Food Justice: A Primer

Food Justice: A Primer, edited by Saryta Rodríguez condenses a wide-angle view of ethical considerations surrounding the production and distribution of food into a concise collection of essays that is richly informative and thoroughly persuasive. This 239-page paperback covers a large range of topics, historical and contemporary. Each section is united by the common thread of undertaking the study “through a vegan praxis.” In other words, viewing non-human animals as deserving the same rights and dignity as people, when identifying the problematics of agriculture and proposing solutions. But this perspective should not be misunderstood as a narrowly defined scope through which to examine the topic. Rather, it is necessarily at the core of the issue and this book’s focus brings that reality to the forefront.

As the arguments put forward in each of the pieces show, food justice is not just about food; it is interconnected with many areas of life, such as how we work, our attitudes toward others, and how we perceive the world around us and affect it with our actions (or inactions). An essay by Lilia Trenkova draws bold parallels between racism as a driving force behind colonialism and neo-colonialism and speciesism—the idea that humans are superior to other animals and by extension, all manner of cruelty may be excused—as the widely unchallenged belief responsible for the inhumane treatment of animals, including their use as food. These parallels follow through their resulting effects on inequitable food supply. Just as the mercantile practices of colonial and neo-colonial countries squeeze the economies and drain resources from less developed countries, the (mis)use of land for animal agriculture significantly reduces the maximum amount of food that can be produced, and applies upward pressure on prices, thereby artificially limiting resources and increasing food costs. In another essay, Saryta Rodríguez points to data that show that cows used for beef consume twenty-five times more food than they produce. Conditions for farm workers are also netted in this equation of systemic superiority, as Trenkova dissects how racist attitudes baked into the North American Free Trade Agreement created second tier system, where laborers in Mexico and immigrants in the U.S. are not afforded the same basic rights that many American workers take for granted.

Land use is also addressed in other contexts throughout. The book’s introduction briefly describes some notable land rights campaigns including the formation of Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) in 1984 and Palestine’s Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) in 1986. The UAWC is referenced as an example of a group that fights for food sovereignty, which is under the umbrella of food justice and pertains to a peoples’ ability to choose how their food is produced, distributed, and consumed. The MST is a movement that settled people to work on unused land and was able to make legal claims on much of that land through a part of Brazil’s constitution enshrining land as serving a public function.

Among the essays, the book also includes an interview by Saryta Rodríguez with Gustavo Oliviera, a spokesperson for Occupy the Farm, which comprised of a couple hundred activist farmers who took over an unused plot of land belonging to the University of California, Berkeley that had been slated for commercial development. It is an inspiring story of grass-roots direct action that demonstrates that anyone can take part in effecting change.

Rodríguez aptly curates an enormous depth of information and perspective in this slim volume making for a well-paced read that is small enough to carry on the go. After reading this compelling compendium, one cannot ignore that achieving food justice depends on recognizing that animal agriculture is unsustainable. Therefore, the notion that a complete and internally consistent understanding of food justice has as much to do with issues of equitable supply and distribution as workers’ rights and animal rights should not be a revolutionary one.

Dale Classen is a Brooklyn-based musician and sound designer. Dale performs with the band Grim All Day and lives with two cats, Sonny and Toad. He graduated from Stony Brook University with a B.A. in psychology.

Someone Else’s (Vegan) Shoes: Review of ‘Veganism in an Oppressive World’

By Julia Feliz Brueck

Understanding comes easiest when it arrives from a place of having walked in the shoes of someone that we can fully empathize with. However, to truly embrace a stance across social justice issues that is respectful and aware in the quest to create true justice for all, including nonhuman animals, we must come to the realization that we do not always have the same lived experiences or understanding of others that have walked in shoes different to ours. It is imperative that, in our efforts as activists, we humbly remind ourselves that sometimes our role is simply to follow under the guidance of those that know and understand their own oppression first-hand.

As we understand the interconnectedness across oppressions and the need to work with one another to achieve our collective goals, we must accept that activism may mean taking a seat and supporting rather than taking center stage. It simply isn’t possible to have first-hand experience on every single oppression that affects individuals due to the various degrees of intersecting identities, which determine the level of oppression that one faces. These oppressions and their effects as real and impact the animal rights movement, as they follow vegans that are from other marginalized group even when advocating for nonhumans above themselves.

It wasn’t until recently that my own experiences led me to this understanding and helped me acknowledged that my perceptions or opinions on issues that do not affect me directly simply don’t hold any weight over those from communities affected directly. As a consistently anti-oppression vegan activist, my role outside the shoes that I have walked in is a supportive one. My AHA! moment came from a collection of experiences that one day just clicked on their own. Seeds that had been planted, one day gave root and flowered into the type of activism in which I partake in today. My role, outside my own community and issues that directly affect me, is to listen, learn, and raise the voices of those that do not have my same privileges due to hierarchical systems of oppression.

While I am an AfroBoricua, as a Puerto Rican born and raised with Brown skin and African as well as Indigenous roots, I will never understand first-hand the experiences of Black women, who experience anti-blackness across all cultures. My lighter skin privilege means that I don’t directly experience this type of oppression even though I understand what it is to experience colorism and racism. Something as mundane as a conversation with a Black person about their hair, flipped a switch. While I was able to draw parallels in which the ways my own “frizzy” and wavy hair is looked down upon under a culture heavily influenced by white supremacist standards, I stopped and listened. I learned that Black people are unable to freely wear their natural hair and may be even fired or denied a job for wearing protective hairstyles, such as locks. This brief interaction with an online stranger helped me understand that, individually, we simply experience different realities in the way our bodies are policed and even in the accessibility to basic resources that we have access to, including healthy foods and even clean water despite being oppressed by the same institution.

