Trackbacks & Pings

1. What? Just what?? « The Bead Shop on 18 Aug 2008 at 7:36 am

   […] articulate discussion of this event to be found at Racialicious and Vegans of Colour. « […]

2. PeTA; still a bunch of racist, sexist douchenozzles « Pink Juice Box on 18 Aug 2008 at 8:23 pm

   […] Racialicious, a new ad from PeTA that says (in English and Spanish), “If the border patrol doesn’t […]

3. Five Links That Are Actually Important, 8/27/08 « Our Descent Into Madness on 27 Aug 2008 at 11:17 am

   […] 1. Yet more PETA stupidity and offensiveness. […]

4. ACK! Tim Wise, I love you, but… « The Partial Muse on 27 Aug 2008 at 6:23 pm

   […] just read through the comment thread over at Racalicious. A few comments down, Tim Wise comes in and talks about the fundamental contradiction at the heart […]

Comments

1. Tony wrote:

   Wow, PeTA (remember, even in their own stuff the E for Ethical is lower case) being absurdly singleminded and not caring who they offend so long as they get their chosen message out.

   Why is this shocking? It’s what they’ve been doing since day 1.

   It’s about as surprising to me as a Klansman using the N word.

   Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 7:10 am ¶

2. Chris wrote:

   This is why I hate PETA.

   At some point, you have to place human rights and dignity above that of animals.

   In addition, aside from race, PETA is known for using sexist imagery in their ads as well. See here, here, and here.

   At one point, I thought PETA was a legitimate organization after reading their pamphlet and their convincing arguments about going vegetarian (in particular, the point that more grain goes into producing beef than it does feeding people). However, after the whole holocaust campaign, I was so disgusted that I’ve dismissed them as a radical organization that has no real focus other than to shock people into being vegan, no matter how much their ad campaigns drag us back into the stone age as far as human rights and equality are concerned.

   Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 7:20 am ¶

3. Brian wrote:

   I concur. The only thing in the world worse than PeTA is zombies. And at least we know how to get rid of them.

   Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 7:49 am ¶

4. gatamala wrote:

   Si no te agarre la migra…

   So we’re going to promote veganism (eyeroll) by playing off fears of the green police?

   Considering the undocumented workers I’ve known whose diets improved (and those of their families back home) once they came over I can say that this organization is way out of touch.

   Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 7:59 am ¶

5. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   @Tony - Oh right. Let me fix that. (Such a telling designation.) Oh wait, actually I have to leave that alone - our titles default to all caps, and this is how the original poster wrote the piece. I’ll remember that for future criticism though.

   @All-

   What I find atrocious is that PeTA is so ridiculous that it would actually put me off veganism. The rampant sexism, the objectification, the racism - I want no parts of that.

   I am *really* glad that I had friends who were vegans/vegetarians to guide me through the whys before I ever even knew about PeTA and resources like Vegans of Color on the web now - it is such an important package of issues (veg*ism/animal rights or liberation/sustainable food/rights of im/migrant workers) that crosses so many walks of life. And yet, PeTA makes it obvious who they are targeting and who they care about.

   Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 8:18 am ¶

6. Katie wrote:

   What a completely useless, racist, sexist, and classist organization. There ARE people out there who are making the connection between animal liberation and human liberation in ways that don’t devalue either - PeTA is obviously not comprised of those people.

   PeTA’s sense of entitlement makes me sick.

   Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 8:29 am ¶

7. Colin A. B. wrote:

   That PeTA would go ahead and continue their tradition of shock and awful is of no surprise to me. When they went ahead and started their sexist ad campaigns, I knew then and there that PeTA was a joke. I think it may be part of why I’m probably never going to be a vegetarian.

   Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 8:31 am ¶

8. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   @Colin -

   PeTa is fucked up, but they aren’t the only organization out there working to promote health. Many of our diets here in the US would improve with a simple reduction of meat intake. There are global health issues at stake as well, including how our food consumption impacts the rest of the world.

   Veg*ism does not work for me for physical/dietary reasons (short story: numerous fruit/veg allegeries; issues with how my body processes food which I had to see a nutritionist for when I was young) but even I can eat vegan or vegetarian meals a few times a week, and cut back on framing meat as a major part of my meal. It is these little things that can promote a better understanding of health and well being and you reap immense benefits from.

   [I am not even going to touch animal rights/liberation, which is a major reason why many of my friends went veg* and is an issue deserving of a separate conversation. Their reasons range from the relatively conservative (we need to promote sustainable eating patterns) to the damn near opposite (discriminating against animals is specist.) But it is worth looking into.]

   So, there are a lot of issues wrapped up in this one cause. Maybe I’ll do a post about it…

   Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 8:52 am ¶

9. Matt wrote:

   I’m not fond of many of PETA’s tactics. But I’m significantly less fond of PETA-bashing. Like animals are so well represented in Congress?

   Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 9:04 am ¶

10. BrianVS wrote:

    I am a vegan. I hate PETA. So, so much. If I had the time, I would start a Vegans Against PETA group. It would be called VAP. And I would VAP those assholes.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 9:12 am ¶

11. Tasha wrote:

    I’m particularly fond of PeTA bashing at this moment. They lack ethics for their fellow human being i can hardly qualify their suposed treatment of animals if they cannot recognized and process human social ills.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 9:22 am ¶

12. Gironde wrote:

    Try to find a college-age vegan who can tell you more than one sentence about the plight of im/migrant (that slash is a new one) workers in agribusiness and then you’ll know why PeTA is so blatantly ignorant about it.

    What irks me especially, as a former/guilty vegan, is that veganism already tends to demarcate along class lines for financial reasons. Some aspects of veganism are, despite what I’ve been told by many people, just more expensive then even regular vegetarian food. And you’re going to that tell people hopping the fence, as though they’re going to make enough money to even cover basic expenses?

    And also, call me ignorant, but doesn’t the federal government own whatever border fence there is?

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 9:30 am ¶

13. Vidya wrote:

    I had read about this proposal elsewhere previously. However, this is the first time I’ve seen an image of the poster/graphic proposed. Fat people eating animal products and thin ones eating veg*n ones? WTF? I have totally given up hope that PETA’s idiots will ever be able to divorce ‘health’ and ‘weight’ in their bigoted minds. As a fat vegan, they are never getting my support.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 9:31 am ¶

14. Dolly wrote:

    Just the other day at womanistmusings, I saw a post on PeTA eerily similar to this. In the ad, Jenna Jameson (porn actress) was modeling nude to help neuter pets or something like that. Having never paid that much attention to PeTA before, I was surprised at the blatant sexism. Now, I’m doubly appalled at the racism. Comparing animals to victims of Holocaust!? Or people of black descent!? It’s just repulsive.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 9:49 am ¶

15. Michelle B wrote:

    I think it’s a combination of things. They seem to believe that ‘any publicity is good publicity’ so the more shocking, the more successful. They also seem to have a ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ attitude and any non-PeTA-supporting human is the equivalent of a terrorist-murderer-what have you, and therefore not worthy of respect or consideration. To this mix add tunnel vision, where it’s all about animals, all the time, and any means are justified if animals are saved in the end. It makes for a rather unpleasant stew if you’re not one of the animals they care about.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 9:54 am ¶

16. Kelvin wrote:

    I may be the only person thinking this but how is the wall to keep people out racist? I don’t get it.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 9:56 am ¶

17. oterhog wrote:

    I went to the PeTA website to read what their folks are saying about this. In the comments section I noticed quite a few people talking about how “unhealthy” some typical Mexican foods are such as menudo. Sounds like Mexican bashing to me…

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 10:01 am ¶

18. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Gironde/Kelvin -

    Check out the Border Fence Project:

    http://www.borderfenceproject.com/

    Which contains statements like this one:

    Because illegal aliens murder 9,000 innocent Americans every year and we take a trillion dollar hit overall to our economy, illegal immigration rewards us with a 9/11 or worse every year. But the danger is more horrific as it is passive-aggressive and growing exponentially, catching all uninformed Americans off guard.

    It is only partially funded by the government:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico_barrier#Secure_Fence_Act

    The project is rooted in xenophobic sentiment…and it is affecting Americans:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/17/border.fence/index.html

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 10:11 am ¶

19. CVT wrote:

    That PeTA quote is beyond ridiculous. If that was written up as satire (maybe in the Onion, or something similar), I would find it hilarious. Of course, it’s serious - and that just makes me want to cry. What is wrong with people!?

    LaToya - good links. Thanks for addressing Kelvin’s question so thoroughly.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 10:29 am ¶

20. Ejunco wrote:

    Peta is a bunch of idiots, I wonder if some of the celebs like Dwayne Wayde who is part of Peta knows exactly what they do.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 10:31 am ¶

21. Chris wrote:

    Also, I would think PETA would be against the fence in the first place, since apparently it would severly harm certain animals’ migration patterns.

    Again, PETA’s campaigns wreak of what Michelle B had alluded to.

    I think they’ve lost sight of their original goals - the ethical treatment of animals - and are more about demonizing the meat-eating population at whatever the cost.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 10:42 am ¶

22. coco wrote:

    on comparing genocide with animal slaughter:

    These ads are insulting because equating humans with animals is one of the excuses genocide uses to justify itself.

    PeTA might be better served by making clear and focused arguments for elevating the status of animal rights rather than pointing to cases where the status of humans rights has been reduced.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 10:56 am ¶

23. Brigitte wrote:

    PETA is completely useless, sexist and racist. I swear that organization has to do more damage to their cause than good.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:18 am ¶

24. Marisol LeBron wrote:

    @ oterhog, thanks for pointing out some of the comments that have been appearing on the PeTA (sorry for wrong caps in the post) Blog. It’s interesting because on the one hand PeTA is pointing to the healthy diet of many Latin American and Mexican im/migrants are leaving begin, on the other hand you have people on the message board saying how unhealthy typical Mexican (and notice only Mexican im/migrants are named) dishes are. I think this really highlights some of the issues of class and race that sometimes go unnoticed in conversations about people of color and veg*ism. Latin Americans (because you find tripe dishes outside of Mexico) have created dishes like Menudo or Mondongo because economic necessity dictated that no part of an animal go to waste. It’s similar to the ways in which many soul food dishes have evolved, like chitlins, because slaves out of economic reality had to eat whatever the slave master would give them. I think the economic realities of why some people eat certain foods continues to go unnoticed, and without acknowledging those realities these debates will continue to be steeped in classism.

    @ Gironde the slash is about recognizing patterns of circular or short term migration in addition to permanent settlement patterns. Its a shorthand way of saying immigrant and/or migrant.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:26 am ¶

25. Jack D. wrote:

    I love PETA because it continues to serve as a lesson for us all: Don’t let your passion for a cause lead to brain death and the total loss of compassion for other humans. … Wear a bracelet to remind yourself, “What Would PETA Do?” and then avoid those actions.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:37 am ¶

26. Jorge wrote:

    Wow..my dislike of PETA just grew even more. The most insulting thing is PETA telling immigrants not to enjoy the fruits of their labor, that is, if they make it across. It seems that PETA wants them to stick to some imaginary peasant meal of beans, rice, nopales and tortillas, all made by a little old lady in her rebozo. Please.

    If they make it through, and start earning well, then enjoy it! Education should begin once they make it here.

    Oh PETA, if I could only throw a bucket of tripas at you I would…but that would be a waste.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:44 am ¶

27. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

    PETA actually makes me want to EAT meat just to piss them off.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:00 pm ¶

28. Luke wrote:

    “People of color and Jews have fought to be recognized as humans with dignity after centuries of being compared to animals and PETA has repeatedly disregarded those efforts. PETA has continuously trivialized the effects of racism on people of color and Jews by comparing it to the experience of farm animals.”

    I’m a supporter of animal rights with no love for PETA and agree that advertising on a border fence is disgusting.

    I also think that the appropriation of various historical and present tragedies and crimes for persuasive purposes is generally a bad idea (and usually muddies more water than it clears).

    BUT I don’t think it’s fair to take specific offence at an animal rights organisation’s comparison of a human group’s sufferings with the suffering of animals. Their point is precisely that the suffering of farm animals is not trivial, and that comparing something to it is not trivialising. Doing so is offensive only if you assume that animals are unimportant - i.e. only if you disagree with PETA. Feel free to do so, but saying that it trivialises racism is taking PETA’s words as if they came from someone who wasn’t PETA.

    To reiterate - I do think PETA’s campaigns trivialise racism, but I think an anti-sexism or anti-homophobia campaign that ran posters of lynchings would do the same. Reducing suffering to a political tool and comparing certain humans to animals can both be demeaning - but one is demeaning in general, while the other is demeaning only in the context of certain assumptions about animals, which PETA rejects.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:10 pm ¶

29. Alexandra wrote:

    PeTA is a good example of white privilege/male privilege disguised as a social justice. Their complete and utter obliviousness is mindboggling.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:13 pm ¶

30. Angel H. wrote:

    BUT I don’t think it’s fair to take specific offence at an animal rights organisation’s comparison of a human group’s sufferings with the suffering of animals.

    I disagree. Black people have been treated as less than human for centuries. Our ancestors were bred, bought, and sold as chattle. So, for PeTA to say that the treatment of animals is like the treatment of Black people is insulting because the treatment of Black people was the same as the treatment of animals. In many ways, the animals were treated better!

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:26 pm ¶

31. thesciencegirl wrote:

    This reminds me of a heated debate I had once in an bioethics class. I was defending my choice to conduct scientific research on animals (specifically, studying parkinson’s disease in rats) and a classmate compared it to Nazi experimentation. Riiiight. You can defend animal rights without conflating their importance to that of human beings. PeTA’s ads pretty much always leave a bad taste in my mouth, whether they’re equating farm animal slaughter with genocide or objectifying the naked female form to sell their message. They seem to think that the ends justify the means, but their message is often lost because their ad campaigns are so highly offensive.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶

32. bas bleu wrote:

    Alexandra, “PeTA is a good example of white privilege/male privilege disguised as a social justice. Their complete and utter obliviousness is mindboggling.”

    Well said. I empathize with a lot of what they have said about factory farming, and I think their publicity stunts can be great. I’d heard about its sexist campaigns, but what put me into a firmly anti-PETA stance was when its president recently praised the diet book “Skinny Bitch,” saying she wishes she could give it to every young woman in the developed world. Yeah, because they simply aren’t aware of the need to be skinny!

    Now, they have zero credibility with me. And frankly, if they’re willing to engage in these kinds of campaigns, they don’t give a sh*t about what POC think about them in the first place.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶

33. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

    I disagree. Black people have been treated as less than human for centuries. Our ancestors were bred, bought, and sold as chattle. So, for PeTA to say that the treatment of animals is like the treatment of Black people is insulting because the treatment of Black people was the same as the treatment of animals. In many ways, the animals were treated better!

    SOOOO TRUE, Angel H., you are right on spot!

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:47 pm ¶

34. coco wrote:

    The other problem with the comparision ads is that they’re not persuasive.

    How does mass-marketing this message change minds about whether animals (should) = humans?

    If you don’t already accept PeTA’s thesis that animals = humans, the ad just comes off as totally offensive.

    Since many people don’t agree with PeTA’s (human = animal) stance, how could they expect this ad campaign to be well received?

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 12:48 pm ¶

35. Alexandra wrote:

    @Angel H.
    Co-signed
    @Luke
    Tell if I’m wrong but basically your saying that if your by PETA’s comparisons you think the suffering of animals is trivial? I don’t think suffering farm animals is trivial but I still hate PETA’s campaigns with burning passion. Their use of these images reeks strongly of appropriation because far as I know people that head this organization are white. And considering black people still are compared to animals, sorry if I happened to be offended because I am reminded that people still think this way, not to mention it also triggering. Their use of the ad on the border wall reeks of paternalism and racism. So between this and their blatant sexism and classism, it makes me hate PETA all the more.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 1:02 pm ¶

36. denise wrote:

    it’s bullshit like this that belittles the vegan/vegetarian cause. are they serious???

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 1:04 pm ¶

37. eh? wrote:

    Lol, are they serious??? PETA is on another level of crazy. All you can do is shake your head.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 1:11 pm ¶

38. Tom T wrote:

    It is really unfortunate that PETA is the loudest voice in the animal rights community. While I agree with some things they promote, they are really inconsistent! They seem to care more about getting publicity than promoting the wellbeing of animals. PETA attracts young people, but as they learn more about the issue, they move to real animal rights groups, such as Friends of Animals. True animal rights advocates are embarrassed by PETA.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 1:30 pm ¶

39. Randy wrote:

    Marisol,

    I have a problem with this statement:

    “Obviously, PETA cares more about what im/migrants are eating than their safety or ability to cross in order to alleviate economic conditions in their home country. The fence is a sign of oppression and should not be treated as an advertising and marketing opportunity. ”

    I agree that the border fence is xenophobic, but I wouldn’t call it a sign of oppression. The Mexican government and Mexican elite have long used illegal immigration as a social safety valve to avoid addressing the issues of poverty in their own country. Rather than deal with their poor, the Mexican elites would rather just let their poor sneak across the border into the USA. Whatever you may think of the fence, fundamentally those illegal immigrants are breaking the law.

    Instead of debating whether the USA should be taking in these people looking for a better life, we should be holding the Mexican government accountable for making the lives of their people better.

