Animal Sacrifice, Veg*nism, and Religion
Raisa Parnell
In 1988, a half a dozen Santeros appeared at a board meeting for Animal Regulations in Los Angeles, California after the board introduced an ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifice. Letting their voices be heard in unison against the ordinance, they proclaimed the policy to infringe upon their First Amendment Rights of religious freedom (Animal 1988). On the other side of the country in Hialeah, Florida during the 1990’s, similar ordinances were passed making animal sacrifice for any ritual purposes illegal in an effort to censor the local Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye (Clark 2006). Both cases were eventually overturned by higher courts, however, the disapproval for the communities of Santeria and their practitioners was made quite clear – animal sacrifice is animal cruelty and has no place in civilized, developed societies.
In the U.S., and other parts of the Western world, ideas and feelings towards animal sacrifice run amok and unfortunately, they generally are uninformed and biased, at the least. However, in large part, they serve to tell us something about our privileges, our ignorance, our covert and overt religious foundations, and ultimately, our society as a whole. In this paper, I hope to flesh out some of the uninformed assumptions about animal sacrifice as well as veganism and vegetarianism and how they relate to and are informed by religious ideologies.
The majority of Americans, coming in large part from Christian traditions, have been raised without any experiences with animal sacrifice. In fact, animals used for food are often hidden from public view, their slaughter done in private, and their bodies then butchered and marketed to resemble anything but the animal that it was. The state of the animals prior to slaughter and the slaughtering practices have been carried out so clandestinely that animal rights activists have had to go undercover in order to make these practices known to the general public. Many covert video-recordings, eye-witness accounts, and testimonies from slaughter house workers have been gathered in order to show those who care to know the reality of the U.S. meat industry. In fact, many meat-eaters in the U.S. wilfully choose not to know exactly what happens behind the closed doors of the slaughter houses, holding pens, and breeding barns. Ironically, in their blissful ignorance, many Americans feel as though not seeing the slaughter, not eating meat that actually looks like an animal (but that has been transformed into “nuggets”, “patties”, and “fillets”), and not actually partaking in the killing and butchering of the animals they eat is a much more civilized way to eat. But where exactly do these feelings come from and why do they persist?
A well-known fact about American society is that it is largely Christian. Even beyond the followers of Christianity, many of our practices have been largely shaped or outright mandated by biblical interpretations, ideas, and beliefs. Our ideas on animal sacrifice and animal husbandry in general are largely influenced by the Bible and/or Western interpretations of the Bible.
One of the most well-known examples of religious sacrifice involved Abraham and Isaac in the Bible. Many note that God reneging on his request and sparing Isaac’s life shows a preference against sacrifice. However, many forget that Isaac was spared and replaced with a ram. It has also been suggested that more than two of certain animals were taken on Noah’s Ark in order to be used for sacrifice after the flood. Most importantly, however, is the human sacrifice of Jesus. Many American Christians see this sacrifice as the last one that God required, therefore making animal or human sacrifice in modern-times unnecessary. The point, however, is that animal and human sacrifice are a part of Christianity just as it has been a part of nearly every tradition known to humankind. Although these examples in the Bible are well-known amongst Christian congregations, it is generally believed to be something reserved for the past; for biblical times. The subliminal message suggesting that animal and human sacrifice are best relegated to more “primitive” times in human history.
The language of anthropology in its dichotomies of primitive vs. civilized; savage vs. developed; structured vs. anarchic also communicates this Western hegemony that places Christianity and the Western Christian world in a position of superiority. Being the religion of those making the categorizing, Christianity was set up as the standard for all other societies to be evaluated against. Anything coming from Europe or aligned with Christianity came to be seen as positive while all other practices and societies were deemed inferior. In order to further distance themselves from anything deemed inferior or primitive, European history had to be revised and rewritten suppressing practices of animal and human sacrifices among Pagans and early Christians, for instance. Otherwise, one might notice that there were similarities between the practices in the societies of pre-colonial Africa (or any non-European peoples) and those of 18th and 19th century Europe and claims of Africans being sub-human would have been much harder to solidify.
“These accounts often suggested that ritual violence was an integral part of ‘primitive’ religions, while simultaneously suggesting that such violence could only occur in an environment of irrationality and the loss of the normal inhibitions against killing, as if irrational or religious-inspired violence can only be found amid these so-called primitive religions. (Clark 2006)”
At the height of anthropological fieldwork, the belief systems of a host of people deemed savage and primitive were put under study and analysis. More importantly, they were held up in contrast to the systems and practices of the Western world: this is what primitive people do and this is what we, citizens of the civilized world, can have no part in. Within this scheme, aspects of many non-western religions and spiritualties such as nudity, dancing, body modification, and of course, animal sacrifice were framed within this inferior light. Christianity, being aligned with Europeans and thus, the religion of the “civilized world”, had to suppress aspects of its past and, as a nation, the U.S. reiterated these ideas in its legal system. Additionally, considering the enslavement and the general subjugation of Africans to the lowest rungs of cultural and scientific hierarchies, almost everything associated with African traditional religions was exoticized and demonized. Only within the last few decades have African Traditional Religions begun to shake some of the reviling baggage that has surrounded it for so long. Ordinances against animal sacrifice that blatantly target Santeria practitioners (and practitioners of any African religions and spiritualties) come after a long history of legalized and socialized repressions.
On another note, with Christianity being the major religion in the U.S., and in turn given preference in academia, African religions and spiritualties are usually given little credence. The secrecy with which African traditions are practiced have only aided in the general ignorance that surrounds the practices such as animal sacrifice. Few Americans (and Westerners in general) are looking to educate themselves on the practices because they has been reduced to merely demented superstitions, and few are looking to understand where their biases are rooted.
It is within this environment that we see other, supposedly secular feelings about animals arise. And considering animals are often our food, our food consumption patterns, subsistence modes, culinary tastes and diets are impacted by these nuanced feelings about animals. Veganism, Vegetarianism, pescetarianism, and other voluntary dietary restrictions have arisen in the American society for a host of reasons. The main reason, however, has to do with the suffering of animals. Peter Singer, an animal rights activist and philosopher, and animal rights organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have slammed U.S. food, clothing, and environmental practices as harming living beings that should be afforded the same rights as human beings. Ignoring these supposedly innate rights has been termed “speciesism”, and is used on par with other human rights issues such as sexism and racism.
Although both the average American meat-eater and the average veg*n/animal rights activist have issues with animal sacrifices in religious contexts, both groups have similar and dissimilar reasons for their opposition. The average meat-eater opposes animal sacrifice due to general ignorance about traditional African religions as well as unquestioned feelings about animals they have been socialized into. They have established hierarchies of animals (where cows, chickens, and goats are somewhere below dogs, cats, and other household pets) that many of them simply do not care to analyze. On the other hand, veg*ns and animal rights activists oppose animal sacrifice because of similar ignorance, but also because any killing of any animal is seen as wrong. On some level, it seems as though veg*ns and animal rights activists have continued on in the same vein as early anthropologists. Instead of breaking down the established cultural hierarchies and dichotomies, they have in fact added a new category of “civilized” above that of the meat-eating Westerner. “Civilized” eating is no longer simply eating an animal that looks nothing like an animal whose slaughter was done completely in secret; civilized eating is now without meat altogether, including animal by-products (e.g., milk, leather, eggs, and even honey according to some). “Civilized” eating is now blood-less, pain-less, and healthfully balanced. While the veg*n and animal rights lifestyles come with fewer ironies and contradictions than that of the average American meat-eater, it is not without its issues as well.
Criticisms of the animal rights/veg*n communities have been made – claiming that veg*ns care more about animals than they do humans. In fact, this criticism has been made about Westerners in general (including meat-eaters). Thousands of dollars a year are spent on animal shelters and animal rescues, Americans will do more for our personal pets than for any homeless person on the streets, wildlife conservations and campaigns to save certain species of animals are ongoing, and animal cruelty laws are actively claimed, prosecuted, and put into law (as we see in the cases in Florida and California). Many veg*ns use the phrase ”cruelty-free” to refer to their diets. However, a closer look at who picks the vegetables, fruits, and grains they so often consume shows that this phrase is inaccurate.
For example, the average farm-worker in the U.S. is an undocumented person, generally from Mexico, Central American nations, and Haiti. Food crops in Florida and border towns of southern California, Arizona, and Texas are filled with farm-workers who pick these crops. It was not until Cesar Chavez began to publicly bring the human rights violations taking place in the fields to the limelight that anyone even knew what types of conditions farmworkers had to deal with. It has been decades since these issues were made public and they are still taking place. It is not uncommon for farmworkers to be placed in chains, to go hours without water, to work from sunrise to sunset, for the women farmworkers to be sexually assaulted by the farm-owners, for children to work alongside their parents in these fields, for farmworkers to be beaten and mistreated by their employers, and to be denied pay. And even when payment does happen, it is scarcely enough to feed one person, let alone an entire family. By any standards, this is modern-day slavery – yet the average veg*n is not fighting against these issues of human rights violations and by all accounts do not seem to be concerned with them. Furthermore, food trends among veg*ns impact indigenous communities in detrimental ways that are also commonly ignored. Quinoa, for example, is a grain indigenous to Mexico that has been popularized recently by vegans and vegetarians for its high protein content. While indigenous Mexican communities have been enjoying this food for centuries - often as their only source of protein in times of food scarcity - it has become so valued in American markets that it is now difficult to acquire by the communities that actually grow it! The price of quinoa has spiked due to this surge from American markets, thus making it is no longer affordable to the average Mexican living in these indigenous communities. Yet, again, there seems to be no collective outcry from the majority of veg*ns about these issues that their lifestyles directly contribute to.
An issue often overlooked by many veg*ns is that voluntary food restrictions such as veganism is a privilege and is singular within an American context. It has to be understood within a Western, post-industrial, and capitalist context. While many indigenous communities subsisted on plant-based diets long before it became fashionable in modern times, it was often done for complicated spiritual reasons (some Buddhist, Hindu, and Jainist sects) that are not solely for the welfare of animals. Whereas amongst American veg*ns, animal welfare has taken precedence in their diets to the point at which eating meat has almost been compared to genocide, plant-based diets traditionally were not devoted to equalizing non-human animals and humans and proselytizing about veg*n lifestyles. The more vocal veg*ns have become about their lifestyles, the more tension has arisen between meat-eaters and veg*ns, with claims of meat-eating being immoral. These attitudes, also counteracted by non-veg*ns, have only contributed to tensions and divisions on the basis of food, when food security is still a major issue throughout the world as well as in the United States.
As I have previously mentioned, colonialism, Western foreign policies, and American consumption patterns have negatively impacted many non-Western communities to the point at which veg*nism may no longer be a viable option for some traditional vegetarians. Even within the U.S., there are currently a number of communities that have been termed “food deserts” due to their lack of grocery stores with fresh produce available (generally in Black and Brown communities in cities such as New Orleans, Atlanta, New York City, and Memphis. Predominantly white neighborhoods in these same cities may have up to five times as many grocery stores). In other words, veg*nism is simply not an option for many people within and outside the U.S. And with claims of immorality being made against people who chose to eat meat and when non-human animal welfare takes precedence, sympathy towards those who do not have the privilege of veg*nism is lost.
While veg*ns and animal rights activists should be applauded for highlighting the wellbeing of animals, a disconnect has happened between those concerned with animals in the West and those concerned with animals in non-Western societies. The presumptions of superiority in the West have erroneously given Western veg*ns the assumption that they (and they alone) are the moral voices for animals; they are the ones to teach the world how to treat animals; they are the voice of the voiceless. Unfortunately, many Western veg*ns feel as though they have nothing to learn from non-Western societies, especially those that partake in animal sacrifice. There exists an assumption that because a society has not placed non-human animals on the same level as humans, that mis-treatment and abuse of animals then becomes highly probable.
In actuality, there is much to learn from indigenous and non-Western cultures. While animals may not be treated like members of the family, animals are rarely mis-treated in the ways they are in the U.S. Issues of animal cruelty, hunting for fun, bestiality, and the general disregard for the sentience of non-human animals is generally non-existent in these societies. Indigenous peoples have included animals in complex spiritual and religious beliefs, and in some cases centered their entire cultures around them (e.g., pastoral communities such as those of southern Sudan).