There have also been instances in which I was forced to walk into shoes that I had not imagine I would be forced to walk in. Being born and raised on an island and then moving to the mainland US in an area populated by communities that looked like me afforded me safety. Therefore, it wasn’t until I moved to Europe that my inability to blend in catapulted me into the blatant xenophobia that communities face around the world. Most Europeans cannot even point where Puerto Rico is located on a map, and most have never met a “Latinx” person. This means that, as a Brown-skinned person, I am ambiguous enough to them to erroneously assume that I am either a refugeed African, a refugee from Syria, or even a Romani – or someone from any other country where the local assume Brown people must come from. Most often, I am assumed to be from all marginalized communities of color (or at least considered “tanned”) commonly found here. Despite also having Spanish (European colonizer) roots due to the colonialism that plagued my island, I am automatically recognized as an outsider. I’ve been shunned and excluded in my attempts to become part of the local community, so I have learned what it truly feels like to experience xenophobia simply for looking different based on the color of my skin and my non-European features. Being fluent in two languages (English and Spanish) hasn’t been enough to keep me safe either. Having a thick accent in French has made me realize the extent of xenophobia awarded to those even trying to fit in by learning the local language and customs. Interestingly, refugees have been the most welcoming, never delving into incessant questions about my ethnic or racial background. Seven years on, and I still do not have any personal relationships with the locals. Being unwelcomed has meant that I am often left out from mundane events, as well as community resources and access to services that I do not even know how to reach. This has made me stop to consider what it must be like for those with even less privileges, resources, and support than my family and I have – within Europe and even back in the US.

This all directly affects how I am able to advocate for nonhumans. For vegans of color (like myself), safety becomes a real issue when the local vegans do not recognize their racial biases either, and thus, do not provide a safe environment where I can freely advocate for nonhumans without having to worry about experiencing racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination from group members themselves. Unfortunately, the reality is that white vegans are not immune to their own racial biases.

There have been many more moments and life experiences that have forced me to think beyond my own shoes and my own struggles with oppression. I began thinking about all the experiences from childhood to present time that I have not had and those that I am not even aware are a possibility because they are simply not how I experienced the world based on my intersecting oppressions and whatever privileges I do have. This led me to resolve that, especially in my activism, I need to be aware and admit that I will never be privy to the experiences of all people that I truly want to find justice for, and no matter how well-meaning I may be in my activism, I could end up silencing those I am trying to help.

I believe when someone from a marginalized group that I am not part of tells me about their experiences with oppression. To question them on something I do not experience and to disregard their experiences would be to invalidate them and add to their oppression. Thus, at this point in time, addressing root issues, including actual accessibility to veganism, and focusing on how to solve these issues within my own community has taken priority in my work. I have also made a commitment to raise the voices of those whose experiences are truly foreign to my understanding of how injustices affect them.

And what about nonhumans? The same understanding should, of course, be applied to an oppressed nonhuman group whose shoes we will never be able to walk in. We don’t speak their languages nor understand what it is like to experience life as they do. However, we can all agree that at the very minimum, differences in life form and in our abilities to communicate are not justifiable factors (and never were) to continue upholding supremacist-fueled abuses and oppression upon nonhuman animals. This is what unites us as vegans. However, the acknowledgement that supremacy is still an issue even within humans and within the animal rights/vegan movement is vital. The acceptance of this knowledge is imperative for nonhuman justice. Why? Because human oppression is tied-in to nonhuman animal oppression. ALL Supremacist mentalities must be abolished if we are going to move towards true liberation for all.

How do we do this? We can start this process by recognizing that advocating for nonhumans is not the same as advocating for human groups. While nonhumans are not currently able to guide us, marginalized people, whose shoes we will never walk in ourselves, are able to lead us on their own issues. By educating ourselves, taking a step back, and letting vegans from their own communities lead on issues that affect them directly, including the forms of nonhuman oppression that their cultures partake in. The book Veganism in an Oppressive World: A Vegans-of- Color Community Project edited by Julia Feliz Brueck was published to help vegans understand what this means and how to implement this understanding into helping the mainstream vegan movement evolve into one that is actually aware and most importantly, effective.

Get a copy via Sanctuary Publishers or on Amazon.


Julia Feliz Brueck is the founder of Sanctuary Publishers, a vegan of color owned and run vegan book publisher with the aim of giving back with every book and supporting marginalized communities. Julia is also the author of Baby and Toddler Vegan Feeding Guide and Libby Finds Vegan Sanctuary. She also works as a published illustrator and recently launched in an effort to connect people of color to vegans of color. Connect with Julia via Facebook or

Renouncing Vegan Birthright

By Julia Tanenbaum

The new Vegan Birthright program sponsored by Jewish Veg and Mayanot Birthright exemplifies how Zionists so often exploit the struggle for animal rights in the service of colonialism. Since 1999 Birthright Israel has handed 500,000 young Jews worldwide a free trip to Israel at the hidden cost of the dispossession of millions of Palestinians. As both Vegans and Jews we have a moral duty to renounce this program that supports Israel’s ongoing colonization of Palestine and apartheid policies. Over 5 million Palestinian refugees are to this day excluded from their own land while any Jew born and raised in the U.S is encouraged to claim their “birthright” to it. Jewish Veg’s rhetoric of compassion and repairing the world cloaks deep hypocrisy. Vegan birthright advertises a chance to meet “world leaders” in the Jewish vegan community in a “world leading vegan city”, but in reality this narrative is part of an Israeli propaganda strategy to use Israel’s supposed status as a liberal home for first queers, now vegans, to obscure the brutal violence of the occupation. Endorsing Birthright means supporting Israeli apartheid, denying millions of innocent Palestinians access to basic human rights like clean water, electricity, education, freedom of movement, and medical care. This immeasurable violence is fundamentally incompatible with the nonviolent ethos of veganism. Jewish Veg must show us which side they are on; do they support ethnic cleansing and colonialism or will they stand in solidarity with all sentient beings, Palestinians included? We call on Jewish Veg to stop the vegan Birthright program and renounce the racist ideology of Zionism if they share our values as Jewish vegans.

