Chickens and Black People
You could devote an entire blog to some of the dumbass campaigns by PETA, but I like this article about their latest campaign for the quote at the end from a spokesman for the NAACP. He gives it the amount of attention and seriousness that it deserves :
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is reconsidering a campaign comparing images of animal abuse with those of slavery after complaints from civil rights groups and others.The animal rights group’s “Animal Liberation” campaign included 12 panels juxtaposing pictures of black people in chains with shackled elephants and other provocative images.
. . .
One panel showed a black civil rights protester being beaten at a lunch counter beside a photo of a seal being bludgeoned. Another panel, titled “Hanging,” showed a graphic photo of a white mob surrounding two lynched black people, their bodies hanging from tree limbs, while a nearby picture showed a cow hanging in a slaughterhouse.
. . .
However, officials with the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People aren’t buying it.“PETA operates by getting publicity any way they can,” said John White, an NAACP spokesman. “They’re comparing chickens to black people?”
By the way, for future reference, if you’re going to have a protest that evokes slavery and civil rights, you could probably choose a more sensitive title than “We Are All Animals“. Jeez, I know PETA’s hearts are usually in the right place, but every time I read about one of their campaigns, I get the mental image of a bunch of college students so filled with righteous outrage that they have absolutely no idea how the things they say will be received in the real world.
29 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
in other PeTA news- Pam Anderson only agreed to being Roasted if Comedy Central made a huge donation to PeTA. I think that’s cool that they went along with that. Her Roast was ridiculous and stupid, but it’s totally worth watching to see what a complete nutcase Courtney “CLEAN AND SOBER FOR A YEAR” Love is… right up to the end when she almost fell on her fucking face.
I agree that PeTA is often full of bad ideas, but they also have some very good campaigns that don’t ever make it into the media. There are many other things that they do that never get publicity. Don’t blame them if the media only pays attention when Ms. Anderson or David Cross take their clothes off- or when they make analogies that offend people who are looking for things to be offended by.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 10:05 am
another point that EVERYONE in the media fails to report is that the “questionable” campaign compares mistreatment of animals to many different examples of human suffering- opressed women, child labor, native americans, and slavery of blacks, women, and children.
But the way the media (including this blog) report it, you’d think that PeTA was full of racist assholes with a message that blacks are no different than chickens. That is not the message they are trying to present. Quite the opposite.
It’s irresponsible and lazy reporting to present this story in such a slanted way. But, then, you’ve always had an anti-PeTA agenda.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 10:15 am
I think the point is: when a minority has been traditionally been called subhuman, to link their opression to that of animals, basically can be seen as calling them – whoa. Subhuman! Who woulda seen that coming?
you’d think that PeTA was full of racist assholes with a message that blacks are no different than chickens. That is not the message they are trying to present. Quite the opposite.
Yes, the opposite – that chickens are no different than black people. OK. Wow, I’m sure black people will see it totally different now! Thanks for the clarification.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2005 @ 10:34 am
Thanks to PETA, those of us who spend all day “looking for things to be offended by” don’t have to look very far.
True, but I did provide a link for those wishing to see the parts that offended me personally in context.
So wait a second…you’re saying that my interpretation is the opposite of what PETA is trying to convey. Wow.
When I go to the Animal Liberation online exhibit, the slide “Hanging” has a photo of a cow hanging in a slaughterhouse next to a photo of two lynched black men hanging from a tree. The accompanying quote says :
That’s where I go the (apparently mistaken) impression that PETA views the deaths of lynched black people on the same level as the deaths of animals (like chickens).
Now I suppose some could take a slanted view of these campaigns as an attempt by PETA to somehow downplay the human suffering, but to take that view would imply that PETA has a dismissive view towards animal cruely (which is clearly not the case). The obvious point here is that we’ve all agreed that slavery, lynching, etc. are wrong, and that animal suffering is equally wrong. I don’t think this ad campaign makes PETA racist any more than their “Holocaust on your plate” campaign made them anti-semites. No, it makes them fucking stupid and insensitive. Or as I put it in the post :
If that view represents “irresponsible and lazy reporting” or the result of an “anti-PeTA agenda”, let me remind you that this site is one in which I express my opinions. I go out of my way to provide examples of why I’ve reached the opinions that I have, but if you’d like to try to change my mind, go for it.
Comment by greg — August 17, 2005 @ 10:49 am
“OK. Wow, I’m sure black people will see it totally different now! Thanks for the clarification.”
no… my point is that the way this story has been covered (by media and blogs) you’d think that PeTA’s intent was to compare black people to chickens. The actual campaign is comparing the history of opressed Animals to the history of opressed People. The intent (and the agenda of most of PeTA’s campaigns) is to say that Animals deserve the same respect and treatment that people do. The intent is to make a comparison that humanizes animals in a way that can make people understand that animals suffer the same way that people do. You may not agree with that, but that is the intent of the campaign.
Saying that an animal physically suffers the same way a human does, is a very different message than “chickens are the same as black people.”
my point is that i think the responsible way to report this story is to report the WHOLE story- not just picking out certain questionable parts and presenting them in a way that looks more controversial than it really is. That is exactly what we fault the media for doing all the time.
I also urge you to actually look at the PeTA campaign, and you’ll see that it compares animals to many different kinds of human oppression- not just black slavery and lynching. In the greater context of the whole campaign, it is hard to say that it is as simple as comparing blacks to chickens. the campaign is trying to say that animals are suffering the way that people have suffered in the past.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 10:56 am
greg- the title of your post is “Chickens and Black People”. I’m faulting you for focusing on that part of the campaign, rather than presenting to full story. Why not be angry that they compare Pigeons and Women? Or Native Americans and cattle? When you focus on that one part of the story, it seems like your slant is to paint PeTA as irresponsible and insensitive. You also fail to mention that the campaign is sactually being rethought after some feedback PeTA received from test groups.
When you focus on one part of a larger story and presenting it as the whole story, you are not being fair to the subject. Remember when the media decided to attack MoveOn.org over that Hitler comercial? By focusing on that one little mistake, the media was able to slander MoveOn to the point that a lot of people hate them, when they do a lot of good.
I’m not trying to change your mind on this issue. I don’t always agree with what PeTA does either. But i was trying to say that i think it’s irresponsible to slander someone without presenting the whole story. It is your site where you get to editorialize all you want, and i applaud you for it. But i disagree with the way you slanted this story.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 11:09 am
correction: When you focus on that one part of the story, it seems like your slant is to paint PeTA as insensitive to black people by comparing them to animals.
That is the intent of your post- and you achieved it… what i’m saying is that that is not the whole story.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 11:12 am
and one more thing…
I agree with you on that. PeTA makes a lot of mistakes and they are a bit disconnected from reality at times.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 11:15 am
Look, black people don’t like their suffering compared to that of animals, or vice versa. (Hell, a lot of ‘em don’t like the plight of gays compared to their struggle!) That is reality. That has to be taken into account in any campaign. Likewise, Jews don’t like the Holocaust compared to the slaughter of animals.
When one uses these comparisons, any anger or misinterpretation of intent is not the fault of the viewer – it is the fault of the people producing the campaign. It’s funny, but people who are bad at conveying their intent through art always say “but that wasn’t my intent!” Who cares? The art obviously then did not convey the intended intent: therefore, it is bad art. It didn’t work as intended. Try something else.
The fact is that most people don’t get all worked up about animal rights. This campaign also basically says that if you eat meat, you’re a KKK NAZI!!!!! Not gonna get anywhere with that. Sorry. That’s just the way it is.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2005 @ 11:23 am
okay… how about this- people have tried to ban Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for it’s repeated use of the “n-word”. Take one of those lines from the book out of context, and you will be offended. Read the entire book and you can’t say that Mark Twain was being irresponsible and insensitive in the use of that word, can you?
