debunkingwhite: Peta's KKK ad

Tea and Crumpets (

crumpetsfortea) wrote in

debunkingwhite,
@ 2008-02-19 15:04:00

Peta's KKK ad
After Peta's "Holocaust on your Plate" campaign, I am not really surprised that their advertising department thinks nothing of appealing to genocide in order to advance their cause. They've started a new advertising campaign, in which the equate the American Kennel Club -- an organization that judges pedigree dogs -- to the KKK.

From my white point of view, this is disgusting and very racist. It's disgusting for Peta to use such a symbol of hate and fear so lightly; it's disgusting for them to equate dog breeders with the people who are responsible for some of the most horrendous hate crimes in the history of the United States. I think that equating a hateful, violent organization like the KKK to the AKC (a relatively benign organization that has never engaged in intimidation tactics, hate crimes or killings and routinely donates money to support the welfare of animals) essentially trivializes the crimes of the KKK; it also trivializes their victims by equating them with dogs and trivializes their suffering by equating systematic hate crimes, lynchings, intimidation and discrimination with docking a dog's tail.

I don't disagree with their essential message of their ABC campaign that it is better to adopt an animal from a shelter than to buy one, but I think that this ad is absolutely disgusting. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the matter (a link to the ad can be found here. I'm specifically interested to know whether you agree with me that the ad is racist, and whether you agree with my reasoning.

(Post a new comment)

	apis_cerana 2008-02-20 01:21 am UTC (link)
	I don't know if it's racist, but it's certainly Not Right to compare dog-showing/breeding to the KKK; same goes for slaughterhouses being equated to the holocaust. Yeah, some slaughterhouses are awful -- but why do they have to compare it to a tragedy like the holocaust? It's disrespectful as all hell. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	animalfreedom 2008-02-21 05:05 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think the comparisons should be made either, but I am curious as to what is underlying your reasoning that it's "certainly Not Right" and "disrespectful as all hell" because that is strong language. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	existentme 2008-02-20 01:26 am UTC (link)
	Yes, of course, I agree both with the fact the ad is racist, and with your reasoning as to why - I can't imagine anyone not - but then again, the ad is apparently running. It's like the KKK getting airplay that actually puts them in a better light. Repugnant, really. (Reply to this)

	Agree mothwentbad 2008-02-20 01:27 am UTC (link)
	Yeah. Aside from what you've already said, screaming at someone that they're a dirty filthy thoroughbred supremacist is a pretty ridiculous way of getting them on your side. Just show us a few mutts and take a minute to explain the merits of adoption. Honestly, dogs market themselves. They're dogs. (Reply to this)

napthia9
2008-02-20 01:34 am UTC (link)

Ugh, PETA. Yet another example of why PETA's not getting my money, no matter what they support. They have a history of using sexist ads and arguments that trivialize racism that really, really, really distracts from the work they're trying to do with regards to animals. It's really discouraging that PETA would consistently alienate so many people from the cause of animal rights. Goddamnit.

I'm seconding what mothwentbad said- cute fluffy animals market themselves. You don't need to trivialize racism and uphold sexism to teach people what being a responsible pet owner means.

(Reply to this)

littlebutfierce
2008-02-20 02:07 am UTC (link)

I don't like PETA, & I think that using these tactics are definitely going to alienate more people, including people of color, than they draw in. I am a vegan, & a person of color, & I don't find their tactics useful @ all.

That said, if you don't think that a human's life is worth more than an animal's life, then their basic logic isn't that far off. The AKC legitimizes puppy mills, for one thing, & legitimizes breeding (when there are thousands of animals put to sleep every day b/c the shelter is full). I think any money the AKC donates to help dogs is outweighed by this.

But I think using the KKK as an example, like their Holocaust & slavery campaigns, is a bad idea b/c comparing POCs (& Jews) to animals has been such an entrenched part of racist violence; it's really hard to shake off the feeling that being compared to an animal could be anything but the vilest evil. I don't think my life, or your life, or any human's life, is worth more (or less) than an animal's life--but PETA's campaigns still make me cringe. If they are trying to get folks to empathize w/the plight of animals, there are more effective, less offensive ways to do it.

