Tag Archives: Black Feminism

What They Do to Her, They Do to Us: On Feminism and the Dairy Industry

Posted on by

By emilie isch

I, like many others who have made an active effort to remove dairy products from our diets, know the industry to be cruel and senseless. There are numerous negative effects of dairy on our collective and individual health, our environment, and overall wellbeing. The production of milk, cheese, and other dairy products amount as a massive contributor to global temperature rising, despite the prominent focus on factory farming for meat. Dairy production accounts for increased water pollution, land degradation, air pollution, poor soil health, and deforestation – just to name a few of the major contributors (Hussain, 2022). For example, one single litre of milk requires 8.95 square meters of land and 628.2 litres of freshwater (Hussain, 2022). The dairy industry in Canada is responsible for nearly 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and 90% of that comes directly from farm related activities with the greatest level of emissions released happening during forced lactation (Vergé et al., 2013; Mcgeough et al., 2015). Additionally, nearly 70% of the world’s population cannot digest milk sugars (lactose intolerance), a phenomenon which is occurring more specifically amongst people of African, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American identity (Del Prado Alanes, 2022). Meaning the consumption of dairy is directly responsible for worsened indigestion, IBS, and health sensitives. It’s also resulted in a prominent racial bias as milk continues to be sold and marketed to folks with lactose intolerance, as mentioned, typically those of racial identity. This why folks who are vegan say that giving milk to our Indigenous and black or brown friends is actually a continued act of colonization.

According to Gabrielle Victoria Fayant, a member of the Assembly of 7 Generations, milk is part of the three deadly ‘whites’ brought to their communities during colonization along with flour and sugar (Panel discussion held in Ottawa on April 14th, 2025). Indigenous peoples in Canada were not consuming milk before the arrival of cattle during the 1500’s to 1700’s when cattle first appeared off Nova Scotia, then Quebec, and later Newfoundland and Manitoba (MacLachlan, 2006). The import of Portuguese, British, and French cattle assisted in the takeover of land through trading posts and foodstuff (MacLachlan, 2006). Mathilde Cohen, professor of law, has long written of this tie between milk and colonialism as part of a growing scholarship on ‘Animal Colonialism’. In her 2013 paper she argues “that lactating animals became integral parts of colonial and neocolonial projects as tools of agro-expansionism and human population planning” (p. 297). Not only is there themes of population control, eugenics, and expansionism, but as I will expand on in this article, the treatment of female cows and lactating animals is a direct reflection of the ongoing sexual assault of women, girls, and gender diverse folks. In essence, what they do to her (the animal), they do to us (the human). Dairy is inequitably an intersectional issue, and one that is necessary for any conversation on the rights of mothers (both animal and human), and the rights of female bodily autonomy (of animals and of humans). More importantly, it’s a conversation we are long overdue having around the conscious efforts for anti-speciesism as part of any liberatory or abolitionist ideology. We are not truly liberated unless we are all liberated.

Part One. Milk as a Colonial (and Neo-Colonial) Tool

Let’s return to the work of Mathilde Cohen. Cohen, along with many other scholars interested in the intersections of law, ecology, and our society have begun to write on milk as a tool of power and colonialism. How this has proliferated will be explored throughout this article, but specifically as we discuss milk as a colonial tool. Anthropologist Rosa E. Ficek explains how cattle began to take more and more space through conquest, and as a result, native inhabitants like animals and humans were invaded not only just by the colonizers but by the very animals that surrounded them. The land began to shape to fit the needs of colonizers, and not the people from that land. Moreover, writer Matilde Nuñez del Prado Alanes (2022) expands on capital interest and the growth of forced milk consumption throughout the Americas even after independence was granted from Europeans colonizers. This is why scholars name milk as a tool of colonialism.

Milk as a colonial tool extends to the behaviors of numerous colonists who used animals to conquer ecosystems from the time of Christopher Columbus in 1617 with the import of horses, cattle, swine, sheep and goats, to Dutch settlers who brought their own cows in 1629, and to the British who arrived with sheep and bovine on the shores of Australia and New Zealand in the 18th and 19th century (Alanes, 2022). Before modern colonization, the act of animal milk consumption was confined to only select parts of the globe, those being Central and Northern Europe, what is known as the ‘middle east’, sub-Saharan Africa, central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. Historian Deborah Valenze expressed how the global history of milk was really the emergence of it as a cultural and universal commodity. This depicts a story “of [the] conquest of space, energy, and dietary preferences.” The arrival of these various domesticated animals to colonized lands suited European interests, as settlers continued their habits of milk product consumption abroad. As we approach the late 19th century, dairying became one of the leading industries in Europe and the United States through “economic rationalization and new technologies which transformed milk from a substance that spoiled so easily that it had to be consumed on the spot into a commodity that could travel huge distances” (Cohen, 2013, p. 269). This where we begin to see connection between the globalization of food markets, which it possible to consume dairy products in one side of the world, produced in a completely different part of the world.

Part Two. Cultural Hegemony, and Media Representations of Dairy

In Marxist ideology, cultural hegemony is defined as the domination of culture in a society whereby the ruling class shape the culture of that society. This refers to the ways in which our culture is influenced by norms, representations, and the status quo – all which is determined by those who hold power, the capital owners. To contextualize cultural hegemony within the dairy industry this section will unpack the interests of the dairy farmers, the industry as a whole, and more pointedly, the media and advertising realm that control the attention of our minds and wallets.

‘Got milk?’ advertisements ran from the early 1990’s, peaking in popularity throughout the late 90s into the 2000s. Created by one American advertising agency in 1993, the campaign was originally created with interest of the California Milk Processor Board, a non-profit marketing board funded by the California dairy processors (James, 2015). The board came into existence in light of declining milk sales in the 90s as Americans consumed other beverages such as soft drinks. The ’got milk? ads typically displayed celebrities or models drinking milk with the very infamous milk mustache. In Figure 1, we see Beyonce and her mother, Tina Knowles posing with text below that reads “milk your diet, loose your weight” accompanied by so-called expert advice that encourages women to low fat or fat free milk as part of a way to lose weight. Not only has milk been used as a feminine and puritan symbol, as discussed in culture and film commentator Mina Le’s video (2024) on the “Evil Symbolism of Milk”, this along with countless similar advertisements reminds women to hate our bodies and always be looking for ways to improve ourselves. The ad can also be analyzed as an insidious celebrity marketing tool targeting younger Black women, given the immense sway and fame someone like Beyonce has in the Black community. Moreover, pulling insights from Le (2024), milk within the media often represents whiteness, making got milk? ads that feature black people an ideal marker of culture’s obsession with whitewashing Black people and further positions a cultural hegemony that places whiteness at the centre.

These ads, and many other depictions of milk showcased muscular or fit bodies also cement a manufactured tie between sex appeal and milk. Milk was, and is, desperate to be sexy and cool. And by that, I mean those who ran the milk lobbies were desperate to keep milk relevant in our culture. Since its peak there has been an attempted resurgence of these ad campaigns. The board was also part of a few other marketing endeavours and the more recently in 2023 with the ‘Get Real Inc.’ targeting Hispanic American consumers in Spanish (Get Real). The desire of this ad was to encourage the supposed ‘real’ benefits of consuming milk during these unprecedented times of AI, and ‘new’ fad milks (California Dairy, 2023). Essentially, this the board’s attempt to position dairy milk as ‘real’ and other types of milks as ‘not’ real. This stance is illustrated in their media campaigns with cow milk juxtaposed alongside alien, octopus, bee, and salmon milk. The emphasis of this campaign on ‘real’ is a shallow attempt to combat research coming out around milk being an insufficient source of nutrients (Alexander et al., 2016). It is also meant to poke fun at the rise and popularity in alternative milks such as oat milk (more on that later). The intentional ploy to have these ads run in Spanish and feature Latinx faces is also yet another example of racial capitalism and the very direct ways in which the health and wellbeing of some of our most vulnerable community members are not taken seriously. I repeat. Milk consumption has been proven to not be healthy. Most Black and Brown people are lactose intolerant. This is simply greed and intentional life denying politics.

Beyonce and Tina Knowles posing in a got milk? Advertisement

Figure 1. Beyonce and Tina Knowles (2006)

Meanwhile, Fortis B.C and the Canadian Dairy Industry have been hard at work greenwashing campaigns of their own. Specifically, the two have partnered up to boost lies that Fortis B.C will help produce RNG (renewable natural gas) with the offset of a dairy farm in Chilliwack, BC. However, feeding cows to produce milk is not, and will never be, a sustainable process. This will only continue to be a harmful practice and dairy will never be a comparable RNG source. Secondly, the Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) are also claiming they will be “net-zero” by 2050 (Figure 2). I should note here that DFC is the national policy, lobbying and promotional organization representing Canadian dairy producers. Meaning, just like ads like got milk? and the DFC has a vested interest in maintaining the positive image of milk in order to continue profit generation. The DFC ads which ran in 2022 used a lot of fluffy, nonsense language like ‘planting trees to purify the air’ and ‘reducing emissions’, all the while images of hand drawn cows next to a red barn with a windmill and trees covered the landscape. These imageries, parried with greenwashing lies about the dairy industry foster a sense of whimsical bliss and unrealistic positivism. Greenwashing campaigns heavily rely on childlike imageries, and this evident as we see the DFC ‘cute-ifying’ their aesthetic. These fictious ads prey on the consumer with a promise of feeling good, and ethical, because the images used are pointing to a make-believe world where the worlds roam the fields in glee, with nothing scary or violent happening to them at all. This is doubled down in a recent campaign from Farm Boy (an Ottawa based chain grocery store) where plush cows were neatly positioned in woven baskets next to the diary aisle. The cow has a name, a cute face, and is something your kid can take home with them. Attempts to make the dairy industry palatable and cute is no different than Japan’s ‘Kawaii’ culture, a deliberate strategy to deflect their war crimes, and have their culture instead known for hello kitty and other cute iconography. I won’t spend too much time getting into the history and concept of Kawaii, but I will link resources to learn more in the reading list at the end. How Japan is externally branded reflects this internal cultural denial of their rampant violence and imperialism, and just like the dairy industry across North America.

Two cows stand in grass with trees, a windmill, and a red barn behind them

Figure 2. Net Zero Graphic

The power of the dairy lobbyists in both the US and Canada are extremely strong. Just like the meat industry, dairy has the single interest of maximizing profits. They want to uphold a particular cultural hegemony to be successful in maximizing those profits. The culture they are building and maintaining is one where dairy and meat are central to the diets and lifestyles of the traditional all-around American family. However, the recent rise of alternative and plant-based milks has left dairy with an interesting new association, and one that is seemingly unfavourable to many gen-zers. Oat milk is cool, hip, and queer, and dairy milk is not. In fact, there’s been so much relevant cultural indicators of this shift, that some baristas will ask if you want a non-dairy milk right off the bat. Although the vast majority of these trendy cafes charging sometimes upwards of two dollars extra for plant-based milk will never be cool, hip, or queer. Now, the consumption of plant-based milks as a trend isn’t entirely evil, since I do marvel at the fall of big dairy, but there’s a fine line to walk when it comes to consumption because of ideology and out of an ethics, and consumption for status or for an attempt to fit in. This lends itself to unsustainability in behavior, since there’s no real backing to your choice, just a desire to be Instagram worthy. If you’re catching yourself choosing plant-based milks, that’s awesome, and hopefully you’ll continue reading this article and decide to cut out all dairy products, not just pick and choose for your morning coffee.

So, I mention queerness and oat milk not because I personally identify with this stereotype as a queer woman who drinks a lot of oat milk, but to draw our attention to the very deliberate ways that food choices reflect onto our culture and vice verca. Raw milk for instance has become another one of these ‘new’ trends in the world of food culture. The consumption of raw milk has been heavily connected with what many are calling the “crunchy to far right pipeline”. Influencers all over TikTok and Instagram preach the supposed benefits of raw milk, oftentimes arguing in tandem for the consumption of other raw animal products such as raw beef. These individuals may also be against vaccines, believe in a whole host of conspiracy theories and generally, are advocates for an alternative (conservative) leaning lifestyle. They may have started out more benevolent, going on juice cleanses, or even being plant based, but the years post pandemic we see this dramatic shift from silo to mainstream. I won’t really be getting into all the nuances of raw milk drinkers here as I don’t condone attention on conspiracy theorists or anti-vaxers, instead I bring them up however as an example of dairy’s association to right wing ideologies and dangerous portrayals of so-called health and wellbeing.

Part Three. The Dairy Industry is Anti-Feminist: Exploitation, and Rape

This will likely be the heaviest section of the article. Please read with discretion.

Cows, like human mothers, give birth after carrying their young for 9 months. Cows, like human mothers, lactate milk from their breasts as food for their young. Cows, unlike human mothers, have their young taken away from them at birth because the milk they produce instead actually for their calves, it’s for us – grown adults, children, and even pets. Humans are the only species on this earth that drink the breast milk of another species.

Farmers can’t waste even a drop of valuable profit filled milk, so the separation of calves and mothers happens typically right away or within a day. USDA statistics reveal that “97 percent of calves are separated from their mothers within the first 12 hours of birth” (Cehn, 2023). Once the milk production begins for the matured female cows they undergo mechanical milking – different from the joyful images you may have in your head of a gentle handle milking on an udder early morning at the farm. These machines are instead hooked to the cow’s udders, and they are milked 2 or 3 times per day (Cehn, 2023). Dairy cows are bred to produce over 10 times the amount of milk they would naturally make, which means many suffer from painful udder infections, often resulting in pus in the milk (Najana, 2023). Yuck!

