Manufacturing dissent: The racialization of opposition to animal advocacy in South Africa

Abstract

In 2015, some members of the Humanities Faculty at the University of Cape Town proposed that animal products be taken off the menu at official Faculty functions. The proposal was rejected. Cordeiro-Rodrigues, in his paper “The racialization of animal advocacy in South Africa”, this journal, blames the proposers for this rejection, claiming that “the proposal’s approach neglects the racialized history of animal advocacy in South Africa, while also being carried out at an inopportune time and context.” We dispute Cordeiro-Rodrigues’ claims on a number of grounds, and argue that not only does he fail to substantiate his claims against the proposers, he also mischaracterizes the history of animal advocacy in South Africa, and, most worryingly, ignores the immense suffering perpetrated on animals in animal agribusiness.

On what matters: Reply to Glover and Galgut

“…If the proponents are using it not to refer to ritual slaughtering, they are using a term in a way that is not how the academic community usually understands it; thus, it becomes some kind of private language which cannot be engaged with. Further, in their reply, they mention that the discussion at some point went then to address 'festivals and other interactions' (Galgut and Glover, 2021: 3); However, if these festivals and other interactions do not refer to ritual slaughtering, it is unclear what they do refer toespecially in the context of South Africa, where 'festivals' refer to practices such as Ukweshama, which is a cultural ritual that involves the killing of a bull.…”

“…The careless language in their reply is also revealing of non-intersectionality, indicated by their contention that 'the animals wereand continue to bethe real victims' (Galgut and Glover, 2021: 2). It's unclear who the 'fake victims' in contrast with the 'real victims' are, but my interpretation is that they possibly are the ones I identify as victims of racialization in my article, given that Glover and Galgut reject the idea of the campaign racializing the debate.…”

“…My impression about a recent reply to my article by Michael Glover and Elisa Galgut is similar to this. They accuse me of manufacturing dissent and not providing enough evidence to support my claims about the animals-off-the-menu proposal (Galgut and Glover, 2021). Given that at least one of the authors was directly involved in the proposal, I cannot help but to be surprised that rather than building a positive theory for justifying the proposal/ offering an alternative, they decided to formulate their reply in a way that is mostly focused on small details which are irrelevant to my core argument that the animals-offthe-menu proposal has contributed to the racialization of animal justice.…”