DOCSLIB.ORG

University of California Santa Cruz We Are All the Same but Different A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University of California Santa Cruz We Are All the Same but Different A University of California Santa Cruz We Are All The Same But Different A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF FINE ARTS In DIGITAL ARTS AND NEW MEDIA By Lindsay Moffat June 2018 This Thesis of Lindsay Moffat is approved by: ________________________________ Professor Sharon Daniel, Chair _________________________________ Professor Dee Hibbert-Jones __________________________________ Professor Elizabeth Stephens ___________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Students Copyright © by Lindsay Moffat 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents………………………………………………………..……………….…….iii List of Figures……………………………………………………………….……………….…..iv Abstract………………………………………………………………………..........................v Dedication…………………………………………………………………….........................vi Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………….…..vii Section 1: Define the Problem………………………………………………………...1-6 Section2: Strategy………………………………………………………………………….7-11 Section 3: Methodology (methods to achieve strategic goals)……………..12-14 Section 4: Artist Inspirations………………………………………………………….15-20 Section 5 – Description of the Project…………………………………………….21-26 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..27-29 Bibliography…………………….………………………………………………………….36-42 iii LIST OF FIGURES FIG. 1: We Are All the Same But Different, 2018 Installation, with digital collage video……………………………………..………………….30 FIG. 2: Macaroni recipe card, 2018, recyclable cardstock…………….……….31 FIG. 3: Risotto recipe card, 2018, recyclable cardstock….……………..……….32 FIG. 4: Quinoa Salad recipe card, 2018, recycled cardstock…………….…….33 FIG. 5: Japchae recipe card, 2018, recycled cardstock….…………………….….34 FIG. 6: Laughing Cow Cheese, image of container………………….…………….35 iv ABSTRACT “We Are All The Same But Different” Lindsay Moffat We Are All The Same But Different explores how an individual character (based on the artist) struggles upon discovering the ways in which animals bred for consumption are treated in the factory farming industry. The narrator describes the journey that leads her to choose a life which recognizes that all sentient beings should be treated equally and with compassion. The intent of this art is to create a comprehensive message void of the typical didactic language and shock tactics associated with animal activism. Stop motion animated watercolour painting, drawing, silhouettes and live video footage are utilized to engage viewers in the art installation and encourage viewers to explore how they feel about the treatment of farmed animals. The artwork creates a bridge into self- discovery and provides further tools to educate the viewers about leading an ethical lifestyle. v DEDICATIONS This thesis is dedicated to my husband, Jordan Philibert, for following me on this crazy journey and always picking me up no matter how far I fell To my Mother, Ricki Golick, for always supporting me through everything. Without her I would have never made it through this process. To my Esteemed Advisers, Sharon Daniel, Elizabeth Stephens, and Dee Hibbert-Jones, who each helped shape me as an artist and advocate. They pushed me to make a project I could show with pride. To my Cohort, each and every one of you has changed my life in more ways than you will ever know, and I am so grateful for all your help and support. And to my Father, my champion, who always demanded I reach for the stars, and when it seemed as if the darkness had swallowed all the constellations you would say “Nothing can be so bad that tomorrow the sun will not shine, and puppy dogs will not wag their tails.” You are loved and missed by all who knew you, it is my greatest honour to have made you proud! vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to my editor and Mother Ricki Golick, you always find a way to dance even when the music stops. My amazing committee of dedicated professors: Sharon Daniel, Chair. Elizabeth Stephens and Dee Hibbert-Jones. Thank you, Sharon Daniel, for the countless corrections and edits you poured into all my writing. Thank you, Jordan Philibert, for being my rock. To my cohort: Colleen Jennings who always took the time to teach me a new skill. Carinne Knight for never letting me forget to follow my heart. Parul Wadhwa for reminding me of the power of being a troublemaker. To Christophe ivins thank you for being the ever-present amazing source of light that served as a beacon to everyone, day or night, when you actually sleep I will never know. To Ann Altstatt who could always be trusted to bring me back to earth when the digital world seemed to bleak. To Ian Newman who always offered his assistance in any way he could no matter what the problem. To Simon Boas your insight opened my mind to new possibilities, and to the master of sound Anthony Assi, fixing reverberations everywhere. Thank you to