Paper 3

Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?
Author(s): David Sztybel

Source: Ethics and the Environment, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 97-132
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40339116 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 22:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethics and the
Environment.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CAN THE TREATMENT OF
ANIMALS BE COMPARED TO
THE HOLOCAUST?
DAVID SZTYBEL
ABSTRACT
The treatment of animalsand theHolocaust have been comparedmany
times before,but never has a thoroughlydetailed comparison been
offered.A thirty-nine-pointcomparisoncan be constructed, whetheror
not one believesthatanimalsare oppressed.The questionof whetheror
not the comparisonoughtto be expressedmerelybringsinto question
whetheranimal liberationists have liberal-democratic rightsto express
themselves, which theysurelydo. Four objectionsare considered: Is the
comparison offensive?
Does thecomparison trivialize
what happenedto
the victimsof the Nazis, overlookimportantdifferences, or ignoresup-
posed affinitiesbetween animal liberationistsand Nazis? These four
lines of attackare shown to fail.The comparisonstandsto help us to
reflecton the significanceof how animals are treatedin contemporary
times.
I. INTRODUCTION
The comparison of animal treatmentand the Holocaust recently
came into the public eye with People forthe EthicalTreatmentof Ani-
mals' "Holocaust on your Plate" exhibit,with large photos comparing
ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, ll(l) 2006ISSN:1085-6633

©Indiana UniversityPress All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
Directall correspondenceto: JournalsManager,Indiana UniversityPress,601 N. Morton St.,
Bloomington,IN 47404 USA iuporder@indiana.edu

howanimalsaretreatedand howJewsweretreatedin theHolocaust.It
is notoftenknownthattheveryterm, "Holocaust,"intrinsically involves
a comparison to animalexploitation. BoriaSax pointsoutthattheterm,
"Holocaust,"originally denoted"a Hebrewsacrifice in whichtheentire
animalwas givento Yahweh[God]to be consumed withfire"(Sax 2000,
156). In a twistof history,then,a formofanimalexploitation becamea
metaphor forwhat happened to the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. It is
askediftheHolocaustcan be comparedwithanimalexploitation, even
thoughtheveryterminvolvessucha comparison, albeitmetaphorically.
However, we are inquiring to see if the Holocaust can be comparedto
contemporary forms of animal exploitation more generally.
Although nothing occurring in therealmofoppression is everquite
thesameas anything else,I holdthat,in certainrelevant respects, both
broadand detailedcomparisons can be madebetween theHolocaustand
whatI refer to as theoppression ofanimals.Therealissueis notwhether
thecomparison can be made,in fact,becauseI offera thirty-nine-point
comparison toprovethatitcan be made:therealquestionis whether we
shoulddareto makethecomparison, or to voiceouropinionsthatthere
arechilling similaritiesbetweenhowJewsweretreatedin theHolocaust
and howanimalsaretreated inthepresent day.Thisis perhapsequallya
matter ofethicspertaining to humansas it is ofethicspertaining to ani-
mals,sincethe comparisoninvolvestreatingHolocaustvictimsin a
certain way,thatis,as comparable to nonhuman animals.Somemight say
thatit is evenchiefly a matter of human-centered moralconcern, ifthey
holdthatthecomparison wrongshumanbeings, whoareusuallyassumed
to be of superiormoral significance relativeto nonhumananimals.
Indeed,somewouldsaythatonlyhumanbeingshavemoralstanding (i.e.,
deservebasic practicalrespect),in whichcase the comparisonalmost
entirelyconstitutesan offense againstpeople.However, we willnotmake
any assumptions about thesephilosophically mootpoints,and in any
eventresolveto takeseriously thecomparison itself.
Thecomparison between theHolocaustandthetreatment ofanimals
is especiallydramaticwhenoffered by culturally eminent Jews,or else
actualHolocaustsurvivors. One of themostoften-quoted writers who
voicesthe comparisonis Isaac BashevisSinger,who writes:"In their
behaviortowardscreatures, all men[are]Nazis" (Singer1990, 84). This
is an emotionally-charged statement, and thatis whatit is meantto be.
No one couldlucidlymaintain thateveryone is oppressive towardsani-
98 ETHICSGTIHE ENVIRONMEM; 11(1)2006

mals,and furthermore, it is obviouslynot suggestedherethatanyonewho
is a speciesistis also a racist (nor,indeed, that it is only "men" who
oppressanimals).Ail thatis trulybeingindicated,I think,is thatsevere
oppressionitfequallypresenton bothsides of thecomparison,
Mark Gold relatestheperspectiveof Edgar Kupfer,a survivorof the
Dachau deathcamp. Kupferwas moved,afterhis liberation,to "furtively
scrawl" thefollowingmessageon thewall of a hospitalbarrack:
I refuseto eat animalsbecauseI cannotnourishmyself bythesuffer-

ingsand bythedeathof othercreatures. I refuseto do so, becauseI
sufferedso painfully
myselfthatI canfeelthepainsofothersbyrecall-
ingmyo\vnsufferings. (Gold1995,25)
Others,of course,mayhave developeda hardenedview of theworldas a

resultof theirsufferings,but Kupfer,instead,empatheticallycould relate
to the suffering of animals. Gold also notes that a group of Warsaw
ghettosurvivorsformedtheTivall companyin Israel. It was foundedin
theKubbutzLochene Hagetaot (whichmeans"survivorsof theghetto").
The founders"came to believethatthe animal marketand abattoirwere
uncomfortably reminiscentof theirown experience"(Gold 1995, 25).
These survivors,too, weremoved by an extraordinary empathyfornon-
humanswho sufferunderroutineformsof exploitation.We know that
theseJewsmaketheanalogywithutterseriousness,and thatthey,at least,
in no way feelslightedby the comparison.Still,we need to examinethe
comparisonforadequacy.Have thesesurvivorsdevelopeda formof false
consciousness - or not?
I myselftake the comparisonveryseriously.I am a child of a Holo-
caust survivor.My familyon myfather'sside,in a verydarkhourin 1939,
had good enoughsenseto fleethetownof Zamosc, in easternPoland,lit-
erallyjust as?it was being bombed by Nazi planes. They knew thatthis
latest wave of anti-Semitism was in deadly earnest.My father'ssister
recountsholdingmyfather'shand,whenhe was littlemorethana toddler,
runningwithdesperatespeed througha fieldto fleefromtheexplosions.
They leftvirtuallyeverything behindas theyran into the woods. Many
relativeswere also left behind. They are presumed lost. My father's
father'sbrotherwas veryexceptionalin that he was taken captiveto a
concentrationcamp, and thenescaped, afterbeingmistakenlypresumed
dead undera pile of corpses.The flightof myfather'sfamilywas notfrom
any sortof paradise,either,sincethefamily'ssmallgrocerystorewas said
mm^^ 99

to have been boycottedby Poles out of growinganti-Semitic hatred.My
grandfather had to rely more and more on his custom-tailoring in order
to eke out a livingforhis family.Needlessto say,I contemplatetheHolo-
caust itselfwiththeutmostgravity. Certainly,it has had and willcontinue
to have verysignificant implicationsforbothme and myfamily.I would
neverlightlycomparetheHolocaust to anythingelse,and will always be
respectful thatthereis,and nevercould be,anythingelse quitelikeit.Even
if anythingcan be comparedto the Holocaust in some respects,nothing
can be equated withthishistoricalphenomenon.
I am deliberatelykeeping the sense of "animal liberation"broad,
because negativelycriticizingthe comparisonin question is presumably
said to countagainstany varietyof such liberationism: whetherbased in
the works of Singer,Regan, Rollin, Sapontzis,Pluhar,certainethicsof
care feminists,and so forth(Singer 1990; Regan 1983; Rollin 1992;
Sapontzis 1987; Pluhar 1995; Donovan and Adams 1996). I will also
keep thesenseof "oppression"broad,sincetheauthorswho are objected
to, and also the objectors,may have different notionsof discriminatory
oppression, particular."Speciesism" alleged to be a formof unjust
in is
discrimination on the basis of speciesmembership, or perhapscharacter-
istics associated with a given species, such as rationality,autonomy,
languageusage,and so forth.These characteristics are said, byanimallib-
erationists,to be just as morallyarbitraryand irrelevantas skin color.
However,whetheror not such attributesare morallyrelevantis not at
issue in thispaper.All that is needed here is a sufficiently broad under-
of
standing discriminatory oppression, forthe purpose of thisanalysis.It
seemsfairto say thatdiscriminatory oppression involves a willingnessto
harma givenclass of beings,on the basis thatthose individualsare dif-
ferentin some specified way. Some anti-oppressiontheoristsmight
indicatethattheharmcan be of any sort,althoughnot all formsof harm
need be equally severe.Othersmightspecifyonlycertainkindsof harm,
including,but not only,insultsto autonomy,freedom,or perhaps the
inflictionof unnecessarysuffering. However thatmay be, it is sufficient
to distinguishthat discriminatory oppressioninvolvesharm- however
specified- on the basis of an allegedlyirrelevantcriterion.
My own comparison will deal especiallywith how Holocaust-era
JewsweretreatedbyNazis, on theone hand,and how animalsare treated
in modern-dayintensiveconfinement, mass slaughter, burgeoninganimal
100 ElilS^TOEiNVIRONMENX 11(1)2006

experimentation industries, and so on,on theotherhand.Although the
comparison is hardly thesamein everydetail,nonetheless, theconceptof
oppression as suchcan intelligibly be appliedaliketo bothcases.Reality
is composedof details,so a specificcomparison seemsto recommend
itself,
although I do not see how it would be possibleto makeanysdrtof
"exhaustive"cross-comparative analysis, even to understandthe
or
meaning of $uch a term in this context. An illustrativeportrait on both
sidesofthecomparison willhaveto suffice.
After myownanalysis, whichaboveall seeksto conveya senseofthe
manydifferent aspectsthatcan be compared, I willdulyask,in particu-
lar,whether thatcomparison: (a) is a moraloffense againstvictims ofthe
Holocaustaiid humanity in general;(b) trivializes theoverwhelming sig-
nificance oftheHolocaust;(c) obliterates important differencesbetween
Holocaustvictims andanimals;(d) ignorestheallegation thatitis animal
rightsproponents, rather,who can be saidto be Nazi-likeintheirpromo-
of
tion vegetarianism, anti-vivisection, and use of propaganda. The first
objection is mostimportant, andhasledto fever-pitched emotions on vir-
tuallyall sidesofthedebate.Ratherthantreadon suchterritory, people
havechosento allow thematterto remainremarkably underdiscufcsed.
Somewouldhaveit thatpeopleshouldnotfeelfreeto speakaboutthe
comparison eventhough, as I substantiate, thecomparison can be ntade.
II. THE COMPARATIVE LITERATURE

Thereis a paucityofsystematic, point-by-pointcomparisons between
animalliberation andtheHolocaust.Evena recentbookbyCharlesPat-
terson,EtertialTreblinka, (Patterson 2002) does not simplyinvestigate
how manypointsof comparisoncan be made. Nor does it directly
respondto manyobjectionsthathave beenmade againstoffering the
comparison. It is a valuablebook, butis oftenindirectin its approach,
offeringa cotitextualized studyofoppression throughout history, suchas
thatfacedbyblackAfricans, IndiansmassacredbytheSpanish,a study
ofeugenics, a studyofChicagoslaughter and howtheyinspired
practices
Jewishslaughter. He also offers of
a biography Jewish activistswhohave
backgrounds relatedto theHolocaust,and biographies also of German
animalrightsactivists who livedthrough Nazi Germany. Most of the
comparison focuses on how animals are slaughteredforfood, withinci-
dentalmentibns of howJewswereexperimented upon by Nazi doctors.

PeterSinger, in AnimalLiberation, offers a moreextensive discussionof
how theNazi experiments are likeexperiments doneon animals.How-
ever,Patterson's book is well-documented, and ground-breaking fora
book-length focuson whathas beenconsidered a "taboo"topic.
As well,thereis no shortage, in theanimalliberationist of
literature,
haunting references to theGermangenocidalcampaignagainstthejews
andothers, including, butnotonly,gays,gypsies, thementally challenged,
and politicalobjectors. Animalliberationist writersin generalmakeuse
ofthecomparison. MichaelW.Fox,forexample,refers to "theholocaust
of theanimalkingdom"(Fox 1990,242). TomRegan,self-conscious of
thegravity ofmakingthecomparison, whichoffends manypeople,asks:
"Do we dareto speakofa Holocaustfortheanimals?Maywe depictthe
horror theymustendure,usingthisfearful imageofwantoninhumanity,
without desecratingthememory ofthoseinnocents whodiedinthedeath
camps?"(Regan1987, 76-77). He replies to this rhetorical questionin
theaffirmative, citingyet a different I. B. Singerquote than that whichI
reproduced above: "for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka" (Regan
1987,76-77). (Obviouslythislastquotationwas theinspiration forPat-
terson's booktitle.)Sue Coe,whoauthored a bookwhichfeatures artistic
depictionsof what she viewed in slaughterhouses and stockyards
throughout NorthAmerica, also comparesthistreatment of animalsto
theHolocaust(Coe 1995,72-73).JimMason,oneoftheearlyexpositors
of thefactsconcerning "factory farming" (whichhe chiefly drewfrom
trade
agricultural journals), writes that to "a growing number ofpeople,
of
[ourway dominating both nature and each other] looks likea global
suicidecoursewitha nonhuman holocaustthrown in forgoodmeasure"
(Mason 1993,48).
It seemsthattheparticular practices whichmostinvitethiscontro-
versial comparisonare the oppressionof animals in laboratory
experiments, intensive farming, and theso-called"pet"industries. I will
discusstheseareasofpracticein theorderjustgiven.Gold lamentsthat
"GermanNazi doctorsconsidered Jews,gypsies, communists and men-
tallyhandicapped people as suitable for
subjects painfulexperimentation
inmuchthesamewayas animalsareusednow"(Gold 1995,37). Debo-
rahBlumreflects on theuse of monkeys and otheranimalsin research.
Shecitesa relevant comment fromRogerFouts,a researcher ofprimates
whois knownforhisworkwithchimpanzees who speakthrough Amer-
102 ETHIC»^WrBffvili)NMENX 11(1)2006

ican Sign Language,and also advocacy forprotectionsforprimates.He
notesthepracticeof not identifying by name themillionsof animalsused
in experimentalresearcheveryyear.Rather,numbersare displayedon
tags around the neck,or are tatooed onto the skin.StatesFouts: "With-
out names, they become faceless, lose their identity.It's extreme
exploitation,the same as in the labs of Nazi Germany"(Fouts in Blum
1994, 6). Even thoughthe animals themselvesmightretainsome shat-
teredformotfidentity, animal liberationistswould say that it is certain
that the researchersin question do not deeplyidentifywith the experi-
mentalsubjectsin any meaningfulsense.
Certainly, too, therationaleforusinganimalsin laboratoriesis com-
parable to that which was used for subjectingJews and others to
"scientific"experimentation. As RichardRydernotes,Nazis, like animal
experimenters, also pointed the many potentialbenefitsthat might
to
resultfromthe knowledgegained by such research(Ryder 1991, 40).
However,as Lawrenceand Susan Finsenwarn,"we do notrejecttheNazi
experimentson unwillingconcentrationcamp victimsas a model for
procuringfutureexperimentalsubjectssolely because the Nazi experi-
mentswerescientifically unsound"(Finsenand Finsen1994, 279). In fact,
it is quite conceivablethatscientifically,
manyobjectively-based medical
benefitscould resultfromruthlessinvestigations with human prisoners
(whichwould not have the disadvantageof profoundlydifferent results
in nonhumanspecies).For a discussionof thedifficulties of cross-species
comparisonsin medicalresearchsee RobertSharpe'sexcellentbook, The
Cruel Deception (1988). In any case, the quest forknowledgeis not the
sum total of the rationalefortreatingJews,and others,in thishorrific
manner.Also,"Nazi doctorsdid practicevivisectionon Slavs [and others]
partlyon the theorytheywere like animals . . ." (Watson 1992, 110). In
otherwords,theNazis objectifiedtheirvictimsin theway thatnonhuman
animalsare oftenconceived,
Singer notes how widespread was experimentationon the Nazis'
humanprisoners,and how no Germanscientistsutteredeven a mutmur
of protest,perhapsfromfearof thedeadlyretribution of theNazi jugger-
naut:
UndertheNazi regimein Germany,nearlytwo hundreddoctors,some
of thememinentin theworldof medicine,took partin experiments on
Jewsand iRussianand Polishprisoners.Thousands of otherphysicians

knewoftheseexperiments, someofwhichwerethesubjectoflectures
at medicalacademies.Yet the recordsshow thatthe doctorssat
throughverbalreportsby doctorson how horribleinjurieswere
inflicted to discussthemed-
on these'lesserraces,'andthenproceeded
ical lessonsto be learnedfromthem,withoutanyonemakingevena
mildprotest aboutthenatureoftheexperiments. (Singer1990,83)
Again,theNazisviewedtheirhumanprisoners all too muchlikeobjects,
thusseekingto eliminate
anyconceivabilityofidentifyingwiththem.We
in thedispassionate
see thisreflected languageof Nazi decompression
experiments on nonhuman
(whichare stillpracticed animals):
Afterfiveminutesspasmsappeared;betweenthe sixthand tenth
minute increased
respiration in frequency,
theTP [testperson]losing
Fromtheeleventh
consciousness. minuterespiration
to thethirtieth
sloweddownto threeinhalations perminute,onlyto ceaseentirelyat
theendofthatperiod.. . . Abouthalfan hourafterbreathing
ceased,
an autopsywas begun.(Singer1990,84-85)
The samesortofindifferent ofanimal
languageis usedforthedetailing
experiments, many of which involveextremes of suffering, arepub-
and
lishedinlearnedjournals.
Singeris careful
to qualifythecomparison henorI wish
here.Neither
to implythatordinary people,today,arejustlikeNazis:
[O]ursphereofmoralconcern is widerthanthatoftheNazis,andwe
areno longerpreparedto countenance a lesserdegreeofconcernfor
otherhumanbeings;buttherearestillmanysentient beingsforwhom
we appearto haveno realconcernat all. (Singer1990,84-85)
Whenhe claimsthatmanyhaveno "real"concernforanimalsat all,we
mayinterpret thathemeansnoadequateformofdirectconcern. Afterall,
thosewho would use animalsforvariousstandardpurposesmaystill
express"realconcern" thatcertainkindsofaggravated forms ofsuffering
notoccur,Nonhuman animalsarealso indirectly or
caredforas property,
as entities
thatpeopleaffectionately
orotherwise careabout,suchas pets,
charismatic
zoologicalcuriosities, speciesmembers, "practicingdum-
mies"fordeveloping moralvirtues,and so on. Muchmoreto thepoint,
somedirectmoralconcernformanyanimals,and notjustapes and dol-
phins,maybe accorded - althoughto a lesserdegree - by peoplewho
holda human-centred ethic.In anycase,followingformeranimalexper-
104 BffllJSlS?™

imenterDon Barnes,Singercalls bothNazis and animalexperimenters
ofconditioned
"victims ethicalblindness"
(Singer1987,42).
As forintensivefarming, Mason drawsan evocativecomparison
thathe madein Dubuque,Iowa:
basedon observations
Everyfewmiles,[alongU.S.route20] theroadis shrouded ina breath-
rancidsmellfromsomenearbyanimalfactory.
stopping, It is a sickly,
deathlysmell(ifyouhavebeenaroundhealthy animalsfedon hayor
pastureyou knowthedifference), likethesmellof a concentration
camp.Which,of course,thefactory farmquiteliterally is, becauseit
a largenumber
concentrates ofanimalsindoorsandfeedsthema steady
dietof grainconcentrates(theagribusinesswordforcom,soybeans,
andenergy-richseedpartsofotherplants).In addition,
itis a factoryin
whichenergy andnutrients fromthesunand soilareconcentrated by
animalsandturned intomeat,milk,andeggs.(Mason1993,118-119)
He calls"factory
farms" literal
concentration camps,whicharecompara-
ble to Nazi concentrationcamps. Mason is not alone in his modeof
viewingtheselarge-scale In an interview,
facilities. IngridNewkirk,co-
founderof People for the EthicalTreatment of Animals(the largest
animalrightsgroupin theworld,withmorethanhalfa millionmem-
bers),recountsthefollowing:
Thememories ofoneMaryland chicken willalwaysbe
slaughterhouse
withme. It was summer, 90 degreeheat,humid,no shade,and the
chickenswerein stackedcrates.As we walkedin,we werebreathing
thepalpablestenchof warm,dyingbodies.It soakedthroughour
clothesandskin.We tooksomebirdsoutofthecrates,andtheytried
to drinkmeltingicefromourhands.Theyweretooweakto keeptheir
headsup.Theywouldhavestayedthereuntilthenextmorning, dying
ofheatprostration,respiratory andso on.Wemadethesecurity
failure
guardscall inthemanager to finishthemoff.It'stheclosestI've ever
beentoAuschwitz. (Newkirk in Schleifer
1985,63)
Anyonewho has seenfilmsof theemaciatedbodiesof starving, heat-

frozen,
stroked, or otherwise traumatized
physically victimsofconcentra-
tioncamps,in Nazi Europe,shouldbe able to relateto theimagery that
Newkirk us here.Hence,Sapontzis
offers concurs thatmuch ofourttreat-
mentof animals"resembles thatwhichhas facedthosewho liberated
campvictims
concentration and otherhumanvictims of severephysical
andpsychologicaldeprivationand abuse. . ." (Sapontzis1987,86).
-]j^^^ 105

