juliette_dunn's reviews
456 reviews

This book has a lot of good information on the history behind various "pests'" interactions with humans. For this reason, I continued reading. However, the blatant (and self-acknowledged) bias with which the author treats various species, and the sugarcoating of brutal massacres of animals, made this at times difficult to get through.

Most egregious to me was the mouse chapter, in which the author reveals she worked torturing mice in labs. She casually references how she forced dangerous substances into these mice, interspersed with lighthearted, "quirky" commentary about lab life. She gushes about how cute the mice were and how adorable they are when she gave them Fruit Loops, then talks about how she murdered these same mice (but she said  "sorry" in her head so it's okay!). And to cap it off with a final insult, she portrays lab mice as a "success," saying the hell on earth that is an animal testing facility being a new niche mice managed to gain, because they are artificially bred by the millions there. 

Her insistence on a quirky, pop sci tone throughout insulted the gravity of what's actually going on. Her insistence on a quirky, pop sci tone throughout insulted the gravity of what's actually going on.  I am rather tired of pop sci written in this style in general; it always feels like the author is trying too hard to make things fluffy, entertaining, and relatable rather than actually imparting serious knowledge with depth. 

The only time she gives actual full acknowledgement to the animals is, predictably, in the cat and elephant sections. Here she talks about the destruction cats wreck on native species (destruction which far eclipses any of the other species she talks about in the book) but then goes out of her way to explore non-lethal methods and their effectiveness, trying to find some sort of balance or way to prove the cats can be saved.

But with rats? Not even blinking an eye at causing them painful deaths. Snakes? She goes for an outing beheading their babies. She openly acknowledges her bias, saying it doesn't make sense she is worried for cats but not at all concerned about the other animals. But does acknowledging the bias actually do anything useful with it? She seems comfortable in her cognitive dissonance and writes off this lip service as sufficient. 

Usually at the end of the chapters she makes attempts to add nuance, acknowledging human culpability in bringing invasive species over. But these acknowledgements seem far too brief after pages and pages solely spent on methods of killing these animals.

Even when she positions herself as pro-animal, she often only looks for ways to exploit them. Suggesting a solution to the issue of so many abandoned pigeons is to go back to killing and eating them (she herself goes into detail about how eating a baby pigeon). Does she ever entertain the idea of eating feral cats? Of course not.

So why did I keep reading? As I said, there was actually valuable information in here. I learned a lot about things which I previously had no knowledge in, such as elephants raiding crops and causing destruction to farmers. This chapter was the best chapter by far for this reason, giving a nuanced look at Western ideas around wild animal protection (usually revolving around admiring prized species from a distance, always in wild areas sectioned off from humans, with no real co-existence taking place) clashing with the people who actually live with these animals. 

Animal conservation in general is continually viewed as preserving a walled-off, pristine space to observe the animals Western culture deems inspiring and worthwhile, relying on images of beautiful or cute animals to get monetary donations, rather than the complex entanglement with ecosystems that indigenous peoples have been doing far before colonialism wrecked havoc. The author's offering of indigenous perspectives on species co-existence were good to see in a book like this, which is near entirely anthropocentric otherwise. 

So while I continually had to hold back at this author's dismissal of cruelty under quirky pop sci writing, the history and new knowledge I gained made me feel it worthwhile to finish.

This book is a mixed bag. I read this at a time I really needed some of its lessons, when I was consumed in depression over the state of the world and starting to feel far too much hatred.

Obviously, this book takes a Buddhist approach, but one doesn’t need to be a believer in Buddhism to learn from it. As an atheist, I found the sections on the interbeing of the world to ring true. We are all made out of the same matter, formed all together.

So much of activist thought is on raging at the system, but this book takes a very different approach. Thich teaches acceptance of all, even the worst of humanity (he names the Koch brothers as an example). A firm distinction between fighting someone’s actions, versus continuing to see them and accept them as a part of the interbeing of the universe. 

At times, these teachings cross into complacency. In the worst example, Thich speaks of healing the brutal colonization of Palestine by having Palestinians and Israelis listen to each other’s concerns while hanging out together. 

This is where the doctrine of peace above all is hopelessly passive. We can acknowledge the shared interbeing of everyone, we can work not to hate, without insisting that this is the solution against violent oppressors. 

The example of a child needing to have compassion and patience with a parent who is constantly raging at them encapsulates the problem with this blanket doctrine. 

The mentality of maintaining the peace leads to keeping abusers in power. Some people need to be confronted and fought, and it does not mean you are falling into hatred by doing so. Making the world better simply by being the better person is not applicable in many cases. 

That said, there is great value in this book too. It’s true that many activists do get caught up in hatred and despair, and could do with remembering why it is we care. Activist burnout is such a widespread issue, and Buddhist teachings can help find meaning and peace even in the worst of struggles. 