Kristin Grace Erickson, without you nothing would have conspired, you have been with us since day one to our very last day. You teach us, guide us and help us reach the sky!! To Bennett Williamson you steer this crazy ship called DANM with an elegance like no other. To John Weber who guided us through the process of the MFA show and curated an amazing event. To Tad Leckman, thank you for teaching me that there are endless possibilities when you let your passion for art guide you!! A big thanks to the people of the DRC who make education possible for everybody. And thank you to Ghost who works tirelessly to keep me safe and healthy. THANK YOU I would also like to recognize all the animals who are suffering in silence vii Section 1: Define the problem We are all the same but different is an installation artwork that explores my struggle with the way the agricultural industry mistreats animals. In my opinion, it is imperative that human beings begin to examine their behaviour towards other species. My intent in creating this artwork is to bring awareness to consumers regarding injustices within the factory farming system and to encourage them to reflect on the way their food choices can affect animals. Animals are sacrificed every year to satisfy humans’ desire for meat. The only way to keep up with the consumer demand is to mass produce and slaughter animals. The population of the United States is over 327 million (US and World Population clock, May 23,2018). America produces about 94.3 billion pounds of meat a year (Overview USDA, 2016), which is the equivalent of 9.8 billion land animals (Kim, 2013). The average person needs 0.36 grams of protein per pound of body weight (Dietary Reference Intake). This dietary requirement can be fulfilled by eating between 5 and 6 ounces of beef per day (myfitnesspal.com). The USDA forecasts that the average person will eat 10 ounces of meat and poultry daily in 2018 (Durisin, 2018). According to Harvard Medical School, there are a vast number of protein sources that are not meat based: Beef, poultry, and pork (as well as milk, cheese, and eggs) can certainly provide high- quality protein, but so can many plant foods — including whole grains, beans and other legumes, nuts, and vegetables. (Pendick, 2018) If 25% of American people reduced their meat consumption by 50%, the lives of 581 million animals would be spared. 1 Factory farmed animals often are abused for the sake of production, efficiency and profit (Hosie, 2017). Mercy for Animals, a not-for-profit organisation fighting to end the systematic suffering of farmed animals, has identified many areas where animals are mistreated by the industry. They send in people to work on farms in order to obtain information on the practices. Their findings are often startling. Farms are dirty, dusty and unhygienic. The pork industry houses sows in gestation crates for most of their lives. These crates are barely bigger than the pig’s bodies making it almost impossible for them to move. Chickens are fattened for slaughter in just 42 days. They grow so quickly they cannot carry their own body weight. (Hosie, 2017). The main federal law that governs animal care in the US is the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (Adams, 2014). The AWA excludes birds, rodents bred for research, cold-blooded animals and animals raised for food or fibre (United States, Congress, Animal Welfare Act). It is this exclusion that prevents the physical abuse of a “pet” pig but allows the wide scale slaughter of pigs on farms raised for food. There are no federal laws that regulate the living conditions of animals on farms (Farmed Animals and the Law, 2017). Farmed animals are unprotected by most state criminal anti-cruelty laws and even omitted from the federal Animal Welfare Act. The only federal oversight of their treatment comes during transportation and slaughter. The 28 Hour Law requires vehicles transporting animals for slaughter to stop every 28 hours to allow animals exercise, food, and water. This law is rarely enforced, and the USDA claims it does not apply to birds. (Farmed Animals and the Law, 2017) The ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) suggests that we should not differentiate the care of the animal based on where it is domiciled (Animal Legal Defense Fund). The United States was given a grade of D (out of possible grades A-G) on World Animal Protection’s 2014 index due to its lack of robust policies to protect animals (Ground-Breaking Animal Protection 2 Index). While individual states have anti-cruelty statutes, many abusive farming practices are exempt from legislation and these exemptions vary across the country (Animal Cruelty Facts and Stats). Large-scale animal farming in the United States began in the early 1900s. By 1940, chickens were being intensively confined and genetically selected for criteria that made production more efficient (Elfick, Dominic). Cows and pigs were raised in intensive animal farm operations commencing in the 1960s (Nierenberg, 2005). Due to the efficiencies gained by industrial animal farming, American meat consumption rose dramatically (Foer, 2013). In many countries, meatless diets are more common than they are in the US.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effective Altruism William Macaskill and Theron Pummer