Let us now briefly considerthe "science"of factoryfarming: an
to
attempt perfect, or to make more the
efficient, old waysof animal hus-
bandry.The Nazis, for theirpart,were obsessedwithperfectionism,
and utilizing
efficiency, technology towardstheseends.Unrestrained sci-
entificpursuits certainlyhavetheircritics in animalliberationistquarters,
including BrigidBrophy:"Sometimes we are eventoldwe mustn't resist
[factoryfarming] because it is an 'advanced' method - a theoryon which
we oughtto havewelcomedAuschwitz as a greatstepforwardin gas
technology" (Brophy inWynne-Tyson 1989,29).
Our treatment ofso-called"petanimals"also reminds variouscom-
of a
mentators timenottoo longago.A particular raidon a dogdealeris
described in justtheseterms.A 1966 raidbytheMarylandStatePolice
on a dog dealer'sfacilitieswas described byLifemagazinewiththecap-
tion,"Concentration CampforDogs."The dealercollectedstraydogsin
orderto supplyanimalresearchlaboratories, bothuniversity-based and
pharmaceutical (Jasperand Nelkin 1992, 61). Note that theevent just
relatedtook place fouryearsbeforethe term"speciesism"was even
invented byRichardD. Ryder(1998, 320). One does notneedto coina
speciallabelfortheoppression ofanimalsin orderto drawrelevant par-
allelshere.
Eventhelanguagethatis oftenusedin reference to "petoverpopula-
tion"mayseekto blamethevictim, as Rollinimplieswiththefollowing:
In actuality,
talking aboutthe'petproblem'is another pieceofverbal
lubrication,
legerdemain thatserves to suggestthathereis something
intrinsically
problematic aboutthesecreatures, as whentheGermans
spokeofthe'Jewish question.'The problemis notwiththedogsand
cats,ofcourse;itis withhumanbeings.(Rollin1992,216)
Mason providesan exampleofthe"pettrade"whichmayremindus of
theNazis' obsessivedriveforthe"perfect"
breedof humanbeing.The
authorand lawyernoteshowanimalbreeders refer
to "purity"
ofblood,
perfectpurebreds,and how theyexpresscontemptformongrelsand
whoarelabeled"junk"bypure-breeders:
mutts,
[Racisthatred]drawson the breeder'sideologiesof bloodlineand
purity,as it did in Nazi Germany
and thesegregated
South;as it still
doestodayamongneo-Nazisand whitesupremacists. The rhetoric of
all theseracistsspeaksofthebreeder's andtheextremity
obsessions, of
theiractionsspeaksof thedepthof theirfearand hatredof 'lower'
106 EIHICS^^

nature:TheNazisrantedagainstJews,gypsies,Poles,andother'mon-
grelraces*and thenmethodicallytried
to exterminatethem.Southern
segregationists
preachedagainst'racemixing'andusedlynchings,
mob
campaignsto keep peopleof color'in their
violence,and terrorist
place.'(Mason1993,218-219)
Discriminatory oppressionhas a commonelementof favoritism. Certain
kindsof beingsare preferredeven more in theirallegedly"pure" form.
Prejudicialfavoringof human over notihumanbeingsleads to formsof
exploitation,degradation,and horrorthatcan arguablybe comparedto
theHolocaust. J.M. Coetzee also likenswhat occurs to animalsin labo-
ratoriesand factoryfarmsto whatJewsenduredin concentration camps,
and comparesthose who live near such facilitieswithordinaryGermans
who livednearthecamps (Coetzee 1999, 19-22). Whileisolatedsketches
serveto hintat thiscomparison,I wish to show thatan intel-
effectively
ligiblecomparisoncan be made in many different aspects betweenthe
Holocaust and animal treatment.
III. THE HOLOCAUST COMPARED TO OUR TREATMENT

OF ANIMALS
How mightan animalliberationist make thecomparisonthatcan be
made, if we dare to do so? We shall make a systematiccomparison,in
termsof comparable(A) degradationsand destructions, (B) apparatusfor
of
theimplementing these,(C) forms of agencyinvolved,and (D) associ-
ated worldviews and discourse.The aspects of the comparisonstand on
theirown, but especiallyin concert,wherethe large numbersof overlap
suggesta strongpatternof similarity. However,comparingand contrast-
ing differentthings is in order,otherwisethey would not be truly
different.
A. Comparable Degradations and Destructions

1. Vivisection.Scientistsoftentendto regardanimalsas objects,and
thisparallelsitheobjectifying as in Singer's
languageof theNazi scientists,
example.Such a mannerof speech
earlier-cited conduced to the usingnot
onlyof animals,but also Jews,in medical experimentation, as we see in
thefollowingexampleofferedby Hitler'sbiographer, Alan Bullock:
Amongtheotherusestowhichconcentration-camp wereput
prisoners
byS.S. doc-
formedicalexperiments
was to serveas therawmaterial
me^J^ Tl|£ HOLOCAUST 107

tors.None of thepost-wartrialsproducedmoremacabreevidence
thanat theso-called'Doctors'Trial.All theexperiments werecon-
ductedwithoutanaesthetics or theslightestattentionto thevictims'
Amongsttheordealsto whichtheyweresubjectedwere
sufferings.
intense
airpressureandintense lungsburstor
colduntilthe'patient's'
hefrozeto death;theinfliction
ofgasgangrene wounds;injectionwith
typhusandjaundice;experiments withbonegrafting;anda largenum-
berof investigationsof sterilization
(for'racialhygiene'),
including
castration
andabortion. According a Czechdoctorwhowas a pris-
to
onerat Dachau and whopersonally performed someseventhousand
theusualresults
autopsies, ofsuchexperiments weredeath,permanent
andmentalderangement.
crippling, (Bullock1962,700)
Justas manyscientificexperiments carriedout on nonhumananimalsare
done out of curiosity,
withoutany practicalbenefitsin mind,so useless
experimentswere visitedupon people who were considereddisposable,
forexample,gypsieswere testedto see how long theycould live on sea
water(Shirer1960, 1275). Even aside fromtheabhorrentnatureof such
a procedure,it was alreadywell known that sea wateris nevera viable
optionforsatisfying humanthirst.
2. Genetic engineering.A Nazi obsession with geneticengineering

and eugenics mirrors the way nonhuman animals are extensively
exploitedfor such purposes now, along withthe relatedobsession con-
cerningthe findingof "pure breeds."Currently, thereis an interestin
experimenting withanimal genesformedical purposes,and also forthe
end of producingmore usefulspecies of animals. For example,farmers
dream of enormousmeat animals that can betterendureintensive,dis-
ease-riddenfarmingconditions,althoughthe random and unpredictable
injectionof genes of currentexperimentsoftenresultsin disfunctional,
painfullydeformed,mutatedlifeforms(Rifkin1998; Fox 1999; Rollin
1995).
3. "Vermin."Jewswere exterminated fromEurope,even as so-called

"vermin"animals,in general,are theobjectof humanlethality.
For exam-
ple, Hitler refersto Jewsas "maggots,""scum," among otherthings,in
Mein Kampf (Hitler in Shirer1960, 47-48). A school essay printedin
readers' lettersto Der Stuermer,January1935, also bringsthis point
home.The letterstates:"Unfortunately,manypeople todaystillsay,'God
~~"™~
108 EIHK^^

createdthejews too.Thatis whyyoumustrespectthemalso.' We say,
however,'Vermin them'" (Schoen-
are also animals,butwe stilldestroy
berner1985,10).
4. Hunting.Refugees werehunteddownbyheavilyarmedNazis,or
just animalsare preyeduponbypeoplewho are
theircollaborators, as
unfairlyarmed with lures,automaticweapons,and more.Kuperasks,
"Who wouldhavebelievedthathumanbeingswouldsendout mobile
killingunitsfortheslaughter of unarmedmen,womenand children in
distantlands?"(Kuper1981, 121). Here we can drawcertain
parallels
withsafaris,
although thelatterseemcasualandleisurely
bycontrast.
Yet,
whois to say howracistkillersviewedtheir"duties,"or howobsessive
trophy huntersregardtheirkills?Whatever the
theviewsofthehunters,
consequences forthehunted is,very devastation.
often,
5. Skinning.SomeJews'skinswerepreserved bytheNazis,forexam-
ple,to be used animals
forlampshades(Shirer1960, 1280). Obviously,
arethemselves skinned and leather.
forfurs,feathers,
andusedas pillowstuff-
6. Hair.ThehairofmanyJewswascollected
ing,and many animals' down,
including
parts, lanolin,and so on, are
usedincomparable ways.
7. Tallow.TheJews'remains weresometimesmelteddownas tallow,

to be usedas soap,and thisis trueoftheremainsofnonhuman animals.
My father, in a German camp
refugee-relocation the
after war,recallsthe
local discovery of a crateof soap barsmadefrom humanremains. The
refugees buriedthecontainer byperforming ritesforthedead.
Jewish
8. Partsusedor "wasted."Jews'teethwereminedforgold.Goldfill-
ings,and othervaluableobjects,suchas weddingrings,weretakenfrom
Jews,and weresupposedto be deliveredto the GermanReichsbank.
"Whowouldhavebelievedthathumanbeings. . . werecapableoforgan-
izing,on themodelof a modernindustrial plant,killingcentreswhich
processed theirvictims
forslaughter,as ifon a conveyorbelt;eliminated
waste,gatheredin, withcarefulinventory, theirfewpossessions, their
clothes,goldteeth,women'shair,and regulated thedistributionof these
~2^^ 109

relics?"(Kuper1981, 121). Similarly,
anyanimalpartsof valueare not
- or
generally "ideally" - discarded in andrendering
slaughtering houses.
Atthesametime,thereis also arguablymuch"waste"ofremains, from
thepointsof viewof Nazis and animalexploiters, on both
respectively,
sidesofthecomparison. Forexample,seal penisesand otherwildanimal
parts,suchas rhinoceros horns,and thetusksof elephants, are often
hackedoff,and therestofthebodyis leftto rotwhereit was felled.
9. Slavelabor.Jewswereenlistedforslavelabor,evenas manyani-
malsareforciblypressedintotheserviceofhumans,as incarthorses.
10. Entertainment.
A selection
ofJewswerecoercedintoentertaining
theirtormentors,
justas manyanimalsarenowcompelled toperform for
humanamusement withunnaturalbehaviors inducedby negativerein-
forcements (youcan be surethatcircuselephants
do notenjoystanding
on theirheads,and thatmanyabusesoftheseand otheranimals,includ-
ingin aquariawhichkeepsea mammals, havebeenwelldocumented).
11. Displacementfromhomes.Jewsweresystematically expelled

fromurbansettings, and ruralareasevenas nonhuman
villages, animals
are typically
madeunwelcome in our cities,or are otherwise
especially
excludedfromtheirownhabitatswhentheycomeintoapparentconflict
withourown:
'Resettlement'was a constantlyrecurringprocedure.As the latest
ghettowas established,thefirstones werealreadybeingbrokenup and
combinedin the next,largertown of the district,untilfinallythe last
journeybegan.At thetimewhentheghettosin the big townswerestill
temporarilyin existence,in the countrywhole Jewishcommunities
were already being transportedto the death camps. (Schoenberner
1985,46)
12. Nowhereto go. Jewswho fledGermanyby boat wereoften
turnedawaybyothercountries, justas animalrefugees
are oftenadrift,
in needofa home,butaredeniedshelter, andsustenance
habitat, evenby
affluenthumans, or their which
societies, holdthat have
theyinvariably
muchhigher priorities.
13. Concentration
and degradation.
Therewas crowding,
confine-
110 J^^^

meat,rampantdiseases,and filthy conditionsin concentrationcamps.For
example,at Krupp armamentfactories,enslavedJewswere oftenforced
to go to workwithoutshoes,medicalcare,witha lack of test,food,Water,
and with filthylavatories(Shirer1960, 1238). This treatmentparallels
how many animals are treatedin factoryfarms,and so-called "puppy
mills,"operatedbyruthlessbreederswho raisesicklyanimalsunderwoe-
fulconditionsof deprivationand squalor.
14. Separatingparentsfrom offspring.One of the most poignant

imagesfrom* Holocaust historyis thatof a Nazi doctor,such as Dr. Josef
Mengele,standingbeforea seeminglyunendingcolumnof people,usher-
ing some to the left,and some to the right.He had no explanationto
thosestaggering beforehim,just arrivedfromthecattlecars.However,he
did mandatedeathby shooting,gassing,or cremationforone group,and
slave labor untilphysicalexhaustionand death fortherest(Shirer1960,
1260). Childrenwere not allowed to stay in Germancamps, except in
ghettos(Goldhagen 1997, 308). The significance of tearingparentsfrom
childrenin this murderousway cannot be overestimated.Male dairy
calves, for theirpart,are sent offto auction a day old, barelyable to
stand, with part of the umbilicalchord still attached (Robbins 1987,
112). Ifit is doubtedthatanimalsare attachedto theiroffspring, conisider
thestatementby Dr.JackAlbright, Professorof AnimalScienceat Purdue
University, aindconsultantto the veal industry, which argues that it is
to
importantthatcalves not be allowed bond with theirmothers.Other-
wise, "the cow will cause a greatdeal of troubleand even tryto break
down fencesto be withher calves" (Robbins 1987, 114).
15. Death bystarvation.Jewsof theHolocaust wereoftenallowed to

starveto death undervaryingcircumstances, as are animals in various
experiments*or on thetraplines.
16. Voicelessnessand disenfranchisement. Animals as victimsare

often"voiceless,"withlittleor no attemptby othersto advocate on their
theJews,fortheirpart,were oftensilenced,ignored,
behalf.Historically,
and disenfranchised.
17. Mass graves. AfterJews were killed,theirremainswere com-

monlyinterredin masstrenches(Bullock1962,702). Thismirrors,in a
the
sense, purely pragmaticconcernforthe of
disposal nonhuman animal
remains.Animalremains plants,or aretreated
areoftensentto rendering
as garbage.On minkfarms,killedminkare fedto thoseminkwho still
live.
18. Seemingly
unending numbers. It maybe suggested thatunimag-
inablylarge numbers of violated,
suffering, and murdered beingsare
involvedbothintheNazi Holocaustandwhatis visiteduponnonhuman
animals.The overwhelming numbers involvedin theHolocaustinclude
an estimated6 milliondeadJews,outof 8.3 millionwhostayedin Ger-
man-occupied Europeafter1939 (Kuper1981,124).In otherterms, 72%
of theJewsof Europewerewipedout.ThismakestheNazi genocidal
campaign "successful."
dangerously Literallybillionsofanimalsarekilled
each yearforthe sake of humanenjoyment and convenience alone,
although theexacttollis notknown, for lack ofpreciserecord-keeping.
19. Genocide.Hitleraimedfora genocideof theJews.Humans,

through hunting, andhabitatdestruction
capturing, havealreadyensured
de factogenocidesofcountlessspeciesofanimalsaroundtheworld.Con-
siderthata 1999WorldWildlife Fundreport an estimate
presents thatthe
worldhas lost30% ofitsbiodiversity in thespanofa generation,
1970
to 1995 (Wood,Stedman-Edwards, and Mang2000, 2). It is impossible
to imagineor to conceivehowmanyformsofspecieslifehavebeenlost
to theworld,and howmanymorewillbe consumedas a resultofunfet-
teredhumangrowth on thisplanet.
B. ComparableApparatus
20. Secrecy.
The Holocaustwas keptverysecret,and thismaywell
remind oneofthehighsecurityandexclusionofpublicscrutiny concern-
and animallaboratories,
ing slaughterhouses where,arguably,someof
society'smostsystematic againstanimalsoccur.
and heinousinjustices
21. Namelessness.
Nonhumananimalsand Jewscaughtin thecon-
centrationcampsystemoftenremainnameless, in orderto maintaina
distancefromtheobjectsofexploitationand/ordestruction:
TheGermans almostnevertookpainstolearnthenamesofa camp's
inAuschwitz,
inmates; theydenied
theveryexistenceofa prisoner's
112 imS

name- thismarkofhumanity - tattooing
eachwitha number which,
withtheexception ofsomeprivileged was theonlyidentify-
prisoners,
inglabelusedbythecamp'sstaff.InAuschwitz,
therewereno Moshes,
withnumbers
Ivans,or Lechs,butonlyprisoners like10431or69771.
(Goldhagea1997,176)
Goldhagen theorizesthat"[dehumanizing eachpersonbyrobbinghimof
hisindividuality,
byrendering each,to theGerman but
eye, anotherbody
mass,was but thefirststeptowardsfashioning
in an undiffenentiated
" oftheJews.
their'subhumans,' (176) whichis howtheNazisconceived
toempathize
Itis harder witha nameless personthanonewitha definite,
individual
particular whomonecan moreeasilysingleoutand relateto.
Animalexploitation
22. Bureaucratization. is now so institutional-
izedthatit has longbeensubstantially forthepurposes
bureaucratized,
of state and
regulation,
sanctioning, themanagement resources.
of The
Nazi massmurders, fortheir
part,embodied an almost Kafkaesque spec-
Leo Kuper observesthat "to use bureaucratic
tacle of bureaucracy.
planningand procedures fora massiveoperationofsys-
and regulation
tematicmurderthroughouta whole continentspeaks of almost
inconceivablyprofound dehumanization"(Kuper1981,120). Therewas
ftomthevictims,
a distancing anda concern,instead,forprocedures,and
thelanguagein whichtheywereto be formulated:
Thoughengagedin massmurder on a gigantic scale,thisvastbureau-
craticapparatusshowedconcernforcorrectbureaucratic procedure,
fortheminutiae
of precisedefinition,
fortheniceties of bureaucratic
and forcompliance
regulation,' withthelaw.The law was,of course,
butan instrument
no obstacle, ofpolicy.. . . (Kuper1981,120)
23. Quietcomplicity intheeducation system.TheNazification ofthe

educationsystemwas virtually complete,and it is noteworthy that,
although thetreatment ofanimalsis a vitaltopicto debate,itis generally
notpartofthepublicschoolcurriculum. Out ofsight,outofmind-^one
might say that is
thus a formof oppression kept"invisible."
24.A mockery ofjustice.TheNazishad"KangarooCourts," andani-

mal rightsactivistssometimes protestthat theyare often broughtup
underfalseor trumped-up chargesfortheiractsofprotestagainstaspects
ofthesocialorderwhichsupportanimaloppression (Montgomery 2000,
29-36). Also,animalsareoftentreatedin exceedinglycruelwaysthatgo
"751^^ 113

unpunished- I speakherenotonlyof sadistsbut,forexample,thebil-
lionsofanimalswholanguishon factoryfarms.
25. Efficiencyofkilling.The Nazis switched to gassingtheirvictims

ofgenocide, becausebulletsweredeemedto be too valuableand expen-
sive (theyused ZyklonB, made fromprussicacid crystals)(Litvinoff
1988,360). Moreover, "[f]ora timetherewas quitea bitofrivalry among
theS.S. leadersas to whichwas themostefficient gas to speedtheJews
to theirdeath.Speedwas an important factor,especially at Auschwitz,
wheretowardtheendthecampwas setting newrecordsbygassing6,000
victimsa day"(Shirer1960,1260).Kuperrecounts: "Industry'sinfluence
was feltin thegreatemphasisuponaccounting, penny-saving, and sal-
vage,as wellas in thefactory-like ofthekilling
efficiency centres"(Kuper
1981, 121). Similarly, "humaneslaughter" is oftendeniedto animals
becausethemachinations wouldbe too expensive (Singer1990,153).
26. Profiteering. of the Nazis' stealingof Jews'

The lucrativeness
fundsandpillaging
oftheirproperty
compares,in somefashion, withthe
inestimable
profitsmade from animals
exploiting in multifariousways.
27. Cattlecars.Jewsweretransported via "cattle-trucks,"

and then
carson railways,to slaughter
at thedeathcamps.Otherunfortunate peo-
ple were also "resettled"in a like mannerfromthe Warsawghetto
1988,364) and otherlocations.Cattle-cars
(Litvinoff arestilla common
meansoftransporting animalsto killingsites,so thattheymaytherebe
reducedto "meats."In bothcases,thosetransported endure(d)extremes
of exposureto theweather, crowding, filthyconditions, and protracted
periodswithout foodor water.
C. ComparableFormsofAgency
28. Ordinary TheHolocaustwas carriedoutlargely
perpetrators. by
"ordinary" people,even as speciesismis massively
favoredby human
populationsof thepresentday.On July31, 1932, 14 millionordinary
Germans, or 37.4% of voters,buoyedHitlerintotheofficeof Chancel-
lor,as he had thelargestshareofthevotes.On March5, 1933'svote,his
supporters expandedto 17 million,or 43.9% ofthevote,evenafterthe
Communist partywas bannedbytheNazis,and violentintimidation of
114 J^j|^^

theiropposition
becamewidespread
(Goldhagen1997,87).
29. Disowningof responsibility. Thereis frequently a determined

denialof personalresponsibility forthefatesof thevictims. At Nurem-
berg,films allow the many "Nicht [Not
schultig" guilty]pleas of the
prominent Nazis on trialto echo down to us today.(Genocide1981)
Thesemenoftendeniedthattheywereguilty, becausethey"wereonly
followingorders."Peopleoftenevaderesponsibility fortheanimal-based
foodsthattheyput on their even
plates, justbyrefusing trulyto think
aboutit.Instead,theyjustgo alongwiththesocialorder, as theyperceive
it,andletothersdo the"dirty work"- andthethinkings - forthem.Mak-
ingthefalseclaimthatwe needto eatmeatmaysimply serveto disguise
oppressivechoices in thematter.
denythattheHolocaustevertook
30. Deniers. Certainoppressors
place.Bernard Lewiswritesthat the"denialof theHolocaustis ... a
of
favoritetheme pro-Nazi and neo-Nazi propaganda"(Lewis 1986,
162). Manyof thosewhoare sometimes are keento
called"speciesists"
- -
nay-say forperhapsspeciousreasons thatanimalsendureanysignifi-
cant,letaloneextreme, formofoppression(Carruthers1992; Frey1980;
Leahy 1991).
31. Minimizers.The Holocaustis oftenminimized by anti-Semites,

such as claims that therewere Olympic-sized swimmingpoobj at
Auschwitz.For hispart,FrankPerduecalls hisfactory farma "chicken
heaven,"(Robbins1987,52) when an oppositemetaphor mightwellbe
moreapt.Perdue'soperation"processes"6.8 millionbirdsperweek,and
keeps27,000oftheanimalsin shedsthatare 150 yardsin length(Singer
1990,105-106).
32. Conditioned Peopleareconditioned