    If the Chinese government can lift over 300 million people out of poverty in less than a generation, the Mexican government should be able to do something as well.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶

40. Mogs wrote:

    I think I can see both sides of this argument. If, on the one hand, you believe that animal suffering is EXACTLY the same as human suffering, then there is nothing offensive as comparing the suffering of black or Jewish people to that of animals, because you really, truly believe that it IS THE EXACT SAME THING, and if people would just SEE that, then they’d rally to your cause. on the other hand, if you give less value to animal suffering than to human suffering, then comparing a hanging/starving human to a hanging/starving animal trivializes human suffering, in this case as a result of racism. I fall more into the animal welfare camp than the animal rights camp, so I think the PETA campaigns are BS. but I can see how the PeTA ad-makers would sincerely believe that there is nothing racist about these ads, because they believe that animal and human suffering ARE equivalent, and therefore that comparing the two isn’t demeaning.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶

41. Gothic Guera wrote:

    I hate PETA because in the end they do not even care about animals. Because of this http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm
    and do you notice that environmentalists do not associate themselves with Peta? because they are willing to send an animal that has been risen in captivity to the wild. among other reasons.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 2:23 pm ¶

42. jvansteppes wrote:

    This is so patronizing and insulting to the people it targets.

    I’m sorry Luke but I don’t buy your argument and here’s why:
    PeTA doesn’t only compare slaughterhouse suffering to human torture and tragedy, it chooses the most current, most upsetting stories and focuses on them as they are going on.
    This very month in Manitoba a man was decapitated on a Greyhound bus by a severely mentally ill passenger and PeTA ran an ad in the area within days comparing the crime with the act of eating meat. Wow, how nice for the victim’s mother to read.
    In Vancouver over 60 sex workers have gone missing in the past couple decades and a pig farmer is accused of killing a good portion of them, and there’s even a legend of him mixing them in with his sausage meat, a rumor that is terrifying to the families of the victims.
    PeTA ran an ad with a picture of a streetworker and a pig with the caption ‘neither of us is meat’. How is this supposed to make family members feel? It’s psychologically abusive.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 3:58 pm ¶

43. jen* wrote:

    I’m a vegetarian, but I can’t get on board with the humans=animals proposal. I don’t want to hurt animals if I can help it, but I can’t say that we’re equal. That’s just me. This is one of those times where I’ll have to agree to disagree with that philosophy, because this is one I don’t budge on.

    That’s why I wrote off PeTA a long time ago, when I heard Bill Maher make a statement about how he’d rather save a dog’s life than his grandfather’s. It’s been forever ago, so I don’t know where to find the quote anymore.

    The first picture with the theme of hanging? It hurt. I can’t get behind their tactics or their philosophy.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 3:59 pm ¶

44. Marge Twain wrote:

    It is unfortunate that PeTA has made themselves the public face of animal rights/vegetarianism while mounting numerous campaigns that degrade women and PoC. They definately put conscientious people off their cause while they contribute to racism/sexism/fatphobia for a broad audience. I am put off by every celebity that endorses them and gives them money instead of a more ethical org.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 5:23 pm ¶

45. oterhog wrote:

    You know, something else that comes to my mind is that many undocumented folks crossing the US/Mexico border end up doing the dangerous and low-paying work in factory farms and meat packing plants. If PeTA wanted to win these immigrants over to their cause, they could have started by doing a campaign about the deplorable working conditions for the humans working at meat packing plants.

    But, I don’t think PeTA’s intent with this border fence ad was to warn immigrants about the meat produced in the United States.

    I think their intent is to keep people from coming to the United States. Period. Here’s how their argument goes…”Stay in your impoverished country where you will most likely live a life of suffering. That way, you won’t come to our country and eat all of our innocent animals.”

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 6:57 pm ¶

46. em wrote:

    okay, so maybe i’m just a complete conspiracy nut when it comes to this, but i think PeTA is more than just an absolute waste of energy and an insensitive organization. if you think about it, what do they actually accomplish? i don’t know anyone who wasn’t a naive college student activist actually influenced by any kind of PeTA campaign. so if they don’t actually get a whole lot done in the realm of animal rights (and maybe they do, and i just don’t know about it, totally possible), then why are they around?

    from a broad institutional perspective, they seem to give a bad name to progressive activist groups, especially other groups that might try to advocate for vegan and vegetarian lifestyles from a social, economic, environmental, and animal rights perspective. i don’t know…too conspiracy-esque?

    on another note, i was a vegetarian for awhile a ways back, but it was more about the exploitive nature of the meat industry–exploitation of people and inhumane treatment of animals. and then i went off to college and the reality of having to buy my own food and balance the checkbook at the end of the month made me be very selective about how often i could go organic and vegetarian.

    now i’ve learned that if you can find a food co-op in your area you can often find better prices on locally grown organic produce, and other organic and free range products than at the grocery store or whole foods. but i agree, that there is definitely a classist element to the whole vegetarian / vegan lifestyle. you don’t see too many food co-ops in the inner city. and that i know from personal experience.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 7:10 pm ¶

47. Ratrace wrote:

    May I suggest that anyone who hasn’t already watch Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” take on PetTA?
    http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Penn+and++Teller+Bullshit#q=Penn%20and%20%20Teller%20Bullshit&start=50

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 8:09 pm ¶

48. Jess wrote:

    Y’know, one of the biggest problems I have with PeTA is that they aren’t connected to reality in any way.

    Want to find out about a disease? Well, I don’t see them lining up to volunteer for experiments. How the hell do they expect scientists to discover anything about biology?

    If we use artificial substitutes for many animal products - leather for example — you end up using polymers, which are far, far more environmentally destructive.

    Right on, PeTA, you have just demonstrated your complete and utter ignorance of chemistry and biology.

    Then we move on to immigration. Jesus tap-dancing Christ, are they so clueless about the complex relations between economics, food, culture, and migration? I guess so.

    I remember once in London, I saw the PeTA-person giving out leaflets about experiments on animals. SHe said she traveled to the far North of Canada with her boyfriend. I asked her what she ate since there aren’t a whole lot of vegetables in that part of the world. SHe said she brought her own vegan food — right after telling me about the great time she had interacting with the Inuit. Without sharing any of their food. Um.

    This is why, frankly, I love baiting PeTA-people whenever they are around giving out leaflets. It’s like shooting fish in a goddamned barrel. I tell ‘em my ancestors (and in-laws) think puppy is a fine meal. Nasty of me? Yup, but for the reasons above they bring out the best in me, I guess.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 9:16 pm ¶

49. leshachikha wrote:

    PETA’s tactics are not only infuriating, but incomprehensible from a practical standpoint as well.

    The overwhelming majority (maybe even all) of the vegans and vegetarians I’ve met have been progressive in their politics… It stands to reason that most potential vegans and vegetarians are also to the left of mainstream. If I were directing a PETA campaign, I’d do my damnedest not to offend the sensibilities of that target audience.

    Even if, as Mogs points out, said PETA director personally takes for granted that animal suffering is the same as human suffering, she must operate on the (correct) assumption that almost everyone else disagrees. Therefore, she should introduce the audience to the notion of animal = person with convincing tact, not off-putting shock that immediately alienates the people that would otherwise be most receptive to the message!

    Plus, there’s only so many white latte liberal types one can convert to veganism… And plastering posters with images of murdered black people or trivializing the decision of Mexican immigrants to risk their lives in a border crossing is hardly the way to endear oneself to a new demographic.

    These campaigns are heinous, of course, but they also just don’t work! How are these people so infernally dense?

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 10:30 pm ¶

50. miwome wrote:

    GAH. Everything I have to say has been said, except to add (I think–haven’t read every comment) that Mexicans–particularly Mexicans who are hopping that fence–are hardly guaranteed to be leaving behind a nutritional paradise, especially since the advent of the blasted flour tortilla. Not to mention how every intersection in the little town where I lived had a convenience store with Doritos, soda, beer, and ramen, but there was no industry or farming in sight. (It was a classic case of all the men working construction in the US.) But I’m sure PETA took that into full consideration. Yup.

    Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:07 pm ¶

51. Pheagan wrote:

    I just had an idea. Maybe all those willing to (and I would), could band together and form a group whose mission statement is this: if PETA stops using racist and sexist tactics to get their points across, we will go vegetarian. Or, you know, go veg if PETA just stops in general (I’m more on board with that one, actually, I don’t think these idiots are capable of reform). I used to be veg, and I could do it again to get these guys to just. stop. it.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 7:23 am ¶

52. merq wrote:

    from the comments on the PETA blog:

    Indeed, there is a strong Mexican influence here, hence the name LAS VEGAS,

    Gotta love the idiocy of it all… The Spanish name of a city that once was part of Mexico is proof of Mexico’s “influence” on an American city?

    Kill me them now.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 7:33 am ¶

53. Tim Wise wrote:

    Great posts everyone, and thanks so much for putting this story up in the first place. Just a few thoughts, many of which I started thinking about a few years ago, after I was attacked (via emails) by PeTA folks and other animal rights activists for a piece I wrote slamming the lynching posters they were running.

    1. Though I don’t want to lump all animal rights activists together (something I probably did in the original article), because there are lots of such folks who detest PeTA, there does seem to be a strong misanthropic streak running thru the movement. Put simply, lots of these folks hate people, view people as inherently cruel, disgusting, etc. To wit, PeTA head Ingrid Newkirk’s infamous statements to that effect, such as:

    “having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it’s nothing but vanity, human vanity.”
    (This gem, offered up as a reason why she opposes having children, indicates not only her hatred of people, but her ignorance of biology. There are no “purebred” humans, the way there are “purebred” dogs. Humans have not been isolated and bred the way dogs have. In that sense, all humans are “mutts.”)

    Or this, in her sizing up of homo sapiens:

    “human beings are cruel” (a rather one dimensional view of people, and a statement that suggests how much Ms. Newkirk considers herself to be morally superior to others of her species, since she, naturally, is vegan and thus “not cruel.”

    Or best of all, when comparing meat-eaters to the Nazis:

    “Even the Nazis didn’t eat the objects of their derision.”

    Got that?

    Oh, and lest I forget, Newkirk also once said that it would be ok to tongue kiss your dog, so long as the dog seemed to be enjoying it and the affection was mutual…that, one presumes would be “ethical.”

    2. In addition to the misanthropy, there is also an internal contradiction at the heart of PeTA’s name and mission. On the one hand, they argue quite passionately that humans are “just another animal,” and in no way superior to any other animal. Ok, let’s just accept that premise for a second and see what happens. Now, they preen as being about the “ethical” treatment of animals. And yet, can anyone in their right mind say that it is ethical to exploit human suffering (as with the lynching campaign and Holocaust on Your Plate campaigns, where pictures of murdered human “animals” were shown for shock value)? Or can anyone say it is ethical to help subsidize a border fence with these ads aimed at human “animals” known as migrants, and which fence would limit their freedom of mobility? Or is it ethical to exploit the bodies of women in their ads (like those with naked models appealing to the most misogynistic of impulses, in order to make the case against wearing fur)?

    In other words, PeTA isn’t for the ethical treatment of all animals, but only the non-human ones. They are willing to exploit and harm people to make a point about chickens, cows, pigs or mink. They believe in the inferiority of the human species, and the superiority, moral and otherwise, of all non-human species. What’s funny is that when you accuse them of this, many of them will actually then prove the point. Even after denying it, they then go on to say how only humans cause global warming, only humans exploit the planet, etc., and how the world would be better off if humans were wiped out.

    Of course, they never start with themselves…so not only are they misanthropic, but worse, they don’t even practice what they preach. They are self-hating as members of the human species, without the courage to end the oxygen-thieving in which they are presently engaged. I mean really now, charity begins at home…

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 8:30 am ¶

54. Dan wrote:

    It’s all sensationalist propaganda that, when put through the filter of logic, is rendered hypocritical and just plain dumb.

    I think therein lies the rub, Tim. We attempt to apply logic and rational thought to situations such as this as well as deprived racists, and find that they do not employ any such methods to come up with the conclusions that make up the foundation of their beliefs. In essence, we’re taking aspirin for their headaches. Of course it doesn’t mean we should give up the fight but that we’re trying to introduce critical thinking and rational thought to people who are completely incapable of such things. It’s an exercise in frustration which makes me admire what you do all the more.

    Oh well, for every animal a PeTa member won’t eat, I’ll eat three.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 8:49 am ¶

55. Susan wrote:

    You know, GET A GRIP, PEOPLE! Forget about PETA’s questionable tactics, which also anger animal advocates, such as myself, and just concentrate on our message that ANIMALS COUNT. Animals count as much as humans do. Humans are just ONE species on the planet–and the most dangerous, most destructive species on the planet, at that. Eating/wearing/exploiting animals is 100% as evil as harming humans because of the group that they belong to. You cannot call yourself progressive if you condone exploitation of animals, as you are still a cheerleader for the power paradigm. BILLIONS of animals are tortured and killed every year in this country alone. Stop contributing to this evil. The posts to this blog make me ashamed to be human, as much as witnessing all of the cruelty, day in and day out, through my animal advocacy work. I agree that PETA’s sexist ads are deplorable, but that does not negate the anti-fur message. If there were an offensive ad against racism, would you then think that racism is ok??? Killing animals IS akin to slavery and the Holocaust. The problem with these PETA campaigns is not that they are not true, but that people are just too stinking selfish to care about anything but their own group and bristle at the idea that anyone else’s suffering is as bad. Look at all the animosity between Jews and blacks debating which is worse, slavery or the Holocaust. They are equally evil to each other, and equally evil to what is done to animals. Support cruelty toward ANY group, and you support cruelty PERIOD.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 9:56 am ¶

56. Dan wrote:

    I think that statement speaks for itself.

    Amazing.

    World hunger, systemic and institutional racism, Islamophobia, crimes against humanity, hate crimes, and Susan is too busy worrying about a chickens ‘quality of life’ or how a burger gets produced.

    Awfully white of ya Susan.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:08 am ¶

57. Liz wrote:

    I am so amazed at all the comments I have seen here. It really kills me that all of you hate PeTA. I myself work for peta2 and I bust my ass on the daily doing outreach. My only job is to discuss the issues with minors and walk them through the process of going veg, not to mention I get petitions signed to push for more humane legislation. You all seem to trivialize what we do and don’t acknowledge the HUGE strides PeTA has made to save/protect animals. You can complain all you want about sexist campaigns but I assure you those are all volunteer. I have done naked campaigns before and I jump at the chance to do it again. Any way I can get attention on the issue of suffering and torture I will. And that’s my own decision. Why don’t you all sit down for a second and think about how far PeTA has brought the Animal Rights Movement in the past 25 years. No one I have ever met in my entire life works harder on AR issues than PeTA people. I wish you all were doing something rather than complaining on some board.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:24 am ¶

58. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @ Liz -

    This is a forum to discuss race, which you neatly left out of your comments. Any little explanation for that? Does PeTa rely on volunteers to continue to promote racism?

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:26 am ¶

59. RJG wrote:

    @Liz:

    I had a conversation last week in a graphic design forum about the PETA campaign involving the border fence project. Someone mentioned something similar, that PETA does a lot of things that aren’t shock and awe tactics, that these campaigns aren’t a direct reflection of the every day functions of PETA, and that they do a lot of non violent non hostile non etc animal rescues, re housings and so on.

    To which I replied, “Fuck, I wish they’d advertise doing all that instead of coming off as jerkbags, because then I’d actually support them.”

    ANYWAY, back to the campaign itself. Three things I found a bit off as a designer:

    1) The ad claims meat makes people fat. Not true.
    2) Pretty much stating that all Mexican-Americans are meat-eating fatasses while Mexican-Mexicans (That’s a term right?) are nice and slender due to their vegan ways. Not only are, erm, Mexican-Mexicans not all vegan, but the entire “YOU WANT TO BE SKINNY RIGHT?” mindset seems so off and American.
    3) Supporting a barrier that not only prevents people from moving between two spaces, but supporting a barrier that also restricts the movement of animals, thus disturbing their habitat and making them die.

    Someone else in the design community also noted another covert message which sounds like we’re gloating about how America has so much excessive food (I want a house sized cupcake) in the ad:

    “it’s like if the ethical diamond people put up a sign saying DON’T COME OVER HERE, WE HAVE SOOOOOO MANY JEWELS. they are bad jewels BUT SERIOUSLY WE HAVE SOOOOOOOOOOOO MANY OF THEM. STAY HOME AND ADORN THYSELF WITH PEBBLES AS IS THY WONT.”

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:53 am ¶

60. RJG wrote:

    @Susan’s “I agree that PETA’s sexist ads are deplorable, but that does not negate the anti-fur message.”:

    But that’s the thing. It does.

    Because of the way PETA presents itself, instead of focusing on the message, people are focusing on the technique. That’s a huge disaster for marketing. You never want people remembering the campaign but forgetting what the campaign was about.

    If I run naked through Times Square screaming about global warming, no one is going to remember the global warming message. They’re going to remember some lunatic running around and what a travesty it was for kids to have to see such a thing.

    So, yes. If you present a message in such a piss-poor manner, you definitely do negate the message.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 11:16 am ¶

61. Luke wrote:

    jvansteppes writes:

    “I’m sorry Luke but I don’t buy your argument and here’s why:
    PeTA doesn’t only compare slaughterhouse suffering to human torture and tragedy, it chooses the most current, most upsetting stories and focuses on them as they are going on.”

    As I said: it’s horrible the way that PETA appropriates suffering - I just think it’s horrible in the same way it would be if any other cause were to run such campaigns exploiting unrelated pain.

    More broadly I thought I’d just comment on the issue of ‘equality’ or what sort of suffering ‘matters more’. I’m not sure this is the right mentality to use. Is anything gained by asking whether US slavery was worse than the Nazi Holocaust? In how many cases do questions of which of two things has more ‘weight’ really matter? A mentality that weighs the lives of different beings and decides when some can be sacrificed for others is a frightening mentality to me, regardless of what weights it actually assigns, because it assumes that the central ethical experience is an experience of impartially calculating costs and benefits. The experience of treating something with respect has no element of weighing or calculating. So for example, the case against medical experimentation on animals isn’t that ‘the lives destroyed weigh more than the lives saved’ (over what timeframe? compared with what alternative history? assuming what pattern of distribution of the results?) - it’s the same as the case against using any type of human for medical experiments (which might, on some reckonings, save more lives than it costs), namely that they deserve respect and we don’t have the right to sacrifice them for the greater good.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 11:38 am ¶

62. jvansteppes wrote:

    Susan wrote “If there were an offensive ad against racism, would you then think that racism is ok???”

    But people don’t make offensive ads against racism and that’s sort of the point. The only group I can think of that makes similar publicity is the notoriously messed up ‘Genocide Awareness Project’, an anti-choice group that tells women who’ve had abortions [including of course, Jewish, Native and Black women whose communities are/have been targeted for genocide] that they are as genocidal as Hitler or the KKK.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:09 pm ¶

63. NancyP wrote:

    PETA has been recognized as an organization of holier-than-thou zealots for years. They insult everyone but white “hip” straight men in their ads. Consequently, no one listens to them but the converts.

    The rest of us that are concerned about animal welfare focus on Humane Societies, state/federal livestock regulations, performing animal regulations (usually small groups within the hobby or industry are the important lobbyists).

    Most vegetarians just do their thing without nagging the rest of us. It’s one thing to point out that beef is an inefficient food source compared to the feed given said cattle. That might get some socially conscious people to cut down on beef use. It’s another thing to nag - no-one will listen, and no-one will act.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:14 pm ¶

64. NancyP wrote:

    jvansteppes has it right - I see those camp-liberation pictures in anti-abortion posters frequently (I commute daily and Saturdays past an abortion clinic).

    What a great way to alienate moderates from the anti-abortion position.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶

65. Sheila wrote:

    [Mod Note - I don’t care if you hold a different opinion, I do care if that opinion excuses racism and sexism. See the edit to the post above - I said anyone repping PeTA can get a spot on my blog, as long as they can critically engage with the racist and sexist assertions made about PeTA’s campaigns. I even included some links to get you started. But if you can’t engage with Marisol’s original post and you can’t come up with a thorough discussion of why PeTA needs to present their messages in this way (while taking into consideration what the Vegans of Color crew wrote) then you aren’t welcome to post here. - LDP ]

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:21 pm ¶

66. Marge Twain wrote:

    @Latoya: Brava for your succinct response and explanation to the PeTA responders. I really wish one of them would engage with the issue being discussed here instead of telling us we shouldn’t care.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 7:35 pm ¶

67. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Marge - Since I posted that? Not a peep from PeTA. I can’t say I didn’t expect that, but it does sadden me - I am not a supporter of being anti-specist, and I am not a veg* but I am sympathetic to both causes, can hear where they are coming from, and would love that perspective on this blog. And while I’m pretty far into my PeTA hate, I’m not actually opposed to their cause - just their slash and burn methods.

    But, then again, I’m not really suffering. Vegans of Color is just a holler away, and I know they have boatloads of info.

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 8:51 pm ¶

68. Heather wrote:

    Shit like this makes me wonder what the real underlying purpose of PeTA is. I’m just making up conspiracy theories here, but there just HAS to be some ulterior motive for an organization that goes out of its way to offend every possible subgroup of the population, and then doesn’t even do all that much for animals. Maybe it’s all a plot by the beef industry to keep up the illusion that “animal rights=crazy people” in the minds of the public to prevent any serious discussion of animal rights. I mean… a group like PeTA has got to be a joke… nobody can be genuinely that privileged/racist/sexist/oblivious/irrational/just plain stupid all at once, right?……right?

    Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 9:09 pm ¶

69. Dan wrote:

    Well Heather, I’d be interested in seeing the demographics of self-proclaimed PeTa members. My guess is that the majority of membership is NOT minority but are members of the white dominant group in this country. You know, the group that’s not facing any forms of oppression or institutional racism themselves so they have the time to spend worrying about ‘animals rights’ and can use examples of atrocities against minorities to further their agenda since they’re disassociated with things like slavery and the Holocaust.

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 6:55 am ¶

70. Jess wrote:

    SUsan, see my post above, but let me ask you this.

    If we aren’t supposed to wear animal products, what would you suggest? Plant fibers only go so far (and in fact silk was used in colder climates over cotton for a reason). If we use polymer-based substitutes you end up hurting the environment even more. (You do understand that vinyl is no made with natural products, right?)

    What are the Inuit supposed to do? You can’t grow a goddamned thing in the far North. Going after seals and whales is hard work, they wouldn’t do it if they had another way. (This is why agriculture was invented in the first place, you know).

    So what is it, Susan? ANyone? Bueller?

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 6:56 am ¶

71. Luke wrote:

    “Most vegetarians just do their thing without nagging the rest of us…no-one will listen, and no-one will act.”

    I think that calling a movement’s agitation and campaigning work ‘nagging’ is silly. The point of arguing for an unpopular position is that people get annoyed. If anti-racism advocates avoided saying anything that would offend or irritate anyone, they wouldn’t get very far. Also, ‘nagging’ isn’t a gender-neutral word.

    “If we aren’t supposed to wear animal products, what would you suggest?”
    Any oppression that has gone on for thousands of years will be built into society so much that some things will be easy with it and hard without it. But there are plenty of things that are hard now and would be easy if we were willing to do morally abominable things, and plenty of things that were easy in the past and became harder when we stopped doing abominable things. Someone pointing out that an act is abominable has no obligation to make the life of the person doing it easy and straightforward.

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 7:58 am ¶

72. Lisa J wrote:

    @Susan ” Look at all the animosity between Jews and blacks debating which is worse, slavery or the Holocaust. They are equally evil to each other, and equally evil to what is done to animals. Support cruelty toward ANY group, and you support cruelty PERIOD.”

    I personally, am really tired of this whole “look at the animosity between Jews and blacks” argument. Blacks and Jews in this country have a long history of cooperation and working together and although I hear lots of huffing and puffing in the MSM about this, I have never ever heard a Jewish person who I know (or even recall seeing one on tv) say that the Holocaust was worse than slavery or blacks talking about slavery being worse than the Holocaust. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen or hasn’t happened but it is not something that most blacks and Jews seem to spend lots of time thinking about and it is almost always someone who is neither black nor Jewish who throws it out there. On the whole throughout American history, both groups have suffered more from the hands of non-Jewish whites than from each other but everyone is always trying to put the two groups at each other’s throats rather than looking at the real people who are at the root of the bulk of both groups problems with discrimination in this country. I’m really bothered that you even went there as a way of comparing animal and human suffering and saying evil is evil. And don’t get me started on why everyone always immediately call Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakahn anti-semetic, yet you have the Pat Robertson’s & Pat Buchanan’s of the world who are very and regularly anti-semtic yet it is rare to hear them referred to as anti-semtic or have that as one of primary descriptors of them. Interesting isn’t it?

    On the subject of the post, PeTA is just wrong on many levels. I love animals and know that humans are part of the animal kingdom but the exact equation of people and animals is a little out of whack. As Lennon said “if you carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow”. Applies here too.

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 11:39 am ¶

73. Lisa J wrote:

    Oh and Tim Wise. I love you. I came across your site (either from Pacifica or NPR) and it lead me to this wonderful sight. You are so on target with everything I’ve read that you write and I wish I could express myself as well on the complexity of race issues. Your arguements are always well-reasoned, nuanced and you hit the real facts. If I hadn’t seen on your site that you are married. I’d propose. You are so MONEY!!!

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 11:46 am ¶

74. Joseph wrote:

    Boy, I wish I’d been around for this discussion from the beginning… Among activist organizations PeTA represents a particular business model some people may be familiar with via similar public discussions about Scientology: a cluster of extreme premises, wrapped in progressive-seeming rhetoric and aggressively marketed to celebrity adherents. The bottom line for PeTA is that there is no qualitative difference between human and animal life, which is what makes a ridiculously offensive statement like “Killing animals IS akin to slavery and the Holocaust” (Liz @ #55) possible. This radical premise is used to justify racially/ethnically insensitive campaigns such as the ones described above. Significantly (for me) PeTA also portrays itself as the owner of the vegetarian/vegan “brand” in a way that is elitist and exclusive. I’ve been a vegetarian for 20 years and was a practicing vegan for about 8. But I don’t believe that one way of eating is inherently more moral than another and I don’t care to police the food choices of other people. While I abhor the thought of animals suffering in general my food decisions have been based on improving and maintaining my own health, not a vicarious empathy for animals raised as food. There are many good reasons to adopt a vegetarian diet that have nothing to do with PeTA’s agenda or mission. But you’d never know it based on their rhetoric.

