postcolonial feminist theory

It is not simply food practices of “other” cultures that come under greater legal inspection and regulation (Valverde 2008). Other non-Western activities that are perceived as “exotic” and undesirable are also held to a higher level of scrutiny. Of the fraction of animal-based practices banned today under anticruelty laws, most are associated with a minority community (Elder et al. 1998). As the legal definition of “cruelty” typically turns on the idea of “unnecessary suffering,” only those practices the law views as “unnecessary” will be criminalized.
 
The very few practices targeted as “cruel” under anticruelty statutes, such as cock-fighting and dog-fighting, are often associated with marginalized cultural and racialized communities, whereas mainstream institutional practices (factory farming, vivisection, circuses, and so on) are rarely labeled as “cruel.” Indeed, majoritarian cultures today use cultural practices involving animals to help calibrate “civilization status” (Elder et al. 1998). Mainstream multicultural discourses thus label minority cultures as “backward/barbaric” in their sensibilities toward animals much the same way they classify minority cultures as behind Western ones based on their perceived treatment of women (Deckha 2004). This, of course, is not to suggest that these minority practices are ethically acceptable, but to note the racialized and postcolonial dimensions of these discourses.
—  Decka, Maneesha. 2012. “Toward a Postcolonial, Posthumanist Feminist Theory: Centralizing Race and Culture in Feminist Work on Nonhuman Animals.” Hypatia 27 (3): 527-545. Discusses how marginalized communities are often targeted for ‘unnecessary cruelty’.