'Race' and 'Whiteness' in Academia

As I write this article at the end of August 2020, socially defined “minority” communities across the country are protesting yet another police shooting of an African American, that of 29-year old Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Earlier in the year, there were weeks of activism over the strangulation of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man in Minneapolis, Minnesota; the shooting of Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old African American female emergency medical technician in Louisville, Kentucky; the killing of Rayshard Brooks, a 27-year-old African American man in Atlanta, Georgia; the strangulation of Elijah McClain, a 23-year-old African American massage therapist in Aurora, Colorado; and the death of many others at the hands of the police.

Although it is not readily apparent, discrimination against “minorities” is relevant to critical animal studies, and there are many ways in which “race” and “whiteness” intersect in the field. I saw this first-hand one summer when I attended a protest at a factory farm in Los Angeles. A deep racial division was evident at the demonstration, as most of the animal advocates outside the gates were middle-class European Americans, while the majority of workers inside the slaughterhouse were disadvantaged Latinas/os, African Americans, and Asians. Horrified by the stench of the place, I became even more aghast when the European American activists started calling workers “murderers.” And, when I queried the protesters outside if their pets were plant-based, some grew defensive, arguing that dogs and cats are natural carnivores and have to eat flesh. Ironically, cognitive dissonance allowed European American vegans to scream “murderer” at marginalized meat plant workers while continuing to support factory farms by buying animal flesh for their own pets.

Interestingly, the COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to bridge this divide between activists and workers. Since the pandemic began, tens of thousands of “minority” and immigrant meat plant employees have become infected with the virus while working on animal slaughtering and disassembly lines. Deemed as “essential workers,” over a hundred meat plant employees have died from COVID-19. As a result, marginalized workers, their families and unions are calling for the closure of meat plants, along with doctors and health advocates. Animal advocates can help by campaigning alongside factory farm workers in resisting the livestock industry. The intersection of “race,” workers in meat plants, and the pandemic, is an important one for critical animal scholars to explore. 

The are other ways in which “race” and “whiteness” intersect with critical animal studies. Educational institutions are not insulated from the effects of structural racism and the power of “whiteness” operating within the larger society. Universities and academic discourses reflect Eurocentrism and fortify structural racism, and scholars should examine how these larger social forces shape our disciplines. Despite claims of scientific objectivity and unbiased inquiry, there are several critical questions that remain largely unexplored in sociology and other disciplines.

For instance, why is there a lack of ethnic diversity in academia, generally, and more particularly, in our field? How does the lack of ethnic diversity in departments, in the academic literature, and in the use of citations, serve to reinforce Eurocentrism in our discipline? What are the consequences for a field of inquiry that is dominated by people with European heritage? Whose voices are included in the standard curriculum and knowledge base, which ones are excluded, and who decides? How do European ethnicity and cultural capital become entrenched as part of the discipline? And, how do European heritage and privilege bear upon the framing of research, the issues that are explored, the inclusion and exclusion of various voices, factors, social contexts, and so on?

There are other theoretical and material issues around “race” and “whiteness” that lack elaboration in critical animal studies. For instance, how does higher consumption of animal-based protein intersect with claims of Eurocentric supremacy and countries with majority European populations? How are over-consumption behaviors, and massive carbon footprints among a small middle-class in the Global North, subsidized by the impoverished masses in the Global South? How does the Western framing of individual “rights” for nonhuman animals conflict and contradict Indigenous notions of the “interconnectedness” of species? How are issues of representation, consent and objectification in the graphic imagery of animals and nature from the Global South, negotiated or ignored in animal studies and by nonhuman animal advocates and environmental organizations in the Global North? How do “conservation” campaigns in the Global North lead to corruption and dispossession in the Global South? And how does the promotion of ecotourism in the Global South for Westerners lead to trafficking, male violence and other problems for local women?

Although important first steps, the deconstruction of “race” and “whiteness” in our field will have limited outcomes if they are not accompanied by a decentering of Eurocentric theory and theorists, along with a centering of the work of socially defined “non-whites” — Indigenous, African American, Latina/o, Asian, and other. It is the responsibility of departments and academic fields to decenter Eurocentrism and increase ethnic diversity among scholars, scholarship, and the curriculum. Objectivity and transparency also oblige individual scholars to acknowledge ethnic privileges and to discuss how racial advantages may have influenced their career and research choices. 

It is equally important for Western scholars to examine how their theoretical framing reflects perspectives in the Global North, and how these may differ from those of “minority” scholars and theories emanating from the Global South. Addressing the social influence of “race” and “whiteness” in our personal lives and careers is an important part of the process of deconstructing and decentering “whiteness” in our own scholarship, and in transforming the discipline in which we operate. The racist violence against Jacob Blake, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, Elijah McClain, and the deaths of hundreds of “minority” meat plant workers from COVID-19, should inspire academics and their departments to do more in the cause of social justice for human and nonhuman animals alike.

Reprinted from:

Seenarine, Moses. 2020. "Intersection of 'Race' and 'Whiteness' in Academia," American Sociological Association (ASA), The Animals & Society Section Newsletter, Fall, pages 7-8.