There's a great post at the Sistah Vegan Project, here, talking about some of this stuff.

Edited at 2008-02-20 02:48 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	crumpetsfortea 2008-02-20 04:47 am UTC (link)
	Thanks a lot for the comments and the link. (Reply to this) (Parent)

futurebird
2008-02-20 05:19 am UTC (link)

I really think the Sistah Vegan Project is still missing some of the layers of the issue. It's not that people are just "traumatized" and therefore they can't "understand" the metaphor. It's that there is a fundamental difference in *agency* in the civil rights movements vs. the animal rights movements.

We humans advocate for the rights of animals on their behalf because they can't do it themselves.

But, when an oppressed group of people seeks rights they speak for themselves. The comparison is insulting because it denies human agency. This is why no one wants to be compared to an animal-- it means you are at the mercy of humans-- which... sucks.

Edited at 2008-02-20 05:37 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

undeconstructed
2008-02-20 05:45 am UTC (link)

many disabled folks dont have the ability to self-advocate, and/or are kept from self-advocating via ableism, and end up relying on other humans to do it "for" us. so in many ways the issue of lack of agency follow into the human population as well. ive heard many times that the overlapping issues of racism collide pretty intensely for disabled POC in terms of agency.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	futurebird 2008-02-20 05:59 am UTC (link)
	But, the thing is disabled people do advocate for themselves. The animal rights movement is necessarily paternalistic, human rights movements need not be this way (should not IMNSHO.) The comparison implies a kind of paternalism-- It might make sense to compare the plight of animals to that of, I don't know, babies or something. But not grown people. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

undeconstructed
2008-02-20 06:29 am UTC (link)

and what i was saying was that, while some of us do advocate for ourselves, the reality for *many* disabled folks is that this is quite simply *not* the case. there is absolutely paternalism at play with this. it is an experience disabled folks encounter whether we're self-advocating or not, but especially for those who cant.
i persnally dont think its right to compare the plight of non-human animals to human animals, because its the human animals that are the single cause of harm for non-human animals

what is IMNSHO?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	existentme 2008-02-20 01:10 pm UTC (link)
	in my not so humble opinion. (Reply to this) (Parent)

thanks...

chinaski
2008-02-20 06:55 am UTC (link)

for making a good point to me... my immediate reply to this was that in my opinion yes dogs = humans because I respect all life equally (not completely but to a much greater extent than my fellow human). I refuse to acknowledge the insultingness of human/animal comparison because of my hatred for the paradigm. I wouldn't have thought of that aspect of being at the mercy of humans, so I gotta agree with you now for sure.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	littlebutfierce 2008-02-20 12:40 pm UTC (link)
	it means you are at the mercy of humans-- which... sucks. Heh, yeah, exactly. I can see your point, but historically, enslaved people didn't have much agency either... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	futurebird 2008-02-20 03:10 pm UTC (link)
	enslaved people didn't have much agency either You should look at the history again. You're way off You'd be shocked what people can do in slavery. The clearest examples are the numerous revolts. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	littlebutfierce 2008-02-20 06:39 pm UTC (link)
	No, you're right--I didn't meant to imply that no one revolted, just that, under slavery, many people were very limited in their agency. One could note that animals perform their own acts of resistance--like escaping from slaughterhouse trucks, etc.--as well, despite a comparative lack of agency compared to humans. (Reply to this) (Parent)

animalfreedom
2008-02-21 05:53 pm UTC (link)

I agree that the human animal rights movement has an accountability problem in that it's composed entirely of allies. Animal rights people need to take extra steps to try to figure out what animals want and to figure out how to work in solidarity with them.

But I think it's speciesism coming out in the view that animals are powerless victims, that they are akin to babies, but not adults with agency. As

littlebutfierce pointed out, animals regularly resist. If one sees animals as agents, one can see their resistance all the time. Check out, for example, When Animals Resist Their Exploitation: Kasatka, the Sea World Orca by Jason Hribal and this deer doesn't look so helpless. If animals didn't resist their exploitation, we wouldn't need to have so many justifications for exploiting them. If animals didn't resist, we wouldn't need to use so many physical ways to restrain them (fences, leashes, bridles, nets, etc.).

