In this article, I argue that some of the campaigns that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) carried out in the USA are white normative and that the presence of this normative whiteness is symptomatic of the same larger problem in animal advocacy. I contend that PETA’s campaigns are white normative for two sets of reasons. First, PETA’s campaigns promote racist hierarchies; second, their campaigns contribute to black people’s disengagement from animal justice, undermining the pursuit of black justice. Further, I argue that, even though PETA’s campaigns are symptomatic of how many animal advocates are white normative, this does not need to be the case, for there are advocacy alternatives that resist normative whiteness.

One of the key ethical and political issues in South Africa today is the decolonization of education. In 2015, a movement called Rhodes Must Fall was born in South Africa precisely with the purpose of engaging in activism to promote this decolonization. The Rhodes Must Fall movement to further this purpose engaged in some violent protests. The objective of this article is to assess whether South Africans are justified to believe that these protests can or cannot be morally justified from the perspective of Ubuntu. To explore this question, I assess the morality of the actions using a consequentialist interpretation of African values. I contend that the symbolic violent protests of the Rhodes Must Fall movement were morally justified, whereas its indiscriminate violent protests were not. Hence, I do not myself mean to defend the position they are morally justified; instead, I wish to show that it is a moral implication of African values.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract