1

______________________________
] Karen Dais, PhD. is the ounder and President o United Poultry Concerns
,www.upc-online.org,, a nonproit organization that promotes the compassionate
and respectul treatment o domestic owl. She is the author o Pri.ovea Cbic/ev.,
Poi.ovea gg.: .v v.iae oo/ at tbe Moaerv Povttr, vav.tr,; . ove for evv,; More
1bav a Meat: 1be 1vr/e, iv i.tor,, M,tb, Ritvat, ava Reatit,; and v.teaa of Cbic/ev,
v.teaa of 1vr/e,: . Povttr,te.. Povttr, Potovrri ,a cookbook,. Karen is currently
writing a book titled 1be otocav.t ava tbe evvaia`. 1ate: . Ca.e for Covarivg
.trocitie.


.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

A 1ale of 1wo Holocausts

Karen Dais, PhD]

Abstract
.v vvaer.tavaabte re.evtvevt cav cove frov tbe .ev.e tbat tbe vviqveve.. of
ove`. orv grov`. eerievce ritb .vfferivg i. aroriatea to fit tbe eerievce of
avotber grov. Ove grov`. eerievce ritb .vfferivg i. vviqve, bvt vot iv .vcb a
ra, tbat it rectvae. covari.ov. or avatogie. ritb tbe .vfferivg of otber grov..
or tbi. rea.ov, av eerievce of ore..iov, .vcb a. tbe otocav.t, va, .erre a.
av aroriate vetabor to rereat .ivitaritie. ivberevt iv otber forv. of
ore..iov, .vcb a. tbe ore..iov of vovbvvav avivat. b, bvvav beivg..
_________________________

otocav.t rictiv. !R treatea ti/e avivat., ava .o togicatt, re
cav covctvae tbat avivat. are treatea ti/e otocav.t rictiv.. - Matt
Prescott, creator o PL1A`s lolocaust on \our Plate`
campaign

1be, are beivg treatea a. if tbe, rere avivat.. International Red
Cross Committee about prisoners in Iraq under American
superision.

A metaphor is a igure o speech in which a word or phrase
denoting one kind o object, action, or experience is used in place o
another to suggest a likeness between them. A purpose o metaphor
is to proide a amiliar language and imagery to characterize new
perceptions. In the case o atrocity, a key purpose o these
perceptions is to generate concern and inspire action on behal o the
ictims. \hen the oppression o one group is used metaphorically to
illuminate the oppression o another group, justice requires that the
oppression that orms the basis o the comparison be comprehended
in its own right. 1he originating oppression that generates the
metaphor must not be treated as a mere igure o speech, a mere
point o reerence. It must not be treated illogically as a lesser matter
than that which it is being used to draw attention to.
loweer, i these requirements hae been met, there is no
good reason to insist that one orm o suering and oppression is so
2

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

exclusie that it may not be used to raise moral concerns about any
other orm o oppression. A perect match o oppressions or calculus
o which group suered more isn`t necessary to make reasonable
comparisons between them. I a person is oended by the
comparisons regardless, it may be that the resentment is more
proprietary than just, and thereby represents an arbitrary delimiting o
moral boundaries.
1hat there could be a link between the 1hird Reich and
society`s treatment o nonhuman animals is hard or most people to
grasp. 1hat nonhuman animals could suer as horribly as humans in
being reduced to industrialized products and industrial waste and
treated with complete contempt- a clear link between Nazism and
actory arming - contradicts thousands o years o teachings that
humans are superior to animals in all respects. Not only is this a
humans ersus animals` issue in the minds o most, but by this time
the lolocaust has become iconic and historical,` whereas the
human manuacture o animal suering is so normal` and perasie
that many people ind it hard een to regard the slaughter o animals
as a orm o iolence. \et the continuity is there. In this article I
argue that comparing our systemic abuse o nonhuman animals to
the lolocaust can enable us to gain some concrete knowledge about
the destructie elements in human nature and what it means to be at
the mercy o these elements. And I ask whether we hae the ability -
the will - to transorm ourseles since we claim to hate iolence and
to alue lie.

Invoking the Pain of Others
Many Jewish people resent the comparisons that are currently
being made by some animal adocates between the human-imposed
suering endured by millions o Jews under the Nazis and billions o
nonhuman animals each year at the hands o animal exploiters. lor,
as Susan Sontag says in her book, Regaraivg tbe Paiv of Otber., It is
intolerable to hae one`s own suerings twinned with anybody else`s`
,2003, 113,. 1ellingly, Sontag does not include animals in her book
on the iconography o suering or submit her particular claim about
the intolerability o twinned` suering to analysis. She does,
howeer, cite the reaction o the Sarajeans to a photo gallery o their
plight that included images o the Somalians` plight. lor the
Sarajeans, it was . . . simple. 1o set their suerings alongside the
suerings o another people was to compare them ,which hell was
worse,, demoting Sarajeo`s martyrdom to a mere instance. 1he
atrocities taking place in Sarajeo hae nothing to do with what
happens in Arica, they exclaimed` ,Sontag, 113,.
\hile noting that |u|ndoubtedly there was a racist tinge to
their indignation` ,113,, Sontag assumes that suerings can be
legitimately compared, but she does not pursue the matter.
3

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

Nonetheless, two important issues emerge. lirst, members o an
oppressed group oten resent comparisons o their suering with
members o another oppressed group because they beliee that the
analogy demotes their suering rom something unique to a mere
instance` o generic suering. Second, more than this, a group may
eel that their suering actually is more important than that o any
other group. 1he question o just comparisons between or among
dierent groups is important, since it is not just any suering, but the
unjust, deliberately imposed suering one`s group has already
endured ,suering intentionally imposed by humans as opposed to
suering incurred in the wake o a natural disaster such as an
earthquake, which adds to the resentment one eels in haing to
protect one`s own group experience rom appropriation by another
goup. 1he original injustice should not be compounded by the
urther injustice o being used, in Richard Kahn`s words, merely as
an emblem or more pressing matters` ,Kahn 2004,.
A problem that remains to be soled, notwithstanding, is how
to win attention to suerers and suering that most people do not
want to hear about, or hae trouble imagining, or would just as soon
orget. One way is to use an analogy ,a logical parallel,, or a metaphor
,a suggested likeness, that already has meaning and resonance in the
public mind. lor example, oppressed people, such as slaughterhouse
workers, say o themseles, \e are treated like animals,` and people
who raise chickens or the poultry industry likewise compare
themseles in the situation they are in to animals.`
Matt Prescott, the creator o the controersial lolocaust on
\our Plate` exhibit or People or the Lthical 1reatment o Animals
,PL1A,, argues that the analogy works both ways. lis exhibit, which
consists o eight 60-square-oot panels, each juxtaposing photographs
o actory arm and slaughterhouses with photographs rom Nazi
death camps, depicts the point made by \iddish writer and Nobel
laureate Isaac Basheis Singer, who in his short story 1he Letter
\riter,` wrote, In relation to |animals|, all people are Nazis.`.
Prescott, who is himsel a Jew with relaties who died under the
Nazis, says that when lolocaust suriors today try to relate the
horrors they lied through, this is the ery irst analogy that comes to
mind. 1hey say, we were treated like animals`` ,Sept. 12, 2003,.