    1 Effective Altruism William MacAskill and Theron Pummer Climate change is on course to cause millions of deaths and cost the world economy trillions of dollars. Nearly a billion people live in extreme poverty, millions of them dying each year of easily preventable diseases. Just a small fraction of the thousands of nuclear weapons on hair‐trigger alert could easily bring about global catastrophe. New technologies like synthetic biology and artificial intelligence bring unprece­ dented risks. Meanwhile, year after year billions and billions of factory‐farmed ani­ mals live and die in misery. Given the number of severe problems facing the world today, and the resources required to solve them, we may feel at a loss as to where to even begin. The good news is that we can improve things with the right use of money, time, talent, and effort. These resources can bring about a great deal of improvement, or very little, depending on how they are allocated. The effective altruism movement consists of a growing global community of peo­ ple who use reason and evidence to assess how to do as much good as possible, and who take action on this basis. Launched in 2011, the movement now has thousands of members, as well as influence over billions of dollars. The movement has substan­ tially increased awareness of the fact that some altruistic activities are much more cost‐effective than others, in the sense that they do much more good than others per unit of resource expended. According to the nonprofit organization GiveWell, it costs around $3,500 to prevent someone from dying of malaria by distributing bed­ nets.
    [Show full text]
  • "Go Veg" Campaigns of US Animal Rights Organizations
    Society and Animals 18 (2010) 163-182 brill.nl/soan Framing Animal Rights in the “Go Veg” Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations Carrie Packwood Freeman Georgia State University [email protected] Abstract How much do animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating nonhuman animals? Th is study serves as the basis for a unique evaluation and categorization of problems and solutions as framed by fi ve major U.S. animal rights organizations in their vegan/food campaigns. Th e fi ndings reveal that the organiza- tions framed the problems as: cruelty and suff ering; commodifi cation; harm to humans and the environment; and needless killing. To solve problems largely blamed on factory farming, activists asked consumers to become “vegetarian” (meaning vegan) or to reduce animal product con- sumption, some requesting “humane” reforms. While certain messages supported animal rights, promoting veganism and respect for animals’ subject status, many frames used animal welfare ideology to achieve rights solutions, conservatively avoiding a direct challenge to the dominant human/animal dualism. In support of ideological authenticity, this paper recommends that vegan campaigns emphasize justice, respect, life, freedom, environmental responsibility, and a shared animality. Keywords animal rights, campaigns, farm animal, framing, ideology, vegan, vegetarian How much do or should animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating animals? As participants in a counterhegemonic social movement, animal rights organiza- tions are faced with the discursive challenge of redefi ning accepted practices, such as farming and eating nonhuman animals, as socially unacceptable practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of American Studies, 52(3), 660-681
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Explore Bristol Research Savvas, T. (2018). The Other Religion of Isaac Bashevis Singer. Journal of American Studies, 52(3), 660-681. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021875817000445 Peer reviewed version Link to published version (if available): 10.1017/S0021875817000445 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via CUP at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-american-studies/article/other-religion-of-isaac- bashevis-singer/CD2A18F086FDF63F29F0884B520BE385. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms 1 The Other Religion of Isaac Bashevis Singer Theophilus Savvas, University of Bristol This essay analyzes the later fiction of Nobel Prize-winning writer Isaac Bashevis Singer through the prism of his vegetarianism. Singer figured his adoption of a vegetarian diet in 1962 as a kind of conversion, pronouncing it a “religion” that was central to his being. Here I outline Singer’s vegetarian philosophy, and argue that it was the underlying ethical precept in the fiction written after the conversion. I demonstrate the way in which that ethic informs the presentation of both Judaism and women in Singer’s later writings.
    [Show full text]
  • Year in Review
    2012YEAR IN REVIEW THANK YOU Dear Friends, grassroots outreach events, humane education workshops, and compelling advertising 2012 was truly a groundbreaking year at campaigns, MFA is inspiring a new Mercy For Animals. In the last 12 months generation to explore a vegan lifestyle. we have opened the hearts and minds of tens of millions of Americans to the plight of Our efforts are having an impact—exposing animals who suffer behind the closed doors of cruelty and motivating change. As public our nation’s factory farms, livestock auctions, awareness continues to grow regarding and slaughterhouses. Our undercover factory farming, the demand for meat is finally investigations have cast a bright light on on the decline, meaning that hundreds of abusive practices, and our legal advocacy millions of animals will be spared the horrors efforts have led to arrests, prosecutions, and of industrial animal agriculture. historic convictions of animal abusers. This hard-fought progress has been made Our brand new corporate outreach possible because of you—MFA’s cherished department is giving animals a much- members. Every day I am grateful to each needed voice in the boardrooms of some of you for your generous and unwavering of the country’s largest and most powerful support. Together we are truly building a companies. In the past year, MFA has kinder future for all creatures. Thank you for pressured major corporations—including paving the way. Costco, Kmart, and Kraft Foods—to implement new policies that will reduce the With gratitude, suffering of millions of pigs and cows. MFA’s educational outreach campaigns are helping consumers from coast to coast see farmed animals in a new light.
    [Show full text]
  • All Creation Groans: the Lives of Factory Farm Animals in the United States
    InSight: RIVIER ACADEMIC JOURNAL, VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, SPRING 2017 “ALL CREATION GROANS”: The Lives of Factory Farm Animals in the United States Sr. Lucille C. Thibodeau, pm, Ph.D.* Writer-in-Residence, Department of English, Rivier University Today, more animals suffer at human hands than at any other time in history. It is therefore not surprising that an intense and controversial debate is taking place over the status of the 60+ billion animals raised and slaughtered for food worldwide every year. To keep up with the high demand for meat, industrialized nations employ modern processes generally referred to as “factory farming.” This article focuses on factory farming in the United States because the United States inaugurated this approach to farming, because factory farming is more highly sophisticated here than elsewhere, and because the government agency overseeing it, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), publishes abundant readily available statistics that reveal the astonishing scale of factory farming in this country.1 The debate over factory farming is often “complicated and contentious,”2 with the deepest point of contention arising over the nature, degree, and duration of suffering food animals undergo. “In their numbers and in the duration and depth of the cruelty inflicted upon them,” writes Allan Kornberg, M.D., former Executive Director of Farm Sanctuary in a 2012 Farm Sanctuary brochure, “factory-farm animals are the most widely abused and most suffering of all creatures on our planet.” Raising the specter of animal suffering inevitably raises the question of animal consciousness and sentience. Jeremy Bentham, the 18th-century founder of utilitarianism, focused on sentience as the source of animals’ entitlement to equal consideration of interests.