The statement that no one wants to be compared to an animal doesn't take into account how there are many cultures where being compared to an animal is an honor. That in white supremacist capitalist culture it can be an insult to be compared to an animal is a reflection of speciesism. That people of color have been compared to animals as a way to oppress humans shows one way in which the oppression of animals and the oppression of humans intersect. If animals weren't viewed as subordinate, comparisons to them wouldn't be an insult.

I don't think unique oppressions should be compared to one another. Anything that exploits the oppression of people of color for white folk's own financial and political gain must be stopped. Anything attempting to devalue people of color must be stopped--but I think that continuing to devalue animals in the process misses another opportunity to foster liberation for everyone.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

*sigh*

futurebird
2008-02-22 01:14 am UTC (link)

The statement that no one wants to be compared to an animal doesn't take into account how there are many cultures where being compared to an animal is an honor.

I'll put it to you another way no human wants to be dehumanized, anymore than a a dog would want to be de-dogized. The common sacred aspect of being alive that exists between humans and other animals isn't the same thing as shared humanity between different people. (or the shared doggishness of different dogs)

In fact, if you look at different animals of different species, the way to be respectful of them as living creates differs depending on what kind of creature they are. Some animals have more complex emotions than others. Some just need food and shelter-- some cannot thrive without social interaction.

This is why I won't use the word "speciesism" (and frankly find this word offensive) the word draws parallels that don't really exist-- that's not always the intention of everyone who uses it-- but, too often it is the intention. So, it's implied. I like to keep my distance from that kind of sloppy and insulting reasoning.

Edited at 2008-02-22 01:18 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)

futurebird
2008-02-20 05:09 am UTC (link)

I have trapped and adopted stray kittens here in the Bronx. I've been trying to get a TNR programing going. I'd never ever get a AKC dog, I think breeding is wrong.

I really OUGHT to be a member of PETA.

But I never will be. Never. Because they keep pulling this kind of crap and are too dense to understand why it's wrong.

The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too!” They argued, “We’re fully human too!” Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it. -Peter Staudenmaier (link)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

out_fox
2008-02-20 11:42 am UTC (link)

IAWTC.

Especially in relation to their references to animal cruelty being "like" the Holocaust. Seeing as how genocide extends beyond the murders of members of the targetted demographic; into erasing and slandering all evidence of their cultures, languages and faith *that animals don't have* .

I suspect that many of PETA's actual campaigners DO get why it's wrong, even if their more general white supporters don't, and are choosing to do it anyway because of the gains to them.

I've heard their members - when called by people from other animal welfare groups who they couldn't play dumb with -suddenly switch argument from "ah, you're just not getting my animal rights analogy" to "yeah well we have a higher profile than your group, so it works, and some of my best friends are POC-Jewish-Feminists anyway [nyah!]"

It's embracing the profits of playing off other politics for that white liberal funding dollar, pretty much.

Edited at 2008-02-20 12:01 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

animalfreedom
2008-02-21 04:38 pm UTC (link)

I believe direct comparisons between any oppressions are wrong because each form of oppression is unique. I am not arguing that the comparisons should be made.

I do want to point out, however, that the statement that animals do not have culture and language is factually incorrect. (I don't know about faith. I think that is entirely possible, but I'm not sure how we would document that.) The claim that animals lack these things is something humans use to justify the exploitation of other animals. They are speciesist myths that try to say animals deserve the treatment they receive.

Stating that what PETA is talking about -- the systematic breeding of animals for profit -- is animal "cruelty" rather than acknowledging it as the systematic exploitation of animals is another form of speciesism. What animal rights advocates are objecting to is not individual acts of cruelty or the treatment of individual animals, but the entire system of human supremacy that says that animals are here for humans.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

awww.

chinaski
2008-02-20 06:58 am UTC (link)

As a radical I can see their point. What a massive fail to think they'd gain any friends with this ad. It' said that just getting attention of any kind is good advertising and this just makke me wonder how much PETA is really just functioning as a money-making entity rather than caring about communicating ideas of compassion and influencing the people...

hah, I think they've heard that crit before.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: awww.

lapetitepaumee
2008-02-20 05:19 pm UTC (link)

As a radical I can see their point.
I don't personally define radicalism in that way. Though I agree that shocking tactics are defining features of radical action, I still think that it's feasible that the thinking behind that action is often careful, well-thought-through, and non-reactionary, which this PETA campaign is not.