The Israeli animal rights movement vegan Birthright venerates is not only complicit in but directly encourages the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine through “vegan-washing” the occupation. Every year or so another article circulates about how the Israeli Armed Forces provides vegan food and boots to soldiers, upholding the absurd myth of the IDF as the “most moral army in the world”. Palestinian animal rights organizers have termed this narrative of Israeli vegan exceptionalism “vegan washing”. Vegan washing works by falsely juxtaposing “enlightened Israeli vegans” with “backwards” Palestinians, and by creating a form of militarized veganism which bears little resemblance to the radical nonviolent vision of animal liberation.

Mainstream Israeli veganism falls in line with this strategy. Israel’s leading animal rights group 269 Life attracts significant attention for its violent demonstrations, which perpetuate racism and sexism, but less for its pernicious “non-humans first” stance which unequivocally defines human oppressions, such as racism, sexism, capitalism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, etc., as irrelevant to fighting for animal rights. Leaders of the group like Santiago Gomez support the occupation using the logic of vegan washing, because of “how the ‘Arabs’ treat animals”. Gomez goes to the lengths of supporting Israeli massacres of Palestinian fishermen, whose lives he clearly values far less than those of the fish. Vegan Jewish “messiah” Gary Yourofsky is blatantly racist against Palestinians, calling them “the most insane people on the planet”. He even spoke at the Ariel Settlement, where illegal settlers were caught torturing Palestinian children, sparking a boycott.

At its best, animal liberation organizing shakes the foundations of our social order by rejecting human domination over nature and all of it’s inhabitants. The entrenched racism of our movement obscures how the simple idea that all sentient beings hold innate rights to life and liberty and exist for their own sake is fundamentally revolutionary.  If we reject the idea that humans have the “right” to animal bodies and lives we must also reject the much larger colonial project which relies on the same ideology.

We must reject the vegan washing model and instead follow the example of anti-Zionist vegans like the members of the Palestinian Animal League or Anarchists Against the Wall, which began as the pro-intersectional human and animal rights organisation ‘One Struggle’. We must follow the example of vegans like Haggai Matar, who spent two years in prison for refusing the draft in 2002. Organizations from 269 Life to PETA think they will attract people to veganism through racism and sexism, but there are no shortcuts to liberation, especially when they harm other oppressed communities. Decolonizing Veganism is the only way for non-human animals to become free because history teaches us that solidarity is the strongest weapon in the face of injustice. Vegans must choose whether to continue our community’s endorsement of colonial violence and white supremacy or stand for the lives and liberty of all sentient beings.


Julia Tanenbaum is a member of the Philadelphia chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now. She has organized as a student and in local environmental and racial justice movements. She previously published her research on the history of anarcha-feminism in Perspectives on Anarchist Theory. She deeply believes that animal liberation must be conceptualized as a part of a larger struggle for social revolution.

The Other “Other”

By Vinamarata “Winnie” Kaur

I see people around me,
Trying to define race as white or Black,
And I look at myself…
Lurking in between the color codes of what’s deemed “normal.”
I turn to feminism,
To find the Western mainstream feminist movement still plagued with racism and speciesism.
I feel like an insider-outsider.
I get asked, “What are you?”
Am I white, or am I Black?
“Maybe neither, or maybe both; it’s none of your business,” I say.
Who am I, and what social justice movement(s) should I turn to?
Will the Others ever learn to look beyond my Brown flesh
And channel their chakras away from my external appearances?

I see people around me,
Smoking and drinking their health and lives away.
They socialize in the ecstasy of hallucinating drugs
And take pride in the grilling of their steaks at summer BBQs while shaming vegetarians and vegans for not sharing their carnal pleasures.
And I look at myself…
A decolonizing, teetotalling, fat, hairy, vegan feminist secluded and excluded from those circles,
Isolated in the company of my books.
I turn to TV and films,
And they still ridicule me with their colorblind eyes and their body-shaming ads…
Who am I, if not the Other “Other” in this United-yet-divided land of opportunities?

With liminal spaces to call “home”
I continue to be oppressed
By the layered shackles of binarisms entrenched in white cis-male heteropatriarchy,
Without a recognizable identity of my own…
And whom the Department of Homeland Security once called a non-resident alien
And now calls a permanent resident,
Still stripped of that full status assigned to its human citizenry.
I carry with me the spirit of the Brown subaltern,
And a body fueled by plants,
Spreading the word that…
I am different and disidentified,
I am both vegan and a non-Western feminist,
And that’s OK.

I occupy the in-betweenness and the Brownness of this flesh- and color- obsessed society,
Not just because of my culinary choices or the invisible purdah I wear on my skin,
But because of my subjectivity and lived experiences.
What gives anyone then the privilege to exclude me from bounds of “normalcy,”
And to force me to classify myself as either white or Black / feminist or vegan?
I refuse to pass as one or the Other…
Because #BlackLivesMatter, #BrownLivesMatter, #TransLivesMatter, #IntersexLivesMatter, #NativeLivesMatter, and #NonHumanLivesMatter.
And whiteness, colonialism, and speciesism should not be allowed to define our relations to our marginalized bodies anymore;
I am an intersectional, Brown, South Asian vegan feminist,
For these are inherent parts of my multivalent identity
That I will continue fighting for,

Until my last breath.


Winnie was raised in a small city in northern India and is currently a PhD candidate in English and Comparative Literature at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. Her current research and teaching interests include South Asian studies, environmental literatures, critical animal studies, digital humanities, Sikh studies, queer thea/ologies, and feminisms in popular/counter cultures. She has always been passionate about social justice through expressivity and creativity.

