T├╝rc├╝l├╝k Kar┼č─▒t─▒ M├╝cadelede Kullan─▒lan K├Âpek-─░nek* Kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmas─▒ndaki Sorun

─░├žerik uyar─▒s─▒: Bu metin t├╝rc├╝ ┼čiddet ve cinsiyet├žilik ├Ârnekleri i├žerir. (CW: Brief discussion of various forms of speciesist violence, mention of sexism)


(English below)

“Bir k├Âpe─če bunu yapar m─▒yd─▒n─▒z?” sorusu veganl─▒k savunusunda, en az─▒ndan “Bat─▒” ├╝lkelerinde ├žok├ža kullan─▒l─▒yor. Sokaktan ge├žen insanlara mezbaha g├Âr├╝nt├╝leri izleten bir aktivistin “bu videoda izledikleriniz bir k├Âpe─če yap─▒lsayd─▒ nas─▒l hissederdiniz?” diye sordu─čunu s─▒k s─▒k g├Âr├╝yoruz. Bu tip kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmalar olduk├ža yayg─▒n ve bunun bir sebebi var: bir├žok insan k├Âpekleri seviyor ya da sevdi─čini d├╝┼č├╝n├╝yor. “Bat─▒”da k├Âpeklerle bolca sosyalle┼čiliyor. K├Âpekleri, k├Âpek olmayan hayvanlardan farkl─▒ g├Âr├╝yoruz. K├Âpekler bizim i├žin “evcil hayvan”, dost veya aile ├╝yesi olabiliyor. Bu tip kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmalar, ┼čiddet g├Âr├╝nt├╝lerini izleyen ki┼činin ger├žekten ├Ânemsedi─či ki┼čilerin, izledi─či ┼čiddete maruz kald─▒─č─▒n─▒ hayal etmesini ve kendilerini “E─čer bir k├Âpe─či incitmek istemiyorsam, neden bir ine─či incitmek isteyeyim ki?” diye sorgulamas─▒n─▒ sa─čl─▒yor. Fakat ne kadar etkili olduklar─▒ndan ba─č─▒ms─▒z olarak, bu kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmalar bir├žok y├Ânden sorunlu.

1. Bu tip kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmalar t├╝rc├╝ ┼čiddetin k├Âpeklere uygulanmad─▒─č─▒n─▒ ima etmi┼č oluyor.

“Ya k├Âpek olsayd─▒ bu hayvanlar? Bir k├Âpe─če bunlar─▒n yap─▒lmas─▒n─▒ ister miydin?” dedi─čimizde, bunun k├Âpeklere hi├ž yap─▒lmad─▒─č─▒n─▒ ima etmi┼č oluyoruz, ki bu kesinlikle yanl─▒┼č: “bat─▒l─▒” insan toplumu i├žin her ne kadar k├Âpeklerin yeri ayr─▒ olsa ve k├Âpekler bu toplumlarda g─▒da olarak s├Âm├╝r├╝lmeseler bile, t├╝rc├╝ ┼čiddetin maruz kalanlar─▒. Beaglelar dirikesimde i┼čkencelere maruz kal─▒yor; taz─▒lar ve avc─▒ k├Âpekler yar─▒┼č end├╝strisinde k├Âlele┼čtiriliyor ve ├Âld├╝r├╝l├╝yor; baz─▒lar─▒ avc─▒lar, polis ya da ordu taraf─▒ndan tehlikeli durumlara maruz b─▒rak─▒larak agresif olmalar─▒ i├žin e─čitiliyorlar; insan topluluklar─▒ i├žerisinde ba─č─▒ms─▒zca ya┼čayan k├Âpekler ise yakalan─▒p bar─▒naklara ve muhtemelen “├Âtenazi” ile ├Âld├╝r├╝lecekleri tesislere kapat─▒l─▒yorlar. ├ľtenazi, bu tesislerin bizzat kulland─▒─č─▒ s├Âzc├╝k ama r─▒zas─▒z ├Âtenaziye olsa olsa cinayet denir. Bunlarla birlikte; baz─▒ k├Âpekler onlarla kurdu─čumuz ili┼čki yoluyla duygusal tatmin ya┼čamam─▒z ve diledi─čimizde evden atabilmemiz amac─▒yla ├╝retiliyor. Do─čal evrimleri g├Âz ard─▒ ediliyor ve onlar─▒n i┼čine yaramayacak ama bizim g├Âz├╝m├╝ze hitap edecek ┼čekilde genetik anlamda manip├╝le ediliyorlar. ├ľyle ki baz─▒ k├Âpek ─▒rklar─▒, insanlar─▒n estetik anlay─▒┼člar─▒ y├╝z├╝nden ┼čiddetli sa─čl─▒k problemleri geli┼čtiriyor. Bu liste yeterince ayr─▒nt─▒l─▒ de─čil. M├╝mk├╝n olan en iyi durumda bile, t├╝rc├╝ olmayan ┼čefkatli bir aile taraf─▒ndan bak─▒m─▒ ├╝stlenilmi┼č bir k├Âpek, ├Âzg├╝rl├╝─č├╝ ├╝zerinde a─č─▒r k─▒s─▒tlamalar olan yasal m├╝lkiyet say─▒l─▒yor ve bak─▒m─▒n─▒ ├╝stlenmi┼č ki┼čilere ba─č─▒ml─▒ bir konumda bulunuyor.