1reatment versus Lxperience
loweer, the appropriation o animal suering to express
human suering is seldom accorded the justice o reciprocity. On the
contrary, at the time o this writing, many Jewish people hae
expressed indignation oer comparisons that are being made by
animal adocates between the human-imposed suering endured by
billions o nonhuman animals each year and the suering endured by
millions o Jews under the Nazis. At the same time, many Jews
4

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

support the comparisons and were sensitized to animal slaughter
ater experiencing or conceptualizing the massacre o Jews, as Charles
Patterson demonstrates throughout his book, tervat 1rebtiv/a: Ovr
1reatvevt of .vivat. ava tbe otocav.t ,2002,. My own stance on the
issue appeared in a 1999 proile o my work in 1be !a.bivgtov Po.t. In
lor the Birds,` !a.bivgtov Po.t writer 1amara Jones declared at the
outset: \es, Karen Dais is serious when she says the extermination
o billion broiler chickens is the moral equialent o the lolocaust`
,Jones 1999, l1,. Ater publication o the article, I receied a oice-
mail message denouncing my stance as anti-Semitic, een though the
article stressed how my preoccupation with the eils perpetrated on
innocent ictims under litler had eoled to illuminate my
awareness o humanity`s relentless institutionalized assault upon
nonhuman animals ,Jones, l5,.
In a letter to the editor, an indignant writer justiies using
animals to express human lolocaust suering, but not the reerse:
\es, the Nazis treated us like animals, maybe worse than animals,`
she writes. But it`s just an expression we use` ,Jacobs 2003,. It is
acceptable, in other words, to appropriate the treatment o
nonhuman animals to characterize one`s own mistreatment, but not
the other way around. Adocates o this position beliee that they
can legitimately use the experience o nonhuman animals to
characterize their own experience, een when the animals` experience
has not been duly acknowledged or imaginatiely conceied o to any
degree, and perhaps has been dismissed without urther inquiry. I so,
it may be asked why anyone would compromise the case or the
incomparability o one`s own suering by comparing it to the
suering o animals, gien that nonhuman animals and their suering
are regarded as astly inerior.
But it is precisely the distinction between treatment` and
experience` that uels resentment. 1o be treated like animals` is an
insult because the experience o animals is assumed to be astly
inerior to that o any human being, most o all one`s particular
group. 1he worth o animals has traditionally been regarded as
instrumental worth only. Animals were put on earth or humans to
use` is the standard ormula, with responsibly` or humanely`
tacked on as an aterthought. Presuming an immeasurable gul
between humans and animals allows one to appropriate animal abuse
as a metaphor or one`s own mistreatment while simultaneously
dismissing the metaphor, and hence the animals,` as just an
expression.` In this igure o speech the term animal` has no
concrete or independent meaning een as animal.` It is simply a
code word or humans badly treated by other humans,` though not
necessarily in a sense that is troubling to the speaker, who may be as
likely to dismiss the suering o nonhuman animals with another
ormula, 1hey`re only animals.`
5

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.


Invisible Mass Suffering
None o us knows, omnisciently, who suers more in
conditions o horror, human or nonhuman indiiduals. It may be that
beyond a certain point, we cannot ully apprehend the reality o
anyone else`s suering. In her book 1be oa, iv Paiv, Llaine Scarry
says that A person whose pain it is, knows it eortlessly, the person
whose pain it is not, cannot know it een with eort.` \hile Scarry`s
point is about human pain and the inability o other people to athom
it, what she says could apply to nonhuman animal pain and suering
as well: It is easy to remain wholly unaware o its existence, een
with eort, one may remain in doubt about its existence or may
retain the astonishing reedom o denying its existence, and inally, i
with the best eort o sustained attention one successully
apprehends it, the aersieness o the it` one apprehends will only be
a shadowy raction o the actual it`` ,Scarry 1985, 4, quoted in
Adams 1996, 183,.
1he problem o apprehending the pain o others is increased
when the others are in a situation o mass suering. 1he indiidual is
submerged in a sea o suering rom the standpoint o onlookers.
1his is the opposite o the personal experience o being inside one`s
priate hell while enguled by the hell o others. No wonder people
who hae suered as whole populations are desperate to be .eev. No
wonder they resent haing their suering compared to the suering
o another group. \hat is elt to be een worse than being twinned`
with another group is to be indistinguishable to all orms o
consciousness outside one`s own consciousness, which will be
obliterated in one`s own death.
1

A undamental diiculty in drawing attention to the plight o
actory-armed animals is, similarly, that eery situation in which they
appear is a mass situation, one that appears to be, as in reality it is, a
limitless expanse o animal suering and horror ,Dais 2004,. Lery
actory-arm scene replicates this expanse, mirroring its magnitude o
unmanageability. Lxcept or the eal` cal, whose solitary
coninement stall and large sad eyes draw attention to him or hersel
as a desolate indiidual, all that most people see in looking at animal
actories are endless rows o battery-caged hens, wall-to-wall turkeys,
thousands o chickens or pigs. \hat they hear is deathly silence or
indistinguishable "noise.` 1hey see a brownish sea o bodies without
conlict, plot, or endpoint.
1o the public eye, the sheer number and expanse o animals
surrounded by metal, wires, dung, dander, and dust renders all o
them inisible and impersonal. 1here are no indiiduals` and no
drama on which to ocus, only a scene o abstract suering. 1heir
horriying pain is not een minimally grasped by most iewers, who
are socialized not to perceie animals, especially ood` animals, as
6

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

indiiduals with eelings. 1hese dispassionate onlookers hae no
concept o animals as sentient beings, let alone as indiiduals with
projects o their own o which they hae been stripped, such as their
own amily lie and the comort it brings, which was their birthright
in nature.
2


Notwithstanding, it is reasonable to assume that animals
imprisoned within coninement systems suer een more, in certain
respects, than do humans who are similarly conined. 1his occurs in a
similar way that a mentally impaired person might experience
dimensions o suering in being rough-handled, imprisoned, and
shouted at that elude a person capable o conceptualizing the
experience. Indeed, one who is capable o conceptualizing one`s own
suering may be unable to grasp what it eels like to suer without
being able to conceptualize it, o being in a condition that could add
to, rather than reduce, the suering. It is in this quite dierent sense
rom what is usually meant, when we are told that it is meaningless`
to compare the suering o a chicken with that o a human being,
that the claim resonates. 1he biologist, Marian Stamp Dawkins, says
that other animal species may suer in states that no human has
eer dreamed o or experienced` ,Dawkins 1985, 29,. Matthew Scully
writes in Doviviov o the pain and suering o animals in human
coninement systems:
lor all we know, their pain may sometimes seem more
immediate, blunt, arbitrary, and inescapable than ours. \alk through
an animal shelter or slaughterhouse and you wonder i animal
suering might not at times be all the more terriying and all-
encompassing without beneit o the words and concepts that or us,
ater all, coner not only meaning but consolation. \hateer`s going
on inside their heads, it doesn`t seem mere` to them. ,2002, ,

1he 9/JJ Controversy
lor many Americans, the worst, most unjust suering to
beall anyone happened on September 11, 2001. Mark Slouka, in his
essay A \ear Later,` in arer`. Magaive, puzzled oer how it was
possible or a man`s aith to sail oer Auschwitz, say, only to ounder
on the \orld 1rade Center` ,Slouka 2002, 3,. low was it that so
many intelligent people he knew, who had lied though the 20
th

century and knew something about history, actually insisted that
eerything is dierent now,` as a result o 9,11, as though, Slouka
mareled, only ovr sorrow would weigh in the record` People who
said they`d neer be the same again neer said that while watching on
teleision or reading in the newspaper about other people`s and other
nations` calamities. In saying that the world as a result o the 9,11
attack was dierent now,` they didn`t mean that beore the 9,11
attack I was blind, but now I see the suering that is going on and


___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

that has been going on all around me, to which I might be a
contributor, God orbid.` No, they meant that an incomparable and
superior outrage had occurred. It happened to Americans. It
happened to them: Rwanda Bosnia Couldn`t help but eel sorry
or those olks, but let`s ace it: Rwanda did not hae a coenant with
God. And Jesus was not a Sarajean,` Slouka spooed ,39,.

lollowing the 9,11 attack, I published a letter ,Dais 2001,
2002, that raised such consternation in the mainstream media that it
got me on the loward Stern show ,April 10, 2002, August 2, 2004,.
\ithout seeking to diminish the horror o 9,11, I wrote that the
people who died in the attack arguably did not suer more terrible
deaths than animals in slaughterhouses suer eery day. Using
chickens as an example, I obsered that in addition to the much
larger number o innocent chickens who were killed ,more than 8.5
billion chickens in the United States in 2001,, and the horrible deaths
they endured in the slaughter plants that day, and eery day, one had
to account or the misery o their lies leading up to their horrible
death, including the terror attack they had suered seeral hours or
days beore they were killed, euphemistically reerred to as chicken
catching.`
I compared all this to the relatiely satisying lies o the
majority o human ictims o 9,11 prior to the attack and added that
we humans hae a plethora o palliaties, ranging rom proclaiming
ourseles heroes and plotting reenge against our maleactors to the
consolation o amily and riends and the relie o painkilling drugs
and alcoholic beerages. Moreoer, whereas human animals hae the
ability to make some sort o sense o the tragedy, the chickens, in
contrast, hae no cognitie insulation, no compensation, presumably
no comprehension o the causes o their suering, and thus no
psychological relie rom their suering. 1he act that intensiely
raised chickens are orced to lie in systems that relect our
dispositions, not theirs, and that these systems are inimical to their
basic nature ,as reealed by their behaior, physical breakdown, and
other indicators,, shows that they are suering in ways that could
equal and een exceed anything that we hae known. Industry
sources note, or example, that hens caged or egg production are so
oerwrought that they exhibit the "emotionality` o hysteria,` and
that something as simple as an electrical storm can produce an
outbreak o hysteria` in our-to-eight-week-old broiler` chickens
conined by the thousands in buildings ,Bell and \eaer 2002, 89,
Clark, et al. 2004, 2,.
I wrote my rebuttal in response to comments made by
philosopher Peter Singer, who in a reiew o Joan Dunayer`s book,
.vivat qvatit,: avgvage ava iberatiov ,2001, challenged the
contention that we should use equally strong words or human and
8

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

nonhuman suering or death. le wrote: Reading this suggestion
just a ew days ater the killing o seeral thousand people at the
\orld 1rade Centre, I hae to demure. It is not speciesist to think
that this eent was a greater tragedy than the killing o seeral million
chickens, which no doubt also occurred on September 11, as it
occurs on eery working day in the United States. 1here are reasons
or thinking that the deaths o beings with amily ties as close as
those between the people killed at the \orld 1rade Centre and their
loed ones are more tragic than the deaths o beings without those
ties, and there is more than could be said about the kind o loss that
death is to beings who hae a high degree o sel-awareness, and a
iid sense o their own existence oer time` ,Singer 2002, 36,.
1here are reasons or contesting this statement o assumed
superiority o the human suering caused by 9,11 oer that o the
chickens in slaughterhouses, starting with the act that it is not loty
tragedy` that`s at issue in Dunayer`s book Singer is challenging, but
raw suering.
3
Moreoer, there is eidence that the highly social
chicken, who is endowed with a complex nerous system designed
to orm a multitude o memories and to make complex decisions`
,Rogers 1995, 218,, has sel-awareness and a sense o personal
existence oer time. And who are we to say what bonds chickens
liing together in the chicken houses might or might not hae
ormed 1he chickens at United Poultry Concerns ,the sanctuary that
I run, orm close personal attachments. Len chicken exploiters
admit that they do ,Dais 1996, 35, 148,. 1he aian cognition
specialist, Lesley J. Rogers, quoted aboe, says in her book, 1be
Deretovevt of raiv ava ebariovr iv tbe Cbic/ev, that modern studies o
birds, including chickens, throw the allacies o preious
assumptions about the ineriority o aian cognition into sharp relie`
,Rogers, 218,.