Animal Whites and Wrongs

animal whites

For a movement built on racism and white-dominated in leadership, theory, and rhetoric, it is all too common for Nonhuman Animal rights activists in the age of “colorblindness” and Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaigning to fall back on white fragility and open hostility to people of color and their allies when challenged on their complacency with racism. I think it is fair to say that most animal whites activists are happy enough to identify as “anti-racist,” but when pressed into action, most will find themselves on the defensive, worried about their identity as a “good” person, and positioning themselves as uncompromising saviors to other (seemingly more deserving) animals.

This is most glaring when racism-apologists shut down Black Lives Matter activism in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement with “ALL LIVES MATTER” or “Black Lives Matter, too.” Indeed, the rhetoric and ill-conceived rationalizations used to justify this intentional misappropriation often read eerily just like that of America’s conservatives. How very strange given the Nonhuman Animal rights movement’s claim to liberal, inclusive values.

The “color-blind” “all lives matter” approach is racist. It intentionally and consciously ignores difference. More than ignoring it, it aggressively seeks to stomp it out. White activists do not like to be reminded of their privilege. Being an activist “for the animals” allows them to take on a sense of heroism, goodness, and superiority. Acknowledging racism in the ranks challenges that self-image.

But, white vegans, this isn’t about you. Ignoring difference (and violently rejecting its existence or importance) is one of the main reasons why the Nonhuman Animal rights movement struggles with diversity. It is one of the main reasons why the movement is not taken seriously. The exclusionary actions and “All lives matter” rhetoric of “colorblind” activists and organizations demonstrates beautifully how and why people of color are actively marginalized in the  movement, even to the point of squeezing them out of leadership roles. What choice do people of color really have? A white-dominated space that can’t even say “Black Lives Matter” without adding conditions or making alterations makes for a hostile work environment. Especially for grassroots coalitions, the institutional channels for addressing racially antagonistic behavior are frequently non-existent. Aggravating this is the general failure for the Nonhuman Animal rights movement to adopt an intersectional understanding of oppression, choosing instead to support a single-issue approach. White protectionism thus prevails and contributes to the destruction of “the other.” How very antithetical to the liberatory message the movement espouses.

We have a moral duty to support justice where ever it is needed. The promotion of racism in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement divides in the most deplorable way. Bizarrely, racism-apologists insist that marginalized persons who push back against sexism and racism are responsible for this division, but that logic only makes sense if the Nonhuman Animal rights movement were a movement in support of social inequality, not one opposed to it.  Making the world a better, more safe and just place is not now and nor was it ever a single-issue endeavor.

I have also seen racism-apologists accusing activists of slander for the “crime” of identifying racism present in the words and actions associated with single-issue, “colorblind” organizations. This baffles me completely, as speciesists regularly engage this exact same pro-oppression tactic to silence Nonhuman Animal rights activists. There is no desire whatsoever to learn from others, only a prioritization of the ego. To be fair, this is a common enough psychological reaction, but activists are in the business of persuasion and behavior change, and should be more sensitive to the dangerous consequences of cognitive dissonance once aggravated.

I want to be clear that this is not a matter of “bad apple” activists organizations, but this is instead systemic to a movement that formulated its identity out of Jim Crow white supremacist ideologies, prioritizes a single-issue approach to activism, and tokenizes people of color. It is a movement that appropriates non-white experiences when convenient while simultaneously celebrating white leadership and white-centric, often racist tactics.

These are sad and scary times, and my condolences go out to all those who have been hurt by unfortunate (and unnecessary) diversity failures in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement. It is demoralizing, but I ask readers to keep up the fight. We are on the side of righteousness. And, as they say: if you aren’t making white people uncomfortable with your anti-racism activism, you aren’t doing it right.

Cheers to the allies, who are doing what is right and taking the burden off of people of color who are too often unfairly expected to defend themselves, explain themselves, and dismantle the system that whites created. More importantly, cheers to activists of color who do not have to, but nonetheless go out of their way to explain racism to an audience that has already ignored so many opportunities to learn.

We can do better, and we must do better. For those privileged to do so, keep going. Let’s not give up.



Corey Lee WrennDr. Wrenn is Lecturer of Sociology. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology with Colorado State University in 2016. She received her M.S. in Sociology in 2008 and her B.A. in Political Science in 2005, both from Virginia Tech. She was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar, 2016 by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She served as council member with the American Sociological Association’s Animals & Society section (2013-2016) and was elected Chair in 2018. She serves as Book Review Editor to Society & Animals and has contributed to the Human-Animal Studies Images and Cinema blogs for the Animals and Society Institute. She has been published in several peer-reviewed academic journals including the Journal of Gender Studies, Feminist Media Studies, Disability & Society, Food, Culture & Society, and Society & Animals. In July 2013, she founded the Vegan Feminist Network, an academic-activist project engaging intersectional social justice praxis. She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory (Palgrave MacMillan 2016).

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

What’s Wrong with the Israeli Animal Rights Movement, 269?

Content warning/Not Safe for Work: This article (and pages it links to) contains information about sexual assault and racial violence which may be upsetting. Some quotes contain strong language. Many images included are graphic and disturbing.

Arm being held down while branded with "269"
Photo credit Xandrah-Octopus

By shawndeez davari jadalizadeh

Last month, on September 26, people gathered in city centers to take part in the international day of protest, Respect Life. Spanning across seventy cities worldwide, the Respect Life protest “is to bring animal liberation to the forefront of human consciousness.” The goal, as stated by the organizing group 269 Life, is to raise awareness about the “animal holocaust.” Many praise the group 269 Life for its daring animal rights activism and participate in their international calls to action. However, there is a growing consciousness in the broader animal rights movement that this group is in fact rooted entirely in unsound ideology. Only three years old, the Israeli animal rights group 269 Life is undoubtedly the largest animal rights group in Israel. With significant followership across the globe, understanding 269 is the key to understanding the Israeli animal rights movement more broadly.