    [Show full text]
  • MAC1 Abstracts – Oral Presentations
    Oral Presentation Abstracts OP001 Rights, Interests and Moral Standing: a critical examination of dialogue between Regan and Frey. Rebekah Humphreys Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom This paper aims to assess R. G. Frey’s analysis of Leonard Nelson’s argument (that links interests to rights). Frey argues that claims that animals have rights or interests have not been established. Frey’s contentions that animals have not been shown to have rights nor interests will be discussed in turn, but the main focus will be on Frey’s claim that animals have not been shown to have interests. One way Frey analyses this latter claim is by considering H. J. McCloskey’s denial of the claim and Tom Regan’s criticism of this denial. While Frey’s position on animal interests does not depend on McCloskey’s views, he believes that a consideration of McCloskey’s views will reveal that Nelson’s argument (linking interests to rights) has not been established as sound. My discussion (of Frey’s scrutiny of Nelson’s argument) will centre only on the dialogue between Regan and Frey in respect of McCloskey’s argument. OP002 Can Special Relations Ground the Privileged Moral Status of Humans Over Animals? Robert Jones California State University, Chico, United States Much contemporary philosophical work regarding the moral considerability of nonhuman animals involves the search for some set of characteristics or properties that nonhuman animals possess sufficient for their robust membership in the sphere of things morally considerable. The most common strategy has been to identify some set of properties intrinsic to the animals themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal People News
    European Commission votes to ban dog &cat fur B R U S S E L S ––The European Commis- sion on November 20 adopted a proposal to ban the import, export, and sale of cat and dog fur throughout the European Union. “The draft regulation will now be considered by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers for adoption by the co- decision procedure,” explained the EC Asian dog. (Kim Bartlett) announcement. “There is evidence that cat and dog fur been found not just on clothing, but also on a is being placed on the European market, usually number of personal accessories, as well as chil- dren’s soft toys.” Asian rabbits. (Kim Bartlett) undeclared as such or disguised as synthetic and other types of fur,” the EC announcement sum- “Just the idea of young children playing marized. “The vast majority of the cat and dog with toys which have been made with dog and Olympics to showcase growing fur is believed to be imported from third coun- cat fur is really something we cannot accept,” tries, notably China.” European Consumer Protection Commissioner Fifteen of the 25 EU member nations Markos Kyprianou said. Chinese animal testing industry have already individually introduced legislation “Kyprianou stopped short of calling B E I J I N G ––The 2008 Olympic Glenn Rice, chief executive of Bridge against cat and dog fur. “The proposed regula- for every product containing fur to have a label Games in Beijing will showcase the fast- Pharmaceuticals Inc., is outsourcing the tion adopted today addresses EU citizens con- detailing its exact origin,” wrote London Times growing Chinese animal testing industry, work to China, where scientists are cheap cerns, and creates a harmonized approach,” the European correspondent David Charter, the official Xinhua news agency disclosed and plentiful and animal-rights activists are EC announcement stipulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching Social Issues with Film
    Teaching Social Issues with Film Teaching Social Issues with Film William Benedict Russell III University of Central Florida INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Russell, William B. Teaching social issues with film / William Benedict Russell. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-60752-116-7 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-60752-117-4 (hardcover) 1. Social sciences--Study and teaching (Secondary)--Audio-visual aids. 2. Social sciences--Study and teaching (Secondary)--Research. 3. Motion pictures in education. I. Title. H62.2.R86 2009 361.0071’2--dc22 2009024393 Copyright © 2009 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America Contents Preface and Overview .......................................................................xiii Acknowledgments ............................................................................. xvii 1 Teaching with Film ................................................................................ 1 The Russell Model for Using Film ..................................................... 2 2 Legal Issues ............................................................................................ 7 3 Teaching Social Issues with Film
    [Show full text]
  • An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion
    An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion by Angela Gunther B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2006 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Communication ! Angela Gunther 2012 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2012 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for “Fair Dealing.” Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Angela Gunther Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion Examining Committee: Chair: Kathi Cross Gary McCarron Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Robert Anderson Supervisor Professor Michael Kenny External Examiner Professor, Anthropology SFU Date Defended/Approved: June 28, 2012 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Abstract This thesis interrogates the persuasive practices of Animal Rights Vegan Activists (ARVAs) in order to determine why and how ARVAs fail to convince people to become and stay veg*n, and what they might do to succeed. While ARVAs and ARVAism are the focus of this inquiry, the approaches, concepts and theories used are broadly applicable and therefore this investigation is potentially useful for any activist or group of activists wishing to interrogate and improve their persuasive practices. Keywords: Persuasion; Communication for Social Change; Animal Rights; Veg*nism; Activism iv Table of Contents Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii! Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Support for Non-Violent Activists and Protections of Animals in Commercial Operations
    Page 1 of 73 Peace and Justice Commission CONSENT CALENDAR December 10, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Peace and Justice Commission Submitted by: Igor Tregub, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission Subject: Support for Non-Violent Activists and Protections of Animals in Commercial Operations RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution supporting non-violent activists and protecting animals in commercial operations. SUMMARY Berkeley residents currently face felony charges for conducting non-violent investigations and animal rescues involving factory farms in Sonoma County. We urge the Berkeley City Council to adopt a resolution supporting those activists diverting resources to protecting animals in commercial operations. FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION Minimal to negligible. CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS At its September 9, 2019 meeting, the Peace and Justice Commission approved the attached resolution with an amendment including, as a footnote, the text of California Penal Code Section 597e. The action taken was as follows: M/S/C: Meola, Tregub Ayes: al-Bazian, Bohn, Lippman, Maran, Meola, Morizawa, Pancoast, Pierce, Rodriguez, Tregub Noes: None Abstain: Gussman, Han Absent: Askary Excused: None Five Berkeley residents – Almira Tanner, Cassie King, Wayne Hsiung, Priya Sawhney, and Jon Frohnmayer – and an Oakland resident – Rachel Ziegler – all of whom are members of the international grassroots activist network Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), presently face seven or eight felonies each in Sonoma County in connection with three 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager Page 2 of 73 Support for Non-Violent Activists and Protections of Animals CONSENT CALENDAR December 10, 2019 demonstrations by DxE in that county.