The fate of those separated calves is much like the fate of their mothers. A lifeless adolescence void of companionship and bonding from their mother and siblings. The calves, unable to be breastfed are forced to consume bottled formula and confined to cramped quarters. Once the female calves hit 2 years old and are considered fertile, the cycle begins once again. Insemination tools (see Figure 3, although please note it is mildly graphic) are used to forcefully impregnate cows who have reached puberty. Just as their mothers were once forced to endure, the farmer’s hand is inserted inside the cow’s anus to complete this invasive procedure. Let’s pause here. The cow in that moment has zero ability to consent to what is done to her – and before we get caught up in the speciesist debate claiming that a cow’s ability or inability to consent is not worth our time, because they are just a cow, I want to remind everyone reading that a cow’s consent is just as important as our own consent. Behaviour imposed onto one living being reflects all living beings. Why should a farmer stop at forcefully impregnating cows. We know well from history that female bodies are constantly disrespected, and their autonomy compromised, all the same as these cows. The point isn’t whether one body belongs to a human, and one belongs to a cow, the point is that a patriarchal society will always jeopardize and take control of what they deem the subordinate. In this case the cow and the human are not so different in how assault and rape become normalized.

A diagram illustrates how to artificially inseminate a female cow.

Figure 3. Their Turn, 2016

So, after around 5 or so years of non-stop milk production, the female cows have served their purpose and are usually no longer able to produce any more milk. This doesn’t mean they get to live happy lives free from torture, no, these cows are useful still as meat and are sent to the slaughterhouse.

We have not mentioned yet what happens to the male calves, those who cannot produce milk. Male calves are typically raised to be beef cows, and undergo the torture of being overfed, and under stimulated. However, some are kept to be slaughtered immediately as veal meat, and in some situations, they are raised to be higher priced veal. Higher priced veal requires the calf to have tender, pale meat. This means they need to be underfed, enough to be low iron and anemic (Cehen, 2023). This portion of the industry is more widely rejected for the known and inhumane conditions the male calves are put in, however the connection between the dairy industry and the veal industry are inherently tied. To condemn one part is to condemn it all. This draws parallels to the conditions in which one overarching harmful industry, dairy, also influences the harms of another industry, veal. Just as a patriarchal society harms women, it also harms men. Men are perpetrators of most of the sexual assault and violence, not because they are biologically predisposed to be the agitator, the conditions in which this system allows their behavior to proliferate and go unchecked is the cause for attention. Fighting for justice and liberation as a feminist also requires the ongoing work to unpack how all genders are forced to conform to social norms and behaviors.

Cows possess intelligence, social bonds, the ability to grieve, and form memories. Their emotional and physical torment experienced during the course of their life as a dairy cow or as a beef or veal cow is not without its own form of trauma and lasting distress. Women and all genders who have suffered from assault and violence are not magically healed one day and left to forget all that was done to them. Cows, like humans deserve a life that is mitigated from unnecessary harm and unwanted experiences. 

Part Four. On the rights of mothers: Reproduction and Breastfeeding

The violation of a cow’s reproductive system draws parallels on the forced sterilization of Black, Brown, and Indigenous women across time and place. Paola Alonso, scholar at the Texas Women’s University outlined reproductive rights and eugenics in one of their papers. They point to one district Alabama court exposing “between 100,000 to 150,000 poor people were sterilized annually under federally funded programs, and others were coerced into consenting to sterilization under the threats by doctors to terminate their welfare benefits if they denied the procedure” (Alonso, 2018, p. 4). This was almost exclusively happening to Black and Latino women in the US, with Puerto Rico having some of the highest sterilization rates of women in the twentieth century (Alonso, p. 5). In Canada, a very similar project of sterilization was occurring for Indigenous women, notably one of these being Alberta’s Sexual Sterilization Act from 1928 to 1972 (Stote, 2019). The reasons being disdain for these population groups expanding, and a desire to control the levels at which they reproduce. While forced sterilization is happening less overtly today, the eugenics programming is alive and well. Discourse around who should be ‘allowed’ to have babies, and why is very prominent in immigration policies, and media propaganda. The rights of mothers to continue their bloodline, especially if it is one the ruling class does not view of worthy of life, is a radical act. This of course is determined by the important notion of choice. Anti-abortion rhetoric continues to serve as a political pawn, fueling religious and cultural talking points. The bodily autonomy of women here is no different than the bodily autonomy of a cow. Ultimately, the commodification of cows for meat or dairy is the crux here and what leads to all this in the first place. An ideology which marries the patriarchy and capitalism is indeed our society’s treatment of animals and by extension, women. Specifically, this connects race issues, feminism, and the rights of mothers.

The forced separation of cow and calf is no different than the forced separation and kidnapping of Indigenous children by social workers and other officials during the 60s scoop, a colonial tactic which continues to this day. The commodification of early child nutrition has meant than millions of babies across the globe do not consume the breastmilk of their mothers and are instead given baby formula. This is the colonial capitalist output of years of melding in the affairs of mothers and families. When the Gold Coast was fighting for independence from the British in the 1950’s, the colonial British government released a cookbook which they claimed to be a source for nutrition and cooking (Nott, 2019). A long-utilized tool, as we discussed earlier, food as a power grab was maintained and the cookbook argued to add milk in tea for extra protein, and further encouraged the consumption of meat, and fish which were not typical parts of a traditional diet. Moreover, the cookbook suggested that breastfeeding was not an adequate source of nutrition for babies and instead began to market baby formula as the necessary ‘missing’ part. John Nott, professor of medical history discusses the rise in bottle feeding across colonial African countries arguing that in Uganda, the percentage of children who were bottle fed in the early 1950’s went from 14% to 40% by the 1960s (Nott, 2019). Additionally, long time evil villain company, Nestlé was found to be melding with affairs in the early 1970s, depicting their employees as nurses in uniforms in various maternity wards across Africa, South America, and South Asia (Sartore, 2022). These ‘Milk Nurses’ encouraged the growing curated dependence on breast milk substitutes and is explored in more detail in Mike Muller’s 1974 report titled ‘The baby killer A War on Want investigation into the promotion and sale of powdered baby milks in the Third World.’ Here, we begin to understand just how integral Black liberation, and food politics really is.

This incessant shift towards bottle-feeding is nothing new however, it goes back even as far as 1939, when a speech given by Cicely Williams, a Jamaican physician on the Gold Coast, called out the marketing and policy shifts for baby formula “murder” (El-Sherbiny, 2022). Of course, much of this was guised under the banner of foreign aid, with the caveat however of introducing dependency on billion-dollar corporations like Nestlé. It was estimated in 2015 six companies, including Nestlé, “spend close to $50 for each baby born worldwide to market breast milk substitutes, a total of $6 billion a year” (El-Sherbiny, 2022). This is no different than pulling cow mothers away from their calves, who the milk is produced and intended for, and instead is fueling the pockets of the dairy industry. Just as Indigenous peoples across this globe were sold the lie that formula was better for their baby than their own breastmilk, we are complicit in the intertwining of claves consuming formula, cow mothers producing milk for humans, and human mothers “choosing” oftentimes to consume both formula and cow milk. (I say “choosing” because as we have just learnt, the push for formula and for cow milk is largely curated for profit and capital growth by the ruling class).

A much simpler and more natural (but less profitable) solution to all this we leave the milk produced by cows and humans for their own respective babies.

Part Five. Towards Anti-Speciesism

There’s no better way to close a piece on animal and human liberation than with a push for anti-speciesism. Anti-speciesism is in its simplest definition is the case for a dismantling of the unjust hierarchies and power structures which impose human exceptionalism and an argument against positioning humans above animals. Speciesism promotes the systems of which the dairy industry exists and continues to shift norms and practices that harm our ecologies. Working towards a world without racial capitalism and heteropatriarchal values means working towards a world without speciesism. There is no way around that.

