But they are wrong. The word “holocaust” is taken from the biblical term used to describe the total immolation of sacrificed animals–they were known as whole-burnt offerings. The Greek word for such sacrifices is “holókaustos” and was used in the translation of the Hebrew scrolls as far back as 250 B.C. That translation (called the Septuagint) was completed for the Jews who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, and could no longer read or speak Hebrew.

So referring to the death of millions of animals as a holocaust was used more than 2,000 years before people applied it to the torture and slaughter of human beings. It is not animal rights people who have linked the death of animals and the death of people. It is those who were appalled at the human carnage of Nazi Germany, who likened it to a holocaust–to the death of millions of animals.

I love the song The Sexual Politics of Meat!

Harper:
[i]you have to be careful not to appropriate, to understand the power dynamics behind what you are doing, and how it may potentially offend people you are “trying to enlighten.”[/i]

Yeah, I try to take myself out of the argument as much as is reasonably possible. Of course, then the question Well, what has it done for you? can pop up. OK fine, they asked for it. ;-D

One of the most irritating/perplexing arguments against speaking up and acting for, animal rights, is the one that pits nonhuman rights against human rights. It is so disappointing to me when I hear people argue (and more often than not it’s from those of a “liberal” bent,) that while there are universal human inequalities, and most often this refers to sexism and racism, that animal rights issues should take a backseat.

I try to figure out what the hell they are talking about. I do. They imply that acting for one means you are neglecting the other. I find them to be interrelated; in the words of the 90s group Consolidated, a unity of oppression.

So anyway yeah, I am interested in taking a look at the books you mention.