    I know PeTA is a large organization and they must have PoC members but, I have to say, I never met one. To personally adopt the suffering of animals seems to me like an exercise in privilege that you’d have to have a lot of cultural power in order to entertain. If there are PoC PeTA members out there following this thread I’m curious to hear what you think about this elision between human and animal suffering and how that plays out in PeTA campaigns.

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 5:38 pm ¶

75. Michi wrote:

    I had at one time been a PoC PETA member. The reason I’m not anymore is because of their advertising that often appeals to mainstream society’s appetite for sexism. These same ads, that sometimes depict PoC, often put them in more submissive or primal stances than their white counterparts, which is also fucked up. However, I don’t have a problem with drawing conclusions between the animal industry and slavery or the Holocaust if you can include a thought-out analysis or engage people in dialogue. PETA’s tactics essentialize an otherwise potentially nuanced argument. For further reading you could check out Marjorie Spiegel’s “The Dreaded Comparison,” which shows that slavery was in some ways quite literally based on animal agriculture, and includes pictures of restraints, living quarters, and slave ships (to name a few) with their animal agriculture counterparts. Basically her book argues that if those of us who are involved in anti-racism activities can say that slaves were treated like animals to show how terrible things really were, why can’t we say animals are treated like slaves?

    Anyway, that is where I’m coming from. It’s a shame PETA is more interested in shocking people rather than starting a discourse that challenges our notions about how we value life/lives, or drawing connections between animal rights and workers’ rights, liberation struggles, the environment, etc. PETA is too tunnel-visioned; they see this inclusion of other struggles as a concession or loss, rather than a strengthening of solidarity. What a shame considering their huge budget.

    Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 9:32 pm ¶

76. Jess wrote:

    @Luke

    It’s not about just making people’s lives easier. It’s about understanding that people did not start eating meat or using animal products because they said “Oh boy, now I can kill a puppy.”

    PeTA completely glosses over that kind of stuff. And again I ask, given that certain products from animals are used because they work, how do you address the fact that many of the artificial alternatives are even worse for the environment? Again I ask, what of the people like the Inuit? Do you understand that there is a reason that cuisine in non-tropical areas tends to be meat-heavy? (Or starchy, for that matter).

    Like maybe it has to do with stuff that keeps longer, without the use of expensive materials? (Glass, remember, was once precious to most people, which is why they traditionally re-use jars, just ask your grandma what she did with the pickled veggies).

    NONE of this is to say that people should not move to a more vegetable heavy diet than is common now. But there are people in the world for whom a vegan diet is just not possible, for various reasons. To say they are all just a bunch of immoral meat eaters who don’t care about cruelty is just plain silly and insulting.

    Not all slaughtering is created equal. Kosher and halal slaughterhouses, for example, place an emphasis on killing in the way they do precisely because it is less cruel. (And in fact truly kosher/halal raised meat is a lot less energy/water/resource intensive).

    And how does PeTA expect us to do any biological research? You think the scientists pick the animals because they revel in inflicting pain or something? Or do you think it might be because doing experiments on humans is kind’a frowned upon by other people? That computer simulations aren’t all that great a substitute?

    My problem with PeTA is that it’s 12-year-old’s philosophy married to marketing. It’s about as well thought out as my political essays from junior high school, and has the added bonus of being just plain offensive and ignorant.

    Domestic animals are also bred that way and wouldn’t do very well in the wild, you know. Your average housecat or dog wold be dead in a few weeks if you dropped them off in a forest.

    Posted 21 Aug 2008 at 6:48 am ¶

77. Tim Wise wrote:

    Thanks again for all the excellent posts, and especially Lisa J for the kind words and almost-marriage proposal!

    Anyway, I think there is one more thing to think about, especially for those who have posted (and probably aren’t paying attention anymore, but I’ll try anyway), and who think all life is equal in moral value (human and non-human). At root, I don’t think they really believe this to be true, and here’s why, in the form of a thought experiment:

    Imagine that someone was coming home from a “business lunch” during which a few too many martinis had been imbibed…

    And imagine that because of their inebriation, the person in question ended up hitting a child who had been playing out in his or her yard, and wandered too close to the street, at which point the drunk driver jumped the curb, and struck and killed the kid…

    Question: Should this person be prosecuted for vehicular homicide?

    Answer: Of course, and virtually anyone would agree.

    Ok, now here’s the next part of the experiment:

    Imagine that the same person is coming home from the same business lunch, rockin’ the same blood alcohol level. Only this time, instead of hitting and killing a child, the hops the curb and hits and kills…a squirrel.

    Question: Should such a person be prosecuted for vehicular homicide? (Note, it does not matter that the law does not currently cover such an act and make it criminal–the question is, in a “decent” and ethical society, SHOULD such an act be criminally prosecuted? After all, if all life is of equal moral value, and if the law is the mechanism by which humans make their moral choices known and express value (I realize the law is more than that, but that’s part of it), then one would HAVE to support prosecuting the drunk squirrel-killer.

    But honestly, I have yet to meet the animal rights advocate willing to support such an asinine proposition. Which demonstrates conclusively that even they know all life is not literally equal. Yes, we should value non-human animals a hell of a lot more than we do now; and yes, we should prosecute people who are deliberately cruel towards animals (say, a person who captured squirrels and tortured them in the basement, for example), but in the above example, there is simply no equivalence.

    Likewise, if we believe all life is equal in this regard, animal rights advocates would have to support, ultimately, the passage of laws that prohibited meat eating, and the prosecution of anyone caught eating meat. Think about it: surely they would support existing laws against cannibalism (in this case, humans eating humans). And if chickens=humans, morally speaking, anyone caught killing a chicken or consuming one would have to be prosecuted for murder, or at least being an accessory to murder by eating it, or something equivalent to what we would do to the cannibal in the present day.

    And yet, once again, I have yet to meet the animal rights advocate who is willing to make the nutty proposition that such laws should be passed and that we should arrest people and throw them in jail for eating meat. Yet, to the extent they would support such prosecution for those humans who kill and eat other humans, even they are tacitly acknowledging the moral and practical difference between human and non -human life.

    Posted 21 Aug 2008 at 9:09 am ¶

78. RJG wrote:

    @Tim Wise

    Beyond even that… if all life is equal, and murder is murder is murder, would we arrest a cat for killing a mouse?

    That said, jury comprised of a cat’s peers would make a rather wonderful macro…

    Posted 21 Aug 2008 at 9:40 am ¶

79. jen* wrote:

    I’ve just read an article about the bombings at UC Santa Cruz. Two biomedical science professors had bombs go off at their homes: one in a car, the other in the house. The victim of the house bombing had to leave the house [with his wife and two children] through a second-story window.

    The perpetrators of these crimes were animal-rights extremists. [not PeTA] But it is easy to see, from this example, that the belief that animals=humans is a sham. What if someone in either case had been injured or killed?

    It doesn’t further an argument to do something you believe to be immoral just because someone else has. And in this situation, the (hopefully) likely consequence will be jailtime.

    oh - and I like Joseph’s point about the similarities with Scientology. Good observation.

    Posted 21 Aug 2008 at 9:40 am ¶

80. Pheagan wrote:

    I know this is a super late post, but why don’t vegetarians ever bring up the fact that you have to be quite privileged to pull of vegetarianism and veganism in a healthy manner? Tofu isn’t cheap; vitamin B12 pills are not cheap; vegetarian restaurants are not cheap. As I said, I was a veg for many years– since I was thirteen until I was 19. When I was nineteen I was living out of my car and depending on people for meals. I couldn’t exactly insist on vegetarian meals from them, and I didn’t have the money to, you knw, buy soy milk and all the shit you need to to keep up your protein intake. And considering that I’m also hyperthyroid and get very faint without large amounts of food, I just made the decision to eat meat again, and I haven’t gone back. It tastes good, and you know, I’m a murderer at this point because i do now have the resources to do vegetarianism in a healthy way. At the point where I gave it up I was 90 lbs, because I simply could not do it in a healthy way. So, just to say, vegetarianism is a choice that really can only be chosen by economically priveleged people in the first place. And you know, having been in the position where it became impossible for me to do it anymore, I just got disillusioned and kind of mad at vegetarianism and everyone’s assertion that in this day and age its SO EASY to be veg. It’s not. It’s expensive to do it in a healthy way. And my difficulty and malnutrition that resulted from me trying to maintain it just kind of poisoned it for me, to the point where, sorry, I just don’t give a fuck anymore. Meat is good for you, it is healthy– I still don’t do red meat, but fish and chicken made my hair stop falling out and my skin stop breaking out in rashes, so… a little perspective on these proselytizing vegetarians would be nice.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 2:40 pm ¶

81. Jess wrote:

    Phaegan: see my above about many hard-core vegetarian/vegans absolute ignorance of biology, chemistry, culture, cuisine.

    I mean, it’s fascinating that people who are usually well-educated would dismiss people just like you, but they do. They also don’t have an answer for what people in places where iodine is unavailable are supposed to do. Before iodized salt there was a reason Iowa was in the “goiter belt.”

    You have hyperthyroidism, so a vegan diet would be at best risky for you, and if you are female then getting pregnant and staying on such a diet would be doubly risky. But no matter! Eating meat is immoral! So there!

    I really, really think PeTA is just a bunch of fools, myself.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 4:54 pm ¶

82. Luke wrote:

    @Tim Wise:

    On the specific example you cite, you neglect the fact that prosecutions etc. reflect the difficulty of avoiding the crime, etc. I think people would get a lesser sentence if they hit a child that was carefully camoflaged in the road than if they hit one that was obviously visible. Squirrels are a bad example because it’s likely to be much harder to see a squirrel than a child. But abstracting from that, perhaps considering larger animals like deer, then I’m happy to say that the law should be involved (setting aside concerns about the nature of law-enforcement, the justification of prisons, etc.). People driving cars should keep a watch out for animals and people that might cross the road, and if they don’t, or drive dangerously, they should be punished. If the animal is so small or so fast that they had no prospect of avoiding it then they’re not responsible.

    I’m also happy to say that I would support a legal ban on animal farming and the products thereof. It would make a hell of a lot more sense than a legal ban on cannabis, after all. But that should be in the context of a non-animal-exploiting society.

    I also think that animals which have been made dependent on humans should have their rights legally protected in the same way that children and dependent adults have their rights legally protected.

    The most difficult issue is that of protecting wild animals in general, in particular from themselves. I certainly don’t think we should try to save the life of every wild animal there is, because the only way we could do that would be to tear up all the world’s ecosystems and, almost certainly, cause the most spectacular mass extinction.

    But the reason for this difference is that wild animals aren’t part of our society and cannot become so unless we find a way to communicate with them. We have no prospect of organising the behaviour of wild animals and humans so that they operate together. And that has just as much to do with the lack of a shared communication system (whether linguistic or non-linguistic) as it does with animals being inherently ‘irrational’. So just as there’s a difference in what a government/society can be legally obliged to provide for members of its own society (e.g. education) and what it can be legally obliged to provide for members of other societies, there’s a difference in how humans should treat animals which we have assimilated (as dependents with rights, like children) and how humans should treat wild animals (where we should refrain from killing, but not try to save all lives).

    As I said, that’s in the context of a society that doesn’t exploit animals. A law against meat-eating in such a society would target only those people who went out of their way to seek out illegal supplies etc. In a society that exploits animals on a vast scale, or even in a transitional society, prosecuting individuals for eating meat isn’t going to be a good idea for anyone.

    I also think your concept of law is rather crude. It’s not that ‘we shouldn’t do X -> we can be punished for doing X’. It’s that punishment serves purposes, by deterring people and whatever else, and only some wrong acts should be punished (e.g. murder not adultery). Hence, as I said, prosecuting people for eating meat in a meat-producing or transitional society wouldn’t do much to serve its purposes and wouldn’t outweigh the costs.

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 1:10 pm ¶

83. Luke wrote:

    ‘It’s about understanding that people did not start eating meat or using animal products because they said “Oh boy, now I can kill a puppy.”’

    Granted, on the condition that we not rule out an investigation of the way that violence against animals may have related to or served a function (possibly secondary) for our aggressive or sadistic desires.

    “Do you understand that there is a reason that cuisine in non-tropical areas tends to be meat-heavy?”

    Yes.

    “how do you address the fact that many of the artificial alternatives are even worse for the environment?”

    By recognising that the situation is very difficult and a lot of hard thought will have to go into any abolition of animal exploitation, just as a lot of hard thought has to go into any similarly enormous social change? What sort of ‘addressing’ do you want, given that I’m not in an expert on clothing or the technology of food production?

    “But there are people in the world for whom a vegan diet is just not possible, for various reasons. To say they are all just a bunch of immoral meat eaters who don’t care about cruelty is just plain silly and insulting.”

    Possible is a function of circumstances, and few circumstances are still utterly unchangeable. Of course it’s silly to dismiss these people - all I’d insist on is that in the long term there are ways to make veganism universally practical.

    “And how does PeTA expect us to do any biological research?”
    IF biological research saves so many lives and is so fantastic (which it is), then a mature society would be one in which enough people are willing to run risks for it. That’s half the answer. The other half is that people need not die because biomedical research becomes more difficult, since there are plenty of other ways to save lives - epidemiological research, preventive measures, better sanitation, or just more doctors and nurses in areas where there aren’t that many.

    “Your average housecat or dog wold be dead in a few weeks if you dropped them off in a forest.”
    Yes, and I think that animals which are in this way dependent on humans should be treated the same way we treat dependent humans.

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 2:45 pm ¶

84. Radfem wrote:

    I am so amazed at all the comments I have seen here. It really kills me that all of you hate PeTA. I myself work for peta2 and I bust my ass on the daily doing outreach. My only job is to discuss the issues with minors and walk them through the process of going veg, not to mention I get petitions signed to push for more humane legislation.

    I and others bust my ass dealing with the same dehumanization of racism and sexism that your organization uses to sell its product. It’s beyond offensive to go from addressing the pervasive attitude of dehumanization against men of color and women by law enforcement for example and then see photos of the lynching of Black men and women being used to sell a message regarding animal rights. There’s definitely a parallel between the two in terms of entitlement.

    Face it, if the issue of animal rights is a compelling issue and I’m not saying it’s not, YOU DON”T EVEN NEED TO DO THIS!

    You all seem to trivialize what we do and don’t acknowledge the HUGE strides PeTA has made to save/protect animals.

    So pointing out the racism, sexism and classicism is “trivializing” what PETA does? Are these things themselves trivial? It comes from a place of racial and/or gender privilage to be able to even use that word in your choice of context while ignoring what it is you’re essentially saying.

    No, not addressing these issues makes your potential consumers care even less about the “strides” that your organization has made.

    You can complain all you want about sexist campaigns but I assure you those are all volunteer. I have done naked campaigns before and I jump at the chance to do it again.

    Who said they weren’t voluntary? But promoting sexism through the animal rights campaign puts a lot of women off. It perpetuates PETA as a movement of mostly White young men who objectify women and use them as objects to put on display (or attack with buckets of paint or whatever as part of the anti-fur campaign) as a means for an end. Again, if your organization does good work, it doesn’t have to be this way.

    Any way I can get attention on the issue of suffering and torture I will. And that’s my own decision.

    Yes it is, and eventually you’ll have to set the boundaries of where the lines will be drawn between what you will or won’t do. And yes, it’s your decision and any consequences of that decision are yours as well because I think if you embrace racism and/or sexism as a tool to play with, ultimately it will hurt your movement.

    As is the opportunity opened up for any criticism.

    Why don’t you all sit down for a second and think about how far PeTA has brought the Animal Rights Movement in the past 25 years.

    I did and there’s plenty of time left in the day. Some of the campaigns have been great grass-roots activism, but unfortunately, what PETA’s becoming more known for is its blatant racism and sexism.

    No one I have ever met in my entire life works harder on AR issues than PeTA people. I wish you all were doing something rather than complaining on some board.

    Then you really don’t get around much, do you? Much of the grass-roots work for animal rights and environmental rights takes place right smack in communities and neighborhoods. They just don’t get as much publicity nor is that what they’re out to get.

    Why do you assume that if people don’t jump on your bandwagon, then they’re not “doing something”?

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 4:52 pm ¶

85. Radfem wrote:

    Oops, on the syntax.

    No one I have ever met in my entire life works harder on AR issues than PeTA people. I wish you all were doing something rather than complaining on some board.

    Then you really don’t get around much, do you? Much of the grass-roots work for animal rights and environmental rights takes place right smack in communities and neighborhoods. They just don’t get as much publicity nor is that what they’re out to get.

    Why do you assume that if people don’t jump on your bandwagon, then they’re not “doing something”?

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 4:54 pm ¶

86. Radfem wrote:

    Instead of lecturing people on ways to eat and scolding them over their choices, PETA could work with community members in terms of accessing affordable and healthy produce and other foods in a vegan or vegetarian diet. Many people aren’t even able to shop in grocery stores because there aren’t any within traveling distance (and this can vary depending on your situation).

    The ad campaign geared at immigrants crossing the border is asinine, ignorant and insulting. I think people traveling particularly those driven further east by the more fortified sections of the fence/wall are more concerned about surviving in the desert where hundreds of them have died of heat stroke and dehydration than in being scolded about eating choices.

    Not to mention the imagery including the brown man in the sombrero strumming the guitar and folks eating watermelon. Stereotype much?

    Posted 24 Aug 2008 at 4:30 pm ¶

87. Francis J. wrote:

    I’m opposed to cruelty as much as the next man, but there are more important things to worry about than chicken being turned into McNuggets.

    Having their headquarters in electoral democracies, PeTA can overuse the blanket of civil liberties to trivialize horrors such as slavery, Jim Crow or the Holocaust. Half of the World population is not as fortunate, so currently our top priority should be fighting for human rights, social labor rights, freedom of the press and fair trade. Having had a political prisoner in my family, I am particularly sensitive to human rights abuse.

    Regarding the cruelty of some human beings, PeTA seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that predators in the animal kingdom are not quite “gentle” with their prey. Being nice to animals does not necessarily go along with being nice to human beings: 20th century European dictators and mass muderers were very nice to their pets, yet they cold-bloddedly planned and excecuted the murder ot millions of people.

    It is true that the industrialization of subsidized agriculture has given us much more buying power than we had 100 years ago. As a consequence, it costs less in rich countries to eat more meat than we should. However, frequent epidemics do remind us that there is definitely something wrong with the system. We need to go back to more natural ways of producing food, both meat and vegetables. And PeTA is completely off-track: humans are omnivores. We are NOT specifically adapted to eat and digest exclusively plants. Fact is we need an average daily intake of 50g (1.75 oz) of meat, and there is no vegetable substitute for it.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 4:21 am ¶

88. Angel H. wrote:

    Don’t get me wrong: I can’t stand PeTA as an organization. I think they’re racist, sexist, and hypocritical, and I think this ad is tasteless beyond words.

    However, I’m a little worried about the people lambasting the animal rights movement as a whole. Even though (regrettably) PeTA seems to be the most visible animal rights organization, it doesn’t comprise the entire movement.

    Note: I’m not involved with the animal rights movement. I’m not even a veg* (but I love my tofu! ^_^). I’m just not comfortable seeing the entire movement dismissed because of PeTA’s egregious (sp?) behavior.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 11:09 am ¶

89. abw wrote:

    Instead of talking about the ways that the food processing industry exploits and dehumanizes the people of color and immigrants who work in plants, PETA choose instead to go to the media publicity route and ask the US Border Patrol if they can advertise on the WALL. WTF!?

    Laughs. I am glad you point this specific example out. This particular reason you mention may be an unconscience reason that the animal rights POV unsettles me. It validates my opinion anyway that **some** segments of the animal rights agenda put animals over people. Animals are essential to the earth-but some of these folks don’t give a good DARN about issues affecting people-and I am not necessarily recommending it the other way in the extreme either; and I feel this way even without the flaws of PETA. I condemn PETA for its shortsightedness but I respect the organization to some extent and feel that PETA IS too often a scapegoat for the movement. But they add fuel to the fire comparing the suffering of people to animals when Blacks and Jews have been ridiculed as animals. They need to consider the gripes of these groups.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 4:13 pm ¶

90. abw wrote:

    I think the economic realities of why some people eat certain foods continues to go unnoticed and without acknowledging those realities these debates will continue to be steeped in classism.

    Astute point. They complain about the dieting habits of average folks and minorities-but make the cost of green stuff out of their reach!Half the reason green consumption or the cause DON’T take off is precisely because supporters of these practices do not take into account how expensive this stuff can be to average poor or middle class folks for that matter that are living from hand to mouth as is or simply don’t caree. I know that what people care about they will make a priority- but all this expensive stuff adds up when it further contributes to debt and keep folks broke. But these animal rights organizations- and **some** progressive/leftist causes in general are too classist to take this into account-and I support the points of the left moreso than the right!

    I was defending my choice to conduct scientific research on animals and a classmate compared it to Nazi experimentation. Riiggght.

    Exactly- and I wonder if this admittedly noble defender of animal rights ever once considered that people would be used more than they already are if animal testing did not occur. Groups having less status would be targeted like minorities,indigenous peoples, the mentally challenged, etc.. in a systematic fashion. Or consumers would suffer the consequences of the products-more than they do now even with research! But then again, folks that support the reactionary aspects of PETA and the animal rights cause are “prolly” to racist/classist/xenophobic to even give a shit!

    They believe that animal and human suffering ARE equivalent, and therefore that comparing the two isn’t demeaning.

    The methods use to control both animals and people of color may have been similar-but considering the fact that Blacks and Jews have been ridiculed as animals to justify oppression and genocide throwing up the Holocaust and slavery in comparing the treatment between animals and persecuted human groups “still” ain’t good. It don’t help that people that still despise these two groups today still reference them as animals to denote them being subhuman. I think it is condescending and stupid of PETA to overlook the targeted groups stance on this issue and dismiss their concerns by upholding their self-righteous opinions.

    If they made it through, and start earning well, then(they should) enjoy it. Education should begin once they make it through.

    Some of us appreciate this, but when you have been awash in material things and have the means/education to live the often sheltered uber haute limousine-jet-elite liberal bobo way-and I use this sparingly, you forget that others see this lifestyle as an improvement when it was once unattainable or out of reach. I can’t express how I feel here clearly/concisely/or briefly enough.

    Anyway, regardless of the silliness of the said organization-it has both good and bad points like any ideology. So I take the good it offers and listen to the more critical/rational wing of the cause. With that said, they need to do betta-and this is probably an understatement.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 6:19 pm ¶

91. David Olivier wrote:

    Tim Wise: “Likewise, if we believe all life is equal in this regard, animal rights advocates would have to support, ultimately, the passage of laws that prohibited meat eating, and the prosecution of anyone caught eating meat.”

    I’m sorry if it will make you fall off your seat or something, but many vegetarians *are* in favor of outlawing the consumption of meat. There is nothing especially strange about this. Why should it be strange? Eating animals is a tradition; it is not a necessity, it is done because people like to do it, are used to doing it, live in cultures where it is accepted to do it, and are rarely brought to question the practice of it. Many such practices in the past seemed unquestionable before being challenged and then abolished a few decades later.

    The choice to eat meat or not is currently left to the eater, but it is a choice that does not concern only the eater. It concerns also the eaten. I like a taste, and for that I can kill someone. That is what we are currently allowed to do. I think that is very questionable, and that the case for abolishing meat is compelling.

    See http://meatabolition.blogspot.com/ for instance, or http://www.nomoremeat.org/en/

    Now you are right in a sense: vegetarians and animal rights people generally have been shy about stating clearly that their logic implies that meat should be abolished; as if there was something in the very idea to be ashamed of. But what is shameful in challenging a culturally accepted practice? You give absolutely no answer. You just say: It’s absurd. Why? Because you say so. Well, could you mount an argument, instead of just saying so?

    David

    Posted 02 Sep 2008 at 5:54 am ¶

92. Noah wrote:

    @Tim Wise

    Many vegans and animal rights advocates are prison abolitionists, so we favor decriminalizing things, not creating new crimes.

    Those long comments are indicative of backlashing. I say it so bluntly because I know you’re experienced in recognizing that for what it is. It’s not a value judgment.

    These blogs respond and explain why:

    The Vegan Ideal: Anti-Oppression and Law Enforcement

    The Partial Muse: ACK! Tim Wise, I love you, but…

    Posted 07 Sep 2008 at 9:25 am ¶

93. Katie wrote:

    I am a vegan but I do not like PETA because I feel they go to illegal extremes. I finally decided I wanted nothing to do with them any more the day I was on their site watching videos and found one of a woman stripping and let’s just say, she took off more than I thought she would. This is a site that many children look at. Although I am very much for animal rights, I am also very anti-porn. I was also bothered by all of the nude protesting and other sexual things they did to get attention. I would not want to go out in public with children for us to find all of these naked people out in public. I believe it is better to use your brains than your tits and that it is wrong to use sex to get what you want. Sex might sell, but so does casein. I also have a problem with their violence, terrorism and vandalism. Of course we vegans wouuld love to do some of those things but let’s be real, it is giving us all a bad name. Being psycho about it will only push people away. How many times have you heard someone say, “I went vegetarian three years ago when I heard PETA terrorized these people and got into the news. I checked it out and I decided to go vegetarian.” ? I have never heard of it. I do not disagree with everything they do. I agree that people act like certain things were wrong when done to humans but okay to do to animals. As an example, I thought it was hypocritical to be against slaves being whipped then taking their kids to the circus to see animals who live in cages being whipped and living in a life of servitude.

    Posted 23 Oct 2008 at 6:04 am ¶

Post a Comment