Um, what about the actual slaves and ex-slaves?
In this analogy, they correspond to non-human animals, who have not yet expressed an opinion on the matter.
You mean, have not yet expressed an opinion in a way that you understand.
Anyway, the fact that slaves and ex-slaves did advocate for the rights of slaves indicates that closeness to a problem does not necessarily lead one to ignore it.
They did not benefit from slavery, as the plantation owners did.
Sorry, that was meant to be the implication of “plantation owners”—“they’re biased”, not “anyone who actually met slaves was fine with it.”.
Um, what about the actual slaves and ex-slaves?
In this analogy, they correspond to non-human animals, who have not yet expressed an opinion on the matter.
You mean, have not yet expressed an opinion in a way that you understand.
Anyway, the fact that slaves and ex-slaves did advocate for the rights of slaves indicates that closeness to a problem does not necessarily lead one to ignore it.
They did not benefit from slavery, as the plantation owners did.
Sorry, that was meant to be the implication of “plantation owners”—“they’re biased”, not “anyone who actually met slaves was fine with it.”.