The PeTA campaign conveys its intent perfectly fine to me, but I can understand why some people may find offense in some parts of it, if they take those parts out of context.
yeah and back in the good ol’ days people used to say that lynching black people is “just the way it is”
Comment by mona — August 17, 2005 @ 11:49 am
Well, the post’s title is a reference to the quote from the NAACP spokesman, which I thought was perfectly dismissive and amusing.
As far as your repeated claim that I’m irresponsible to focus on this particular part of PETA’s campaign, let me point out that (1) I read the intro and watched the entire slideshow at PETA’s site before writing a single word of this post and (1) that doesn’t make the parts that I “singled out” any less offensive. For the record, I’m also offended by the following juxtapositions in PETA’s exhibit :
In fact, the majority of slides in the exhibit in question relate specifically to the plight of African-Americans, so I reject your assertion that I’m only focusing on “one part of the story”. Even if I did, it’s not like the parts of this exhibit that I find especially offensive are any more tolerable in context.
For what it’s worth, if I had this post to do over again, I would probably focus on the last slide which features a photo of Ota Benga next to one of a monkey wearing a dress. Benga’s story is a heart-breaking stain on our country’s history :
I was hoping PETA would elaborate a little more about what the similarity is between Benga’s tragic life and a monkey wearing a dress, but the closest they come to an explanation is this Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. quote that accompanies the photos :
Who knew that MLK spent so much time in that Birmingham jail worrying about animal rights?
Comment by greg — August 17, 2005 @ 11:50 am
weird… that last post by “mona” was actually from me- tomN! we use the same computer sometimes.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 11:51 am
Heh. I figured you two were just doing a tag team sorta debate.
Comment by greg — August 17, 2005 @ 11:56 am
TomN – your point regarding Huckleberry Finn is tangental at best.
“Sorry. That’s just the way it is.”
“yeah and back in the good ol’ days people used to say that lynching black people is ‘just the way it is’”
Well, we’re right back where we started. Equating the lyching of blacks to chickens hanging in a Chinese restaurant. If you refuse to see the point being made, then what can I do about it?
BTW, I do see the point being made by PETA – but they are doing it in a hysterical, sensationalistic way that shows extreme insensitivity to the plight of human minorities. Their intent is to elevate animal suffering to that of humans. Here’s the thing, though: people don’t buy that. They don’t. Most people see a qualitative difference between a human and an animal conciousness. They really do. And they aren’t going to be made to feel evil for doing so. If your reply to this is that people used to say the same about blacks, then you are only proving my point further.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
that may have been a more interesting post… i guess my main problem with the original post is that it is dismissive of PeTA’s campaign on such a basic level. To be offended by the “chickens and black people” angle is to make judgement based on a gut reation to the imagery without really analyzing the subject to understand the full context. Which is, in a sense, the same thing that PeTA does when they don’t examine the greater context of what they do. It’s a failure on PeTA’s part to understand how people will react to it on a gut level (something they are correcting by re-evalutating the campaign)… but it’s also a failure on the part of the viewer who only reacts on a gut level and doesn’t even attempt to understand the larger message being presented.
that’s a rather lazy way to approach art. that’s like saying a conversation doesn’t require any listening… art requires more effort on the part of the viewer than that. art is communication and often requires an active participation from the viewer.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 12:10 pm
PETA has the reputation of being extremist in defense of animal rights. That is fine if you want to preach to the choir or vegans. However, if the goal is to convert others, the ad campaign should bring attention to the message not the messenger. You boys quit fighting, go out and have a great big bacon cheeseburger (or falafel if you must). It will really smooth you out.
Comment by Becky — August 17, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
actually you’re just proving my point. and i could say that you’re the one refusing to see the point…
but oh well, we don’t agree on that issue. I believe that animals deserve to not suffer the abuses of an irresponsible corporate food industry. I don’t take my animal rights beliefs to the extremes that PeTA does- I see a difference in animals and people, but not as much of a difference as most people do- but i do believe that change in our culture’s view of animals is needed.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
TomN – I should clarify – with fine art, or avant garde – or “difficult” art, yes, it does require an investment from the viewer/listener. And it is hard to tell what is good and bad, since it is all so subjective.