About The Author

Dr. Moses Seenarine is the father of Jad and longterm ethical vegan. Seenarine immigrated with his family from South America to the USA in the late 1970s, and he is among the first generation to be college educated. His books include Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming (2016); and Cyborgs Versus the Earth Goddess: Men’s Domestication of Women and Animals, and Female Resistance (2017). Seenarine has written dozens of articles on women, race, caste, migration, the environment, animals, and climate change. His work has been cited by the FAO, UNESCO, Human Rights Watch, Anti-Slavery International, the Institute for the Study of Labor, World Council of Churches, and many others.

Male Domestic Violence

(Bulgarian DV Poster)

Excerpt from Cyborgs Versus the Earth Goddess: Men's Domestication of Women and Animals and Female Resistance by m seenarine (2017). Xpyr Press, 358 pages ISBN: 0692966005 ) http://amzn.to/2xyTkmh

Understanding statistics regarding phallic violence is complex. A lot of it is hidden, under-reported, under-counted, or simply not recorded.¹ Nonetheless, close to 90 percent of violent crime and sexual violence are perpetuated by self-entitled cyborgs.

Physical aggression occurs in 1 in 3 teen dating relationships.² A UNICEF report found 120 million girls worldwide, slightly more than 1 in 10, experienced forced intercourse or other coerced sexual acts by a male at some point in their lives.³ In the US, one in five high school girls report being physically or sexually violated by a dating partner.⁴

In a study of eighth and ninth graders, 25 percent indicated that they had been victims of dating hostility. And, eight percent disclosed being sexually abused.⁵ Around 32 percent of girls who had been mistreated reported overeating and purging, compared to 12 percent of girls who had not been violated.⁶

Among acts of sexual aggression committed against females over the age of 18, 100 percent of rapes, 92 percent of physical assaults, and 97 percent of stalking acts were committed by sperm-producers. Sexual attacks on boys and men is likewise primarily phallic violence with 70 percent of rapes, 86 percent of physical assaults, and 65 percent of stalking perpetrated by other men.⁷

According to the US Surgeon General, domestic hostility by sperm-producers is the leading cause of injury to women. While the World's Health Organization (WHO) finds that 35 to 70 percent of women globally said they had experienced physical violence in their lifetime, mostly by an intimate partner.⁸ And, the US Department of Justice estimates around 85 percent of the victims of domestic violence are women. Lamentably, all categories of egg-producers suffer from men's domestic aggression, regardless of income, age, race, education, or belief system.⁹

As part of their subjugation of females, phallic partners with false privilege assault three million women and girls in the US each year. A woman in America is more likely to be assaulted, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than by any other type of assailant. Moreover, victimization by domestic violence is usually not a single event. If a woman is battered once, her risk of further maltreatment is high. And over time, a victim's abuse usually becomes not only more frequent, but more severe.

Similarly, there is an overlap between child beatings and female battering. Over 65 percent of men in the US who attack their partner also physically and sexually abuse the children. Child ill-treatment occurs in 30 to 60 percent of family violence cases that involve families with children. Exposure to fathers' abusing and domesticating their mother is the strongest risk factor for transmitting aggressive behavior from one generation to the next.¹⁰

In households with pets, women are more often the primary caretaker of the pet, which increases the human-animal bond. There is a strong link between men's mistreatment of animals and their abuse of human egg-producers. In the US, over 70 percent of female survivors own pets who were likewise beaten. Many victims do not leave a harmful situation because they worry their pets are also in danger.¹¹

Battered women are more likely to remain in an abusive home or return to such an environment if they do not have a safe place for their pets. Between 18 and 48 percent of assaulted women have delayed their decision to leave their batterer or have returned to their abuser out of fear for the welfare of their pets or livestock.¹²

Phallic domesticating violence is a leading contributing factor to other problems including child neglect, drug and alcohol abuse, emotional problems, job loss, homelessness, and attempted suicide. The social and economic costs on women and society are enormous, but generally go uncounted and unrecognized.¹³

According to the US DOJ, between 1998 and 2002, of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 50 percent were crimes against spouses.¹⁴ A woman is beaten every 15 seconds in the US by a man, and 35 percent of all emergency room calls are a result of domestic aggression. Each day, four women and three children die as a result of phallic abuse in the US alone.

Men's violence against females worldwide “persists at alarmingly high levels.” This conclusion was reached by a UN report that the Secretary General presented to the General Assembly, one day after International Women's Day on March 9, 2015.¹⁵

Although 125 countries criminalize domestic violence, the laws are not reliably enforced, and the economic impact alone is astronomical. One study found that cyborgs' domestic violence costs the global economy $4 trillion. The report states, "the costs of violence are high; the welfare cost of collective, interpersonal violence, harsh child discipline, intimate partner violence and sexual abuse are equivalent to around 11 percent of global GDP.”¹⁶

The report continues, “The cost of homicides are much larger than the cost of civil conflict. However, violence perpetrated in the home appears to be the most prevalent form of violence. Domestic abuse of women and children should no longer be regarded as a private matter but a public health concern.”

