs to the kill
loor
Moreoer. Prescott points out that the United States
lolocaust Museum states in its guidelines or teaching about the
16

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

lolocaust that 1he lolocaust proides a context or exploring the
dangers o remaining silent. apathetic. and indierent in the ace o
others` oppression` 2004,.
One o the manv questions that emerge rom the current
debate about the use o the lolocaust to illuminate humankind`s
relationship to billions o nonhuman animals is the extent to which
the outrage o haing one`s own suering compared to that o others
centers primarilv on issues o identitv and uniqueness or on issues o
superioritv and priilege. 1he ownership o superior and unique
suering has manv claimants. but as Isaac Basheis Singer obsered
speaking o chickens. there is no eidence that people are more
important than chickens Shenker 1991. 11,.
1here is no eidence. either. that human suering. or Jewish
suering. is separate rom all other suering. or that it needs to be
kept separate and superior in order to maintain its identitv. But
where. it mav be asked. is the eidence that we humans hae had
enough o inlicting massie preentable suering on one another
and on the indiiduals o other species. gien that we know suering
so well. and claim to abhor it In tervat )rebtiv/a: Ovr )reatvevt ot
.vivat. ava tbe otocav.t. (harles Patterson concludes that the
sooner we put an end to our cruel and iolent wav o lie. the better it
will be or all o us - perpetrators. bvstanders. and ictims`
Patterson 2002. 232,. \ho but the Nazi within us disagrees I we
are going to exterminate someone. let it be the ascist within.

______________________________
1
At the same time. a human or nonhuman animal`s suering mav be so extreme. so
unnatural and unbearable. that the longing arises neer to be seen` again. 1ake the
poem 1he Snow Leopard in the Metro1oronto Zoo` bv Jason Grav:

le pads on grassv banks behind a ence
with measured paces slow and tense.

Bevond his cage his thoughts are sharp and white:
he lies a compelled anchorite.

A solid ghost gone blind with all the green.
he waits and waits to be unseen. Grav 2003. 56,


2
In act. howeer. when the public is exposed to some o the more dramatic`
scenes taking place behind the scenes that are still largelv hidden rom iew - e.g..
orce-eeding o ducks and geese to produce oie gras. artiicial insemination and
masturbation o breeder` turkevs on which the commercial turkev industrv is
based. treatment o newborn chicks at the hatcherv. candid-camera looks at what
reallv goes on inside a slaughterhouse - there is a much greater sense o the
indiidualitv o each animal and. one hopes. greater empathv. Undercoer ideo
inestigations are starting to make this happen - to oreground indiidual animals
in their struggle against their abusers in the midst o the mass-suering in which
each animal is submerged in actorv-arm settings.

1

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

3
Peter Singer`s position regarding the superioritv o most human adult suering
and death oer the suering and death o most. i not all. nonhuman beings mav be
inerred. or example. in his discussion o damming a rier that will aderselv aect
the nonhuman animals in the area: Neither drowning nor staration is an easv wav
to die. and the suering inoled in these deaths should . . . be gien no less weight
than we would gie to an equialent amount o suering experienced bv human
beings. . . . But the argument presented aboe does not require us to regard the
death o a nonhuman animal as morallv equialent to the death o a human being.
since humans are capable o oresight and orward planning in wavs that
nonhuman animals are not. 1his is surelv releant to the seriousness o death.
which. in the case o a human being capable o planning or the uture. will thwart
these plans. and which thus causes a loss that is dierent in kind rom the loss that
death causes to beings incapable een o understanding that thev exist oer time
and hae a uture. It is also entirelv legitimate to take into account the greater sense
o loss that humans eel when people close to them die: whether nonhuman
animals will eel a sense o loss at the death o another animal will depend on the
social habits o the species. but in most cases it is unlikelv to be as prolonged. and
perhaps not as deep. as the grie that humans eel` Singer 2000. 96,.

4
Manv Jews don`t like to use the word holocaust anvmore because it has been used
to applv to too manv things not unique to the Jewish experience: so some scholars
are opting or other words like Shoah. (hurban. the Lent. and the 1remendum to
trv to recapture some sense o singularitv. See. e.g.. James L. \oung 1988. 85-89,.
See also Nathan Snaza 2004. 12,.

References
Adams. (arol. J. )be evat Potitic. ot Meat: . evivi.t1egetariav Criticat )beory. New
\ork. N\: (ontinuum.. 1990: 2000.

Adams. (arol J.. and Marjorie Procter-Smith. 1aking Lie or 1aking on Lie``
cotevivi.v ava tbe acrea.. Ld. (arol J. Adams. New \ork. N\: (ontinuum. 1994.

Arendt. lannah. icbvavv iv erv.atev: . Report ov tbe avatity ot rit. New \ork.
N\: Penguin. 1963:1994.

Bell. Donald D.. and \illiam D. \eaer. Jr.. eds. Cbic/ev Meat ava gg Proavctiov. 5
th

ed. Norwell. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2002.

Best. Steen and Anthonv J. Nocella II eds.)errori.t. or reeaov igbter.: Rettectiov. ov
tbe iberatiov ot .vivat.. New \ork. N\: Lantern Books. 2004.

Bettelheim. Bruno. 1he lolocaust: One Generation Later.` vrririvg ava Otber
..ay.. New \ork. N\: Vintage Press. 1980.

(hurchill. \ard. . ittte Matter ot Cevociae: otocav.t ava Deviat iv tbe .verica. ]12
to tbe Pre.evt. San lrancisco. (A: (itv Lights Books. 199.

(hurchill. \ard. lorward: Illuminating the Philosophv and Methods o Animal
Liberation.` )errori.t. or reeaov igbter.: Rettectiov. ov tbe iberatiov ot .vivat.. Ld.
Steen Best and Anthonv J. Nocella II. New \ork. N\: Lantern Books. 2004.

(lark. Dustan. et al. Understanding and (ontrol o Gangrenous Dermatitis in
Poultrv louses.` |virer.ity ot .r/av.a. Cooperatire tev.iov errice. 2004.
http:www.thepoultrvsite.comleaturedArticlelA1opic.aspDisplav~13.
Dais. Karen. Pri.ovea Cbic/ev.. Poi.ovea gg.: .v v.iae oo/ at tbe Moaerv Povttry
vav.try. Summertown. 1N: Book Publishing (ompanv.1996.
18

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.


Dais. Karen. More )bav a Meat: )be )vr/ey iv i.tory. Mytb. Ritvat. ava Reatity. New
\ork: Lantern Books. 2001.

Dais. Karen. An Open Letter to 1egav 1oice.` |vitea Povttry Covcerv.. December
26. 2001. http:www.upc-online.org011226egan_oice_singer.html, Published
in 1egav 1oice No. 9. 2002. NS\. Australia. March-Mav, 1. 2002.

Dais. Karen. Open Rescues: Putting a lace on Liberation.` In )errori.t. or reeaov
igbter.. . Rettectiov ov tbe iberatiov ot .vivat.. Steen Best and Anthonv J. Nocella
II. eds. New \ork. N\: Lantern Books. 2004.

Dawkins. Marian Stamp. 1he Scientiic Basis or Assessing Suering in Animals.`
v Detev.e ot .vivat.. Peter Singer. ed. New \ork. N\: Basil Blackwell. 1985.

Dawn\atch. Mav 10. 2004. http:www.dawnwatch.com.

Dunaver. Joan. .vivat qvatity: avgvage ava iberatiov. Derwood. MD: Rvce
Publishing. 2001.

Grav. Jason. 1he Snow Leopard` In the Metro1oronto Zoo,. .va !e )be
Creatvre.. (.J. Sage. ed. San Jose. (A: Dream lorse Press. 2003.

Jacobs. Andrea. PL1A`s lolocaust on \our Plate` campaign hits Dener.`
vtervovvtaiv eri.b ^er.. August 22. 2003.

Jones. 1amara. lor the Birds.` )be !a.bivgtov Po.t. Noember 14. 1999. l1. l4-
l5.

Kahn. Richard. Lmail communication to Karen Dais. lebruarv 15. 2004.

Kalechoskv. Roberta. .vivat vtterivg ava tbe otocav.t: )be Probtev ritb Covpari.ov..
Marblehead. MA: Micah Publications. 2003.

Lal. Basant K. lindu Perspecties on the Use o Animals in Science.` .vivat
acritice.: Retigiov. Per.pectire. ov tbe |.e ot .vivat. iv cievce. 1om Regan. ed.
Philadelphia. PA: 1emple Uniersitv Press. 1986.

Linzev. Andrew. 1he Place o Animals in (reation: A (hristian View.` .vivat
acritice.: Retigiov. Per.pectire. ov tbe |.e ot .vivat. iv cievce. 1om Regan. ed.
Philadelphia. PA: 1emple Uniersitv Press. 1986.

Luke. Brian. Justice. (aring. and Animal Liberation.` eyova .vivat Rigbt.: .
evivi.t Carivg tbic tor tbe )reatvevt ot .vivat.. Josephine Donoan and (arol J.
Adams. eds. New \ork. N\: (ontinuum. 1996.

Mills. D.S.. and (.J. Nicol. 1990. 1onic immobilitv in spent hens ater catching
and transport.` )be 1eterivary Recora 126. March 3. 1990: 212. Ouoted in Pri.ovea
Cbic/ev.. Poi.ovea gg.: .v v.iae oo/ at tbe Moaerv Povttry vav.try. Karen Dais.
Summertown. 1N: Book Publishing (ompanv. 1996. 109-110.

Patterson. (harles. tervat )rebtiv/a: Ovr )reatvevt ot .vivat. ava tbe otocav.t. New
\ork. N\: Lantern Books. 2002.

Paul-Murphv. Joanne. et al. Veterinarians and Biomedical Researchers Agree
Animals leel Pain.` .!C vttetiv National Agricultural Librarv Animal \elare
19

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

Inormation (enter, 12.1-2 Summer 2004: 9.

Petrie. Jon. Jon Petrie inestigates the etvmologv o the word lolocaust.`` ocat
Poivt Pvbticatiov.. United Kingdom. lebruarv 6. 2004.
http:www.pp.co.ukAuschwitzdocslolocaustUsage.html.

Porphvrv. Ov .b.tivevce rov .vivat ooa. 1homas 1avlor. trans. Lsme \vnne-
1vson. ed. London & lontwell: (entaur Press Ltd. 1965.

Prescott. Matt. Giant Graphic Displav Shows low 1odav`s Victims Languish in
Nazi-Like (oncentration (amps.` People or the Lthical 1reatment o Animals
PL1A, April 3. 2003. www.peta.orgmcNewsItem.aspid~2106.

Prescott. Matt. Lmail communication to Karen Dais. September 12. 2003.

Prescott. Matt. Lmail communication to Barbara Lorincz. lebruarv 19. 2004.

Regan. 1om. ed. .vivat acritice.: Retigiov. Per.pectire. ava tbe |.e ot .vivat. iv cievce.
Philadelphia. PA: 1emple Uniersitv Press. 1986.

Rogers. Leslev J. )be Deretopvevt ot raiv ava ebariovr iv tbe Cbic/ev. \allingord.
Oxon UK,. (ab International: 1995.

Rosenberger. Jack. Vegetarian Adocate: Isaac Basheis Singer.` atya September
2004. 28-29.

Sax. Boria. .vivat. iv tbe )bira Reicb: Pet.. capegoat.. ava tbe otocav.t. New \ork.
N\: (ontinuum. 2000.

Scarrv. Llaine. )be oay iv Paiv: )be Ma/ivg ava |vva/ivg ot tbe !orta. N\: Oxord
Uniersitv Press. 1985. Ouoted in (arol J. Adams. (aring About Suering.` (arol
J. Adams in eyova .vivat Rigbt.: . evivi.t Carivg tbic tor tbe )reatvevt ot .vivat..
Josephine Donoan and (arol J. Adams. eds. New \ork. N\: (ontinuum. 1996.

Schnurer. Maxwell. At the Gates o lell: 1he ALl and the Legacv o lolocaust
Resistance.` )errori.t. or reeaov igbter.: Rettectiov. ov tbe iberatiov ot .vivat.. Steen
Best and Anthonv J. Nocella II. eds. New \ork. N\: Lantern Books. 2004.

Schochet. Llijah Judah. .vivat ite iv eri.b )raaitiov: .ttitvae. ava Retatiov.bip.. New
\ork. N\: Kta Publishing louse. 1984.

Schwartz. Richard l. vaai.v ava 1egetariavi.v. New \ork. N\: Lantern Books.
2001.

Scullv. Matthew. Doviviov: )be Porer ot Mav. tbe vtterivg ot .vivat.. ava tbe Catt to
Mercy. New \ork. N\: St. Martin`s Press. 2002.

Shenker. Israel. 1he Man \ho 1alked Back to God: Isaac Basheis Singer. 1904-
91.` )be ^er Yor/ )ive. oo/ Rerier. August 11. 1991: 11.

Singer. Isaac Basheis. 1he Letter \riter.` )be eavce ava Otber torie.. New \ork.
N\: larrar. Straus and Giroux. 1935. Rpt. in )be Cottectea torie.. New \ork. N\:
larrar. Straus and Giroux. 1983: 250-26.

Singer. Peter. !ritivg. ov av tbicat ite. New \ork. N\: larper(ollins: 2000.

20

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby ava Poticy ovrvat. Volume II. Issue 2. 2004. pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais. PhD.

Singer. Peter. Book Reiew: .vivat qvatity: avgvage ava iberty bv Joan Dunaver
|2001|.` 1egav 1oice NS\. Australia,. No. 8 Dec.-leb.,. 2000: 36.

Slouka. Mark. A \ear Later: Notes on America`s Intimations o Mortalitv.`
arper`. Maga.ive. September. 2002: 35-43.

Snaza. Nathan. Im,possible \itness: Viewing PL1A`s lolocaust On \our
Plate.`` (enter on Animal Liberation Aairs (ALA,: .vivat iberatiov Pbito.opby
ava Poticy ovrvat 2.1. 2004.
http:www.cala-online.orgJournalIssue2Impossible20\itness.htm.

Sontag. Susan. Regaraivg tbe Paiv ot Otber.. New \ork. N\: larrar. Straus and
Giroux. 2003.

Povttry tavgbter: )be ^eea tor egi.tatiov. United Poultrv (oncerns. 2003. www.upc-
online.orgslaughterslaughter3web.pd.

\oung. James L. !ritivg ava Rerritivg tbe otocav.t: ^arratire ava tbe Cov.eqvevce. ot
vterpretatiov. Bloomington. IN: Indiana Uniersitv Press. 1988.



______________________________