The truth is, we are not going to eradicate suffering, and there will always be struggles to overcome. Finding inner peace is essential to maintaining the will and energy to keep going. 

A Buddhist approach may not work for everyone, but I have found it can help me, even if I struggle with meditation. Acceptance and peace amid whatever situation you find can only benefit you, as long as you don’t fall into passivity. His example of how finding that acceptance helped him have the rationality to be able to confront a major hurdle in rescuing refugees encapsulates how much being able to do this can benefit people in their work. 

I think the main issue with this book is the lack of nuance. It has wonderful ideas that could help a lot of people, but I’m trying to make absolute claims in every scenario, it fails. While preaching nuance, Thich falls into an absolutist doctrine himself.

Take the parts of this book that help you find inner peace to keep going. 

This book is an attempt to put forth a paradigm shift in the way we think not only about animal liberation and antiracism, but oppression as a whole. It's a challenge to the mainstream viewpoint of intersectionality, as well as an exploration of animality and the ways in which white supremacy seeks to transform and control those it oppresses, both through literal consumption and through the spiritual and metaphorical.

For such a short book, it packs a lot inside, and for the most part manages to tie its many ideas together well. Ko's critique of intersectionality as it's come to be presented in mainstream activism is spot on. What aims to tie-in oppressions and highlight their connections ends up looking more like a bunch of disconnected layers being piled onto each other, and easily leads to the sort of pointless infighting over what identity is most important to focus on that infests so much of activist spaces. 

Unfortunately, the alternatives Ko presents are not entirely clear. There's a good metaphor of a house with many different entrances, showing how no matter what specific angle oppression is being tackled from, it's all leading to the same place. But the book could have done with a more thorough explanation of exactly how Ko's new paradigm works in practice. Ko makes many passionate and powerful statements, but upon finishing it, I was left feeling like, while I understood the goal and higher feeling of the new paradigm, I had no idea how it should specifically be applied in practice, and replace our current one. I suppose it is natural for theory to not be focused on concrete, specific practice, but I still feel it could have done with a bit more, as many of these ideas are excellent but just didn't feel properly expanded on or clarified. 

There's also a bizarre section where the author seems to suggest that Black men are incapable of oppressing women in any structural form given they are also victims of white supremacy and thus its systems of patriarchy. It seems a very sweeping dismissal of all that Black feminists have sought to have acknowledged and fought against, and does not follow through as a very logical conclusion. Being oppressed does not mean you are incapable of participating in structural oppression yourself. 

While weak in these areas, the book shines in delving into symbols and aspects of oppression I haven't seen discussed as much, under what the author defines as "zoological witchcraft." This highlights  a connection between the control and dominance of non-human animals with the same kind of control enforced upon marginalized people. The very category of "animal" is used as a box to put someone in to render them into property. Historically, enslaved people's flesh and skin was eaten and/or turned into furniture, purses, and trinkets, as a final, literal form of consumption by white supremacy.

The Get Out analysis takes up a large portion of the book, and I was wondering how such a specific focus would fit into the larger whole. I actually found it really crystalized many of the points the author made about animality. Certain sections I partially understood in earlier sections were made clear, such as how taxidermy works as a symbol of white supremacy. I'm glad I read this just for the deeper view of the film it gave, delving into symbolism that even most in-depth analyses don't focus on, including symbolism not just of the cotton stuffing in the chair Chris is trapped in, but the cow's skin it is made from.

So many of these points around white supremacy as consumption of flesh and spirit were illustrated perfectly by the movie, I don't find it strange at all such a seemingly narrow focus was applied. 

Reading this certainly gets you thinking, whether you end up agreeing with all the author's points or not.  I was lucky enough to get a copy full of a prior reader's notes, where they expanded on certain points in the text or critiqued/questioned them. I enjoyed this experience to facilitate further questioning, as there are so many bold ideas in here, some more properly backed up than others, but all worthwhile to think about. 

The story of a Black gay man struggling with reconciliation with his homophobic father after his passing. This was written in the style of a memoir, and it’s pulled off so well I found myself forgetting it was fictional.

This was a deeply moving story about the nuances in us all, as we are hurt and in turn hurt others while trying to do the best we can. Isaac journeys from hatred of his father to a painful understanding of him, going back into his past to see all the ways in which his father tried, and the ways he failed. It culminates in him creating a fictional story to help him explore his father’s trauma and identity. 

It also explores Isaac’s own journey into his identity and consciousness, as both personal and news events shape him and his growing understanding of the world. From fading in and out of closeting his queer identity to figuring out what it means to embrace it, and his various experiences with others stumbling through their own way. 

It was such a beautiful exploration of identity, intergenerational trauma, family, and reconciliation. 

I only learned the author published a different book before this one, from Isaac’s father’s point of view, after I started reading, and I’m excited to read about the other side.