1Donna Chung. 2013. "Understanding the Statistics about Male Violence Against Women." Australia: White Ribbon, Research Series – Paper No. 5.

2Sarah Avery-Leaf & Michele Cascardi. 2002. "Dating Violence Education," in Pa Schewe ed., Preventing Violence in Relationships. American Psychological Association (APA)

3UNICEF. 2014. “Hidden in Plain Sight: A Statistical Analysis of Violence against Children.”

4JS Silverman et al. 2001. "Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls & Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, & Suicidality." J. Am. Med. Ass'n 286: 572-9

5Vangie Foshee et al. 1996. "The Safe Date Project." Am. J. of Preventive Med. 12: 39.

6Cathy Schoen et al. 1997. "The Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls.

7Tjaden & Thoennes. 1998. ibid

8WHO. 2013. "Global & regional estimates of violence against women.” World Health Organization.

9Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000. "Intimate Partner Violence." DC: US DOJ.

10APA. 1996. "American Psychological Assoc. Presidential Task Force on Violence the Family."

11J Burns. 2015. "The link between animal abuse and domestic violence." CBS News. May 14.

12S Stevens. 2013. "The Link Between Domestic Violence & Animal Abuse." Feminist Wire. 10/23

13DOJ. 2001. "Special Report Intimate Partner Violence & Age of Victim 1993-9." DOJ Statistics Oct

14MR Durose et al. 2005. "Family Violence Statistics." US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

15Sengupta 2015. ibid

16Fearon, J & Hoeffler, Anke. 2014. "Benefits and Costs of the Conflict and Violence Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda Post-2015 Consensus.” Copenhagen Consensus Center.

US Animal Production

Meat Society: Number 4 in a series exploring issues related to curbing demand for animal products, an important climate change solution for individuals and nations alike, especially in Western states where meat and diary consumption dwarfs other regions.

Excerpt from Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming by Moses Seenarine, (2016). Xpyr Press, 348 pages ISBN: 0692641157 http://amzn.to/2yn7XrC

The US consumes the most livestock products globally, with each American eating an average 125 kg (275 lb) of animal flesh a year – equivalent to over 400 sirloin steaks from cows.(537) Flesh intake is 75 pounds higher than a century ago. Even if the average American eats 20 percent less carcass in 2050 than in 2000, the total US animal consumption will still be 5 million tons greater in 2050, due to population growth.(538)

In addition to animal flesh, Americans ingests 33 pounds of cheese and nearly 60 pounds of added fats and oils. Animal products account for over half of the value of US agricultural products, often exceeding $100 billion per year. Consumption of cheese has spiraled upward and added oils have escalated, too. 

The US has the largest fed-cattle industry in the world and is one of the world's largest producer of cow carcass, primarily grain-fed cows for domestic and export use. In 2013, 25,720 million pounds of cow flesh was produced, compared to 23,048 million pounds in 1993, and 22,986 million pounds in 1983. On top of this, the US is a net importer of cow carcass, purchasing lower-value, grass-fed cows for processing.(539)

In the US, the value of cow's milk production is second only to cow flesh among livestock industries, and is equal to the corn industry. In 2013, 201 billion pounds of milk were produced from cows, compared to 151 billion pounds in 1993, and 138 billion pounds in 1983. Since 1970, milk production has risen by almost half, even as milk cow numbers have declined by a fourth, from 12 million in 1970, to 9 million in 2007. This was possible because milk production per cow has nearly doubled, from 9,700 pounds in 1970 to 19,000 pounds in 2007.

Remarkably, the number of cow's milk operations in the US declined from 650,000 in 1970, to 90,000 in the early 2000s. Over the same period, the average herd size multiplied five-fold, from 20 cows to 100 cows. This shows the industry is becoming over intensive and concentrated.

The US is the world's largest producer and second-largest exporter of bird carcass. It is a major chicken egg producer as well. US consumption of poultry, from chicken and turkey, is considerably higher than cow carcass or pig flesh, but less than total red meat consumption. In 2013, 37.8 billion pounds of broiler chicken flesh and 8 billion dozen chicken eggs were produced. This is considerably higher that the 22.1 billion pounds of chicken carcass and 5.9 billion dozen eggs produced in 1993, and the 12.3 billion pounds of carcass and 5.6 billion dozen eggs produced in 1983. Additionally, in 2013, 5.8 billion pounds of turkey carcass was produced, compared to 4.8 billion pounds in 1993, and 2.5 billion pounds in 1983. Around 18% of US chicken production was exported.

The US is the world's third-largest producer and consumer of pigs and pig products. On top of that, the US is the world's largest exporter of pigs and pig products, with exports averaging over 20 percent. In 2013, around 23.1 billion pounds of flesh was produced from pigs, compared to 16.9 billion pounds in 1993, and 15.1 billion pounds in 1983. During the last two decades, the value of US aquaculture production rose to nearly $1 billion, but it still remains a small part of global production. The vast majority of animal production from this sector comes from Asia and Latin America. 

Chapter 14, DIET OR POPULATION? pages 140-141