Cognitive Distance from Nonhuman Animal Suffering
But een i it could be proen that chickens and other
nonhuman animals suer less than humans condemned to similar
situations, this would not mean that nonhuman animals do not suer
prooundly, nor does it proide justiication or harming them.
Scientists tell us, or example, that hens in transport trucks hae been
shown to experience a leel o ear comparable to that induced by
exposure to a high-intensity electric shock` ,Mills and Nicol 1990,
212,. \hat more do we need to know Our cognitie distance rom
nonhuman animal suering constitutes neither an argument nor
eidence as to who suers more under horriic circumstances,
humans or nonhumans. Len or animal adocates, words like
slaughter,` cages,` debeaking,` orced molting,` and ammonia
burn` can lose their edge, causing us to orget that what hae become
routine matters in our minds - like the killing o seeral million
9

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

chickens that occurs on eery single working day in the United
States,` in Peter Singer`s reality-blunting phrase - is a resh
experience or each bird who is orced to endure what these words
signiy.
In any case, the cognitie distance can be reduced. Vicarious
suering is possible with respect to the members o not just one`s
own species but also other animal species, to whom we are linked
through eolution. As Marian Stamp Dawkins says in her essay, 1he
Scientiic Basis or Assessing Suering in Animals,` just as the lack
o absolute certainty does not stop us rom making assumptions
about eelings in other people, so it is possible to build up a
reasonably conincing picture o what animals experience i the right
acts about them are accumulated` ,Dawkins 1985, 28,.

Animal Sacrifice and the Holocaust: Ialsifying the Iate of
Victims
In 1aking Lie or 1aking On Lie,`` Carol J. Adams and
Marjorie Procter-Smith cite the ollowing anecdote rom the 19
th
-
century women`s moement:
\hen Pundita Ramabia was in this country she saw a hen
carried to market with its |.ic| head downward. 1his Christian method
o treating a poor, dumb creature caused the heathen woman to cry
out, Oh, how cruel to carry a hen with its head down!` and she
quickly receied the reply, \hy, the hen does not mind it`, and in
her heathen innocence she inquired, Did you ask the hen` ,Adams
and Procter-Smith 1993, 304,
Similar to the myths circulated by US slaery owners about
their human property` during the nineteenth century, animal
ictimizers typically insist that their ictims don`t mind their plight, or
that they don`t experience it as you or I would,` or that the ictims
are complicit in their plight, een, on occasion, to the point o
gratitude. 1he ictims, in other words, are not really innocent.`
1hus, or example, at his trial, Nazi leader Adol Lichmann pleaded,
regarding his deportation o tens o thousands o Jews to their
deaths, that the Jews desired` to emigrate, and that he, Lichmann,
was there to help them` ,Arendt, 48,. 1his is not exceptional
psychology, as students o sexual assault - one orm o rape - are
well aware. Indeed, ictimizers are ery oten likely to represent
themseles, and to be upheld by their sympathizers, as the innocent
parties in their orchestrations o the suering and death o others. In
icbvavv iv ]erv.atev, lannah Arendt cites an Lgyptian deputy
oreign minister who claimed, or instance, that litler was innocent
o the slaughter o the Jews, he was a ictim o the Zionists, who had
compelled him to perpetrate crimes that would eentually enable
them to achiee their aim - the creation o the State o Israel``
,Arendt 1994, 20,. I you want to hurt someone and maintain a clean
10

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

conscience about it, chances are you will inoke arguments along one
or more o these lines: the slae,animal doesn`t eel, or doesn`t know
or care, is complicit, or isn`t een tbere. In the latter case the ictim is
conigured as an ittv.iov.
1his is a commonplace o ictimizer psychology: the
transormation o the sacriicial ictim into a maniestation o
something else in disguise, a being or spirit imprisoned in the
maniestation that wants to be let out,` a ermin` or iral inection
that requires a bloodletting ceremony o purgation to protect the
community, race,` or nation. In such cases, not only is the ictim
reconigured to suit the ictimizer`s agenda, but the ictimizer too is
dierent rom what he or she appears to be - a murderer, say, as in
the portrayal o litler is, in reality,` the benignly-motiated liberator
o a spiritual wish within the Jewish people to be ree ,think also o
U.S. president George \. Bush as the alleged liberator` o the Iraqi
people,.
1o this day, animals are ritually sacriiced by lindus whose
practice is based on the idea that the sacriice o an animal is vot
reatt, tbe /ittivg of av avivat.` 1he animal to be sacriiced is not
considered an animal,` but is, instead, a symbol o those powers or
which the sacriicial ritual stands` ,Lal 1986, 201,. Nor are lindus
the only ones who transmute animals rhetorically in this way.
Consider the idea presented by Christian theologian Andrew Linzey,
who in trying to rescue nonhuman animals rom the traditional
Christian opprobrium and moral indierence cites an interpretation
in which animal sacriice is best seen as the reeing o animal lie to
be with God` ,Linzey 1986, 130,.
Indeed there is a tradition o thought in ancient Greek
religion, in Judaic mysticism, and in other sectors o human culture in
which nonhumans are said to beneit rom being sacriiced by
humans to the point o oluntarily stretching out their necks` to
assist in being slaughtered ,Porphyry 1965, 36-3, Schochet 1984,
236-244, Schwartz 2001, 124-12,. Adertisers tell us that pigs want
to become Oscar Meyer wieners, and in the sacriicial language o
\estern science, animals who are but tools o research` under one
aspect stand orth as engaged` in animal experimentation ,Paul-
Murphy, et al. 2004, 9,. As Schochet says about the doctrine o
metempsychosis ,the belie that human souls can become trapped in
lower` lie orms as punishment or their misdeeds,, this doctrine,
rather than promoting egetarianism, militated in aor o the
consumption o lesh, or one thereby did the animal a aor` in
releasing the human soul within to pursue its higher destiny
,Schochet 244,.
Challenges such as the lolocaust on \our Plate` exhibit,
and Charles Patterson`s book, tervat 1rebtiv/a: Ovr 1reatvevt of
.vivat. ava tbe otocav.t ,2002,, help to restore a more likely ersion
11

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

o the animals` point o iew. 1hey stimulate people to conront how
animals must eel being torn rom their mothers at birth, mutilated,
dumped in ilthy dark buildings, treated like trash and brutally
murdered. 1hey orce us to recognize that these animals, powerless
to deend themseles, are condemned to the same excremental
unierse, the same abyss o abasement, loneliness, pain, and terror o
imprisonment as were the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others
characterized as lie unworthy o lie` under the Nazis. 1hey lout
the taboos and expose the rationalizations. 1hey puncture the
solipsism in which we surround ourseles, in order to rescue billions
o unacknowledged animal ictims rom anonymity and the ignominy
and injustice o being consigned to the ate o a alse and inerior
existence in our minds.