Animals used in sacrifices are deferred a great deal of respect and special treatment because it is believed they have offered themselves for the sacrifice. Sickly, mistreated, or traumatized animals (which are all mainstays within the U.S. meat industry) are not seen as suitable for sacrifice. Therefore mistreatment of non-human animals is not only seen inherently as wrong, but also as an act that could potentially harm whatever one is trying to achieve spiritually. It is only because the non-human animal is respected that it is even considered for sacrifice.
Ultimately, the foundation and the objective of animal sacrifice is balance. In order for a god to put energy into bringing something into someone’s life, they have to be given the energy to do it. That energy may come from human labor, a devotee’s abstinence from food or an activity (such as sexual abstinence, fasting, etc.), an offering of fruits, stones, herbs, or in other cases, animals. All of these are seen as transferring energy to the gods and maintaining the balance of energies between the world of the spirits and of humans.
Within Santeria and other Yoruba-inspired traditions, each Oricha has their own preferences on offerings. Ochun, for example, prefers flowers, cinnamon, and honey. Chango prefers palm oil, red wine, and on occasion, turtles. Each Oricha accepts non-animal as well as animal sacrifices. What is most important is that something be offered in order to maintain the balance of energies in the world. In conversation, I have heard some Christian Westerners say that one of their issues with animal sacrifice is that the animal is not killed for human consumption and that they see it as a waste. However, one must pay close attention not only to what takes place during an animal sacrifice but what those who are doing the sacrifice believe. Aside from the fact that the practitioners often eat the sacrificed meat, the belief is that they are “feeding” the gods.
“…the giving of natural and manufactured items to the Orisha or other spiritual beings, is viewed by santeros as essential for human welfare. Through sacrifice one restores the positive processes in one;s life and acquires general well-being. One gives to the Orisha and the ancestors what they need and want in the expectation that they in turn will give what one needs or wants. …it is the mutual exchange of the ashe (energy) necessary to maintain the balance of the cosmos. ‘The Orisha offer health, children and wisdom; human beings render sacrifice and praise. Each needs the other, for, without the ashe of the orishas, human beings would despair of their god-given destiny and turn on themselves. And without the ashe of sacrifice, the orishas would wither and die.’ (Clarke 2006)”.
Relating back to U.S. food consumption practices and the issues of eating meat that looks nothing like meat, we see how societies that practice animal sacrifice and eating animals that still look like animals maintain a balance that seems to have been lost in American society.
“All types of sacrifice, but particularly animal sacrifice, serve to remind the participants of the delicate balance of the universe. As principally city-dwellers, we forget that something must die – be it a cow or a chicken or a carrot – to make our lives possible. We have become unconscious of the trees that die to give us books, the cow, the wheat, the tomato, the potato, and so on that died for our cheeseburger and fries. … Santeros value the lives of animals, but they value the lives of humans more. When the religion requires the sacrifice of an animal, it is offered to the Orisha or the ancestor with respect, then it is killed quickly and with as little pain as possible. Santeros understand what the animal has given and are grateful. (Clark 2006)”
What is needed within all discussions, feelings, movements, and declarations about food, food consumption patterns, and animal rights, is context. The context of the societies, cultures, time periods, and levels of food security should always be taken into account, otherwise unnecessary divisions are bound to happen. Most importantly, one’s religious beliefs and how one feels about animals should always be approached with an attempt to understand, rather than make moral judgments. In an age when information has been made so readily available, and in-depth analyses can be found on almost any practices known to humankind, ignorance about religious beliefs and practices should cease to be the standard, or more accurately the tradition, in American society. When one has the privilege of travelling to other foreign countries and experiencing other practices (such as animal sacrifice in Cuba), one has to approach it objectively – seeking to understand their practices, and simultaneously seeking to break down one’s own unfounded aversions. Only then can the cultural exchanges that lead to enlightenment on multiple levels take place; only then can Americans, Westerners, and/or Christians, fully grasp the knowledge evident within these traditions and cultures.
Note: the term "veg*n" and "veg*nism" are used to refer to both vegans and vegetarians.
Clark, Mary Ann. "Santeria Sacrificial Rituals: A Reconsideration of Religious Violence." Pomegranate 8.2133 (2006): 133-45. Web. 17 June 2014.
"Animal Sacrifice Debated." Christian Century 105.25 (1988): 716. Web. 17 June 2014.
