head_b

Choosing our words wisely : Non-Human Animals ? Other Animals ? Animals ?


In my opinion, the term "nonhuman animals" is a bit clumsy, because it defines the other animals, by still taking as reference our species "the humans".

They are described via their non-belonging to a group, as if this group (the human species) was the reference.
Wich brings the image : "Reference" = Superiority, Exemplarity etc...

The expression "animals", is even worse (totally speciesist), when we talk about animals of other species, because it occurs the fact that humans are also animals.

In my opinion, we must replace the human species among the animal species in our language, in our mind, and in the mind of all to hope that other animals will be considered as what they are : animals, just like us, who each have their "specificities", just like us, and that it is necessary to stop placing ourselves above them, as if we were a "species apart ", neither animal, nor vegetable, nor other...

Moreover, to continue to use speciesistic expressions allows, in my opinion, the Speciesism to continue because the ideas and thoughts are not transmitted the same way according to the words and expressions that one chooses.


For example: It's different to hear "Animals should have rights", and "Other animals should also have rights".

For example, we can use the following terms that put us on an equal footing :

- Without humans: "The other animals" or "animals of other species" or "Animals other than humans".

- With human-e-s: "Animals (including humans)".

Tipeee Andy Smiley

Aucun commentaire

Mon site vous a été utile ?

Faites un don pour le faire durer ! :)

Cliquez-ici !
Fourni par Blogger.