Now, this is not to say the point of this entire article is to pressure or ‘force’ anyone to go vegan. I’m just here to expose the contradictions and leave you to figure out the rest. Because I am a Marxist-Leninist, I also know there is no ‘forcing’ someone to become a communist, because well, once you begin to explain the scientific empirically tested method of Marxism to anyone who has begun to seriously question capitalism and imperialism, the rest just falls into place. I believe strongly in my duty as someone with the resources, time, and privilege of education to share my knowledge and the knowledge of countless other scholars in an effort to inform and empower the masses. There is no reason to walk away from this article feeling guilty – I have consumed dairy for the better of my life as a person who was raised not as a vegan, and I imagine many of you are in the same boat. But it’s not too late to shift habits, and to become an outspoken advocate of an anti-speciesit future. Going vegan is a fundamental way to be a better feminist, a stronger ally to our Black, Brown and Indigenous friends, and to really begin to advocate for total liberation.

Note to readers: I did not cover anything relating to the labour rights of human industry workers, interconnections between human and animal under capitalism or studies showing higher rates of toxic health issues, and violence and aggression amongst meat and dairy workers. This is simply because the article would have gotten too long. That is to say, another article on those topics will be coming out soon. 

References

Alexander, P., C. Brown, A. Arneth, J. Finnigan, and M. Rounsevell. 2016. “Human Appropriation of Land for Food.” Global Environmental Change 41 (Novembe): 88-98.
Alanes, M. 2022. “Dairy in the Americas: How Colonialism Left Its Mark on the Continent.” Sentient Policy.
Alonso, P. 2018. “Autonomy Revoked: The Forced Sterilization of Women of Color in 20th Century America.” Health Equity 2 (1): 249–259.
Cehn, M. 2022. “What’s Wrong With Dairy & Cow’s Milk?“ World of Vegan.
Dairy Farmers of Canada. n.d. Net Zero by 2050 | Sustainability.     
El-Sherbiny, E. 2022. “Baby Formulas and Cash Crops in Africa Led to Poor Diets.” New Lines Magazine.
Hussain, G. 2019. “The Devastating Impact of the Dairy Industry on the Environment.” Sentientmedia.org.
James, S. 2015. “Got milk? (A Brief History).”         
Maclachlan, I. n.d. The Historical Development of Cattle Production in Canada.
Mc Geough, E., S. Little, H. Janzen, T. McAllister, S. McGinn, and K. Beauchemin. 2012. “Life-cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dairy Production in Eastern Canada.” Journal of Dairy Science 95 (9): 5164–  5175.
Media, M. 2023. “California Milk Processor Board Launches ‘Get Real Inc’.” California Dairy Magazine.            
Mina Le. 2024. The Evil Symbolism of Milk.         
Muller, M. 1974. The Baby Killer.
Najana, P. 2023. “A True Feminist Is Also Vegan.” Medium.
Nott, J. 2019. “’No One May Starve in the British Empire’: Kwashiorkor, Protein and the Politics of Nutrition Between Britain and Africa.” Social History of Medicine 34 (2): 553–576.
Nuñez del Prado Alanes, M. 2023. Sentient.            
Sartore, M. 2019. “Nestle Bombarded Developing Countries With Their Baby Formula, and The Consequences Were Deadly.” Ranker.
Seger, S. 2023. Veganism Is Not Anti-Indigenous.
Staff, E. 2023. “RNG – Thoughtful Journalism About Energy’s Future.” Thoughtful          Journalism about Energy’s Future.
Stote, K. 2019. Sterilization of Indigenous Women in Canada. The Canadian    Encyclopedia.
Vergé, X., D. Maxime, J. Dyer, R. Desjardins, Y. Arcand, and A. Vanderzaag, A. 2013. “Carbon Footprint of Canadian Dairy Products: Calculations and issues”. Journal of Dairy Science 96 (9): 6091–6104.

Recommended Resources

Statistics and Data
Ritchie, H., M. Roser, and P. Rosado. 2023. “Meat and Dairy Production.” Our World in Data.

Collection of Animal & Earth Liberation Zines
Warzone Distro: Category: Animal Liberation & Earth Liberation. 2025. Noblogs.org.

Learn More about Kawaii Culture
Miller, L. 2011. “Cute Masquerade and the Pimping of Japan.” International Journal of Japanese Sociology 20 (1): 18–29.
Osenton, S. 2007. “Insidiously ‘Cute’: Kawaii Cultural Production and Ideology in Japan.” Library And Archives Canada = Bibliothèque Et Archives Canada.

Learn More about Veganism from Black Vegans

Events, Resources and More:
https://blackvegsociety.org
https://www.afrovegansociety.org/black-vegan-activist-resources

People to Follow:
Tabitha Brown @IAmTabithaBrown
John Lewis @BadAssVegan
Russel Simmons @UncleRush
Alexis Nicole Black Forager
Eats by Will @eatsbywill

Documentary:
They’re Trying to Kill Us (2021) directed by John Lewis and Keegan Kuhn

Music:
Wu-Tang Clan (most of the members are vegan!)
Stevie Wonder
JME
Lenny Kravtiz
Akala
Mya
Macka B

emilie isch (she/her) is an interdisciplinary scholar and community organizer currently residing on unceded Syilx Territory in British Columbia. 

Vegan Sustainability

Posted on by

The term ‘sustainability’ has been critiqued as being performative and devoid of meaning. Sustainability at its core is understood as the drive towards maintaining ecological balance. It is a word that inspires strategies that are greener and considers the consequences and potential impact of extractive industries and depletion of natural resources on future generations. However, sustainability as a term has been misused, manipulated, and commodified. As vegan organizations grapple with critiques of colonialism and white supremacy, it is imperative to do the work to decolonize this movement and imagine a just vegan sustainability framework.  In this piece, I offer recommendations on how to decolonize sustainability and fight for land justice, animal liberation, and food sovereignty in order to save the Earth and ourselves. It is time for a total overhaul of our food system itself.

Sustainability for Who?

This question of ‘sustainability for who’ is at the heart of this conversation. While affluent countries in the Global North emit the majority of emissions behind global climate change, countries in the global South not only face more consequences, but also are scapegoated in discussions of climate justice. If sustainability is operationalized as prolonging the current economic system and keeping things ‘business as usual,’ marginalized communities, both human and nonhuman, will continue to suffer.

In many ways, sustainability has been weaponized against the Global South and other communities that have been historically harmed by colonizing nations. The most obvious and insidious use of sustainability as a continued form of colonialism concerns population control. This discourse posits that the current amount of resources on the planet cannot sustain the current population and, therefore, countries with high birth rates should introduce population regulations. This discourse is saturated in white nationalism, is built on the continuing legacy of genocide and eugenics, and is integral to the contemporary ecofascist movement.

Usually this ‘family planning’ rhetoric is espoused by white environmentalists from the global North, such as Carter Dillard, Senior Policy Advisor to the Animal Legal Defense Fund who founded the family planning organization Having Kids, concerning rising population in the Global South. Dillard’s argument for a family planning modeled built with equity in mind posits that the most vulnerable population: children, specifically future children. As he argues, a human rights based approach “would protect [children] from being brought into the world beneath a particular threshold of well-being,” meaning that an unborn child would be more ethical, under this framework, than a poor child.

Dillard is aware that there is “a lot of history — around eugenics, foreign aid, welfare reform, etc. — [that] supports [the] argument…[that] focusing on population is actually a way of targeting the poor and people of color, rather than targeting the rich white men driving the fossil-fuel industries” but decides to instead focus on the to-be-born who he believes ethically should stay unborn. This continuation of colonial logics saturated in sustainability rhetoric illustrates that a new conception of sustainability is necessary to move forward towards a just future. I believe that integral to this conception of sustainability is an analysis of what historic harms have been done to previously colonized countries, how capitalism continued to propagate extractive industries in these nations, and how the Global North will hold itself accountable for this legacy of climate change.

Decolonizing Sustainability

What would a sustainable future that encompasses the needs and considerations of the Earth and nonhuman animals look like from a decolonial perspective? Any future-oriented vegan organization must be focused on acknowledging its pattern of centering white male voices from the Global North and espousing damaging colonial rhetoric. Doing this work—not to perform solidarity but to enact it – begins the slow process of building relationships with communities that the vegan movement has marginalized and tokenized.

While not a vegan organization, groups could learn a lot from  Soul Fire Farm. Soul Fire Farm is a Black-led multi-racial sustainable farm that challenges injustice in the food system and it is also leading a reparations movement for Black farmers. Case studies like Soul Fire Farm offer examples of how to do food justice right:

  • Build community and partner with activists, networks, institutions, and indigenous tribes.
  • Create spaces to heal from generational trauma.
  • Offer solidarity-shares and distribute to your communities.
  • Tell stories and raise historically marginalized voices and histories.
  • Engage in radical self care and create a healthy work culture.
  • Participate in regenerative farming practices based on respect for non/humans.
  • Create workshops that equip marginalized folks with the tools to create their own movements.
  • Collaborate with and act in solidarity with indigenous communities.
  • Give your land back to Black-Indigenous farmers.

It is only through true, non-performative reparations that we can undo the harm of food apartheid together.

This work is necessary in order to grow regional partnerships with sister organizations and begin working towards sustainable farming, environmental stewardship models, and food justice. Consider language justice and indigenous land ownership throughout entire project, build a portfolio of insights from model organization’s programming, and consider the advice of land and farm elders. Always ask, “How will the work stay grounded in truth and reconciliation between black and indigenous people? How will these communities be provided access to power building opportunities? How can my organizations create autonomous spaces for these communities?”

Vegan Sustainability

This conversation concerning sustainability is tackled directly in the new film, “We Fly, We Crawl, We Swim” by the collective Just Wondering and has been celebrated in film showings across the world. Just Wondering creates animations that make posthumanist and critical animal studies theories digestible and understandable. Their videos also challenge the status quo and illustrate how normative power structures are inherently oppressive and marginalized people, nonhumans and the planet “We Fly” argues that environmental justice cannot be accomplished without challenging the current systems at fault for pollution—capitalism and its obsession with consumption and commodification. Just Wondering’s solution: creating a multispecies society that views the more-than-human world as kin and changes our economic system with their needs and consideration in mind.

A true sustainability—one that not only regulates harm but abolishes it—is predicated on the embracing of a multi-species liberation. Performing sustainability in order to continue extractive practices only reifies the structures that support this exploitation of people, non-human animals, and the environment. In order to build a multi-species solidarity future, it is imperative that we not only predicate social justice movements on environmental justice, but that we also reform our current economic system towards a more just commons-based society that includes the needs of non-human actors and actants. I view this framework as a ‘vegan sustainability’ and believe this is the sustainability we should work towards in the future.

Vegan sustainability is built upon the following tenants:

1) Animals and the environment are worthy of care and moral consideration.

2) Capitalism is the underlying current that is behind the current commodification and exploitation of people, nonhuman animals, and the environment.

3) Nonhuman population deserve recognition of their autonomy and should be viewed as political persons.

4) Harm has been wrecked on non-human and marginalized human communities and these population deserve accountability and reparations for this harm. 

5) A just world and just future outside of our current system is possible and attainable.

Just Wondering’s main argument is one of idealism, not self-defeating pessimism. They posit that it is not only conceivable but achievable to imagine and create a society that is anti-capitalism, anti-specieisism, anti-white supremacy, and anticisheteronormativity. It is through this framework of vegan sustainability, an off-shoot of the revolutionary potential of vegan politics, that we can move towards an economic reformation outside of our contemporary systems of violence and towards total liberation.

Z. Zane McNeill is an activist-scholar, co-editor of Queer and Trans Voices: Achieving Liberation Through Consistent Anti-Oppression, and the founder of
Sparks & McNeill.

Why I’m Giving Beyoncé’s Vegan Campaign a Chance

Posted on by

Beyoncé and Jay-Z shocked mainstream news and vegan activists alike when they announced that fans who pledge to go plant-based have a chance to win free tickets to their concerts for life.

Some vegans have not been so enthusiastic about the campaign, citing that veganism “for the health” is not the same as veganism “for the animals,” and that veganism is not something that can be “forced” on others.

Whose Veganism is It Anyway?

To this I would counter that, although some (myself included) may understand veganism to be a matter of anti-speciesism, vegans should hesitate to insist that the Eurocentric interpretation of veganism is the only valid approach.

As a practical matter, a “master frame” of veganism is not especially useful in the context of a diverse audience. Personally, I critique the hegemonic vegan frame which is highly bureaucratized and prioritizes capitalist interests over the interests of effective social change (which I argue inevitably undermines veganism). To be able to criticize hegemonic veganism from this angle, however, is a reflection of my white privilege.

As a white person, I have to concede that other ethnicities will have other priorities. These include the deadly consequences of food deserts and food insecurity as well as the role that “animality” as a social construct has played in the oppression of people of color. These are priorities which have been beautifully outlined by activist scholars such as Dr. Breeze Harper and Aph & Syl Ko.

I concede that “my” veganism will not be the veganism that other folk feel compelled to adopt.

The Vegan Society defines veganism as:

a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

Beyoncé definitely does not count as a “vegan” according to this definition. She claims to eat animals’ flesh occasionally since it’s “all about moderation.” I assume her stage outfits make use of real birds’ feathers and cows’ skin as well. Her makeup is probably produced from slaughterhouse renderings and tested on other animals. She could exclude these things quite “possibly” and “practicably.”

But is The Vegan Society’s definition the only definition that matters? More specifically, is it the only definition which should apply to everyone? What about people of color living in a racialized society?

I suggest that the vegan identity is multifaceted and that the terms of engagement must be contextualized.

Cultural Force

In any case, I think it is a stretch to claim that Bey (who is not even a vegan herself) is “forcing” veganism on others. Fans who claim to go vegan (how can their veganism even be verified?) only have a chance to win free tickets, they are not guaranteed free tickets. Attending expensive music concerts is not a requirement, it is only recreational. Nor do Bey or Jay-Z require a complete transition since they also promote reducetarianism or “meatless Mondays.”