1he Absent Referent
1he holocausts - burnt oerings - o the ancient lebrews
consisted o countless nonhuman animals, as did the religious animal
sacriices conducted throughout the ancient world by the Greeks,
lindus, Muslims, Natie Americans, and other cultures ,Regan 1986,
Dais 2001, 33-43,. \et we are not supposed to regard those animals
or their counterparts in today`s world, where the consumption o
animals or ood rises to eer-greater leels. \e are not supposed to
contemplate the experience o animals in being turned into burnt
oerings,` meat, metaphors, and other orms that obliterate their
lies, personalities, eelings, and identities that we choose to coner.
1he lolocaust on \our Plate` exhibit restores what
eminist writer, Carol Adams, reers to in 1be evat Potitic. of Meat as
the absent reerent` ,Adams 1990, 2000, 40-48,. An absent reerent
is an indiidual or group whose ate is transmuted into a metaphor
or someone else`s existence or ate` without being acknowledged in
its own right. According to Adams, Metaphorically, the absent
reerent can be anything whose original meaning is undercut as it is
absorbed into a dierent hierarchy o meaning.` 1he rape o women,
or example, can be applied metaphorically to the rape` o the earth
in such a way as to obliterate women. As Adams explains:
1he absent reerent is both there and not there. It is there
through inerence, but its meaningulness relects only upon what it
reers to because the originating, literal, experience that contributes
the meaning is not there. \e ail to accord this absent reerent its
own existence. ,1990, 42,
In the role o absent reerents, nonhuman animals become
metaphors or describing human experience at the same time that
the originating oppression o animals that generates the power o
the metaphor` is unacknowledged ,Adams, 43,, as when people say,
\e`re treated like animals.` 1he meaning o the animals` ate, or
the animals themseles, or each indiidual him and her, is absorbed
12

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

into a human-centered hierarchy in which the animals do not count,
or een exist, apart rom how humans use, or hae used, them. Our
use becomes their ontology - this is what they are` - and their
teleology - this is what they were made or.`
1his process o obscuring the ace o the other,` as Maxwell
Schnurer describes in his essay, At the Gates o lell,` is ital to
the reduction o liing beings to objects upon whom atrocities can be
heaped` ,2004, 109, 11,. And it is not species-speciic. As Schnurer
explains the process o obscuring the ace o the other to achiee
sel-exoneration:
In the case o the lolocaust, it was necessary to sustain a
complex inrastructure that enabled each participant to disguise his or
her responsibility. In the case o animals, as Adams notes, it is
essential that the acts o killing, enslaing, and torturing animals be
well hidden rom sight, so that the consumer only eer sees the
inished product.` lor both systems o oppression, it is critical that
the process be as compartmentalized as possible. 1he reason to
obscure the ace o suering is as obious as it is hidden - the ision
o terrible actions can elicit sympathy and compassion, and oten call
or remedy. ,11,

Who Owns the Holocaust?
1he word holocaust is not species-speciic, and thereore Jews hae
no ownership rights oer it. lrom whateer source the word
lolocaust,` as it is now employed, came rom, Jews hae taken it
oer rom the Greek word, boto/av.tov, which in ancient times
denoted their own and others` cultural practice o sacriicing animals,
to designate the Nazi extermination o the Luropean Jews.
4

Conceiably, those animals could complain that their experience o
being orcibly turned into burnt oerings ,and to please or sate a god
they would not necessarily hae acknowledged as their god, has been
unjustly appropriated by their ictimizers, who are robbing them o
tbeir original experience o suering. 1hrough PL1A`s lolocaust on
\our Plate` exhibit, the animals reclaim tbeir experience, past,
present, and uture. 1aking the animals` iew it may be said o them,
as Bruno Bettelheim said o the millions o Jews and others who
were systematically slaughtered by the Nazis, that while these
millions were slaughtered or an idea, they did not die or one`
,Bettelheim 1980, 93,.
In .vivat. iv tbe 1bira Reicb: Pet., caegoat., ava tbe otocav.t,
Boria Sax obseres that the ery word otocav.t pertains to animal
sacriice.` lolocaust means burning o the whole` ,Sax 2000, 156,.
Sax explains that among the people o the ancient Mediterranean, the
slaughter o animals was generally a estie occasion with the
inedible parts, bones, and gall bladder together with a little meat let
on the altar or a deity, while the rest was consumed by human
13

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

beings.`
In lebrew sacriice, a lolocaust was the entire animal gien
to \ahweh to be consumed by ire. 1he prototype was the sacriice
o the shepherd Abel to \ahweh rom his lock.` Use o the word
holocaust or the Nazi murders, according to Sax, is based on an
identiication between the Jewish people and the sacriiced animal.
1he imagery parallels the way Christ is traditionally represented as the
sacriicial lamb. In a strange way the term otocav.t equates the Nazis,
as those who perorm the sacriice, with priests o ancient Israel`
,Sax, 156,.
Sax says that the term holocaust was irst popularized in the
1960s by American Jews` ,156,. 1here was a elt need in the late
1950s, according to James L. \oung in !ritivg ava Rerritivg tbe
otocav.t, to distinguish between the particular Jewish experience
under litler and the general experience o being a prisoner or killed
in \orld \ar 1wo. Len so, the term holocaust, in being inoked to
capture the essence o a unique catastrophe, was borrowed rom
ancient sacriicial usage and Jewish history in order to grasp the
unamiliar in amiliar terms` ,\oung 1988, 8,.
Nor did the term holocaust arise strictly in reerence to
ancient history. lolocaust` came to demarcate the experience o
Luropean Jews under the Nazis at a time when the term holocaust
was used to characterize eerything rom \orld \ar I ,that
holocaust swept oer the world`, to the holocaust o housework`
,crashing glassware,, as shown by numerous examples taken rom the
Pate.tive Po.t rom 1938 to 194 ,Petrie, 2-3,. According to Jon
Petrie`s inestigation o the etymology o the word, in the early
1960s, the most common reerent o holocaust` was nuclear war
and destruction. lor example, the coer o the Noember 4, 1961
magazine 1be ^atiov announces: SlLL1LRS \lLN 1lL
lOLOCAUS1 COMLS.`
Petrie thinks that American Jewish writers probably
abandoned such words as disaster,` catastrophe,` and massacre` in
aor o holocaust` in the 1960s` because holocaust` with its
eocation o the then dreaded nuclear annihilation eectiely
coneyed something o the horror o the Jewish experience during
\orld \ar 1wo ,Petrie 2004, 4,.
Nobel Prizewinning author Isaac Basheis Singer, who grew
up in a Polish illage where his ather was a lasidic rabbi, has one o
his ictional characters, lerman Gombiner, say in the story, 1he
Letter \riter,` that towards the animals, all humans are Nazis, and
or the animals, eery day is 1reblinka. ,1reblinka was a Nazi death
camp in Poland that began operating in 1942., lerman, who lost his
entire amily to the Nazis, is thinking about a mouse he beriended
whose death he beliees he caused, and his sadness leads to a larger
thought:
14