But, when you are talking graphic art as part of a campaign – it needs to be easily interpreted, hard to misinterpret, clear, and unambiguous, or it is bad. Politically oriented graphic art has a purpose – delivering a message and persuading people to agree with that message. And if it does not achieve the purpose that it was designed for, and in fact alienates people and does your cause harm – then it is bad art.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
I don’t take my animal rights beliefs to the extremes that PeTA does- I see a difference in animals and people, but not as much of a difference as most people do- but i do believe that change in our culture’s view of animals is needed.
Well, that’s the problem – NOBODY except PETA takes their animal rights beliefs to the extremes that PETA does.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
i agree… and i think that the message of the PeTA campaign is clear and easy to interpret UNLESS you pick on certain aspects of it individually.
not to keep beating a dead horse, but i have one more thing to pick on with Dave:
i don’t see how it is tangential- Huck Finn was written with the intent of calling attention to the unpopular idea that Blacks are People, too. It was controversial in it’s time, and continues to be controversial today. At the time, it was often banned in the South because it offended the people who did not agree that Black people were People. Those Southerners who enjoy a good lynching, disagreed with the concept of humanizing black people. Some people today disagree with the use of the “n-word” in the book. So, people that disagree with the use of that word are unable to see the greater context of the book.
As I see it- this PeTA campaign is attempting the same message about animals (although not as eloquently as Mr. Twain’s great work). This campagin was created with the intent of calling attention to the unpopular idea that Animals suffer, too . That is a controversial viewpoint because people like to eat meat and go to the circus. People who enjoy a good cheese-burger disagree with the concept of humanizing animals. And people who are easily offended, with a gut reaction to the imagery of the PeTA campaign, are unable to see the greater context of the campaign.
I understand you disagree with that “animals are people” concept, and I’m not trying to compare meat-eaters to lynch mobs or slave-owners (though ask me about the corporate meat industry and i might make the comparison). I’m simply trying to compare the PeTA campaign controversey to the controverseys over the book Huck Finn.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 12:54 pm
TOmN-
I get your point. In fact, by not elaborating on my statement about it being tangental at best, I kind of knew that I wasn’t up to backing it up. So, touche.
But, blacks are and always have been, in fact, human. They are the same species as all other humans. They have speech and intellects and song. It always was a lie to say that they weren’t. Cows ARE NOT human. One can say they are as much as they want, but they aren’t.
i agree… and i think that the message of the PeTA campaign is clear and easy to interpret UNLESS you pick on certain aspects of it individually.
I suppose if you’re a middle-class urban dwelling white dude, you might think that it would take an intentional effort to be offended by it. But, not everybody is going to see it that way, especially the historically oppressed minorities depicted in the campaign.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
Lemme tell you a story –
Chris, the son of a guy I work with was traveling in Costa Rica. Some of the local boys saw a lizard on a tree. They started taking turns throwing rocks at it. One of them eventually hit it, and it fell to the ground. The lizard was still alive, though partially crushed.
Chris, the American, suggested that the boys at least kill the lizard so that it wouldn’t suffer further. The Costa Ricans’ response was, “no, we don’t do that.” They simply did not concern themselves at all with the lizard’s grotesque suffering. They didn’t care at all.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2005 @ 1:31 pm
and the point of that story is?
1) when we see suffering, we should ignore it?
2) when we see suffereing that we should call attention to it?
which of those answers applies to you, and which one applies to PeTA?
it is my opinion that the more enlightened a culture becomes, the less suffering it causes to it’s people, it’s resources, and it’s environment (and by resources and environment, i mean to include the animals).
anyway… it all boils down to a difference in core beliefs. you believe that humans are intrinsically more valuable than animals. i do not. There’s no way i, or PeTA, can convince you otherwise. It’s like trying to convince a pro-life activist that using stem cells is not murder- you are asking someone to change the core of their beliefs and that is very dificult to do.
Comment by tomN! — August 17, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
The point of the story is that people react and empathize with animals to different degrees, depending on upbringing, and on the animal. And also to elicit a reaction.
Yes, I do believe that a human life is intrinsically more valuable than an animals. For example, given the choice between saving a human or a dog from, say a burning wreck, I would choose the human. Can you honestly say that you would have agonize over the choice, or would you have to flip a coin? Or would you choose the dog over the human, without hesitation?
Would you marry a sheep? Would you, since there is no difference in the value of an animal or a human, would you put animals on trial for crimes, as you would a human? Would you allow dogs to vote for president? What if it voted Republican?
The fact is that there are differences between humans and animals. Do animals deserve to suffer needlessly? No. I think harming animals for fun is wrong. Do I think that animal suffering should be minimized? Yes. Do I think that the industrial meat industry is reprehensible? Yes.
But, in this argument PETA are the pro-lifers who can’t see the difference between a stem-cell and a human.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2005 @ 3:03 pm
I stopped taking PETA seriously years ago, when they complained that dressing chimpanzees in human clothing for television shows or commercials was, and I quote, “demeaning to the chimps.”
Sheer absurdity.
Comment by Ken — August 17, 2005 @ 3:43 pm
I’m a novice when it comes to Animal Rights, though I’m working on clarifying my personal moral position. I’m not a member of PETA (or any other activist group) but I do emphasize with their position. I do eat meat (though not pork), at least for now. So I can see both sides of the argument.
The problem I have with the dismissal of PETA’s arguments and methods by some posters here is that they fail to realize the breadth of the division that lays between accepting the tenets of the Animal Rights movement and the status quo in this country. Without going into too many details, Philosophers like Pete Singer strongly believe that that the distinction between human and other animals is as arbitrary as the lines between whites and other races, or men and women. That is, (and Singer is explicitly states this,) Speciesism is literally on par with Racism or Sexism.
You can accept this stance or deny it. The argument has been going on for well over a century. The thing is, IF you do come to accept the notion of Speciesism, the whole world suddenly goes topsy turvy. If the moral status of animals is acknowledged (that is, they are seen as having equal, though different, rights as humans), then, in the words of J.M. Coetzee’s fictional character, Elizabeth Costello, the status quo is “an enterprise of degradation, cruelty, and killing which rivals anything that the Third Reich was capable of.” If you don’t think animals have rights, this is a horrendous statement. But if you have made that ethical leap, then it becomes a statement of fact, an obvious one at that.
It’s not easy to inhabit the gray area between the two points of view. No, strike that, it is easy, but only through willful ignorance. Once you begin to actively think about the morality of the situation (and that’s the stage I’m at), it’s nearly impossible to straddle the fence. Because the fundamental argument is whether the line between “human” and “animal” is arbitrary. I can respect those who have thought about the issue and decided that, in the words of Dave, “[there exists] a qualitative difference between a human and an animal conciousness.” But I don’t waste my time arguing with people who choose not to even think about the question and instead apout as baseless of a rebuttal as “that’s just the way it is.” Actually it just occurred to me that that’s a lyric from a Sting song, later redone by Tupac (Changes). If you know what Tupac was singing about, you know why the irony is making me grin right now.
This is what happens when I post a comment at work: I start out writing a little blurb and an hour and a half later I have to force myself to stop writing.
Comment by Mike K — August 19, 2005 @ 8:43 am
wow… i mean… WOW! that is the stupidest rebuttal i’ve ever heard… sounds like something Rick Santorum would say. i think this conversation is over now.
Thanks to Mike K for giving his very well thought out and eloquent “2 cents”.
Comment by tomN! — August 19, 2005 @ 9:02 am
I notice that you ignored my question about decided who to rescue from a burning wreck. I’ll assume you’d let the human die and rescue the dog.
Comment by Dave — August 19, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
protien-starved “righteous outrage”
yup
Comment by mdhatter — August 20, 2005 @ 2:03 am