Within every struggle for rights, there is always the same internal struggle. It does not matter whether you are talking about human rights, women's rights, animal rights, or rights for all living beings on the planet. Fighters for the same goal bash each other's heads in over the same contradiction: that between abolitionists and apologists.

Abolitionists want to abolish things, usually laws. The most famous abolitionists fought for the abolition of slavery; one human should not own another human. Period. Apologists, in the sense of "defenders of a system or a reputation in general," presented arguments such as that enslaved individuals could have a good life, sometimes even better than their poorest counterparts in freedom. In this view, achieving small steps toward the abolition of slavery was also perfectly fine. No enslaved individuals in England, but still in the colonies; still being whipped, but not on Sundays. Translated to the struggle for women's rights, abolitionists would demand equal rights by abolishing all laws that prohibit certain things for women. Apologists would be happy with women's suffrage or lifting the ban on driving, perhaps not necessarily demanding the right to education and pushing equal pay to the long term.

The struggle for rights of our time must, especially given the number of victims, be the struggle for animal rights. Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, said: “If you want to know where you would have stood before the Civil War on slavery, do not look at where you stand today on slavery. Look at where you stand on animal rights.”

As in every struggle for rights, in the struggle for animal rights, apologists and abolitionists stand opposed to each other. Abolitionists want to get rid of laws that state that an animal can be property. Those labeled as property can be treated as products. Therefore, anything can be done to animals, and legal intervention is hardly possible.

Apologists do not advocate for the abolition of the animal as a product; they advocate for animal welfare. In their view, animals can still be property, but the conditions under which they are used can be improved. Thanks to the efforts of apologists, laying hens are not crammed into cages but released into the same barn, where they still live packed but without cages. Calves are not stuffed into crates, but in igloos, or they are not immediately taken away from their mothers after birth, but after two weeks. Apologists call these small steps a victory or a significant difference for the animals. Abolitionists would rather die than commit to small steps. One of them said: it is like waterboarding prisoners, but with padded boards, and calling that a win.

Regarding animal rights, abolitionists cannot be anything but vegan. You cannot want to recognize the rights of an individual and simultaneously eat them. Apologists take it less seriously. For instance, people who are involved in animal welfare during the day can effortlessly munch on an animal in the evening.

One of the biggest stains in my life are the years when I was vegetarian. That stain covers about eight years, and in that time, I was constantly told that I was doing so well. What exactly prompted me to become vegetarian, I no longer remember. The reason was that I did not want to be responsible for animal suffering. I, who thought I was an informed, thinking woman, who read newspapers, followed the news, and tried to understand the world, could remain completely blind for eight years to what the dairy industry did to mother animals and their young. Those who do know can skip the next paragraph.

The dairy cow is made pregnant by the farmer with bull semen. This is done under duress. Those who see how it happens and imagine that the same actions would take place on a human would call that rape. In animals, it is called artificial insemination. When the dairy cow gives birth to her calf, it is taken away because her milk is sold to humans. Even before the milk for her first calf has been mechanically drawn from her body, the farmer returns with his fist and tube. Again, he makes her pregnant, again he takes away her newborn, however much she wants to care for it. After about six years, the cow produces less milk and is sent off for transport to the slaughterhouse. All her sons have long been slaughtered by then. Her daughters end up in the same chain as she did.

Now that I know what suffering dairy causes, I still wonder whether I was so foolish or the dairy industry so clever. In any case, a congratulations is in order: congratulations bunch of cowards with all those years in which you managed to keep me blind, and especially those eight years in which I thought that wasn't the case.

During that time, I once sat at a dinner with meat eaters. Exceptions were a vegan (Mariel, an Argentinian metalhead) and I in that embarrassing vegetarian state. I said something implying that vegetarians and vegans were close to each other, and Mariel mumbled: 'For us, you are the same.' You were vegetarians and meat eaters. That comment lingered for years like a noise in your car that you keep searching for the source but cannot find. 'For us, you are the same, tick tick tick. For us, you are the same, tick tick tick.'

I had to see the documentary Earthlings before I understood. Day in, day out, animals suffer horrifically around the globe due to human actions. Those who do not want to be a source of that suffering can do only one thing: become vegan. Vegans are not vegan because they found meat, cheese, or cow's milk disgusting. Vegans are vegan because they believe that animals have rights. The right to their life, to bodily integrity, to care for their young, and to live without intentionally inflicted pain. Most vegans are vegan for the same reasons that people honor human rights, but vegans do it across species. For these so-called ethical vegans, it can feel like betrayal to compliment a vegetarian friend on their steps in the right direction. Some do it anyway, hoping that this friend, encouraged by positive reinforcement, will try harder. These vegans adopt an apologetic stance. There are also vegan friends who take an abolitionist position. They mercilessly inform the happy vegetarian that the suffering they inflict is no different than the suffering inflicted by the meat eater: Your board is beautifully padded, but someone is being tortured with it.

Recently, I was at a book presentation of a book about animal liberators. Half of vegan activist Netherlands was present. From animal liberators to makers of plant-based podcasts and writers of activist books. During the reception, the topic of discussion emerged: apologia vs. abolitionism. What works best in the struggle for animal rights? Will someone who is complimented on their choice for organic chicken consider stopping eating animals? Will someone who does not want to be found dead vegan, stop consuming dairy because you call them responsible for animal suffering? Apologia justifies animal abuse, one thought. Abolitionism drives everyone away, thought the other. Both would strengthen each other, a third attempted, possibly in an effort to keep fighters for the same goal together.

I thought of Mariel, of the moment I returned to her and asked if she still remembered the time she told me that vegetarians and meat eaters were the same.

‘Like a rattling noise in a car,’ I said. ‘Tick tick tick.’ She had forgotten it, but now that she knew this, she vowed to speak up more often. She advised me against doing so, especially in written pieces. Especially in drawings. ‘If you want people to continue reading your books, you better stay away from abolitionism.’ It was too late. The diagram with the combinations between non-vegans, abolitionists, apologists, and the results of their interactions, I had already drawn (see further).

Mariel could have tackled me harder back then. Just like every person who learns later in life which rights they have violated, I will forever wish I had understood it all faster. That I had seen earlier what the industry was hiding. That I had changed sooner, with great liberating leaps, not with those small steps that allowed me to have calves slaughtered for my superficial enjoyment of cheese for another eight years. For great leaps, you need friends who tell you the truth when they see it. Apologists say that small steps also move in the right direction, but in matters of life and death, every second counts. What you primarily do with small steps is lose speed.

Carolina Trujillo
May, 2024.