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

In his thoughts, lerman spoke a eulogy to the mouse who
had shared a portion o her lie with him and who, because o him,
had let this earth. \hat do they know - all those scholars, all those
philosophers, all the leaders o the world - about such as you 1hey
hae coninced themseles that man, the worst transgressor o all the
species, is the crown o creation. All other creatures were created
merely to proide him with ood, pelts, to be tormented,
exterminated. In relation to them, all people are Nazis, or the
animals it is an eternal 1reblinka. And yet man demands compassion
rom heaen` ,1935, 21,.
Rather than triializing Nazi` and 1reblinka,` this usage
conceptualizes these terms and the eents to which they reer,
making them stand or a certain type o atrocity - an extremity o
inhumanity, ictimization, and misery - o which there may be more
than one maniestation, i not in eery respect, yet in signiicant
respects. In vevie.: . ore tor,, the protagonist, lerman, isits a
zoo. le compares the zoo to a concentration camp:
1he air here was ull o longing - or deserts, hills, alleys,
dens, amilies. Like the Jews, the animals had been dragged here rom
all parts o the world, condemned to isolation and boredom. Some o
them cried out their woes, others remained mute ,Singer quoted in
Rosenberger 2004,.
Len animal rights author Roberta Kalechosky declares,
despite her opposition to lolocaust comparisons, that Most
suering today, whether o animals or humans, suering beyond
calculation, whether it is physiological or the ripping apart o a
mother and ospring, is in the hands o other humans. Pain is a
curse, and gratuitous pain inlicted by humans on other humans or
on animals is eil` ,Kalechosky 2003, 6-,.

An Atrocity Can Be Both Unique and General
Paradoxically, then, it is possible to make releant and
enlightening comparisons, while agreeing with the approach taken by
the philosopher, Brian Luke, towards animal abuse. Luke writes: My
opposition to the institutionalized exploitation o animals is not
based on a covari.ov between human and animal treatment, but on a
consideration o the abuse o the animals iv ava of it.etf ,Luke 1996,
81,.
Paradoxically, while the words Nazi,` 1reblinka,` and
lolocaust` represent unique historical phenomena, they can also
transcend these phenomena to unction more broadly. And a broader
approach to the lolocaust would appear to hold more promise or a
more enlightened and compassionate uture, surely, than attempting
to priatize the eent to the extent that its only permissible reerence
is sel-reerence. A broader approach also proides a more just
apprehension o past and present atrocities, while connecting the
15

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

Nazis and the lolocaust to the larger ethical challenges conronting
humanity.
In . ittte Matter of Cevociae: otocav.t ava Deviat iv tbe
.verica. 112 to tbe Pre.evt, Natie American scholar \ard Churchill
writes that the experience o the Jews under the Nazis is unique only
in the sense that all such phenomena exhibit unique characteristics.
Genocide, as the nazis practiced it, was neer something suered
exclusiely by the Jews, nor were the nazis singularly guilty o its
practice` ,Churchill, 199, 35-36,. lurthermore, Churchill argues in
his lorward to 1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.: Reftectiov. ov tbe iberatiov of
.vivat.: Gien that the key to the genocidal mentality` resides, as
irtually all commentators agree, in the perpetrators` conscious
dehumanization o the Other` they hae set themseles to
exterminating, it ollows that remoal o the sel-assigned license
enjoyed by humans to do as they will to,with nonhumans can only
sere to better the lot o humans targeted or
dehumanization,subjugation,eradication` ,Churchill 2004, 2-3,.
Matt Prescott, who directs the lolocaust on \our Plate`
exhibit, argues that Comparisons to the lolocaust are undeniable
and inescapable not only because we humans share with all other
animals our ability to eel pain, ear and loneliness, but because the
goernment-sanctioned oppression o billions o beings, and the
systems we use to abuse and kill them, eerily parallel the
concentration camps.` le explains:
1he methods o the lolocaust exist today in the orm o
actory arming where billions o innocent, eeling beings are taken
rom their amilies, trucked hundreds o miles through all weather
extremes, conined in cramped, ilthy conditions, and herded to their
deaths. During the lolocaust, hundreds o thousands o men,
women and children died rom heat exhaustion, dehydration,
staration or rom reezing to the sides o cattle cars. 1hose who
arried at the concentration camps alie were orced into cramped
bunkers where they lied on top o other dead ictims, coered in
their own eces and urine. 1hey were orced to work until their
bodies couldn`t work anymore, and were then herded to their deaths
in assembly-line ashion. 1en billion animals a year in the U.S. suer
through these same horrors eery single day. \e must ask ourseles:
sixty years later, hae we learned nothing \hy are we still
transporting animals through all weather extremes, orcing them to
endure extreme heat and cold \hy are we still conining them in
conditions so dirty, the only way to keep them alie is through the
extreme oeruse o antibiotics \hy are we still ripping children away
rom mothers and leading them by the necks and legs to the kill
loor
Moreoer, Prescott points out that the United States
lolocaust Museum states in its guidelines or teaching about the
16

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

lolocaust that 1he lolocaust proides a context or exploring the
dangers o remaining silent, apathetic, and indierent in the ace o
others` oppression` ,2004,.
One o the many questions that emerge rom the current
debate about the use o the lolocaust to illuminate humankind`s
relationship to billions o nonhuman animals is the extent to which
the outrage o haing one`s own suering compared to that o others
centers primarily on issues o identity and uniqueness or on issues o
superiority and priilege. 1he ownership o superior and unique
suering has many claimants, but as Isaac Basheis Singer obsered
speaking o chickens, there is no eidence that people are more
important than chickens ,Shenker 1991, 11,.
1here is no eidence, either, that human suering, or Jewish
suering, is separate rom all other suering, or that it needs to be
kept separate and superior in order to maintain its identity. But
where, it may be asked, is the eidence that we humans hae had
enough o inlicting massie preentable suering on one another
and on the indiiduals o other species, gien that we know suering
so well, and claim to abhor it In tervat 1rebtiv/a: Ovr 1reatvevt of
.vivat. ava tbe otocav.t, Charles Patterson concludes that the
sooner we put an end to our cruel and iolent way o lie, the better it
will be or all o us - perpetrators, bystanders, and ictims`
,Patterson 2002, 232,. \ho but the Nazi within us disagrees I we
are going to exterminate someone, let it be the ascist within.