indifference. to be indifferent
to theanimalsufferingthatis partofournetwork ofsocialinstitutions.
whostandardly
Thisappliesnotleastofall to scientists, use objectifying
languagewithreference to animals.Certainly,the denialof identifying
withvictimsis a patentpartof Nazi For
rhetoric. example,Hans Frank,
Hitler'sGovernor Generalof Poland,toldhiscabinet,in 1940 Cracow:
"Gentlemen,I mustask youto ridyourself ofpity.Wemust
ofall feeling
,__™
115

annihilatetheJews"(Shirer1960,876). Whatbetter waycouldtherebe
to manufacture psychopaths, or to reinforcethat pathology, thanto kill
any chance ofany realidentificationwith potentialvictims,byopenlyand
systematicallydenying such a process?S.S. Captain,JosefKramer, whose
"duty"itwas to exterminate prisoners withgas,was askedabouthisfeel-
ingsregarding his"work":"I had no feelings in carrying outthesethings
becauseI had receivedan orderto killtheeighty inmatesin thewayI
alreadytoldyou.That,by theway,was thewayI was trained"(Shirer
1960,876). Lackofempathy was conscientiously ingrained in Nazi offi-
cers.
Empathy, as we havealreadyseenfromtheexamplesofcertain Holo-
caustsurvivors, can be a lessonwhichone learnsfromtheHolocaust.
GerhardSchoenberner offers thefollowing grimmeditation, oppositea
photographic imageofdead,starved, andincredibly emaciated bodies,lit-
erallystrewn overthegroundsofa deathcamp:
Asyouviewthehistory ofourtime, turnandlookatthepilesofbod-
ies,pausefora shortmoment andimagine thatthispoorresidue of
fleshandbonesis yourfather, yourchild,yourwife, is theoneyou
love.Seeyourself
andthosenearest toyou,towhomyouaredevoted
heartandsoul,thrown nakedintothedirt, tortured,
starving,killed.
(Schoenberner1985,193)
It is leftas an openquestion,forthepurposesof thisstudy,
whetheran
ethicthatencourages respectfulempathywould permitour current
treat-
mentofnonhuman animals.In anyevent,bothJewsoftheNazi eraand
animalstodayareveryfarfromthatideal:theyareoftenquietly excluded
from"politeconversation."
33.A hypocritical
commitment to "humaneness'' Cattleareroutinely
andlegallybrandedbyhotirons,castrated, and birdsarede-
tail-docked,
beakedall withoutanesthesia.
Thismakesa mockery ofmodern practices
whichlawfully claimto avoid "unnecessary suffering."Pattersonnotes
howtheNazis' concernwithhumaneness was limited to findingwaysof
the
killing Jews which were not so stressful
to thekillers,sinceit was
observedthatS.S. gunningdownJewsso thattheyfallintomassgraves
werebecoming mentallydisturbed(Patterson2002, 131-132).
34. Compromising
moralrespectfor"marginal
humans."
Whenrec-

ognizing themoralstatusofnonhuman animalsis injeopardy, thatofso-
called"marginal humans"(e.g.,senile,mentally challenged, or disturbed
peoplewhoareoftencomparably cognitivelylimited) mayalso be imper-
iled. Certainly, the denigrated so-called"races,"species,and marginal
humanswereall victimized inNazi Germany. Itis clearhowNaziswould
respond to what is now known as "the argument frommarginal cases"
(i.e.,roughly, if we give full moral consideration to marginalhumans,
thenwe mustdo likewisewithanimals).In 1939,HitlergaveReichsleiter
PhilipBouhler"theresponsibility of endingbyeuthanasia[sic]theexis-
tencewithinGermany of all mentaldefectives and theincurably sick"
(Litvinoff 198£,334). ByAugust1941 alone,60,000"mentaldefectives"
had beendispatched by "euthanasia"(Litvinoff 1988, 335). The Nazis
endedup killing70,000 recordedcases of peopledeemedto have"life
unworthliving"because of mentalinfirmity or congenitalphysical
defects,although thesekillingswere ended due to widespreadGerman
protests(Goldhagen1997, 119). The same protests werenot madeon
behalfofJews.Thisambivalence about human marginals occursin ani-
malethics, as well.Themostideologically committed advocatevivisecting
humanmarginals thatarecognitively equivalenttoanimals, on utilitarian
grounds, and R. G. Freyis a prominent contemporary exampleof this
idea (Frey1987,89). As in thecase ofthehumanmarginals oftheNazi
era, however, most ordinary people balk at theidea of treatingthesevul-
nerablehumansin thismanner, even if it mightbe moreruthlessly
ideologically consistentto do so.
D. ComparableWorldviews and Discourse

35. Jewsas "animals."The Nazis oftendenigrated theJewsas mere
"animals,"or "subhuman,"and indeed,the Jews themselves often
thai
protested they were treated like mere "animals," or as one would
expectan animalto be treated.A letterbyHolocaustsurvivor ZlataVisy-
atskyaya, who witnessed mass murders states:"like pups,theywere
throwninto cesspools- live children thrown into ditches" (Genocide
1981). Leon Kahnwitnessed, overa graveyard wall,a massatrocity of
rapesand slayingsofJewsin a graveyard. He thought at thetime,"Did-
n'ttheyknowwhattheyweredoing?ThesewerehumanliveslThesewere
people,notanimalsto be slaughtered!" (Genocide1981),RichardQim-
bleby,a BBC correspondent,voiced thefollowingjustaftefthewar:"This

is whattheGermansdid- lettherebe no mistakeaboutit- did deliber-
atelyand slowlyto doctors,authors,lawyers, musicians,to professional
peopleofeverykindwhomtheyturnedintoanimalsbehindthewireof
theircage" (Genocide1981). Elie Wiesel,in his autobiographical
essay,
Night,gives a numberof examples of Nazis callingJews "dogs" (Wiesel
thata beingis "onlyan animal"impliesitbelongsto a
1960,34). Stating
classofbeingswhichmayacceptably be harmed, or allowedto suffer.
In
someinstances, theJewsthemselves feltlike"animals,"in thesenseof
"lower"beings:
In thewagonwherethebreadhadfallen, a realbattlehadbrokenout.
Men threwthemselves on top of eachother,stamping on eachother,
tearingat eachother,bitingeachother. Wildbeastsofprey, withani-
mal hatredin theireyes;an extraordinary had
vitality seizedthem,
sharpening theirteethandnails.(Wiesel1960,102)
Alongthesamelines,Wieseldescribes hisfatherreceiving somehotcof-

fee with "animal gratitude"(Wiesel 1960, 108). Pattersonnotes
comparison of Jewsto animalsat lengthin his book (Patterson 2002,
In
44-48). spite of these
imputationsthathumans are animals as a form
of degradation,in actualfact,humansare animalsin a straightforward,
biologicalsense.Indeed,iftheNazi-eraJewsweretreated in accordwith
animalrights ethics,therecouldnothavebeenanyHolocaust.
36. Demonization. AnimalsandJewsarebothdemonized byoppres-

sorsinelaboratepropaganda andmyth. Goering,on September 10, 1938,
refersto "theeternalmaskof theJewdevil"(Shirer1960, 519). More
generally,Goldhagennotes:"To thelargeextentthatthesubjectof the
Jews was partofthepublicconversation ofsociety,
Germanwriters and
speakers discussedthem in a
overwhelmingly sinister, if not demonic,
light,in theracist,dehumanizing idiomof theday" (Goldhagen1997,
73). Notionsof animalsas "violentbeasts"are commonplace, and the
commonimagery ofthedevilas havinghorns,hooves,a tail,wings,fangs,
serpentine eyes,andso forth,
also unduly thenonhuman
implicates world
in themythologies ofdevilry.
37. Hell. Nazi concentration

camps,intensive
farmingoperations,
animalexperimentationlabs,and other foranimalusage,are all
settings
comparedto "hell" by variouscommentators.Considerthe following

account,fromKuper'sbook, ofAuschwitz,1944. At thetimein question,
HungarianJewswere being killedso quicklythat the "usual" gas oven
processeswere supplementedbypitsin whichthevictimsburnedalive:
The burning had reacheda pitchthatnight.Everychimney was dis-
gorgingflames.Smokeburstfromtheholesandtheditches, swirling,
swayingand coilingaboveourheads.Sparksand cindersblindedus.
Through thescreened fenceofthesecondcrematory we couldsee fig-
ureswithpitchforks the
movingagainst background of theflames.
Theyweremenfromthespecialsquadturning thecorpsesin thepits
and pouringa specialliquidso thattheywouldburnbetter. A rancid
smellofscorched fleshchokedus.Bigtruckspassedus trailing
a smell
ofcorpses.(Kuper1981,123)
Moreover,Elie Wiesel offersthe followinghellishimage,"[Wiesel] had

seen his mother,a belovedlittlesister,and all his familyexcepthis father
disappearintoan oven fedwithlivingcreatures"(Wiesel 1960, 8). These
images may be comparedto the hell imageryin Sue Coe's luridbook of
art, reflectingher impressionsof the realitiesof animal transportand
slaughter(Coe 1995).
38. Inspirationfromthe Bible. Part of the anti-Semitismwhich the

Jewsfaced was motivatedby Christianity (e.g., PeteraddressestheJews
and accuses,in theimmortalwordsof theKingJamesVersion, "Ye are of
yourfatherthedevil,and thelustsof yourfatherwillye do.") (John8:44)
Traditionalattitudesengenderedby theBible- forexample,its notionof
a dominion over animals that will cause them to live in "fear" and
"dread" of humans(Genesis9:2)- also motivatemuchcontemptfornon-
humancreatuires.
Daniel Goldhagen explains

39. Racism and species discrimination.
thattheHolocaustwas onlypossibledue to widespread anti-Semitism,
(Goldhagen1997,9) and it equallycan be said thatwhat maybe called
the"animalholocaust"is onlyconceivable in thecontextofa nearlyall-
speciesism.
pervasive
Thereseems,in short,to be no outright aboutoffering

unintelligibility
many relevantcomparisons of detailbetweenthe Holocaust,and what
consider
animalliberationists to be oppressively treatment
discriminatory
"^^^ 119

ofanimals.It can be contended thatharmful treatmentresults
fromarbi-
trarilyfavoring onegroup(beitraceor species)overanother. Anobvious
questionremainsas to whether harmful discriminationagainstanimals,
in particular,
is arbitrary,
butthatis a distinct questionfromobjecting to
thecomparison perse, and thereforegoes wellbeyond thescope of this
paper.Ifgroundscouldbe adducedto showthatdiscrimination against
nonhumananimalsis fullyjustified, thenpresumably thosegrounds
wouldnotintrinsically makeanyreference to thehistorical
eventknown
as theHolocaust.Allofthepointsofcomparison, bothverbaland non-
verbal,persistno matterwhatviewone takesof theworthof animals,
withperhapsone exception: thechargeof speciesism, and whether it is
Eventhat,however,
justified. can remainin a moremutedform,ifit is
pointedout thatpeople commonlydecryformsof oppressionwhen
examining theHolocaustand also how animalsare commonly treated.
Thatis a matter of sociologicalfact.Why,then,mightanyoneputstock
in objectingto thecomparison itself?Is it notstemming fromcompar-
isons of in-some-ways-similar, and in-some-ways-dissimilar mattersof
fact?It turnsoutthatobjections to thecomparison properarerootedin
at leastfourmajorconsiderations.
IV. OBJECTIONS TO THE COMPARISON