As I have uncovered in my research on flexitarian campaigns of this kind, many people already identify as someone who does not eat “that much” meat or dairy, since reducing animal product consumption is seen as a social good (unlike veganism which is interpreted as “extreme”). Importantly, the flexitarian identity does not often correlate with actual behavior change. In some cases, those who identify as flexitarian actually consume more animal products than their non-flexitarian-identifying counterparts.

That said, Bey is using her cultural clout to promote a social good. This is no different from the efforts of white celebrities like Moby, Morrissey, and, if you stretch it, Miley Cyrus. Morrissey reportedly bans all sale of animal flesh at his concerts–is he forcing his fans to be vegetarian?

True, celebrities are rarely trained in social justice activism, and their politics are not always perfect. I also find it uncomfortable that society should rely on celebrities to promote social goods since celebrities, given their extreme wealth, are the very embodiment of social inequality. Yet, Bey is putting her money where her mouth is–she is using her celebrity and privilege to make the world a better place through the channels available to her.

As this essay goes to print, Senator Cory Booker (also a person of color) has just announced his bid for presidency. He is a fierce social justice advocate and a longtime vegan. But he, too, promotes veganism for a wide variety of reasons which do not always center other animals. Would the movement be so quick (and foolhardy) to write off Cory Booker if he were to become our first vegan president? Need the vegan movement even have to wait for a vegan president? Beyoncé is practically American royalty, after all. Her clout arguably exceeds that of Booker’s.

Whether white activists like it or not, celebrity influencers shape the cultural landscape. The vegan identity (unlike the flexitarian identity) is a highly stigmatized one, and social movements will need to normalize its goals before they can be widely adopted. If Queen Bey makes vegan cool, it might not be “for the right reasons” (that is, it might not seek to advance the interests of Nonhuman Animals), but it can have a significant impact on the community she serves.

The Master Frame

Social movement scholars acknowledge that collectives strategically design frames which are hoped to resonate with their audiences. Multiple frames can be at work, but it is sometimes the case that a “master frame” will come to dominate in the movement’s repertoire. The utility of a master frame is its ability to present a strong, united front to the public and policy-makers. The downside is that a “one-size-fits-all” approach can be unrealistic given that audiences (and activists themselves) are not necessarily homogenous. Persuasion is a complicated matter and it sometimes takes many approaches to push a social justice agenda.

The Vegan Society, which formed in 1944 Britain and officially launched the political concept of “veganism” in the West following a protracted debate with The Vegetarian Society, may have prioritized veganism as a matter of anti-speciesism, but, from its very conception, it drew on a diverse framework relating to human health, poverty and famine, war, and individual autonomy. Indeed, The Vegan Society, today, continues a multipronged approach.

As the society moved into the 21st century, it continued to promote veganism, not necessarily as an endeavor to liberate other animals, but as something “normal” and achievable. Its vegan labeling scheme, for instance, was a major campaign in this effort. I have my issues with such an approach given its pro-capitalist leanings and its watering down of the anti-speciesist radical politic, but it is the case nonetheless that the expansion of commercially available vegan products has made veganism easier to perform.

Beyoncé has been dragged before for not meeting the expectations of white activist frames. White feminists, for instance, have criticized her brand of feminism as sexually objectifying and complicit with patriarchy, if not ignored it altogether. Black feminists have responded by reminding the community that there is no one “Feminism” (capital F) but rather many feminisms, and the failure to embrace Black women’s activism reflects white supremacy in the public space.

Because inequality does not stop at the door of social justice movements, activists must consider how inequality can sometimes shape strategy. Who is the “master” in developing the “master frame”? What I am suggesting is that the “master frame” is too frequently racialized in its construction.

Likewise, the need to control the vegan discourse and the very definition of veganism itself is rooted in colonial politics. As European countries pushed their culture onto “inferior” and “ignorant” subjects, they expected full assimilation. There was little patience for adaptation or nuance; it was simply presumed that European cultural values were universal and should be adopted unquestioningly. This is the very definition of cultural domination.

In this vein, it must be remembered that, while non-Western countries have their own histories of plant-based resistance, “Veganism” (capital V) as it is understood and politicized today, is a deeply European concept. White activists must tread carefully when attempting to impose “their” veganism on “others.” Indeed, the vegan movement, dominated as it is by white activists, has been less than welcoming to the veganisms of other cultures. This is problematic if the goal is to expand veganism beyond middle-class white spaces.

Most people go vegan and stay vegan because of their concern for other animals. Bey’s health-centric, flexitarian approach does not alter this research-supported fact. But Bey also has a wider cultural influence and represents a nonwhite consumer base that has been traditionally overlooked by the Nonhuman Animal rights movement. I am interested to see if her efforts will contribute to the larger discourse. I am also deeply supportive of women of color who have the “audacity” to be political in a white-dominated cultural landscape. Celebrity persuasion is far from perfect, but it can contribute to the destigmitization of veganism. This cultural normalcy was The Vegan Society’s aim all along.

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.

Black Veganism and the Animality Politic

Posted on by

Why Animality Matters

In Ko & Ko’s 2017 publication Aphro-ism, the sisters critique popular applications of intersectionality theory, identifying that what has traditionally been defined as “human” has always been categorized as white, male, and European, while racial and ethnic minorities, women, and other marginalized groups have been dualistically constructed as “animal.” Thus, “animal” is not so much a catch-all category meant to refer to nonhuman species, but to all manner of disenfranchised groups, humans included.

Animality is, they insist, endemic to the colonialist project, providing justification for social control and suppression. The Kos argue that anti-racism activists, feminists, and vegans all have a stake in challenging the false divide between human and animal, and, more specifically, challenging the category of “animal” itself.

Without challenging this basic mechanism of oppression, activists are bound to fail in their efforts for liberation. In fact, they merely embrace the same oppressive logic by either ignoring (or rejecting) the relevance of animality or insisting that intersectionality praxis stop short of species solidarity. Doing so dangerously preserves hierarchies. As Aph warns: “What hasn’t occurred to many of us is that this model of compartmentalizing oppressions tracks the problematic Eurocentric compartmentalization of the world and its members in general” (71).

Why Race Matters

From the same reasoning, vegans who do not incorporate a critical racial lens are missing the entire point of speciesism: marking particular bodies as distinct from the dominant group based on perceived physical, cognitive, and cultural differences, and then employing this distinction to rationalize oppressive treatment. Racism and speciesism are inherently entangled. Explains Syl: “[ . . . ] the organizing principle for racial logic lies in the human-animal divide, wherein the human and the animal are understood to be moral opposites” (66).

The Kos are careful not to prescribe a “we are all animals” perspective to solve this boundary-maintenance, as this is poised to deprecate rather than accommodate difference. There is little need to push for sameness, and such a push usually maintains the dominant group as the standard to which others should aspire.

Read more of my review of Aprho-ism: Essays on Pop Culture, Feminism, and Black Veganism from Two Sisters in Society & Animals here.

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.

Lessons in White Fragility: When Vegan Abolitionists Appropriate Intersectionality

Posted on by

By: Dr. C. Michele Martindill

A recent blog post essay by Unfriendly Black Hottie (Hottie, 2013) should have prompted an open discussion of the appropriation of intersectionality in the so-called vegan abolitionist animal rights community. So far, that discussion has yet to happen. Why not? Is it another case of a white-centered social movement making Blacks invisible and silencing their voices? Are movement members who use the concept of intersectionality unwilling to or afraid to critically examine their understanding of the concept? To what extent does white fragility (Diangelo, 2011) (see definition of white fragility below) come into play as an explanation for the lack of discursive dialogue? Under the best of circumstances it is painful to examine values and beliefs we hold close to our hearts and to do so with the knowledge we may be wrong. Critical analysis can lead to that feeling of sickness in the pit of the stomach or an unwelcome feeling of embarrassment. It can lead to disorientation and loss of control, rare feelings for those who have long benefited from white privilege and who have the power to define concepts such as intersectionality, appropriation, racism, sexism and feminism to suit their purposes. It can alternatively lead to learning, to growth and the impetus to make social change happen.

Intersectionality is one of the current buzz words in the vegan abolitionist animal rights movement. Some people love it, others hate it. The meanings are varied, confusing and debated across countless online discussion threads. One vegan blogger tells us that, “…intersectionality does not mean that all forms of oppression intersect” and they go on to define it as, “in specific situations, multiple forms of discrimination can create specific situations for a group not described by the forms of oppression that intersect. The primary example is the failure of racism and feminism to describe their intersection for women of colour” (Unknown, Intersectionality and Abolitionist Veganism: Part 1, 2014). The reader is left to wonder if the blogger is suggesting that racism alone or feminism alone cannot explain the “discrimination” experienced by women of color so then it is important to look at the interactive effect of these oppressions. While the blogger provides a brief history of how intersectionality “started to be used frequently in the 1990s and has become something of a fashion in academic circles, rather like “queer theory” in the 1980s,” no direct connection is made to Patricia Hill Collins and Kimberle Crenshaw, the originators of the concept, and queer theory is shoved to the background as nothing more than a trend.

Patricia Hill Collins - "Black Sexual Politics" cover

Random comments sprinkled throughout the rest of the essay serve mainly to keep any discussion of intersectionality white-centered and to argue that veganism will bring everyone together to end all oppressions:

If people are really interested in intersectionality and ending human-on-human oppression, it seems to me that sexism in developed countries might be less urgent (and I say this as a woman) than wholesale slaughter of people, men, women, and children, in Gaza, Afghanistan, Yeman [sic], Syria, and Iraq and the culture of hatred that supports this destruction.

So, intersectionality in this instance becomes a method for rank ordering the form of oppression that most needs to be addressed, but in the next breath all of these oppressions are dismissed in favor of getting people to understand how only a commitment to being vegan will stop the large number of deaths:

Ending war, sexism, racism, oligopoly is important but change will only happen when society as a whole is affected. Veganism is something we can do now, and convince others to do now. It will only result in large social change when there are enough of us, but every single vegan has an impact on how many deaths occur, and it is something we can all do, right now.

Our blogger leaves us with a rationalization of how and why veganism is white-centered and why it such white-centeredness is not a problem:

Veganism is not the province of any race. Just because a majority of online vegans are “white”, that does not make it a “white” issue. I’d guess the majority of people commenting on police killings in the US are also “white”, even though the victims are generally “black”. I’d guess that’s an artefact of internet participation and availability of time, …and it’s changing.

Apparently, if Blacks are not visible online it is simply an “artefact of internet participation and availability.” White centeredness is not a numbers game. It specifically refers to how whites dismiss, ignore and otherwise make invisible the presence of Blacks. Did this blog author even look online for Black vegans? Our author continues:

I look at this issue, the current scurrying to shame abolitionist vegan advocates as racist, with dismay. The promotion of the idea that there are “exceptional” circumstances for people of colour, and that it is racist not to address these circumstances, is not helpful, …and I think it holds a certain contempt for people of colour. The issues of veganism are not different for people of colour. Our thinking is not different. We either recognise the autonomy, the moral personhood, of other animals, and respect them enough not to use them as things, or we don’t. There are no “special” economies for people of colour. Plant-based diets are cheap diets, and traditionally the diets of the poor. There are no “special” cultural conditions for people of colour in most parts of this global consumer world. [emphasis added]

Never mind that Black men are being murdered by the police, that racial profiling is rampant or that poverty rates are at an all-time high among POC, the message here is we can and should ignore intersectionality and just go vegan. Indeed.

Another vegan animal rights Facebook page that was created specifically to promote intersectionality is The Vegan Intersectionality Project (Unknown, Vegan Intersectionality Project’s Photos, 2015). A single meme effectively sums up their definition of intersectionality:

Vegan Information Project poster about intersectionality

Anyone researching intersectionality on this Facebook page will learn via bullet points it is “a tool for understanding the entanglement of all privilege and oppression, a way to break down the barriers that isolate us from one another, a new, holistic, and all-embracing way of thinking about the struggle for justice, [and] living our values with consistency.” Nowhere on the meme is there mention of or credit given to Patricia Hill Collins or Kimberle Crenshaw, nor is there so much as a tip of the hat to the notion that the concept of intersectionality was never meant to be white-centered. The meme concludes with a statement that is perilously close to the white-centered claim that all lives matter:

Intersectionality in practice means…an intersectional understanding of veganism means an end to selective compassion and indifference to suffering, it means everyone matters equally and everyone’s struggle for freedom is ours [emphasis added]

The author ignores the #BlackLivesMatter campaign which aims to center the discussion of racism with persons of color, and then the author proceeds to suggest that the Black struggle for freedom is the property of whites, that the struggles of others are shared or even owned by whites. How is that even possible? Are whites now being pulled over by police for the crime of driving while white? Are white men now being incarcerated in the prison industrial complex at rates that exceed those of Black men? Whites can never know or share the struggles of Blacks. Also, whites seem incapable of acknowledging the Black discourse on intersectionality, much to the detriment of veganism.

We are at a point now where we have to ask what white vegans are missing when they close their ears and minds to the Black understanding of intersectionality, when the result is the erasure of the lived experiences of Black women. In the essay on intersectionality from the Unfriendly Black Hottie blog the author describes a meeting with Patricia Hill Collins, a Distinguished University Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland and the first to theorize intersectionality (Collins, 2005). Collins was asked, “How do you feel about the ways white feminists have taken your work on intersectionality as a feminist way to be more inclusive while erasing the creations as part of a Black feminist tradition and without a dedication to Black women’s lives in any way?” While Collins did not use the word appropriation to describe what happened with her work, she related a story of how white musicians took the works of Black jazz and blues artists and imitated them without having the lived experiences that inform the music. Technically, the music is similar, but in the process whites erased Black lives from the music, the very heart and driving force of the music.