______________________________
1
At the same time, a human or nonhuman animal`s suering may be so extreme, so
unnatural and unbearable, that the longing arises neer to be seen` again. 1ake the
poem 1he Snow Leopard in the Metro1oronto Zoo` by Jason Gray:

le pads on grassy banks behind a ence
with measured paces slow and tense.

Beyond his cage his thoughts are sharp and white,
he lies a compelled anchorite.

A solid ghost gone blind with all the green,
he waits and waits to be unseen. ,Gray 2003, 56,


2
In act, howeer, when the public is exposed to some o the more dramatic`
scenes taking place behind the scenes that are still largely hidden rom iew - e.g.,
orce-eeding o ducks and geese to produce oie gras, artiicial insemination and
masturbation o breeder` turkeys on which the commercial turkey industry is
based, treatment o newborn chicks at the hatchery, candid-camera looks at what
really goes on inside a slaughterhouse - there is a much greater sense o the
indiiduality o each animal and, one hopes, greater empathy. Undercoer ideo
inestigations are starting to make this happen - to oreground indiidual animals
in their struggle against their abusers in the midst o the mass-suering in which
each animal is submerged in actory-arm settings.

1

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

3
Peter Singer`s position regarding the superiority o most human adult suering
and death oer the suering and death o most, i not all, nonhuman beings may be
inerred, or example, in his discussion o damming a rier that will adersely aect
the nonhuman animals in the area: Neither drowning nor staration is an easy way
to die, and the suering inoled in these deaths should . . . be gien no less weight
than we would gie to an equialent amount o suering experienced by human
beings. . . . But the argument presented aboe does not require us to regard the
death o a nonhuman animal as morally equialent to the death o a human being,
since humans are capable o oresight and orward planning in ways that
nonhuman animals are not. 1his is surely releant to the seriousness o death,
which, in the case o a human being capable o planning or the uture, will thwart
these plans, and which thus causes a loss that is dierent in kind rom the loss that
death causes to beings incapable een o understanding that they exist oer time
and hae a uture. It is also entirely legitimate to take into account the greater sense
o loss that humans eel when people close to them die, whether nonhuman
animals will eel a sense o loss at the death o another animal will depend on the
social habits o the species, but in most cases it is unlikely to be as prolonged, and
perhaps not as deep, as the grie that humans eel` ,Singer 2000, 96,.

4
Many Jews don`t like to use the word holocaust anymore because it has been used
to apply to too many things not unique to the Jewish experience, so some scholars
are opting or other words like Shoah, Churban, the Lent, and the 1remendum to
try to recapture some sense o singularity. See, e.g., James L. \oung ,1988, 85-89,.
See also Nathan Snaza ,2004, 12,.

References
Adams, Carol. J. 1be evat Potitic. of Meat: . evivi.t1egetariav Criticat 1beor,. New
\ork, N\: Continuum., 1990, 2000.

Adams, Carol J., and Marjorie Procter-Smith. 1aking Lie or 1aking on Lie``
cofevivi.v ava tbe acrea.. Ld. Carol J. Adams. New \ork, N\: Continuum. 1994.

Arendt, lannah. icbvavv iv ]erv.atev: . Reort ov tbe avatit, of rit. New \ork,
N\: Penguin. 1963,1994.

Bell, Donald D., and \illiam D. \eaer, Jr., eds. Cbic/ev Meat ava gg Proavctiov, 5
th

ed. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2002.

Best, Steen and Anthony J. Nocella II eds.1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.: Reftectiov. ov
tbe iberatiov of .vivat.. New \ork, N\: Lantern Books. 2004.

Bettelheim, Bruno. 1he lolocaust: One Generation Later.` vrririvg ava Otber
..a,.. New \ork, N\: Vintage Press. 1980.

Churchill, \ard. . ittte Matter of Cevociae: otocav.t ava Deviat iv tbe .verica. 112
to tbe Pre.evt. San lrancisco, CA: City Lights Books. 199.

Churchill, \ard. lorward: Illuminating the Philosophy and Methods o Animal
Liberation.` 1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.: Reftectiov. ov tbe iberatiov of .vivat.. Ld.
Steen Best and Anthony J. Nocella II. New \ork, N\: Lantern Books. 2004.

Clark, Dustan, et al. Understanding and Control o Gangrenous Dermatitis in
Poultry louses.` |virer.it, of .r/av.a. Cooeratire tev.iov errice. 2004.
http:,,www.thepoultrysite.com,leaturedArticle,lA1opic.aspDisplay~13.
Dais, Karen. Pri.ovea Cbic/ev., Poi.ovea gg.: .v v.iae oo/ at tbe Moaerv Povttr,
vav.tr,. Summertown, 1N: Book Publishing Company.1996.
18

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.


Dais, Karen. More 1bav a Meat: 1be 1vr/e, iv i.tor,, M,tb, Ritvat, ava Reatit,. New
\ork: Lantern Books. 2001.

Dais, Karen. An Open Letter to 1egav 1oice,` |vitea Povttr, Covcerv.. December
26, 2001. ,http:,,www.upc-online.org,011226egan_oice_singer.html, Published
in 1egav 1oice No. 9. 2002. NS\, Australia. ,March-May, 1, 2002.

Dais, Karen. Open Rescues: Putting a lace on Liberation.` In 1errori.t. or reeaov
igbter.. . Reftectiov ov tbe iberatiov of .vivat.. Steen Best and Anthony J. Nocella
II, eds. New \ork, N\: Lantern Books. 2004.

Dawkins, Marian Stamp. 1he Scientiic Basis or Assessing Suering in Animals.`
v Defev.e of .vivat.. Peter Singer, ed. New \ork, N\: Basil Blackwell. 1985.

Dawn\atch. May 10, 2004. http:,,www.dawnwatch.com.

Dunayer, Joan. .vivat qvatit,: avgvage ava iberatiov. Derwood, MD: Ryce
Publishing. 2001.

Gray, Jason. 1he Snow Leopard` ,In the Metro1oronto Zoo,. .va !e 1be
Creatvre.. C.J. Sage, ed. San Jose, CA: Dream lorse Press. 2003.

Jacobs, Andrea. PL1A`s lolocaust on \our Plate` campaign hits Dener.`
vtervovvtaiv ]eri.b ^er.. August 22, 2003.

Jones, 1amara. lor the Birds.` 1be !a.bivgtov Po.t. Noember 14, 1999. l1, l4-
l5.

Kahn, Richard. Lmail communication to Karen Dais, lebruary 15, 2004.

Kalechosky, Roberta. .vivat vfferivg ava tbe otocav.t: 1be Probtev ritb Covari.ov..
Marblehead, MA: Micah Publications. 2003.

Lal, Basant K. lindu Perspecties on the Use o Animals in Science.` .vivat
acrifice.: Retigiov. Per.ectire. ov tbe |.e of .vivat. iv cievce. 1om Regan, ed.
Philadelphia, PA: 1emple Uniersity Press. 1986.

Linzey, Andrew. 1he Place o Animals in Creation: A Christian View.` .vivat
acrifice.: Retigiov. Per.ectire. ov tbe |.e of .vivat. iv cievce. 1om Regan, ed.
Philadelphia, PA: 1emple Uniersity Press. 1986.

Luke, Brian. Justice, Caring, and Animal Liberation.` e,ova .vivat Rigbt.: .
evivi.t Carivg tbic for tbe 1reatvevt of .vivat.. Josephine Donoan and Carol J.
Adams, eds. New \ork, N\: Continuum. 1996.

Mills, D.S., and C.J. Nicol. 1990. 1onic immobility in spent hens ater catching
and transport.` 1be 1eterivar, Recora 126. March 3, 1990: 212. Quoted in Pri.ovea
Cbic/ev., Poi.ovea gg.: .v v.iae oo/ at tbe Moaerv Povttr, vav.tr,. Karen Dais.
Summertown, 1N: Book Publishing Company. 1996. 109-110.

Patterson, Charles. tervat 1rebtiv/a: Ovr 1reatvevt of .vivat. ava tbe otocav.t. New
\ork, N\: Lantern Books. 2002.

Paul-Murphy, Joanne, et al. Veterinarians and Biomedical Researchers Agree
Animals leel Pain.` .!C vttetiv ,National Agricultural Library Animal \elare
19

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

Inormation Center, 12.1-2 Summer 2004: 9.

Petrie, Jon. Jon Petrie inestigates the etymology o the word lolocaust,`` ocat
Poivt Pvbticatiov.. United Kingdom. lebruary 6, 2004.
http:,,www.pp.co.uk,Auschwitz,docs,lolocaustUsage.html.

Porphyry. Ov .b.tivevce rov .vivat ooa. 1homas 1aylor, trans. Lsme \ynne-
1yson, ed. London & lontwell: Centaur Press Ltd. 1965.

Prescott, Matt. Giant Graphic Display Shows low 1oday`s Victims Languish in
Nazi-Like Concentration Camps.` People or the Lthical 1reatment o Animals
,PL1A, April 3, 2003. www.peta.org,mc,NewsItem.aspid~2106.

Prescott, Matt. Lmail communication to Karen Dais, September 12, 2003.

Prescott. Matt. Lmail communication to Barbara Lorincz, lebruary 19, 2004.

Regan, 1om, ed. .vivat acrifice.: Retigiov. Per.ectire. ava tbe |.e of .vivat. iv cievce.
Philadelphia, PA: 1emple Uniersity Press. 1986.

Rogers, Lesley J. 1be Deretovevt of raiv ava ebariovr iv tbe Cbic/ev. \allingord,
Oxon ,UK,, Cab International: 1995.

Rosenberger, Jack. Vegetarian Adocate: Isaac Basheis Singer.` at,a September
2004. 28-29.

Sax, Boria. .vivat. iv tbe 1bira Reicb: Pet., caegoat., ava tbe otocav.t. New \ork,
N\: Continuum. 2000.

Scarry, Llaine. 1be oa, iv Paiv: 1be Ma/ivg ava |vva/ivg of tbe !orta. N\: Oxord
Uniersity Press. 1985. Quoted in Carol J. Adams. Caring About Suering.` Carol
J. Adams in e,ova .vivat Rigbt.: . evivi.t Carivg tbic for tbe 1reatvevt of .vivat..
Josephine Donoan and Carol J. Adams, eds. New \ork, N\: Continuum. 1996.

Schnurer, Maxwell. At the Gates o lell: 1he ALl and the Legacy o lolocaust
Resistance,` 1errori.t. or reeaov igbter.: Reftectiov. ov tbe iberatiov of .vivat.. Steen
Best and Anthony J. Nocella II, eds. New \ork, N\: Lantern Books. 2004.

Schochet, Llijah Judah. .vivat ife iv ]eri.b 1raaitiov: .ttitvae. ava Retatiov.bi.. New
\ork, N\: Kta Publishing louse. 1984.

Schwartz, Richard l. ]vaai.v ava 1egetariavi.v. New \ork, N\: Lantern Books.
2001.

Scully, Matthew. Doviviov: 1be Porer of Mav, tbe vfferivg of .vivat., ava tbe Catt to
Merc,. New \ork, N\: St. Martin`s Press. 2002.

Shenker, Israel. 1he Man \ho 1alked Back to God: Isaac Basheis Singer, 1904-
91.` 1be ^er Yor/ 1ive. oo/ Rerier, August 11, 1991: 11.

Singer, Isaac Basheis. 1he Letter \riter.` 1be eavce ava Otber torie.. New \ork,
N\: larrar, Straus and Giroux. 1935. Rpt. in 1be Cottectea torie.. New \ork, N\:
larrar, Straus and Giroux. 1983: 250-26.

Singer, Peter. !ritivg. ov av tbicat ife. New \ork, N\: larperCollins: 2000.

20

___________________________________________________

.vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob, ava Potic, ]ovrvat, Volume II, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 1-20.
Karen Dais, PhD.

Singer, Peter. Book Reiew: .vivat qvatit,: avgvage ava ibert, by Joan Dunayer
|2001|.` 1egav 1oice ,NS\, Australia,, No. 8 ,Dec.-leb.,, 2000: 36.

Slouka, Mark. A \ear Later: Notes on America`s Intimations o Mortality.`
arer`. Magaive. September, 2002: 35-43.

Snaza, Nathan. ,Im,possible \itness: Viewing PL1A`s lolocaust On \our
Plate.`` Center on Animal Liberation Aairs ,CALA,: .vivat iberatiov Pbito.ob,
ava Potic, ]ovrvat 2.1. 2004.
http:www.cala-online.org,Journal,Issue2,Impossible20\itness.htm.

Sontag, Susan. Regaraivg tbe Paiv of Otber.. New \ork, N\: larrar, Straus and
Giroux. 2003.

Povttr, tavgbter: 1be ^eea for egi.tatiov. United Poultry Concerns. 2003. www.upc-
online.org,slaughter,slaughter3web.pd.

\oung, James L. !ritivg ava Rerritivg tbe otocav.t: ^arratire ava tbe Cov.eqvevce. of
vterretatiov. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Uniersity Press. 1988.



______________________________