Raisa Parnell
In 1988, a half a dozen Santeros appeared at a board meeting for Animal Regulations in Los Angeles, California after the board introduced an ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifice. Letting their voices be heard in unison against the ordinance, they proclaimed the policy to infringe upon their First Amendment Rights of religious freedom (Animal 1988). On the other side of the country in Hialeah, Florida during the 1990’s, similar ordinances were passed making animal sacrifice for any ritual purposes illegal in an effort to censor the local Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye (Clark 2006). Both cases were eventually overturned by higher courts, however, the disapproval for the communities of Santeria and their practitioners was made quite clear – animal sacrifice is animal cruelty and has no place in civilized, developed societies.
In the U.S., and other parts of the Western world, ideas and feelings towards animal sacrifice run amok and unfortunately, they generally are uninformed and biased, at the least. However, in large part, they serve to tell us something about our privileges, our ignorance, our covert and overt religious foundations, and ultimately, our society as a whole. In this paper, I hope to flesh out some of the uninformed assumptions about animal sacrifice as well as veganism and vegetarianism and how they relate to and are informed by religious ideologies.
The majority of Americans, coming in large part from Christian traditions, have been raised without any experiences with animal sacrifice. In fact, animals used for food are often hidden from public view, their slaughter done in private, and their bodies then butchered and marketed to resemble anything but the animal that it was. The state of the animals prior to slaughter and the slaughtering practices have been carried out so clandestinely that animal rights activists have had to go undercover in order to make these practices known to the general public. Many covert video-recordings, eye-witness accounts, and testimonies from slaughter house workers have been gathered in order to show those who care to know the reality of the U.S. meat industry. In fact, many meat-eaters in the U.S. wilfully choose not to know exactly what happens behind the closed doors of the slaughter houses, holding pens, and breeding barns. Ironically, in their blissful ignorance, many Americans feel as though not seeing the slaughter, not eating meat that actually looks like an animal (but that has been transformed into “nuggets”, “patties”, and “fillets”), and not actually partaking in the killing and butchering of the animals they eat is a much more civilized way to eat. But where exactly do these feelings come from and why do they persist?
A well-known fact about American society is that it is largely Christian. Even beyond the followers of Christianity, many of our practices have been largely shaped or outright mandated by biblical interpretations, ideas, and beliefs. Our ideas on animal sacrifice and animal husbandry in general are largely influenced by the Bible and/or Western interpretations of the Bible.
One of the most well-known examples of religious sacrifice involved Abraham and Isaac in the Bible. Many note that God reneging on his request and sparing Isaac’s life shows a preference against sacrifice. However, many forget that Isaac was spared and replaced with a ram. It has also been suggested that more than two of certain animals were taken on Noah’s Ark in order to be used for sacrifice after the flood. Most importantly, however, is the human sacrifice of Jesus. Many American Christians see this sacrifice as the last one that God required, therefore making animal or human sacrifice in modern-times unnecessary. The point, however, is that animal and human sacrifice are a part of Christianity just as it has been a part of nearly every tradition known to humankind. Although these examples in the Bible are well-known amongst Christian congregations, it is generally believed to be something reserved for the past; for biblical times. The subliminal message suggesting that animal and human sacrifice are best relegated to more “primitive” times in human history.
The language of anthropology in its dichotomies of primitive vs. civilized; savage vs. developed; structured vs. anarchic also communicates this Western hegemony that places Christianity and the Western Christian world in a position of superiority. Being the religion of those making the categorizing, Christianity was set up as the standard for all other societies to be evaluated against. Anything coming from Europe or aligned with Christianity came to be seen as positive while all other practices and societies were deemed inferior. In order to further distance themselves from anything deemed inferior or primitive, European history had to be revised and rewritten suppressing practices of animal and human sacrifices among Pagans and early Christians, for instance. Otherwise, one might notice that there were similarities between the practices in the societies of pre-colonial Africa (or any non-European peoples) and those of 18th and 19th century Europe and claims of Africans being sub-human would have been much harder to solidify.
“These accounts often suggested that ritual violence was an integral part of ‘primitive’ religions, while simultaneously suggesting that such violence could only occur in an environment of irrationality and the loss of the normal inhibitions against killing, as if irrational or religious-inspired violence can only be found amid these so-called primitive religions. (Clark 2006)”
At the height of anthropological fieldwork, the belief systems of a host of people deemed savage and primitive were put under study and analysis. More importantly, they were held up in contrast to the systems and practices of the Western world: this is what primitive people do and this is what we, citizens of the civilized world, can have no part in. Within this scheme, aspects of many non-western religions and spiritualties such as nudity, dancing, body modification, and of course, animal sacrifice were framed within this inferior light. Christianity, being aligned with Europeans and thus, the religion of the “civilized world”, had to suppress aspects of its past and, as a nation, the U.S. reiterated these ideas in its legal system. Additionally, considering the enslavement and the general subjugation of Africans to the lowest rungs of cultural and scientific hierarchies, almost everything associated with African traditional religions was exoticized and demonized. Only within the last few decades have African Traditional Religions begun to shake some of the reviling baggage that has surrounded it for so long. Ordinances against animal sacrifice that blatantly target Santeria practitioners (and practitioners of any African religions and spiritualties) come after a long history of legalized and socialized repressions.
On another note, with Christianity being the major religion in the U.S., and in turn given preference in academia, African religions and spiritualties are usually given little credence. The secrecy with which African traditions are practiced have only aided in the general ignorance that surrounds the practices such as animal sacrifice. Few Americans (and Westerners in general) are looking to educate themselves on the practices because they has been reduced to merely demented superstitions, and few are looking to understand where their biases are rooted.
It is within this environment that we see other, supposedly secular feelings about animals arise. And considering animals are often our food, our food consumption patterns, subsistence modes, culinary tastes and diets are impacted by these nuanced feelings about animals. Veganism, Vegetarianism, pescetarianism, and other voluntary dietary restrictions have arisen in the American society for a host of reasons. The main reason, however, has to do with the suffering of animals. Peter Singer, an animal rights activist and philosopher, and animal rights organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have slammed U.S. food, clothing, and environmental practices as harming living beings that should be afforded the same rights as human beings. Ignoring these supposedly innate rights has been termed “speciesism”, and is used on par with other human rights issues such as sexism and racism.
Although both the average American meat-eater and the average veg*n/animal rights activist have issues with animal sacrifices in religious contexts, both groups have similar and dissimilar reasons for their opposition. The average meat-eater opposes animal sacrifice due to general ignorance about traditional African religions as well as unquestioned feelings about animals they have been socialized into. They have established hierarchies of animals (where cows, chickens, and goats are somewhere below dogs, cats, and other household pets) that many of them simply do not care to analyze. On the other hand, veg*ns and animal rights activists oppose animal sacrifice because of similar ignorance, but also because any killing of any animal is seen as wrong. On some level, it seems as though veg*ns and animal rights activists have continued on in the same vein as early anthropologists. Instead of breaking down the established cultural hierarchies and dichotomies, they have in fact added a new category of “civilized” above that of the meat-eating Westerner. “Civilized” eating is no longer simply eating an animal that looks nothing like an animal whose slaughter was done completely in secret; civilized eating is now without meat altogether, including animal by-products (e.g., milk, leather, eggs, and even honey according to some). “Civilized” eating is now blood-less, pain-less, and healthfully balanced. While the veg*n and animal rights lifestyles come with fewer ironies and contradictions than that of the average American meat-eater, it is not without its issues as well.
Criticisms of the animal rights/veg*n communities have been made – claiming that veg*ns care more about animals than they do humans. In fact, this criticism has been made about Westerners in general (including meat-eaters). Thousands of dollars a year are spent on animal shelters and animal rescues, Americans will do more for our personal pets than for any homeless person on the streets, wildlife conservations and campaigns to save certain species of animals are ongoing, and animal cruelty laws are actively claimed, prosecuted, and put into law (as we see in the cases in Florida and California). Many veg*ns use the phrase ”cruelty-free” to refer to their diets. However, a closer look at who picks the vegetables, fruits, and grains they so often consume shows that this phrase is inaccurate.