The foundation of 269 is based on a Declaration entitled the Non-Humans First Declaration which unequivocally defines human oppressions, such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, etc., as irrelevant and unimportant to fighting for animal rights. The Declaration consists of three main Articles, the first of which is that “no one should be excluded from participation in animal rights activities based on their views on human issues.” Making clear the disregard for human oppression, the Declaration specifically makes room for activists who have no interest in intersectionality. In particular, this defining Article condones racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, and transphobia in the animal rights movement by allowing activists to enter without engaging a critical stance on systematic oppression. This type of mandate allows individuals who do not want to struggle against the arduous and complex network of oppressions to join a movement where they can participate in animal rights activism, while continuing to be racist, sexist, homophobes.

The second article states that “tactics should prioritise non-human animals” and that “no tactical idea should be excluded from the discussion based on its conflict with human rights ideology.” This point is imperative in understanding 269’s style of activism. Famous for their brutal and inflammatory demonstrations, 269 has a history of engaging in protest tactics which involve violence against human beings.

For example, the group conducted a “performance” in which a group of men wearing all black ski masks abduct a young woman, rip her baby away from her, and forcibly milk her like a cow while beating her, all on a public sidewalk. In yet another instance of senseless and offensive activism last year, 269 activists donned pointed white hoods covered in blood, eerily resembling the KKK. Corey Wrenn describes the problematic nature of one of 269’s branding demonstrations in how “these branded men in chains draw on a history of human slavery. There’s something disturbing about white skinned activists from a mostly white organization reenacting a history of racial oppression while simultaneously failing to acknowledge it in their narrative.” Triggering and traumatic, 269’s approaches to animal rights are perpetuating very real notions of violence against women, People of Color, and children.

The third and final article of the Declaration is a “call on human beings to free their own (non-human) slaves before demanding their own rights.” Building off of an embedded privilege, the language of the Declaration implies that humans are to give up concern and pursuit of their own rights. Evidently, individuals with identities which face more systematic oppression (People of Color, women, working class, queer, disabled, etc.) will likely not be able to get behind the concept of putting the animals’ first, nor should they, as simply surviving is often a struggle. It is in this Article where all the privileges apparent in the rationale behind the 269 Declaration manifest. It is also more than apparent in the title as well as the language of the Declaration that this is fundamentally an agenda to promote animal rights at the expense of human rights, under the guise of “urgency” for animals.

The central issue with the Non-Humans First Declaration is that it openly calls for classification of animal oppression as wholly more important and necessary to fight than human oppression, in addition to inviting racists and sexists to join the ranks. As a fixture of Israeli animal rights, we must note that the Non-Humans First Declaration is publicly signed by the founder of the group, Sasha Bojoor, as well as four 269 Life chapters. Therefore any group which supports the Non-Humans First Declaration, 269 Life in particular, should be seen for what it is – an anti-intersectional animal rights group, which not only accepts, but normalizes violence against humans.

269’s staunch Non-Humans First stance, as well as their sizeable global followership, demonstrates a structural problem within the animal rights movement today. Emblematic of the underlying oppressions embedded in animal rights activism more generally, 269 openly houses and nurtures anti-intersectional activists. In particular, their activism which champions violence against women, children, and People of Color, fortifies violence against traditionally oppressed bodies. Therefore, activists and groups which continue to collaborate with 269 should be rebranded as anti-intersectional.

Examples of Problematic 269 Activism

Because 269 uses the fundamentally problematic Non-Humans First Declaration as their manifesto, the activism which emerges from 269 is likewise deeply troubling. Almost all of their strategy is designed to evoke visceral reactions, generated in large part by acts of violence against humans. In performing these actions however, hegemonic narratives of violence against certain bodies are reified and therefore normalize those perceptions.

The following sections are designed to help outline the varying problems with 269’s attempt at activism. Due to the complex networks of oppression, it is entirely impossible to remove race analysis from gender analysis, so on and so forth. Therefore, I have chosen to place examples under general titles to which I believe they best fit. However there is an undoubtable overlap between oppressions and I acknowledge that certain examples could be placed in multiple categories.

Violence Against Women

One of the most basic violences which 269’s activism contributes to is their recurring activist theme of violence against women. Their activism entirely disregards historic and ongoing power dynamics of male supremacy. In fact, a majority of their actions rely heavily on the subordination, suppression, or violent attack of women, almost always conducted by men.

Female Activist Branded with 269
Street demonstration, men holding down a woman who is screaming as she is branded with a hot iron

Woman in cow mask and white dress led through streets by men with a lead
Street demonstration; two men lead a woman dressed in white wearing a cow mask, head down

Woman branded with 269
Street demonstration, woman winces as she is branded with a hot iron by a man

The repetitive performance of violence against women’s bodies is unhelpful, to say the least, in challenging the very real threats which women today face all over the world. In case it is unclear to 269, domestic violence, sexual assault, and murder are still rampant worldwide social ills. It is now well-known that one in three women globally will be beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. As 269 continues to conduct these demonstrations in city centers across the world, their “activism” actually works to normalize this violence against women.

By designing these deeply gendered performances, 269’s work supports the notion that violence against women is possible, and worse, acceptable.

Irrespective of the consensual nature of the act, meaning even if we are to assume that the woman has agreed to participate of her own accord in an action which deliberately brings harm to her body, the violence still occurs. And 269 uses that violence against her body as a performance by which to sell, or advertise, the idea of veganism. Through a deeper understanding of the gender violence perpetuated in 269’s activism, the parallels between their stunts and capitalist exploitation of female bodies becomes eerily similar. By designing these deeply gendered performances, 269’s work supports the notion that violence against women is possible, and worse, acceptable. The repetitive production of such gendered violence further supports that conclusion.