This advert doesn't surprise me in the least. PETA's tactics make me actively want to wear fur, just to piss them off.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: awww. lapetitepaumee 2008-02-20 05:19 pm UTC (link)
	In fact that's a good idea: we should collectively write to PETA claiming that for every racist, sexist and otherwise highly insensitive and insulting ad they produce, we'll each buy a fur coat. That should stop 'em. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: awww. futurebird 2008-02-20 08:19 pm UTC (link)
	two wrongs... oh never mind (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: awww. lapetitepaumee 2008-02-21 12:24 am UTC (link)
	ach come on, I'm being totally facetious. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: awww. futurebird 2008-02-20 08:20 pm UTC (link)
	PETA's tactics make me actively want to wear fur, just to piss them off. I know what you mean. They make me want to make other people think I don't give a damn about these issues since I don't want to be associated with them. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: awww.

lapetitepaumee
2008-02-21 12:37 am UTC (link)

They make me want to make other people think I don't give a damn about these issues since I don't want to be associated with them.
That's a shame, isn't it. I'm actually not that hot on animal rights for related reasons - I just hate seeing all this energy spent on animal rights when women and people of colour are treated so despicably the world over. It's particularly salient in the UK, where the cliche of us being animal lovers rings relatively true on a sentimenal level, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is one of the most ridiculously rich charities in the country; and yet they've closed down around 1/3 of the country's rape crisis centres.

I know polarising causes is divisive and wrong. But in terms of the emotional/actual energy I have to spend, and the energy that I see animal rights people expending, I want to transfer it all. over. to. the most vulnerable and urgent of human rights, as soon as possible!

Obviously this only stands good if you take a vaguely humanist standpoint. I'm critical of humanism also as an undifferentiated white male-formulated doctrine, but in terms of the primacy of the individual human it blandly describes my position... I fully expect to be told I am wrong not to invest in animal rights, and actually I think that when it comes to pure ideology I *am* wrong. But when it comes to my priorities and my resources, I'm just being honest about where I will expend them first.

Ok, that was long. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: awww.

animalfreedom
2008-02-21 04:58 pm UTC (link)

I'm not saying that the current mainstream animal rights movement embodies what I'm about to say, but I think it's important to acknowledge that there are some feminist animal rights advocates who do make the connections and there is a great deal of potential for coalition building. Part of the way in which women are exploited is by animalizing them. So the oppression of animals is harming women, and the liberation of animals is tied to the liberation of women as well because animals are feminized in order to make them more consumable.

And I think it's particularly interesting that the issue that started this thread is the breeding of dogs. That is, the forced impregnation of female dogs. The exploitation of female reproductive capabilities is at the heart of animal exploitation.

I don't see there being a zero-sum game between people working on animal rights and people working on women's issues. Certainly it's easy to be a vegan while focusing on women's issues, and animal rights people have plenty of opportunities to have a feminist agenda.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	good point chinaski 2008-02-20 10:10 pm UTC (link)
	I used the word completely wrong here - I meant extremist on this one issue. (In general I'm not a radical because I believe one's actions must match one's beliefs to the best possible ability.) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: good point lapetitepaumee 2008-02-21 12:38 am UTC (link)
	Oh, ta. :) I'm only just leaning towards radicalism myself so I'm by no means on sure ground when it comes to definitions or characteristics all the same... (Reply to this) (Parent)

	born_stubborn 2008-02-20 02:11 pm UTC (link)
	I can't stand PETA. Their use of women for their ads and their campaigns aimed at children disgust me, too, so this shit is par for the course. I'm all for the ethical treatment of animals, but their tactics, IMHO/FMWPOV, are just as terrible as the treatment of animals by the meat/fur industries. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel, as usual, as far as tactics go. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	maniacalsecret 2008-02-20 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	iawtc (Reply to this) (Parent)

eracerhead
2008-02-20 02:48 pm UTC (link)

PETA's analogy is logically flawed. The actions of the Klan are to subjugate a peer group, the actions of AKC do not involve subjugating a group that is inherently subordinate.