For example, the average farm-worker in the U.S. is an undocumented person, generally from Mexico, Central American nations, and Haiti. Food crops in Florida and border towns of southern California, Arizona, and Texas are filled with farm-workers who pick these crops. It was not until Cesar Chavez began to publicly bring the human rights violations taking place in the fields to the limelight that anyone even knew what types of conditions farmworkers had to deal with. It has been decades since these issues were made public and they are still taking place. It is not uncommon for farmworkers to be placed in chains, to go hours without water, to work from sunrise to sunset, for the women farmworkers to be sexually assaulted by the farm-owners, for children to work alongside their parents in these fields, for farmworkers to be beaten and mistreated by their employers, and to be denied pay. And even when payment does happen, it is scarcely enough to feed one person, let alone an entire family. By any standards, this is modern-day slavery – yet the average veg*n is not fighting against these issues of human rights violations and by all accounts do not seem to be concerned with them. Furthermore, food trends among veg*ns impact indigenous communities in detrimental ways that are also commonly ignored. Quinoa, for example, is a grain indigenous to Mexico that has been popularized recently by vegans and vegetarians for its high protein content. While indigenous Mexican communities have been enjoying this food for centuries - often as their only source of protein in times of food scarcity - it has become so valued in American markets that it is now difficult to acquire by the communities that actually grow it! The price of quinoa has spiked due to this surge from American markets, thus making it is no longer affordable to the average Mexican living in these indigenous communities. Yet, again, there seems to be no collective outcry from the majority of veg*ns about these issues that their lifestyles directly contribute to.
An issue often overlooked by many veg*ns is that voluntary food restrictions such as veganism is a privilege and is singular within an American context. It has to be understood within a Western, post-industrial, and capitalist context. While many indigenous communities subsisted on plant-based diets long before it became fashionable in modern times, it was often done for complicated spiritual reasons (some Buddhist, Hindu, and Jainist sects) that are not solely for the welfare of animals. Whereas amongst American veg*ns, animal welfare has taken precedence in their diets to the point at which eating meat has almost been compared to genocide, plant-based diets traditionally were not devoted to equalizing non-human animals and humans and proselytizing about veg*n lifestyles. The more vocal veg*ns have become about their lifestyles, the more tension has arisen between meat-eaters and veg*ns, with claims of meat-eating being immoral. These attitudes, also counteracted by non-veg*ns, have only contributed to tensions and divisions on the basis of food, when food security is still a major issue throughout the world as well as in the United States.
As I have previously mentioned, colonialism, Western foreign policies, and American consumption patterns have negatively impacted many non-Western communities to the point at which veg*nism may no longer be a viable option for some traditional vegetarians. Even within the U.S., there are currently a number of communities that have been termed “food deserts” due to their lack of grocery stores with fresh produce available (generally in Black and Brown communities in cities such as New Orleans, Atlanta, New York City, and Memphis. Predominantly white neighborhoods in these same cities may have up to five times as many grocery stores). In other words, veg*nism is simply not an option for many people within and outside the U.S. And with claims of immorality being made against people who chose to eat meat and when non-human animal welfare takes precedence, sympathy towards those who do not have the privilege of veg*nism is lost.
While veg*ns and animal rights activists should be applauded for highlighting the wellbeing of animals, a disconnect has happened between those concerned with animals in the West and those concerned with animals in non-Western societies. The presumptions of superiority in the West have erroneously given Western veg*ns the assumption that they (and they alone) are the moral voices for animals; they are the ones to teach the world how to treat animals; they are the voice of the voiceless. Unfortunately, many Western veg*ns feel as though they have nothing to learn from non-Western societies, especially those that partake in animal sacrifice. There exists an assumption that because a society has not placed non-human animals on the same level as humans, that mis-treatment and abuse of animals then becomes highly probable.
In actuality, there is much to learn from indigenous and non-Western cultures. While animals may not be treated like members of the family, animals are rarely mis-treated in the ways they are in the U.S. Issues of animal cruelty, hunting for fun, bestiality, and the general disregard for the sentience of non-human animals is generally non-existent in these societies. Indigenous peoples have included animals in complex spiritual and religious beliefs, and in some cases centered their entire cultures around them (e.g., pastoral communities such as those of southern Sudan).