ObjectionA. Makingthecomparison
in questionis a moraloffence
Holocaust
against victims.
ReplytoA. Observers ofthisdebatemightaskwhether animalliber-

ationistscommita moraloffence, in thattheirpositiondirectly leadsto
comparisons betweenhowanimalsaretreated, on theonehand,andhow
Holocaustvictimsweredegradedand destroyed, on theotherhand.It
does notmatterwhether or notthiscomparison is explicitly
acknowl-
edgedby animal liberationists
(as itoftenis),sinceit seemsto be virtually
entailedby theirviews.Is the dignityof Holocaustvictimsunjustly
degradedby animalliberation, or evenundulybroughtintoquestion?
Thisis themostfrequently statedobjectionto thecomparison, and so it
deservessomecarefulattention.
I willfirst
sortoutsomewaysinwhichthisquestionoughtnotto be
answered. We mustnotassumefromthestartthathumandignity is vio-
latedbythecomparison, forthatassumption wouldprecludetheentire
120 ^^wi^S^^^^^THTE^'Sivii^S^

debateas to whether or nottheanimalliberation position?-withall that
-
it entails is morallyoffensive in theway specified. We also mustnot
makeclaimsthatthecomparison is offensive becauseit does notallow
thepreserving ofourmemory ofHolocaustvictims, sincethecomparison,
if anything, cills fora re-examination of theHolocaustin a putatively
non-prejudicial light.Nothingin thecomparison standsin theway of
remembering how humans fell victim to, perpetrated, abetted,or wit-
nessedtheHolocaust.Thoseinterested in comparing and contrasting^ as
any realistmust be,have no interest in what
distorting happened any to
humanbeing.Moreover, we arespeaking ofa possiblemoraloffence, ind
nota criminal offence, so I do notaddressthequestionofwhether a Reli-
giousoffence is involvedin thecomparison, suchas mightbe impliedby
thephrase"desecration ofthememories ofvictims." However, iftherteis
no moraloffence, therecouldbe no religious offence.
In a freesociety, peoplemusthavefreedom of speechand thought,
and thatmeansthatpeople mustbe totallyfreeto be animallibera-
tionists.Ifpeoplewhoare animalliber ationists are to be tolerated- And
theyoughtto be in a liberalsociety, especially given that arguments by
animalliberationists stillawaita convincing answer,ifanyis to be had-
thencomparisons to theHolocaustalso oughtto be tolerated, so longas
theyareoffered as respectfully as possible.Forcomparisons to theHolo-
caustlogically followfroman animalliberationist standpoint. Itwouldbe
and
morally politically offensive, on the contrary,to be intolerant of a
philosophical and ethical position that is well-defended and academically
established.
However, tolerance worksbothways.Animalliberationists musttol-
eratethosepeoplewho rejectanimalliberation, and who consequently
valuehumansfarmorethananimals,and so theymusttolerate, accept,
and respectthatsomepeoplewillbe upsetby thecomparison. Butwe
mustnotbe one-sided in beingconsiderate ofhumanupset,setting aside
just fora moment considering the torments thatanimals inconstestabiy
endureat humanhands.Human-centered thinkers mustacceptthefact
thatanimallilberationists are upsetbyhowanimalsare treated, in ways
thatdemonstirably can be comparedto theHolocaust,and arealso upset
by thefactthatinfringing freedom of thought, freedom of association,
freedom ofspeech,and academicfreedom sometimes arisesindebatesof
comparing animaltreatment to theHolocaust.A certainamountofupset
'
TREATMENT OF ANIMALS AND THE HOLOCAUST
™DAWD*SZTYBEL 121

withthosewho disagreeis partof a liberalcultureof toleration and
of
respect differences, and cannot be used as a grounds to silence any
givensideofan honestdebate.
I also do notdenythatthereare,indeed,offensive waysofcompar-
inganimaltreatment to theHolocaust,although perhapsall ofthesecan
be avoided.For example,consider:(a) statingthattheHolocaustis less
significant thanwhatanimalssuffer, becauseso manymoreanimalsare
killed, or because the discrimination againstanimalsis muchmoreperva-
sive; I believeit is bestto saythat the Holocaustis of theutmostmoral
gravity and of maximal emotional significance, and any comparative
numbers cannotchangethat;(b) makingthecomparison in a waythat
dismisses ordiscounts theuniqueaffective tiesthatsurvivors haveto fam-
ily,friends, andlovedoneswhoperished; thesetiesmaywellbe absentin
relationto animalsused forsocial purposes,althoughthatdoes not
straightforwardly, I hold,affectthequestionofjustice, andmoreover, ani-
malsareoftentornfromtheirownfamilies andsocialbondsthrough our
treatment ofthem;animalsundoubtedly can havedeepsocialties(Mas-
son and McCarthy1995); (c) statingthat,unlikethe ill treatment of
animals,theHolocaustis in thepast,andwe shouldfocusinsteadon the
present and thefuture. Historyremembered is or shouldbe a livelypart
of thepresent. All of theseformsof comparison belittle someaspectof
whathappenedto humansin theHolocaust.
Anyadequateanswerto thechargein questionwouldhaveto show
thereis no moraloffence in termsof(1) beingundulyoffensive to actual
Holocaustsurvivors and supposedly "right-thinking" in
people general,
(2) possiblydistorting or perverting thegeneraland monumental signifi-
canceoftheHolocaust.Thelatteris understood as an abstract consider-
ationwhichgoesbeyondthecontemplation ofindividuals perse.Notice,
too,thatthistestformoraloffensiveness does notraiseawkwardques-
tionsaboutthewelfare ofthedead,focusing, as itdoes,on survivors and
also ongoingmoraland historical significance. We are also concerned not
withwhether anyonehappens to find it offensive, nor even if whether
thatis understandable givenanygivenperson'shistory (thatmayvery
wellbe thecase,butis notrelevant here).Rather, we areconcerned with
whether taking offense is Whether
justifiable. it is justifiable is a moot
point,becausethedebateoveranimalliberation is farfromabsolutely
settled.
RichardWatsongenerally finds"insulting" all comparisons between
122 ^fJJ^^ THE ENVIRONMENT,11(1)2006

human oppressionand the alleged oppressionof nonhumans(Watson
1992, 119). Similarreactionswhich have foundtheirway into printare
expressedin the writingsof Carl Cohen, StevenRose, and Leslie Francis
and Richard Norman,who also findsuch comparisonsto be offensive
(Cohen 1986, 867; Rose in Benton1993, 6; Francisand Norman 1978,
527). However,it comes down to this:extremeformsof harmto animals
are notedhere*, whichappear to be visitedupon thecreaturesjust because
they are different in variouslyspecifiedways. And it is always implied
thatanimalsbeingdifferent entailsa licenseto harmthem,althoughit is
neverexplained,in all of thephilosophicalliterature on animalethics,just
how thatentailmentmightwork.It is rightto at least suspectthatthere
is no linkbetweenbeingdifferent and havinga licenseto harmthosewho
are different, yetsuch a conclusionis always sought:harminganimalsis
standardpractice.It is neveran "insult"to decryan oppressivepractice.
AH thattheliberationists seek to do is to overthrowall oppression- that,
at least,it is not intendedas an "insult"to anyone,but rather, to preserve
whole classes of beingsfromboth egregiousand subtleinsults.It simply
begs the questionto allege thatany insultis beingmade,or thatthereis
any "obscenity"in makingthe comparison.People feel insultedby the
comparisonpartlybecause theyuse "animal" as a termof contempt,to
referto beings'who maybe virtuallyharmedat will,otherwisetheymight
not be so offended.Yet animal liberationists argue that"animal" should
not be a termof contempt,but a termof description,denotinga class of
beingswho should be treatedwithrespect.However,it may be thought
thatthecomparisonmakes too muchof animalsand too littleof human
beings,whichleads to the nextobjection.
ObjectionB. The comparisontrivializestheHolocaust,and all of the

immeasurablesufferingthatits victimslivedthroughand died from.
Replyto B. This objectionworksin tandemwiththefirst,forto triv-

ialize someone's sufferingwould be morally offensive.Francis and
Norman beg the question,repeatedly,in theirclaim that,among other
things,thecomparison"trivializes"what theyconsiderto be "real" liber-
ation movements:
Byequating thecauseofanimalwelfare withgenuine move-
liberation
mentssuchas blackliberation,
women'sliberation, or gayliberation,
Singeron theonehandpresents guisethequitevalid
in an implausible
"oBTOSZirai^^ 123

concernto prevent to animals.At thesametimetheequation
cruelty
has theeffect thoserealliberation
of trivializing movements,putting
themon a levelwithwhatcannotbutappearas a bizarreexaggeration.
Liberationmovements havea character and a degreeofmoralimpor-
tancewhichcannotbe possessedbya movement to prevent to
cruelty
animals.(FrancisandNorman1978,527)
Whileit is truethatthe authorsof thispassage give an argumentagainst
animalshavingmoral standing,I would suggestthatit can accuratelybe
summarizedas simplyapplyingstipulated"social sophistication"criteria
of moralstandingwhichnonhumananimalsdo notpossess,and inferring
fromthisthatwe have a licenseto harmnonhumanson a routinebasis
(again,however,thequestionof moralstandingper se does go beyondthe
bounds of thispaper). To deny that the animal liberationmovementis
"real" or "genuine,"and to call thecomparisona "bizarreexaggeration,"
then,can be said to beg the questionagainstanimal liberationists. More-
over,it is a mischaracterization
to statethatSinger"equates" thedifferent
liberationmovements.He neitherstatesnorimpliesthatthesemovements
are the same, but ratherdistinguishesthem,notingthat animals,unlike
humans,cannotadvocate forthemselves(Singer1990, v). Instead,Singer
analogizes the different causes. To insist that animal liberationlacks
"moral importance"seemsto be nothingmoreor less thana naked asser-
tion of anthropocentrism.
Robert Nozick asserts that animal rights "seems a topic for
cranks.. . . The markof cranksis disproportionateness. It is not merely
thattheydevotegreatenergyto theirissue. . . . They view theissue as far
more importantthan it is, more pressingthan othersthat,in fact,are
moresignificant" (Nozick 1983, 11, 29-30). Sapontzis,in myview,offers
an outstandingrejoinderto any attemptsto belittletheimportanceboth
of what animals,as oppressedbeings,endure,and of the corresponding
need to liberatethem:
Ifwe wereto judgebythenumberof suffering individualsinvolved,
thentheanimalliberationmovement is moreseriousthananyhuman
liberation
movement. Wekillapproximately fivebillionmammals and
birdsannuallyin theUnitedStatesalone.Thatis manytimesthenum-
berof womenand peopleof colorin theUnitedStates.If we are to
judgebyhowfundamental theinterests beingviolatedare,thenonce
animalsis veryseriousbusiness,
again,liberating sincetheyare rou-
tinelytormentedand mutilatedin laboratories,
aredeniedanysortof