Considering that our society has conditioned us to accept violence against women’s bodies as a routine or nonsignificant norm, the recreation of this particular violence continues to enforce that understanding. The repetitive consumption of violence against women’s bodies works to make regular, or “normal,” the violence women experience. And any activism which contributes to these normalizations is incredibly dangerous.

In addition to their street demonstrations, some of 269’s poster designs are extremely troubling. One of the most egregious examples of this is a poster with the phrase, “Got Rape?” Wholly ignorant and disrespectful to human survivors of sexual violence, 269’s poster designs reify violence against women, with rhetoric indistinguishable from Men’s Rights Activists’. Their sheer disregard for the triggering aspects of their tactics and the violences they contribute to demonstrates either their overwhelming privilege, their ignorance, or a combination of both.

Milk carton with an arm shoved into it, reads, "Got rape?"
Gloved arm is forced into a milk carton that has bottom that resembles that of a cow. Reads, “Got rape?”


Maintaining Racial Hierarchies, White Supremacist Power Structures, and The Israeli Occupation

In addition to violence against women, 269’s activism contributes to maintaining racial hierarchies, white supremacist political power structures, and the Israeli occupation. Through much of their activism, 269 continues to circulate images which support existing racist structures. In one instance, the group used a highly offensive poster to advertise an event in March of 2014. The picture, shown below, situates an image of half of a Black male face adjacent to half of a white cow face with the words “Eradicating Human Supremacy.”

Poster for march, shows half of a Black man’s face juxtaposed with half of a white cow’s face

Firstly, given that this is one of the only, if not the only, times in which a Black individual is present in 269’s activism is a problem in an of itself, considering the severe anti-Blackness prevalent in animal rights activism. More importantly, the way in which they chose to depict this Black man’s face is wholly unsettling because it is not even designed to tokenize and represent this identity as a symbol of diversity for the group. Rather, the half-image is used to advertise for an event to “Eradicate Human Supremacy,” more clearly, to criminalize the Black individual as the symbol of wrongdoing in a speciesist society. The blatant insensitivity present in this photo demonstrates how 269 disregards the traumatic, horrific, and disgusting histories of worldwide slavery. Their choice of a Black man in this photo to visualize the eradication of human supremacy shows the complete lack of recognition of the ongoing human supremacy known as white supremacy.

An even deeper reading of the photograph allows for discerning the deeply embedded racist undertones by analyzing the juxtaposition of the Blackness of the Black face and the whiteness of the cow face. Given the said goal of the event and the ideology of 269’s Non-Humans First Declaration, animal life is seen as pure, sacred, and innocent as juxtaposed by the Black face, understood as the opposite of those qualities. Therefore, this construction of the Black face, seen as the human supremacist in the photograph, is defined in part by the contrast with the white cow face, seen as innocent and sacred. Additionally, the fact that the group leader, Sasha Bojoor, is responsible for circulating this image on social media as his Facebook profile picture further supports how the group leadership is oblivious to its perpetuation of anti-Black racism.

In addition to 269’s racist posters, one of their demonstrations for the Eradicating Human Supremacy Day in Italy exemplifies how ignorant and disrespectful they are with respect to race matters. Their description of the event reads as follows:

The 21st of March is the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We have chosen this day to continue spreading our message of animal liberation and call for the complete eradication of human supremacy over all other life forms! We are acting in unity with the UN’s intention for this day. The following excerpt is taken from their website: “The theme for this year’s event is ‘Racism and Conflict,’ highlighting the fact that racism and discrimination often are at the root of deadly conflict.” …We believe that there cannot be peace, nor an end to human prejudice while our hands are wet with the blood of billions of innocent animals!

Choosing to organize their day of action on the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is in effect seizing and dominating the one space and time set aside specifically for the discussion of racial violence. First, we have to recognize the painstaking difficulty of successfully centering race, racial violence, and the systematic oppressions of white supremacy at the United Nations. Knowing that it took strategic organizing and dedication on the parts of People of Color to centralize a discussion on race at the international level, it is simply absurd for animal rights activists, white animal rights activists, to interdict, claim, and take ownership over that space.

Instead of organizing their protest on another day, which would have allowed the much-needed space for the discussion of racial violence, they decide to take over and monopolize the space for their own ambitions, all while ignoring systemic racism within animal rights movements as an anti-intersectional group.

This is an upsetting manifestation of white animal rights activists downplaying the severity of racial violence and co-opting a space designed to address racial violence to meet their own needs. Furthermore, given that the 269 group could organize its demonstration quite literally any other day, demonstrates the arrogance of their activism. Instead of organizing their protest on another day, which would have allowed the much-needed space for the discussion of racial violence, they decide to take over and monopolize the space for their own ambitions, all while ignoring systemic racism within animal rights movements as an anti-intersectional group. The photo below is a part of their action, disrupting the space in front of the building which housed the meeting.

Woman under plastic wrap like meat

Continuing the trend of co-opting “International Days,” 269 Czech Republic also designed an action titled “Slave Auction Event.” In this blatantly derogatory event, a group of white Czechs simulated a human slave auction on the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery.

Advertisement created by 269 Life that is brown with old font made to resemble a slave auction notice; refers to nonhuman animals

Live demo by 269life, shows white activists dressed as slaves on auction block

Drawing on the horrendous history of slavery, without due recognition, apology, or respect, this event is outright offensive. Again, co-opting a space which is not theirs to take and co-opting a history which is not theirs to reproduce, 269’s activism strategically swallows the space set aside to address the brutalities of slavery by staging a demonstration in front of the UN International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery Conference. In addition to being simply insulting, 269’s slavery-activism diminishes the material implications of slavery which still very much exist to this day. Shockingly self-serving, 269’s slavery-activism demonstrates how entirely clueless the group is to race, racial dynamics, and histories/realities of racial hierarchies.

Unfortunately, this is a recurring theme within 269 activism, in which white people repeatedly act as slaves, dawn chains, and get branded without taking any responsibility for their appropriative and insulting actions. As argued by contributors for Everyday Feminism, “comparing oppressions is violent and exploitative, particularly because black oppression isn’t over.” Exploiting Black history and recreating triggering visuals with an overwhelming degree of disregard for histories of slavery, 269 pursues its anti-intersectional activism while actively reproducing anti-Black racism within animal rights.

Another image circulated by 269 which fortifies racist hierarchies is an image of what is perceived to be a Person of Color over a slaughtered sheep.

Picture of a Muslim man who has just slaughtered a sheep. The sheep’s corpse lays in the street in a pool of blood as he cleans his knife.

The iconography in the photograph, along with the rhetoric “When you eat meat you’re forcing others to die for your beliefs” recreates the recurring problem of white-supremacist animal rights work. This type of whiteness-centric activism can be defined as activism organized and designed by white people and white groups in demonizing and targeting People of Color. In this instance, 269, an overwhelmingly white group is showcasing an image which falls quite literally into the whiteness-centric, racially profiling setup of “animal whites.”

Islamophobia is increasingly on the rise and entirely unaddressed within the animal rights community.

Furthermore, the Orientalism at play in this photograph contribute to existing Islamophobic notions of barbarity and savagery of Middle Eastern peoples. This point is not to be taken lightly, as Islamophobia is increasingly on the rise and entirely unaddressed within the animal rights community. Photos such as this which get widely circulated throughout social media reinforce Islamophobic and Orientalizing perceptions of Middle Easterners. In addition to the Orientalizing nature of some of 269’s activism, it is fundamental to outline how their unsound ideology manifests in violence towards human populations, in particular, the Palestinian people. An interview with Santiago Gomez, one of the original group members who participated in the original “branding” event in Rabin Square of Tel Aviv, shared his ideological transition of once being against the Israeli occupation to now supporting it.

The concept of “normalization,” borrowed from the Palestinian issue and applied to human/nonhuman interaction, was another peppery eye-opener towards the end of my time as a human rights activist. For those not familiar with the political parlance, “normalization” refers to any organization, group or program that brings together Palestinians and Israelis under vague and nonpolitical banners of “coexistence,” without direct and explicit acknowledgement of the occupation, apartheid, histories of displacement and the overall oppression of the former by the latter, as well as the need to combat it. It is essentially a way to whitewash oppressor/oppressed relations through the creation of a false sense of symmetry and sameness. And I maintain that the concept of a “one struggle” is a mechanism which basically serves the same purpose.

In this instance, Gomez is arguing a very nuanced yet crucial point to understanding his transition out of an intersectional activist stance. After outlining his epiphany of realizing the contradictions in his stance against the Israeli occupation, Gomez articulates his non-humans first stance by claiming that the concept of “one struggle,” or intersectionality, is equivalent to human supremacy. Therefore, Gomez is arguing that intersectionality is fundamentally a human-centric cause and that he himself disagrees with the efforts to challenge the occupation, apartheid, histories of displacement, and the overall oppression embedded in the Israeli occupation. Rooting his rationale in the Non-Humans First rhetoric, it is evident that his logic strategically dismisses, erases, and removes any concern with Palestinian rights. More broadly, his analysis is based on erasing context, or histories of violence, in order to focus all efforts entirely on animal rights work.

Gomez goes on in the interview to explain how he now supports the Israeli occupation because the embargo limits the number of cows allowed into Palestine and because Israeli military attacks have caused the near collapse of the Gaza fishing industry. He details his rationale beforehand as an intersectional activist who was insulted at such an argument and how he now supports the Israeli military occupation and violence towards the Palestinian people.

Further emphasizing his point, Gomez claims:

The oft-repeated argument that the animal rights movement should concern itself with human rights because “humans are animals too” would be a prime example of such a linkage, as would any reference to the low wages or dangerous work conditions of those poor slaughterhouse workers. The chant “human freedom, animal rights, one struggle, one fight!”—an ahistorical, apolitical, decontextualized and across-the-board flawed syllogism if there ever was one—would be a close third.

Citing the crux of intersectional activism, concern for human struggles, as an antithesis to his activism, Gomez illustrates his aversion to intersectional activism. Ridiculing the notion that humans are animals too as an arm of whitewashing oppressed/oppressor relations, Gomez is again, reifying the Non-Humans First Declaration.

Emphasizing his stances, Gomez unashamedly points to the ability of 269 Life to make its unequivocal stances against human rights issues.

For all the faults you may find with 269, it is at least free of that pernicious political inferiority complex which plagues animal rights activism, in that it is definitely *not* about seeking validation through pathetic attempts at riding the coattails of “more pressing” (read: human-centered) causes. And that’s pretty rare in our movement.

Boasting of 269’s disregard with “human-centered causes” as a “freedom,” Gomez’s articulation demonstrates the utter aversion to human rights. Not only is the group relieved to boldly align itself as a Non-Humans First group, it has in fact taken this disregard for human life and human well-being as a political advantage and worse, something to be proud of.

Nonetheless, Gomez does articulate at the beginning of the interview that these are his thoughts and his thoughts alone, not to be held as the ideals of the entirety of the 269 Life group. However, we must not ignore that this individual was one of the original members of the group and therefore has an ideological base which matched up with the founding members. More importantly, it is of crucial importance to note that the transcript of this interview has been publicly endorsed and shared by the founder and leader of the group 269 Life, Sasha Bojoor. In his public endorsement of the interview, Bojoor writes, “A true [Animal Rights Activist], completely dedicated to the cause and true to himself. Only wish, more activists had an infinitesimal portion of his integrity and intelligence.” Directly upholding Gomez’s positions, Bojoor’s public praise for Gomez shows how even the leader of 269 comes to support and endorse these oppressive stances.