    [Show full text]
  • The African Liberation Reader, Vol. 1: the Anatomy of Colonialism
    The African liberation reader, Vol. 1: the anatomy of colonialism http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.crp2b20039 Use of the Aluka digital library is subject to Aluka’s Terms and Conditions, available at http://www.aluka.org/page/about/termsConditions.jsp. By using Aluka, you agree that you have read and will abide by the Terms and Conditions. Among other things, the Terms and Conditions provide that the content in the Aluka digital library is only for personal, non-commercial use by authorized users of Aluka in connection with research, scholarship, and education. The content in the Aluka digital library is subject to copyright, with the exception of certain governmental works and very old materials that may be in the public domain under applicable law. Permission must be sought from Aluka and/or the applicable copyright holder in connection with any duplication or distribution of these materials where required by applicable law. Aluka is a not-for-profit initiative dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of materials about and from the developing world. For more information about Aluka, please see http://www.aluka.org The African liberation reader, Vol. 1: the anatomy of colonialism Author/Creator de Bragança, Aquino (editor); Wallerstein, Immanuel (editor) Publisher Zed Press (London) Date 1982 Resource type Books Language English Subject Coverage (spatial) Portugal, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Southern Africa (region), Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Angola, Namibia Coverage (temporal) 1950 - 1974 Source Northwestern University Libraries, Melville J. Herskovits Library of African Studies, 320.9603 A2585, V. 1 Rights By kind permission of Sylvia Braganca, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Zed Books.
    [Show full text]
  • Against 'Effective Altruism'
    Against ‘Effective Altruism’ Alice Crary Effective Altruism (EA) is a programme for rationalising for the most part adopt the attitude that they have no charitable giving, positioning individuals to do the ‘most serious critics and that sceptics ought to be content with good’ per expenditure of money or time. It was first for- their ongoing attempts to fine-tune their practice. mulated – by two Oxford philosophers just over a decade It is a posture belied by the existence of formidable ago–as an application of the moral theory consequential- critical resources both inside and outside the philosoph- ism, and from the outset one of its distinctions within ical tradition in which EA originates. In light of the undis- the philanthropic world was expansion of the class of puted impact of EA, and its success in attracting idealistic charity-recipients to include non-human animals. EA young people, it is important to forcefully make the case has been the target of a fair bit of grumbling, and even that it owes its success primarily not to the – question- some mockery, from activists and critics on the left, who able – value of its moral theory but to its compatibility associate consequentialism with depoliticising tenden- with political and economic institutions responsible for cies of welfarism. But EA has mostly gotten a pass, with some of the very harms it addresses. The sincere ded- many detractors concluding that, however misguided, its ication of many individual adherents notwithstanding, efforts to get bankers, tech entrepreneurs and the like to reflection on EA reveals a straightforward example of give away their money cost-effectively does no serious moral corruption.
    [Show full text]