Animals used in sacrifices are deferred a great deal of respect and special treatment because it is believed they have offered themselves for the sacrifice. Sickly, mistreated, or traumatized animals (which are all mainstays within the U.S. meat industry) are not seen as suitable for sacrifice. Therefore mistreatment of non-human animals is not only seen inherently as wrong, but also as an act that could potentially harm whatever one is trying to achieve spiritually. It is only because the non-human animal is respected that it is even considered for sacrifice.
Ultimately, the foundation and the objective of animal sacrifice is balance. In order for a god to put energy into bringing something into someone’s life, they have to be given the energy to do it. That energy may come from human labor, a devotee’s abstinence from food or an activity (such as sexual abstinence, fasting, etc.), an offering of fruits, stones, herbs, or in other cases, animals. All of these are seen as transferring energy to the gods and maintaining the balance of energies between the world of the spirits and of humans.
Within Santeria and other Yoruba-inspired traditions, each Oricha has their own preferences on offerings. Ochun, for example, prefers flowers, cinnamon, and honey. Chango prefers palm oil, red wine, and on occasion, turtles. Each Oricha accepts non-animal as well as animal sacrifices. What is most important is that something be offered in order to maintain the balance of energies in the world. In conversation, I have heard some Christian Westerners say that one of their issues with animal sacrifice is that the animal is not killed for human consumption and that they see it as a waste. However, one must pay close attention not only to what takes place during an animal sacrifice but what those who are doing the sacrifice believe. Aside from the fact that the practitioners often eat the sacrificed meat, the belief is that they are “feeding” the gods.
“…the giving of natural and manufactured items to the Orisha or other spiritual beings, is viewed by santeros as essential for human welfare. Through sacrifice one restores the positive processes in one;s life and acquires general well-being. One gives to the Orisha and the ancestors what they need and want in the expectation that they in turn will give what one needs or wants. …it is the mutual exchange of the ashe (energy) necessary to maintain the balance of the cosmos. ‘The Orisha offer health, children and wisdom; human beings render sacrifice and praise. Each needs the other, for, without the ashe of the orishas, human beings would despair of their god-given destiny and turn on themselves. And without the ashe of sacrifice, the orishas would wither and die.’ (Clarke 2006)”.
Relating back to U.S. food consumption practices and the issues of eating meat that looks nothing like meat, we see how societies that practice animal sacrifice and eating animals that still look like animals maintain a balance that seems to have been lost in American society.
“All types of sacrifice, but particularly animal sacrifice, serve to remind the participants of the delicate balance of the universe. As principally city-dwellers, we forget that something must die – be it a cow or a chicken or a carrot – to make our lives possible. We have become unconscious of the trees that die to give us books, the cow, the wheat, the tomato, the potato, and so on that died for our cheeseburger and fries. … Santeros value the lives of animals, but they value the lives of humans more. When the religion requires the sacrifice of an animal, it is offered to the Orisha or the ancestor with respect, then it is killed quickly and with as little pain as possible. Santeros understand what the animal has given and are grateful. (Clark 2006)”
What is needed within all discussions, feelings, movements, and declarations about food, food consumption patterns, and animal rights, is context. The context of the societies, cultures, time periods, and levels of food security should always be taken into account, otherwise unnecessary divisions are bound to happen. Most importantly, one’s religious beliefs and how one feels about animals should always be approached with an attempt to understand, rather than make moral judgments. In an age when information has been made so readily available, and in-depth analyses can be found on almost any practices known to humankind, ignorance about religious beliefs and practices should cease to be the standard, or more accurately the tradition, in American society. When one has the privilege of travelling to other foreign countries and experiencing other practices (such as animal sacrifice in Cuba), one has to approach it objectively – seeking to understand their practices, and simultaneously seeking to break down one’s own unfounded aversions. Only then can the cultural exchanges that lead to enlightenment on multiple levels take place; only then can Americans, Westerners, and/or Christians, fully grasp the knowledge evident within these traditions and cultures.
Note: the term "veg*n" and "veg*nism" are used to refer to both vegans and vegetarians.
Clark, Mary Ann. "Santeria Sacrificial Rituals: A Reconsideration of Religious Violence." Pomegranate 8.2133 (2006): 133-45. Web. 17 June 2014.
"Animal Sacrifice Debated." Christian Century 105.25 (1988): 716. Web. 17 June 2014.