The group has effectively designed a logic, the Non-Humans First pro-Israeli occupation logic, which permits its followers to support the Israeli occupation in justifying their animal rights activism.

Gomez’s logic, publicly endorsed and validated by Bojoor, demonstrate how the group is fundamentally a zionist group. By claiming the Non-Humans First stance, disassociating with human rights causes (Palestinian rights) entirely, and arguing that the occupation is actually good for animal rights as Gomez does, 269’s ideology becomes synonymous with zionist politics. The group has effectively designed a logic, the Non-Humans First pro-Israeli occupation logic, which permits its followers to support the Israeli occupation in justifying their animal rights activism.

Indeed, there are a few instances, either two or three, in which animal rights activists from Palestine have been invited to join in an animal rights demonstration with Israeli 269 activists. In one particular demonstration in the village of Shefa `Amr, activists gathered to distribute leaflets about veganism.

However, in the description of the demonstration, the 269 Life activists reinserted their sheer disregard for human life yet again by claiming, “Politics and nationalism means nothing, as long as the animals are suffering and dying by the billions, all over the world.” This argument may seem less offensive had it been coming from Luxembourg or Nepal, yet when it is coming from activists physically located in a country which is militarily occupying another country, attacking and slaughtering its people on a daily basis, and systematically annihilating their Palestinian identity, the language carries another meaning. It is effectively a method to reduce the Palestinian struggle to nothing and erase its significance.

For an Israeli based animal rights group to claim that “politics and nationalism means nothing,” while their government continues its violent military occupation and attack on Palestinian people is situating its activism in support of zionism. Just because Palestinians join 269 in a demonstration for animal rights does not mean that the group 269 is not supporting zionist politics. The political stances of 269 unequivocally demonstrate how the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, the ongoing slaughter of Palestinian people, and erasure of Palestinian identity is of no significance to them whatsoever. It is imperative to understand how 269’s activism, regardless of whether or not Palestinians may sporadically participate, systematically deprioritizes the Palestinian struggle.

Normalizing Violence

Overall, 269’s framework and activism are deeply problematic in that they wholeheartedly support hegemonic narratives of violence and power. In addition to the racist, sexist, and zionist themes which flavor a majority of their tactical approaches to activism, 269’s leader Bojoor is also an adamant voice for violence against humans as well as being publicly against intersectionality. He is often seen sharing images, memes, and stories which support physical violence against humans.

Although all animal rights activists can, to some extent, understand the anger and frustration with humans which cause violence towards animals, the idea of encouraging violence towards humans cannot and will not resolve the issue of violence against animals.

For example, in reference to Kim Kardashian wearing fur, Bojoor writes that he “hope[s] that obnoxious piece of shit dies a slow and painful death. #fuckyouKimKardashian.” In another instance of supporting violence against humans, Bojoor shared an image which read “Save an animal. Encourage hunters to drink and drive.” Although all animal rights activists can, to some extent, understand the anger and frustration with humans which cause violence towards animals, the idea of encouraging violence towards humans cannot and will not resolve the issue of violence against animals. Suggesting the death of humans, no matter how much we disagree with them, is a clear articulation of irresponsible, ungrounded, and irrational activism. More importantly, it cannot bring about nonviolence or compassion towards animals, as Bojoor’s posts suggest.

Even more problematic, Bojoor deliberately and unequivocally stands against intersectionality as a baseline for social justice activism. He writes, “Intersectionality is a bankrupt ideology, the proof is easy to see, its all around us.” Whatever proof Bojoor is referring to, I have yet to see it. The only proof I am repeatedly encountering is how pathetically bankrupt anti-intersectional activism is ideologically. In addition to his emphatic anti-intersectional stance, Bojoor aligns himself with animal rights groups known to belittle and disregard intersectionality, such as PETA, Gary Yourofsky, and Direct Action Everywhere. It is no secret that Bojoor heavily cites, references, and endorses activism by each of these entities mentioned, and in so doing, solidifies his blatant disregard for intersectionality.


Given 269’s anti-intersectional stance, it is crucial to locate their narrow-minded activism within the larger scope of oppressive animal rights work. Proudly Non-Humans First, 269 Life continues to perpetuate violence against marginalized groups through its theoretical basis, social media materials, and social activism stunts. Acting as the apex of Israeli animal rights, 269 boasts its non-human animals first rhetoric in a cyclical reproduction of oppressive ideologies, targeting women, People of Color, Palestinians, and other oppressed groups. By strategically placing non-human oppressions as above, and therefore the only relevant priority, 269 structurally attracts animal rights activists which contribute to oppressive systems in an activism design which continues to make the world unsafe for marginalized groups.

In addition, it is critical that we mark 269’s activism as co-optive and exploitative of marginalized groups. By creating visually striking stunts to garner media attention, traction, and popularity in the animal rights community and beyond, 269 is profiting off of violence against oppressed bodies. Using this violence and its circulation as a means of increasing support, the group is in effect exploiting the oppressed for its own personal advancement.

This is a call to the global animal rights community: if you support 269 Life, you are supporting the oppression of human animals. To support 269 Life means to disregard the oppression of Palestinians, women, sexual violence victims and survivors, and People of Color. This group is a dangerous, violent, cooptation of compassion. If we seek to be intersectional in our approach to animal rights activism, there is no room for 269 Life in the movement, or animal rights groups which proudly associate with them. As intersectional animal rights activists, we must not fall for the trap of supporting a publicly anti-human rights group. Rather, we must do everything in our power to distance ourselves from a group known to align itself with such violence and disregard for human life. Although it may be initially tempting for those untrained to detect racism, sexism, and white supremacy, 269 is nothing more than a group of offensive, yet passionate, human oppressors. We must make clear in the animal rights community, yet again – the revolution will be intersectional or it won’t be my revolution.


shawndeez is a PhD student in Gender Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.