2. Bu kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rma t├╝rc├╝l├╝k tan─▒m─▒n─▒ buland─▒r─▒yor.

K├Âpeklerin, di─čer insan olmayan hayvanlardan daha ayr─▒cal─▒kl─▒ oldu─čunu, t├╝rc├╝l├╝─č├╝n maruz kalan─▒ olmad─▒klar─▒n─▒ ama evcil hayvan olarak s├Âm├╝r├╝ld├╝klerini ima ederek, bulan─▒k bir t├╝rc├╝l├╝k tan─▒m─▒ geli┼čtirmi┼č oluyoruz. “Birini severken di─čerini neden yiyoruz?”, “├çizgiyi nereye ├žekiyoruz?” ya da “Tek fark alg─▒n” derken t├╝rc├╝l├╝k temelli bir ├Ânyarg─▒ ve ayr─▒mc─▒l─▒─ča; t├╝rler aras─▒ndaki hiyerar┼čiye dikkat ├žekmeye ├žal─▒┼č─▒yoruz ama t├╝rc├╝l├╝k tam olarak bu de─čil. T├╝rc├╝l├╝k baz─▒ t├╝rleri sevip di─čerlerini ┼čiddetli bir ┼čekilde s├Âm├╝rmek de─čil; insan olmayan t├╝rlerden bireyleri, birey olarak g├Ârmemek ve onlara i┼člevlerine g├Âre paha bi├žmektir. T├╝rc├╝ insan d├╝nyas─▒nda, k├Âpeklere de t─▒pk─▒ di─čer insan olmayan hayvanlara oldu─ču gibi i┼člevlerine g├Âre paha bi├žiliyor. Bu i┼člev, evcil hayvan olmak, bir yerde “i┼č├ži” olarak ├žal─▒┼čmak veya ├žok daha ba┼čka bir ┼čey olabilir. T├╝rc├╝l├╝k kar┼č─▒tlar─▒ olarak, t├╝rc├╝l├╝─č├╝n ne oldu─čunu ve neden buna kar┼č─▒ sava┼čt─▒─č─▒m─▒z─▒ a├ž─▒k├ža ortaya koymal─▒y─▒z.

3. T├╝rc├╝l├╝kle m├╝cadele etmek yerine t├╝rc├╝ d├╝┼č├╝nceye hitap ediyor.

Bu t─▒pk─▒ (cis-het-erkek) bir politikac─▒n─▒n cinsiyet├ži s├Âylemlerine kar┼č─▒ “Niye ├Âyle diyorsun? O (kad─▒n) da birisinin k─▒z─▒” arg├╝man─▒n─▒ kullanmak kadar s─▒k─▒nt─▒l─▒ ├ž├╝nk├╝ bu kad─▒nlar─▒n bireyliklerine de─čil de partiyarka i├žerisindeki i┼člev ve rollerine hitap eden bir arg├╝man. Di─čer bir deyi┼čle bu arg├╝man cinsiyet├žili─če kar┼č─▒ m├╝cadele etmiyor, cinsiyet├ži d├╝┼č├╝nceye hitap ediyor. K├Âpek-inek kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmalar─▒ da bu sebeple s─▒k─▒nt─▒l─▒. K├Âpe─čin evcil hayvan, yolda┼č, oyuncak/akseuar gibi rollerine ve insan olmayan hayvanlar─▒n de─čerli olmak i├žin illa ki bir i┼člevi olmas─▒ gerekti─či d├╝┼č├╝ncesindeki soruna de─čil de bu i┼člevlerin neden yaln─▒zca baz─▒ t├╝rlere y├╝klendi─čini sorgulamaya yar─▒yor. ─░nek ve k├Âpeklerin haklara sahip olmalar─▒ gerekti─či d├╝┼č├╝ncesi, genellikle ikisi de ya┼čamaktan ├ž─▒karlar─▒ olan bireyler oldu─ču noktas─▒ndan hareketle de─čil de ineklerin k├Âpeklerle benzer ├Âzellikleri oldu─ču gerek├žesiyle ├Âne s├╝r├╝l├╝yor. T├╝rc├╝l├╝k kar┼č─▒tlar─▒ olarak, s├Âm├╝r├╝len t├╝rlere k├Âpeklere davran─▒ld─▒─č─▒ gibi davran─▒lmas─▒n─▒, yani bu t├╝rlerin ba┼čka bir bi├žimde s├Âm├╝r├╝lmelerini istemiyoruz. T├╝m hayvanlar─▒n birey olu┼člar─▒n─▒n tan─▒nmas─▒ yani onlara sayg─▒yla davran─▒lmas─▒n─▒ istiyoruz.

4. Peki, ne yapabiliriz?

E─čer k├Âpek-inek kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmas─▒ yapacaksak, bunu t├╝rc├╝ olmayan bir ┼čekilde yapt─▒─č─▒m─▒zdan emin olmal─▒y─▒z. Se├ženeklerden bir tanesi, kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmay─▒ yapmadan ├Ânce ileti┼čime ge├žti─čimiz tarafla k├Âpeklerin birey oldu─ču y├Ân├╝nde bir karara varmak olabilir. Bu ├Âzellikle bir k├Âpekle ya┼čayan veya ya┼čam─▒┼č biriyle konu┼čuyor isek ve bu ki┼či k├Âpeklerin di─čer hayvanlar gibi ki┼čilik, arzu ve ├ž─▒karlar─▒ oldu─čunu g├Âzlemlemi┼č ise gayet kolay olabilir. “K├Âpekleri ├Âld├╝rmek hakk─▒nda ne d├╝┼č├╝n├╝yorsunuz?” diye sormadan ├Ânce “K├Âpeklerin, i├žkin de─čere ve ya┼čama hakk─▒na sahip bireyler olduklar─▒n─▒ d├╝┼č├╝n├╝yor musunuz?” sorusunu sormak ve sonras─▒nda bu d├╝┼č├╝nceyi di─čer hayvanlar─▒ kapsayacak ┼čekilde geni┼čletmeye ├žal─▒┼čmak i┼če yarayabilir. Yine de neden b├Âyle bir kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rma yapal─▒m ki? Do─črudan insanlar─▒ kaynak olarak kullanman─▒n (├Âh├Âm, kapitalizm bunu birazc─▒k yap─▒yor) do─čru olup olmad─▒─č─▒n─▒ sorabilir ve nedeni ├╝zerine konu┼čabiliriz. Ne de olsa insan olmayan hayvanlar─▒ s├Âm├╝rmememizin nedeni insan hayvan─▒n─▒ s├Âm├╝rmememizin nedeniyle ayn─▒. Hepimiz hayvan─▒z.

Bu metni kaleme alan ki┼či ├žok sevdi─či k├Âpek dostuyla birlikte ya┼č─▒yor. Anti Speciesist Action’─▒n insan olmayan hayvanlarla ya┼čama konusundaki konumlan─▒┼č─▒, aksi takdirde ├Âlecek bireylerin bireyliklerini tan─▒yarak ve imkan─▒m─▒z varsa vegan beslenmelerini sa─člayarak bak─▒m─▒n─▒ ├╝stlenmenin sorunlu olmad─▒─č─▒ y├Ân├╝nde. Ayr─▒ca ASA evcil hayvan end├╝strisi de dahil insan olmayan hayvanlar─▒n genetik manip├╝lasyona ve ├╝retimine de ┼čiddetle kar┼č─▒.

*As─▒l metinde inek yerine domuz ├Ârne─či verilmi┼čti. Ancak ya┼čad─▒─č─▒m─▒z co─črafyada k├Âpek-inek kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmas─▒ daha yayg─▒n olarak kullan─▒ld─▒─č─▒ndan ├Ârne─či inek olarak de─či┼čtirdik.

EN

The Problem with Dog Analogies in Antispeciesism

“What if they were dogs?” is something we hear a lot in vegan outreach, at least in “Western” countries. The person will be showing footage from an enslavement and slaughter facility and asking the member of the public, “what if they were dogs? Would you feel any differently?” Dog comparisons are common, and there’s a reason for it: a lot of humans love – or think they love – dogs. In the “West”, we are socialised around dogs; we are conditioned to see them differently than we see non-dog animals. Dogs are “pets”; they are friends; they are family members. Dog comparisons allow the person being outreached to transpose what they are seeing to someone that they care about, and to ask themselves, “if I wouldn’t want to harm a dog, why would I harm a pig?” And yet, as effective as they might be, those comparisons are problematic. Here’s why:

1. It implies that it doesn’t happen to dogs

When you say “what if they were dogs”, you’re implying that it’s not happening to them. And that’s factually wrong: even though “Western” human society uniquely sees dogs and doesnÔÇÖt exploit them for food, dogs are still victims of speciesism, sometimes with extreme violence. Beagles are tortured in vivisection; greyhounds and lurchers are enslaved and murdered in the racing industry; dogs are put in dangerous situations and trained to be aggressive by hunters, the police, or the military; dogs living independently within human communities are captured and put into shelter and killing facilities where they will most probably be “euthanised” (this is the word that these facilities use, but a euthanasia without consent can only really be called murder); they are bred in large numbers to satisfy our desire for companionship, with mothers and pups who do not possess the right traits often discarded like trash; they are denied their natural evolution and genetically manipulated with traits that are desirable to us rather than useful to them, to the point where some dog breeds develop severe health problems as a result of human cosmetic tastes. This list is not exhaustive. Even in the best possible situation, where a rescue dog is adopted into a loving non-speciesist family, they are still legal property with heavy restrictions on their freedom and they are in a position of forced dependency.

2. It blurs the definition of speciesism

By implying that dogs are privileged over other nonhuman animals, or that the dogs exploited as pets are not victims of speciesism, we promote a blurred definition of speciesism. With phrases like “why eat one and love the other”, where do you draw the line,ÔÇŁ or “the only difference is your perception,” we hint at a species-based bias and discrimination, and a system of hierarchy of species, but this is not what speciesism is. Speciesism is not about loving certain species and violently exploiting others, it is the refusal to see people from other species as persons and instead valuing them only for their function. In this speciesist human world, dogs, just like other nonhuman animals, are still valued for their function rather than as persons, whether that function is as a pet, a job they did not agree to, or something more nefarious. As anti-speciesists, we should always make it clear what speciesism is and why we are fighting it.

3. It appeals to speciesism rather than fighting it

Just like using “she’s someone’s daughter” to denounce a (cis-het-man) politician’s sexist remarks is problematic because it appeals to womenÔÇÖs perceived functions and roles in patriarchy rather than their personhood (in other words, it appeals to sexism instead of fighting it), dog comparisons are problematic because they appeal to speciesism. It’s appealing to a dog’s role as a pet, a companion, an accessory, and questioning why this function is reserved to certain species, rather than asking why nonhumans should have a function at all. Pigs and cows especially are often shown as deserving of rights only because of their similarities with dogs, instead of because they are persons with interests. Anti-speciesists do not want exploited species to be treated like dogs, i.e. to be exploited differently. We want all animals to be treated as persons, and thus, with respect.

4. So what can we do instead?

If you want to use dogs as an analogy, make sure you do it in a non-speciesist way. One possible option could be, when introducing the analogy, to first establish an agreement with your interlocutor that dogs are persons. This can be relatively easy, especially if talking to a human who lives or has lived with dogs and will have themselves observed that dogs have personalities, desires, and interests, just like all animals. So instead of “would you be ok with killing dogs?”, ask “do you believe that dogs are individuals who have inherent value and a right to live?”, and then try to extend that understanding to other nonhuman animals. But why use dogs at all? We could simply ask the person if it would be morally justifiable to use humans as mere resources (side note: capitalism kind of does that), and to explain why not. After all, the reasons why we should not exploit nonhuman animals are the same reasons why we should not exploit humans. We are all animals.

The human who wrote this essay shares their life with their dog companion whom they love dearly. ASAÔÇÖs position on living with nonhuman animals is that we are in favour of adopting and fostering individuals who would otherwise be murdered, respecting their status as nonhuman persons, giving them vegan food when possible, and being vehemently against the genetic manipulation and breeding of all nonhuman animals, including – but not limited to – within the pet industry.

Kaynak/Source: https://antispeciesistaction.com/ÔÇŽ/dog-analogies-and-specieÔÇŽ

Anti-Speciesist Action

Kaynak/Source

(English below)T├╝rc├╝l├╝k Kar┼č─▒t─▒ M├╝cadelede Kullan─▒lan K├Âpek-─░nek* Kar┼č─▒la┼čt─▒rmas─▒ndaki Sorun─░├žerik uyar─▒s─▒: Bu metin...

vegan tahayy├╝l payla┼čt─▒: 4 A─čustos 2019 Pazar

Be─čendiniz mi? Arkada┼člar─▒n─▒zla Payla┼č─▒n!

1
2 Payla┼č─▒m, 1 Be─čeni
Bi├žim Se├ž
Anket
─░nsanlara fikirlerini sor!
Yaz─▒
Bildiklerini bizimle payla┼č!
Liste
Bir liste olu┼čtur!