There is at least one unstated axiom that needs to be made to hold this analogy true: That either animals are equivalent to humans as peers, or black people are inherently subordinate, like animals, or both. Being as kind as I can, PETA's view is probably the former, so their statement is likely due to carelessness. Their flaw comes in the assumption of peerage, something that is not bought into by most people, and so the statement is interpreted as racist.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

littlebutfierce
2008-02-20 06:40 pm UTC (link)

That either animals are equivalent to humans as peers

Well, yes, that is a general axiom held to be true by most animal rights groups, whether or not they agree w/PETA on other positions or on their tactics (which many AR activists don't).

(My point being, I think a lot of people would resist a non-speciesist view of humans & animals being equal in worth, no matter how framed. And the reaction to PETA's particular framework for putting forth this analogy is a separate issue.)

Edited at 2008-02-20 06:42 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)

another angle?

my_glass_house
2008-02-20 06:24 pm UTC (link)

i'm wondering about another level to this critique. tell me if this makes sense...

in equating the akc with the kkk, peta is also neglecting to note the many other institutions in which racism plays out. while the akc is maybe more like "the law" or something in terms of dogs, the kkk is more a group of individuals who do a bunch of really messed up stuff (albeit with some very powerful people involved...) i guess the point is that it would make more sense to compare to akc to, like, the u.s. government or something, a group that is creating/enacting structural racism. so they're basically reinforcing the notion that individual or group-of-individuals racism is the most insidious kind, when structural racism is something that really really needs to be paid attention to.

sorry that wasn't terribly eloquent and maybe i'm reading way too far into this.

for the record i'm white and a vegan.

(Reply to this)

animalfreedom
2008-02-21 06:38 pm UTC (link)

I do not endorse the video. PETA is a racist organization, so it's not like they're out there working for racial justice, and this video represents PETA appropriating the suffering and oppression (past and present) of African Americans to further their own financial and political gain.

But since you asked if people agree with your reasoning, I have to say no because it contains a lot of speciesist assumptions.

Dog breeders are not benign. We are talking about forced breeding of dogs and puppy mills as

littlebutfierce pointed out. "Pure bred" dogs are inbred. They suffer loads of health problems like not being able to breathe, painful joint conditions, and having fungus grow in their skin folds. The whole concept is inherently objectionable.

it trivializes their suffering by equating systematic hate crimes, lynchings, intimidation and discrimination with docking a dog's tail.

I think this statement obscures the broader picture because animals are being systematically exploited. They are being confined, forcibly impregnated, having their bodily integrity violated, not allowed to choose their own social groups, and so on. Their lives are controlled at every level. This is a business. They are systematically exploiting animals for their own gain. These dogs can sell for thousands of dollars.

The issue is broader than just the AKC and PETA itself is of course speciesist because they endorse pet ownership. If you would like to learn more about the problems with pet ownership, check out the writings of Charles Danten, the angry vet.

Bottom line, there are plenty of reasons to object to the video that don't rest on the idea that non-human animal suffering is inherently less worthy of concern than human suffering or ignore the fact that there is a system of human supremacy that is oppressing fellow animals for our benefit.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

futurebird
2008-02-22 01:29 am UTC (link)

Okay I've read this stuff about pets before and it make me throw my hands up in the air. Why? Because in the case of adopted shelter animals, or animals taken from urban streets they'd be dead if they weren't pets.

Of course things like puppy mills contribute to the over abundance of animals without homes. And we could be braver about finding other solutions and places for some animals to live.

But you're telling me that the stray deli cat is being oppressed by the sandwich man? Seriously?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	littlebutfierce 2008-02-23 01:24 am UTC (link)
	Because in the case of adopted shelter animals, or animals taken from urban streets they'd be dead if they weren't pets. Yes. We have an obligation to take care of the animals we've domesticated & created an overpopulation for. But we shouldn't be breeding them. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs