It is only human supremacy, which is as unacceptable as racism and sexism, that makes us afraid of being more inclusive.
Interpretation
The quote warns against the belief in human superiority over other species, equating it with unacceptable social prejudices.
Ingrid Newkirk's quote critiques the notion of human supremacy, asserting that it fosters fear and resistance toward inclusivity, not only among humans but towards all living beings. By comparing this mindset to racism and sexism, she emphasizes that a truly inclusive society must reject all forms of superiority and embrace diversity in its many forms, advocating for a more compassionate and heterogeneous coexistence with other species.
In practice
In a speech at an animal rights conference, this quote can emphasize the need for empathy.
[I believe] that animals have a worth in and of themselves, and that they are not inferior to human beings but rather just different from us, and that they really don't exist for us nor do they belong to us...it should not be a question of how they should be treated within the context of their usefulness, or perceived usefulness, to us, but rather whether we have a right to use them at all.
I think if you're against cruelty and you look at what happens to animals in slaughterhouses and on factory farms, you have to be completely against eating meat.
No erudition, no purity of diction, no width of mental outlook, no flowers of eloquence, no grace of person can atone for lack of fire. Prayer ascends by fire. Flame gives prayer access as well as wings, acceptance as well as energy. There is no incense without fire; no prayer without flame.
Just imagine living in a world without mirrors. You'd dream about your face and imagine it as an outer reflection of what is inside you. And then, when you reached forty, someone put a mirror before you for the first time in your life. Imagine your fright! You'd see the face of a stranger. And you'd know quite clearly what you are unable to grasp: your face is not you.
All history is contemporary history.
This is what those who haven’t crossed the tropic of grief often fail to understand: the fact that someone is dead may mean that they are not alive, but doesn’t mean that they do not exist.
What if the Soviet intervention was a blessing in disguise? It saved the myth that if the Soviets were not to intervene, there would have been some flowering authentic democratic socialism and so on. I'm a little bit more of a pessimist there. I think that the Soviets - it's a very sad lesson - by their intervention, saved the myth.
Things have different qualities, and the soul different inclinations; for nothing is simple which is presented to the soul, and the soul never presents itself simply to any object. Hence it comes that we weep and laugh at the same thing.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.