This article is part of my FAQs series.
For well over a decade, I have been answering anonymously submitted questions on my Tumblr blog. Over that time, I have noticed many recurring themes, concerns, and misunderstandings.
This series brings together concise, practical responses to the questions I am asked most often, based on real conversations with people at every stage of thinking about veganism.
If you’d like to see more entries in this series, you can find them here.
The Short Answer
Comparisons between animal agriculture and human atrocities such as the Holocaust, slavery, or genocide are usually more harmful than helpful. Even when they are well-intentioned, they tend to offend, alienate, and shut down dialogue. They rarely persuade anyone to care more about animals.
Effective advocacy does not require borrowing the suffering of human victims. Animal exploitation is serious enough to stand on its own.
The Detail
Why These Comparisons Are Made
Some advocates turn to shocking historical comparisons because they are trying to express the scale and severity of animal suffering. Industrial farming involves:
- Mass confinement
- Dehumanisation (or “de-animalisation”)
- Systematic killing
- Bureaucratic and technological organisation
- Emotional distancing from victims
These features do resemble aspects of many human atrocities, including genocide, slavery, and ethnic cleansing. For some people, especially those newly exposed to animal suffering, these similarities feel shocking and morally revealing.
In that sense, the impulse is understandable. It usually comes from outrage and empathy, not malice. But understandable motivations do not make the strategy a wise one.
Common Myths About Historical “Inspiration”
One claim that often circulates is that the Nazis modelled their killing systems on slaughterhouses. I have never been able to find nay strong historical evidence for this.
From what I can tell, the idea likely originates from:
- Henry Ford’s comments about slaughterhouses inspiring assembly-line production
- Ford’s influence on German industrialists and antisemites
- Later attempts to draw symbolic connections
Most historians agree that Nazi killing methods developed through military, colonial, and political precedents, not animal agriculture. Relying on weak historical claims undermines credibility and distracts from ethical arguments.
Why These Comparisons Cause Harm
Human atrocities such as the Holocaust, transatlantic slavery, and genocides are not abstract events. They are lived histories with ongoing emotional, cultural, and political consequences. For many people, these events involve:
- Family trauma
- Intergenerational grief
- Cultural identity
- Collective memory
When advocates casually use these events as rhetorical tools, it often feels like appropriating one group’s suffering to draw attention to another. This can often feel disrespectful to victims, and emotionally manipulative for the people on the receiving end of this kind of advocacy.
Even if that is not the intention, it is often the impact. Unless someone is personally connected to that history, it is rarely their place to use it for advocacy.
The Problem of Instrumentalising Suffering
Most controversial comparisons are not used to explore human oppression in depth, they are used to make a point about animals. This turns victims of human violence into instruments for another cause. In practice, it often sounds like:
“Your suffering matters because it helps me argue my case.”
That is ethically troubling, regardless of the intention behind it.
Why These Comparisons Aren’t Persuasive
Even if we grant that these comparisons are accurate and entirely fair, purely from an advocacy perspective, these comparisons are usually counterproductive.
They tend to:
- Trigger defensiveness
- End conversations
- Shift focus away from animals
- Reinforce stereotypes about “extreme” vegans
- Create emotional backlash
Instead of thinking about animal suffering, people start thinking about whether the comparison was offensive. You as an advocate end up having a conversation about whether or not these comparisons are fair, rather than having a conversation about animal rights. At that point, the original message is lost. I have seen this exact scenario play out dozens of times.
“But Some Survivors Have Made These Comparisons”
It is true that some individuals who experienced human atrocities, either personally or through their family, have compared their suffering to that of animals. Writers such as Isaac Bashevis Singer and Elie Wiesel are often cited in this context.
When survivors make these comparisons, they are speaking from their own experiences and moral reflections – that is their right. But their words do not grant permission for others to make the same comparisons casually. There is a moral difference between:
“I experienced this, and this is how I understand it.”
and
“I will use your eperiences and suffering to strengthen my argument.”
Interconnected Oppression
It is important to acknowledge that systems of oppression are often linked. Dehumanisation, objectification, and economic exploitation appear in many contexts, including:
- Racism
- Colonialism
- Slavery
- Genocide
- Animal exploitation
Studying these connections can be valuable. It is undeniable that animal agriculture shares some of the same features as other atrocities, both mechanically and in terms of their ideological defences. But recognising patterns does not require equating experiences, and cautioning against these kinds of comparisons does not mean that we are trivialising animal suffering.
Different forms of oppression have different histories, victims, and meanings. Treating them as interchangeable erases those differences.
Let Animal Suffering Stand on Its Own
The most important point is this: Animal exploitation does not need to rely on comparisons to be morally serious. Billions of sentient beings are being bred into systems of confinement, they are denied their natural behaviours, seperated from their families, exploited for profit then killed at a fraction of their natural lifespan.
That reality is disturbing enough, so we do not need to borrow the language of human tragedy to make it matter. In fact, doing so often only weakens our case.
Suggested Reading
- Marjorie Spiegel – The Dreaded Comparison. A controversial examination of parallels between animal exploitation and human oppression, useful for understanding why these comparisons are made and why they are contested.
- Ellie Wiesel – Night. A classic and profound account of a teenager’s survival in Nazi death camps. It will help you understand what you are comparing animal agriculture to.
- Viktor Frankl – Man’s Search for Meaning – A psychiatrist’s memoir that offers profound insights into finding purpose amidst immense suffering in Auschwitz.
- Angela Davis – Women, Race & Class – A classic that helps with understanding of intersectional social justice and how different causes can be connected in a respectful way.
Support independent, research-based advocacy
Helping keep free, educational content online