normal,fulfilling lifein factoryfarms,and have theirverylivestaken
fromthemin a vastvarietyof situations.Womenand minoritiesdo not
suffer suchroutine,fundamental deprivations.Ifwe are to judge bythe
moral,legal,cultural,and individuallife-style changesthat would be
occasioned by the success of the movement,then,once again, animal
liberationis at least as seriousan issue as theextensionof equal rights
to minoritiesand women.Liberatinganimalswould directlyaffectour
eatinghabits,clothingpreferences, biomedicalresearchindustry, sport-
ing business, and land use, therebychangingour currentway of lifeat
least as pervasivelyas have the civil rightsand women's liberation
movements.(Sapontzis1987, 84-85)
I would agree with Sapontzis that nonhumananimals' well-beingand

autonomyare1violatedmore than thatof any othersort of being.As he
indicates,the radicalimplicationsof theanimal liberationmovementare
also farfrom"trivial."If any trivializing is occurringin thiscontext,it is
ratherin theobjector'strivializing of theinterests of animals,and of their
ongoing violation.Also, thereis a trivialization of freedomof belief,and
of argumentative in
reason, implying that people oughtnot to be freeto
thinkalong animal liberationistlines.Animal liberationcould onlyjustly
be accused of trivializinghumanconcerns if it weremisanthropic, or oth-
erwiseofferedonly a pettyconsiderationof humanconcerns.However,
animal rightsviews, animal utilitarianviews, and animal liberationist
ethicof care viewsall givefullmoralconsiderationand respectto human
beings,so it cannot be said that such a philosophicalstandpointinher-
entlytrivializeshumanconcerns.
overlooksmany
Objection C. Anypointingout of allegedsimilarities
betweentheNazi Holocaust and thewayanimalsare treated.
differences
Replyto C. I readilyconcedethatthereare manyrelevantdifferences

of detail,For example,theJewshave been liberatedfromthe Holocaust
(althoughtheworldhas notyetbeensaved fromracism),whereastheani-
mals are veryfarfromliberated.Jewssuffered discrimination on thebasis
of theirreligion,whereasthatconsiderationseemsobviouslyinapplicable
to nonhumans.The Jews'generalrelationshipto theNazi police stateis
of a very differentcharacter than animals' general relationshipto
humans.Thereare any numberof otherdifferences of detail,The pointis
thatnone of themerasetheprominentsimilarities whichgivepointto the
._^^^ 125

comparisonin thefirstplace. No analogyis perfect.It is remarkablehow
harsh and systematicdiscriminationcan have chillinglycomparable
forms,even when the victimsare of different species.In any case, it can
be noted,once again,thatthepatternof discriminatory oppressionunder-
lyingall of the oppressivedetails is the same. There is the constantof
presuminga license to harmothersmerelybecause theyare different in
some way.
There are innumerabledifferences of detail betweenracismand sex-
as
ism, well, but both are stillconsidered to be formsof oppression.For
instance, skincolor is irrelevant to sexism per se, and also, rightsto abor-
tion are not a focal point in race debates. Of course, there are also
similaritiesbetween racism and sexism, such as marginalization,eco-
nomicand politicaldiscrimination, infringement of basic liberties,and so
forth.We can even findcases linkingthe Holocaust, racism,misogyny,
and speciesism,all in one bundle of horror:"At the Ravensbrueckcon-
centrationcamp for women, hundredsof Polish inmates - the 'rabbit
girls' they were called - were given gas gangrene wounds while others
were subjectedto 'experiments'in bone grafting"(Shirer1960, 1275).
The pointis, it can well be arguedthattheseare all formsof oppression,
and it remainsan open question as to how many parallels exist in the
details.
Objection D. Far fromthe use of animals being comparableto the

Nazi Holocaust, it is ratherthe case thatanimal activiststhemselvescan
be comparedto Nazis in theirtactics.Indeed, theNazis themselveswere
animal rightists.
Reply to D. Certaincriticshave actuallymaintainedthis.JohnM.

Orem,a vivisector,
offersthefollowingcomment:
. . . thereare parallelsbetweenthetechniques of Nazi Germany and
thoseoftheanimalrights movement. Thismovement usespropaganda
to accomplish itsgoals;it caresnothingaboutthetruthand is even
attempting to rewritethehistory ofscienceto discount
theroleofani-
malresearch. The movement has infiltrated
our schools;it condones
terroristicactsas a meansto itsend;ituseslegalbullying to silenceits
critics;it is anti-intellectualand anti-human. (Luthererand Simon
1992,x)
Rather than drawing any concrete parallels between any supposed
126 J^j^^

oppressivenesson thepartof animal liberationists and theNazis, instead,
would-becomparisonsare made betweentheracist,vilifying propaganda
of theNazis, and thepropagandaof theanimal rightsmovement.Animal
propaganda is like thatof any movement:some is emotion-
liberationist
some is moreinformational,
allyevocative,; butall of it seemsto be geared
whatit identifies
to fighting as real oppression.To myknowledge,no ani-
mal rightscampaignper se has sanctionedany of theknownoppressions
in any way.To indicatethatanimal liberationists "care nothingabout the
or are in any way intellectually
truth"or are "anti-intellectual," suspect
for holdingsuch a position is simplya prejudicialslur.Animal rights
propagandadoes not promotehatredat all, but ratheruniversalrespect.
Many opponentsof animal liberationhave also indicatedthatNazi
Germanywas somehowanimal rightist, and therefore, animal rightisun
is
associated with Nazism. Both the inferenceand the initialpremiseare
mistaken.Let us examinewhysome have thoughtotherwise:
There were 679 animal protectionsocietiesin Germanyin the early
1930s, and many philosophical treatisesprojectingtheir views. In
August,1933, HermannGoring,thenchairmanof the Prussianminis-
terialcabinetand laterthe authorof the'finalsolution'of theJewish
question, issued an order prohibitingthe vivisectionof animals in
Prussianterritory. To theGermans,'he declaredin a publicbroadcast,
'animals are not merelycreaturesin the organic sense, but creatures
who lead theirown livesand who are endowed withperceptivefacul-
ties,who feelpain and experiencejoy. ... An absoluteand permanent
prohibitionof vivisectionis not only a necessarylaw to protectani-
mals...but it is also a law forhumanityitself.'Anypersonengagedin
such practiceswould be 'removedto a concentrationcamp.' Bavaria
soon issuedsimilarprohibitions, and in 1934 thenationalgovernment
prohibitedunnecessary tormentof animals. In Nazi eyes,biomedical
sciencewas a heavilyJewish - that is, polluted- profession,while,in
contrast,animals were symbols of nature and purity.(Jasperand
Nelkin 1992, 23-24)
If theNazis cared so muchforcreatureswith"theirown lives" and "per-

ceptive faculties,"why did they not care for the Jews,who, like all
humans,are animals- and whom the Nazis themselvesoftencompared
to animals,even to "vermin"?What is so "animal rightist"about such
Nazi practices?The Nazis gluttedthemselveson hypocriticaland self-
aggrandizing ipropaganda,and theirstatementsare hardlyto be accepted
at face-value.Opposingvivisectionbecause itis "heavilyJewish"does not
_»_
127

sound like any kindof anti-oppressionview.Indeed,Nazis probablyfelt
they could "afford" not to vivisectnonhumans (and thus, to appear
"good" in manypeople's eyes) because theyplanned all along to experi-
ment on live human beings as part of their schemes for conquering
"inferiorraces."Indeed,ifone alreadyexperiments on humans,testingon
nonhumananimals formedicalpurposesis mostcertainlya veryexpen-
sive and inefficaciouswaste of money,time,and resources.In thecase of
putting limitson vivisection,the Nazis did not love animals thatmuch,
but rather,theyhatedtheJewsthatmuch.Certainly, the Nazis were very
far fromabolishingmeat-eating,or hunting,or even laboratoryexperi-
mentswithanimals,among otherpractices.Hitleris sometimesreputed
to be a vegetarian,althoughhe was not entirely - still therewas Nazi
propaganda to this effect(Arluke and Sanders, 1995, 148). However,
Hitler believedthateatingmeat was contaminatingbecause of the mix-
tureof animal and Aryanblood (Arlukeand Sanders 1995, 150). Thus
animalswere not reveredbut regardedwithcontempt.Even ifHitlerhad
been a vegetarian,that would not logicallyentail that vegetarianismis
morallywrong.Anycultsof "natureworship"in Nazism wereconnected,
again, with theiroppressiveideology of findingpure breeds,and with
theirpseudo-Nietzscheanadmirationof predatoryanimals,who exem-
plifythestrongdominatingtheweak. The Nazis did have laws regulating
vivisectionin ways comparableto Britain,butfellshortof abolishingani-
mal experimentation(Arluke and Sanders 1995, 134-135). If Nazi
Germans' softeningof so-called "heavily Jewish" vivisectionwas the
extent of their "animal rightism,"then they remain as they were-
Nazis- and thepeople who compareanimal rightists to Nazis emergeas
they are: and
slanderous,superficial, reactionary.
V. CONCLUSION
More or less detailedcomparisonscan be and are made by animal
liberationistsbetweenanimal exploitationand theHolocaust. In fact,the
comparison can be illustratednot onlyin termsof specificactivitiessuch
as intensiveconfinement, live experimentation,
skinning,hunting,and so
on, but in terms of more general featureson both sides, such as the
unimaginablenumbers of victims,ruthlessness,exploitativeness,and
harsh discrimination,Indeed, furthercomparisons could be drawn
betweenthose who resistedthe Holocaust (the undergroundrailroad,

harborersofJewsand partisanfighters) and thosewho liberateanimals
fromoppressive confinement in laboratories, or who wreckmachinery
whichtorments and destroys them.However, resistance to oppression is
nota partofanycomparison oftheseformsofoppression themselves.
As well,forms ofresistance arehighly disanalogous whencomparing
responses to the Holocaust and to the oppression of animals. Violence
and killingwerecommonin resisting Nazi oppressors, however, whilea
few
very animal activists use violence, this is veryexceptional behavior.
See generally thecollectionof essays,Terrorists or FreedomFighters,
(Bestand Noceila2004) fora discussionof theincidence and ethicsof
nonviolent andviolenttacticsintheanimalrights movement. TheAnimal
Liberation Front, forexample, is committed to rescuing animalsfromlabs
and exposingabusesthatarehiddenfromthepublic,buttheyaresworn
to nonviolence. Thispredominance ofnonviolent tacticsis different from
resistance totheNazis,butalthough therearesociological andphilosoph-
ical reasonsforthisdifference, I willnotexplorethemin detailin this
paper.
Briefly, however,some reasons for the widespreadnonviolent
approachofanimalrightists include:(1) warsinvolvesoldierssacrificing
theirownlives,andalsothelivesofthosetheykill,butevenanimalrights
philosophers suchas TomReganagreethatingeneralwe shouldpreserve
humanlivesv^hengivenchoicesbetween savinga humanor,say,a dogon
a lifeboat (Regan1983,324); (2) animal rights is a nascentcausewithrel-
atively littlepublicsympathy, and animal activists engaging in violence
wouldcausea severelossinsympathy anddefensiveness; (3) the ultimate
goalofanimalrights is to create a peaceful world,through education, and
violenceinterferes withsuchgoals;(4) people are often innocent in their
useofanimalsinthesenseofbeingnon-malefactors, so itwouldbe unfair
tojudgethemtooharshly; (5) liberaldemocracy permits bothanimallib-
erationist stancesand non-animal-liberationist stances, anditwouldbe a
departure fromliberaldemocracy, and a stepin thedirection oftotalitar-
ianismviolently to foistanimalrights on others;(6) animalrightists often
reject utilitarian morality which is often used to justify violent
meanstowardsendsthataresupposedly justified byaggregating welfares;
(7) pragmatically, evenifactivists couldrationalize to themselves thewag-
ingofa war,evena guerrilla war,againstanimalabusers,theycouldnot
hope to win such a war.
-j£^^ 129

The comparison in general, to theextentthatit can be illuminated,
cannotsuccessfully be impugned byallegingthatit glossesoverparticu-
lar differences,
is insulting, or putforward
trivializing, bythosewhoare
"Nazi-like."Certainly, it wouldbe viciously circularto assumethatani-
malliberation is mistaken fromthestart, whichmakesthecomparison of-
fensive,and whichin turnis supposedto provethatanimalliberation is
wrong. I conclude that if all other objectionsagainst animal liberation
to theHolocaustcomparison
fail,objecting willnotvindicate
byitself the
case foranti-animaHiberation, I submitthepossibility thatsomepeople
aredeeplyoffended bythecomparison becausetheyareprofoundly prej-
udicedagainstanimalsand in favorof humanbeings,and intolerant of
thosewhoholdopinionsthatarereflective ofanimalliberationist tenden-
cies.Iftherewereno suchthingas discriminatory oppression,therenever
wouldhavebeena Holocaust,butneither couldtherebe whatanimallib-
erationistsreferto as speciesism. Farfromthecomparison beingintrinsi-
it is
callyobjectionable, potentially usefuland illuminating,and mayhelp
to underlinethegravity ofouroppression ofnonhuman animals.
REFERENCES
Arluke, Arnoldand ClintonR. Sanders.1995. Regarding Animals.Philadelphia:
TempleUniversity Press.
Benton, Ted.1993.NaturalRelations: Ecology,AnimalRightsand SocialJustice.
London:Verso.
Best,StephenandAnthony J.NocellaII, eds.2004. Terrorists
or Freedom Fight-
ersf Reflections
on theLiberation ofAnimals.NewYork:Lantern Books.
Blum,Deborah.TheMonkeyWars.New York:OxfordUniversity Press.
Bullock,Alan.1962.Hitler:A StudyinTyranny. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Carruthers,Peter.1992. TheAnimalsIssue. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Coe,Sue. 1995.Dead Meat.NewYork:FourWallsEightWindows.
Coetzee,J.M. 1999. TheLivesofAnimals.Princteon: Princeton
University Press.
Cohen, Carl.1986. "The Case for theUse of Animalsin Biomedical
Research."
NewEnglandJournal ofMedicine(October):865-70.
Donovan,Josephine and CarolJ.Adams(eds). 1996. BeyondAnimalRights:A
Feminist CaringEthicfortheTreatment ofAnimals.NewYork:Continuum.
Finsen,Lawrenceand Finsen,Susan. 1994. The AnimalRightsMovementin
America: FromCompassion to Respect.NewYork:TwaynePublishers.
Fox,MichaelW. 1999.BeyondEvolution.NewYork:LyonsPress.
. 1990.Inhumane Society:TheAmerican WayofExploiting Animals. New
York:St.Martin'sPress.
130 ^JJ^^^jg 11(1)2006

ENV1RONMENX

Francis,Leslie and RichardNorman,1978. "Some AnimalsAreMore Equal Than
Others."Philosophy(53): 507-27.
Frey,R, G. 1980. Interestsand Rights: The Case Against Animals. Oxford:
ClarendonPress.
. 1987. €*
AnimalParts,Human Wholes." In Biomedical Ethics Reviews-
1987, edited by JamesM. Humber and RobertF. Almeder.Clifton:Humana
Press.
Genocide. 1981. 85 minutes.The SimonWiesenthalCenter.
Gold, Mark. 1995. AnimalRights:Extendingthe Circleof Compassion.Oxford:
JonCarpenter.
Goldhagen,Daniel Jonah,1997. Hitler's WillingExecutioners:OrdinaryGer-
mans and theHolocaust. New York: VintageBooks.
Jasper,JamesM. and DorothyNelkin, 1992. The Animal RightsCrusade:^The
Growthof a Moral Protest.New York: FreePress.
Kuper,Leo. 1981. Genocide: Its Political Use in the TwentiethCentury.Har-
mondsworth:PenguinBooks.
Leahy,Michael P. T. 1991. AgainstLiberation:PuttingAnimals in Perspective.
New York: Routledge.
Lewis,Bernard;1986. Semitesand Anti-Semites. New York:W. W. Norton.
Litvinoff, Barnett.1988. The BurningBush: Anti-Semitism and WorldHistory.
New York: E. P. Dutton.
Lutherer,Lorenz Otto and Margaret SheffieldSimon. 1992. Targeted: The
Anatomyofan AnimalRightsAttack.Norman:University of Oklahoma Press.
Mason, Jim.1993. An UnnaturalOrder: UncoveringtheRoots of Our Dominion
of Natureand Each Other.New York: Simon & Schuster.
Masson, Jeffrey and Susan McCarthy.1995. When ElephantsWeep: The Emo-
tionalLives ofAnimals.New York: DelacortePress.
Montgomery, Charlotte.2000. Blood Relations:Animals,Hunfans,and Politics.
Toronto:Betweenthe Lines.
Nozick, Robert. 1983. Review of The Case forAnimal Rights,by Tom Rdgan.
New YorkTimesBook Review 27 November(11): 29-30.
Patterson,Charles.2002. EternalTreblinka:Our Treatmentof Animalsand the
Holocaust. New York: LanternBooks.
Pluhar,EvelynB. 1995. BeyondPrejudice:The Moral Significanceof Human and
NonhumanAnimals.Durham: Duke University Press.
Regan, Tom. 1983. The Case forAnimal Rights. Los of Cali-
Angeles:University
forniaPress.
. 1987. The StruggleforAnimalRights.ClarksSummit:International Soci-
etyforAnimalRights.
Rifkin,Jeremy. 1998. The Biotech Century:Harnessingthe Gene and Remaking
the World.New York: Putnam.
Robbins,John,1987. Diet fora New America.Walpole: Stillpoint.
DAVIDSZTYBELTREATMENT OF ANIMALS AND THE HOLOCAUST 131

Rollin, Bernard. 1992. Animal Rights and Human Morality.2d. ed. Buffalo:
PrometheusBooks.
. 1995. The FrankensteinSyndrome:Ethical and Social Issues in the
GeneticEngineeringof Animals.New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Ryder,Richard D. 1991. Speciesism.In Animal Experimentation:The Moral
Issues, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Buffalo:
PrometheusBooks.
. 1998. Speciesism.In The EncyclopediaofAnimalRightsand AnimalWel-
fare,editedby Marc Bekoff.Westport:GreenwoodPress.
Sapontzis,S. F. 1987. Morals,Reason, and Animals.Philadelphia:TempleUniver-
sityPress.
Sax, Boria. 2000. Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats,and the Holo-
caust. New York: Continuum.
Schleifer,Harriet.1985. "Images of Death and Life:Food AnimalProductionand
theVegetarianOption."In In Defense ofAnimals,editedbyPeterSinger.New
York: Harper & Row.
Schoenberner, Gerhard.1985. The Holocaust: The Nazi Destructionof Europe s
Jews.Translatedby Susan Sweet.Edmonton:Hurtig.
Sharpe,Dr. Robert.1988. The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animalsin Medical
Research.Wellingborough: Thorsons.
Shirer,William. 1960. The Rise and Pall of the Third Reich. New York: Fawcett
Crest.
Singer,Peter.1987. "An InterviewwithPeterSinger."InterviewbyDave Macauley.
Animals'Agenda 7 (September).
. 1990. AnimalLiberation.Id ed. New York:Avon Books.
Watson,RichardA. 1992. "Self-Consciousness and theRightsof NonhumanAni-
mals and Nature." In The Animal Rights/Environmental Ethics Debate: The
Environmental Perspective.Editedby EugeneHargrove.New York:StateUni-
versityof New York Press.
Wiesel, Elie. 1960. Night. Translated by Stella Rodway. New York: Hill and
Wang.
Wood, Alexander,Stedman-Ed wards,Pamela and JohannaMang. 2000. Introduc-
tionto The Root Causes of BiodiversityLoss. London: Earthscan.
Wynne-Tyson, Jon.1989. The ExtendedCircle:A CommonplaceBook ofAnimal
Rights.New York: Paragon House.
132 ETHI(5©' THE ENVIRONMENT,11(1)2006


Paper 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Paper 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?

Author(s): David Sztybel

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, ll(l) 2006ISSN:1085-6633

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

98 ETHICSGTIHE ENVIRONMEM; 11(1)2006

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

I refuseto eat animalsbecauseI cannotnourishmyself bythesuffer-

Others,of course,mayhave developeda hardenedview of theworldas a

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

100 ElilS^TOEiNVIRONMENX 11(1)2006

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

II. THE COMPARATIVE LITERATURE

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

102 ETHIC»^WrBffvili)NMENX 11(1)2006

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

Anyonewho has seenfilmsof theemaciatedbodiesof starving, heat-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

III. THE HOLOCAUST COMPARED TO OUR TREATMENT

A. Comparable Degradations and Destructions

me^J^ Tl|£ HOLOCAUST 107

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

2. Genetic engineering.A Nazi obsession with geneticengineering

3. "Vermin."Jewswere exterminated fromEurope,even as so-called

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

7. Tallow.TheJews'remains weresometimesmelteddownas tallow,

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

11. Displacementfromhomes.Jewsweresystematically expelled

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

14. Separatingparentsfrom offspring.One of the most poignant

15. Death bystarvation.Jewsof theHolocaust wereoftenallowed to

16. Voicelessnessand disenfranchisement. Animals as victimsare

17. Mass graves. AfterJews were killed,theirremainswere com-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

19. Genocide.Hitleraimedfora genocideof theJews.Humans,

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

23. Quietcomplicity intheeducation system.TheNazification ofthe

24.A mockery ofjustice.TheNazishad"KangarooCourts," andani-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

25. Efficiencyofkilling.The Nazis switched to gassingtheirvictims

26. Profiteering. of the Nazis' stealingof Jews'

27. Cattlecars.Jewsweretransported via "cattle-trucks,"

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

29. Disowningof responsibility. Thereis frequently a determined

31. Minimizers.The Holocaustis oftenminimized by anti-Semites,

32. Conditioned Peopleareconditioned

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

D. ComparableWorldviews and Discourse

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

Alongthesamelines,Wieseldescribes hisfatherreceiving somehotcof-

36. Demonization. AnimalsandJewsarebothdemonized byoppres-

37. Hell. Nazi concentration

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:53:19 PM

Moreover,Elie Wiesel offersthe followinghellishimage,"[Wiesel] had