Nina Simone

The Unfriendly Black Hottie author goes on to summarize how Patricia Hill Collins views intersectionality:

intersectionality is meant as a bottom up approach, not a top down approach. those with power cannot be “intersectional”. you are also not living intersectional experiences. intersectionality was always about exposing the ways Black women are caught up in multiple systems of oppression, namely race, gender and class, but often many more. it is meant to help Black women understand their experiences in a white supremacist patriarchal culture like the U.S. or much of Western nations that have applied this model onto most cultures from the outside. most importantly, it is meant to help Black women see the ways their experiences are connected to one another and not a product of self-deficiency but structural real systems that have cultural and economic benefits for ruling/dominant classes. [emphasis added]

understanding Black women live intersectional experiences gives us insight into the ways race, gender and class, heterosexism and more all work together in ways that restrict Black womens access to resources. and access to resources is what is really one of the most important things needed in Black women’s lives. which white feminism is not committed to in any way. when Black women learn more about classism, sexism, racism, heterosexism and more (such as transmisogyny, islamophobia, convicted felon status, etc) and how they work, we learn more about how we can define ourselves without those systems imposing our identities onto us.

In other words, the white-centered, man-dominated leadership of the vegan movement cannot and should not be dictating the meaning and use of the concept of intersectionality. Vegan leadership has no direct experience of intersectionality. White men are a part of the very “white supremacist patriarchal culture” intersectionality is meant to challenge and thereby allow Black women to define themselves sans the systems of classism, racism, sexism and other oppressive systems. Whites are simply wrong to take intersectionality as their own:

when you’re white saying your an intersectional feminist, you are wrong. you are the white boy singing sad songs to a blues twang claiming to be a Blues artist. you are the miley who wears black womens bodies and perceived sexualities as fun identities to put on and off, without living within those experiences always and forever. it is erasure, it is warping, it is the continual narrative of whiteness as a dominant force, in opposing the creators and destroying the creators while then attempting to re-create those creations with whiteness firmly installed inside of it. which is false, warped, fake and without heart and soul. it is a lifeless imitation. and mostly, it isn’t REAL.

So, what is “REAL” as vegans come to terms with the white fragility born of realizing they appropriated a concept and misrepresented it? So far, silence or defensive posturing are the ‘go-to’ responses of vegan leadership, essayists and Facebook responders. They spout clichés such as “all lives matter” or “just go vegan” or “veganism is not about race” or “intersectionality shows the interconnectedness of all oppressions.” When anyone in the animal rights movement claims they are practicing intersectional veganism, defining it merely as wanting justice for all and being against all exploitation and oppression, they are operating under a misguided act of cultural appropriation. They are also working to insure that an upper class white cis gendered ableist man dominated ideology remains at the center of the vegan abolitionist animal rights movement. Intersectionality or pro-intersectionality is not a let’s-have-a-group-hug approach to social justice, nor is it simply a path to growing a revolution—increasing movement membership–that will end all oppressive social systems. If vegans want to be pro-intersectional, the term for those who support Black feminist intersectionality, then they have to acknowledge the history of the concept, stop trying to dismiss intersectionality as a distraction from veganism, and put an end to any practice that de-centers Blacks and inserts white dominance. Specifically, stop the following kind of commentary:

Abolitionist vegans are not being speciesist when they don’t let those raising issues of human oppression hijack a vegan forum. Abolitionist vegan advocacy forums are “non-human animal space” (Unknown, Intersectionality and Abolitionist Veganism; Part II, 2014).

The net effect of this message is to exclude Blacks from yet another white centered organization in much the same way they have been excluded for centuries and by making the all too familiar comparison of Black lives to those of animals, only this time Blacks are not as welcome as the animals.

Shouting Intersectionality

It is no wonder that veganism is now seen as an apolitical mish-mash of diet fads. When people are told to just go vegan or that veganism is only for the animals, then what they are really being told is vegans are not serious about pro-intersectionality, about becoming an inclusive movement. The whiteness of the abolitionist vegan movement isn’t an illusion based on white online involvement—the whiteness of the movement happens because vegans are known for their appropriation of Black culture and history, e.g. abolitionism was taken without permission:

Abolitionism as it was first conceived was built and mobilized to free oppressed humans who continue to be oppressed. For vegan advocates to completely appropriate the language and ideas of this movement and then forsake suffering humans, abandon them in their time of need, aggravate their hurting, benefit from their hurting, and then accuse victims and survivors of selfishness is deplorable. Without a doubt, this approach will only further alienate anti-speciesist efforts, tarnishing it as yet another a space of violence, oppression, and white male Western privilege (Wrenn, 2014).

Dismissing and ignoring the suffering of humans makes a mockery of anti-speciesism, of its aim to stop rank ordering others based on their perceived value. Vegans need to stop putting whites at the top of the ladder, granting them the power to tell others who matters and who doesn’t, who should be heard and who shouldn’t. White fragility, that roller-coaster-whooshy feeling in the pit of the stomach, can be a signal to stop rationalizing the status quo and to stop colonizing Black spaces in order to appropriate their language or whatever else abolitionist vegans deem useful. Stop appropriative behaviors. At the same time, know it is not putting humans over the animals when we practice pro-intersectionality; rather, it is centering and respecting the resistance of Black feminists, resistance to the racism, sexism, ageism, classism, ableism and speciesism of a white man dominated patriarchal society. Veganism was never meant to be a justification for white dominance or appropriation.

 

Definition of White Fragility:

White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. (Diangelo, 2011)

 

Michele Spino MartindillDr. Martindill earned her Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Missouri and taught there in the Sociology Department, the Peace Studies Program and the Women’s and Gender Studies Department. Her areas of emphasis include political sociology, organizations and work, and social inequalities. Dr. Martindill’s dissertation focuses on the no-kill shelter social movement and is based on ethnographical research conducted during several years of working in an animal shelter. She is vegan, a feminist and is currently interested in the stories women tell through their needlework, including crochet, counted cross stitch and quilting. It is important to note that Dr. Martindill consistently uses her academic title in order to inspire women and members of other marginalized groups to pursue their dreams no matter what challenges those dreams may entail, and certainly one of her goals is to see more women in academia.

 

References

Collins, P. H. (2005). Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. Routledge.

Diangelo, R. (2011). White Fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 54-70.

Hottie, U. B. (2013, November 6). Unfriendly Black Hottie. Retrieved from Unfriendly Black Hottie: http://femmefluff.tumblr.com/post/66233480328/like-being-very-clear-when-i-asked-patricia-hill

Unknown. (2014, December 14). Intersectionality and Abolitionist Veganism: Part 1. Retrieved from Abolitionist Veganism: Issues in the Movement: https://veganethos.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/intersectionality-and-abolitionist-veganism-part-i/

Unknown. (2014, December 26). Intersectionality and Abolitionist Veganism; Part II. Retrieved from Abolitionist Veganism: Issues in the Movment: https://veganethos.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/intersectionality2/

Unknown. (2015, April 17). Vegan Intersectionality Project’s Photos. Retrieved from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/774093712704517/photos/pb.774093712704517.-2207520000.1430768357./774431842670704/?type=1

Wrenn, C. (2014, December 13). Intersectionality is a Foundational Principle in Abolitionism. Retrieved from The Academic Abolitionist Vegan: http://academicabolitionistvegan.blogspot.com/search/label/Intersections