Once upon a time I felt the way you do… and then I watched some videos and read some accounts of exactly what happens to animals at the hands of humans. I think of animals the way I think of children and the elderly; they are unable to defend themselves against those that are stronger and more capable. They are beaten, electrocuted, skinned alive, caged, experimented on, cut without anaesthesia, thrown, drowned, suffocated, crushed, forced to tolerate extremes of heat and cold, burned… need I go on?
Take a good hard look at PeTA? I’m on their website often but I also read everything I can that is written by their critics. It’s their “extremist” ideology that bothers you that I support. It’s time to do something for animals instead of just gently tap dance around the issue; while you’re politely talking about it they are suffering and dying. Why is it that PeTA is the “extremist”? Why is the person skinning the animal (while still alive so it lays there bloody and skinless blinking up at the camera) not the extremist? Why do you say that it’s the person who’s fighting to stop the brutality that is the extremist? Which of these people is showing true lack of empathy and respect for life?
It is possible that some of PeTA’s propaganda is biased, but for the most part I have found it to be refreshingly truthful. What I find biased is the human need to rationalize and legitimize unjustifiable and savage behavior towards other creatures just so that they can keep doing said behavior. Humans do this to each other as well; think genocide.
As for Ingrid Newkirk’s statements, I support all three. First of all, medical research done on animals for the sake of improving human health has been very unreliable. Remember the drugs (Vioxx for example) that were approved after passing through the animal testing only to cause some people to die? Had Tylenol been tested on cats the FDA would never have approved it: one tablet is poisonous to cats. The emphasis nowadays in medical research is to use human organs and tissues for advances in human health because they are less likely to kill the (human) patient. The animals used in experiments and research are not treated humanely. So how many animals are you willing to torture to maybe (but probably not) find a cure for a disease? Would you be willing to offer up your pets to help mankind? Why should that chimp or that dog be experimented on just because they are not someone's companion animal? So, if you want to find a cure for AIDS use the more successful alternative methods based on human tissues (not live people) and leave the animals alone.
Hoof-and-mouth disease is a very painful viral disease seen primarily in hoofed animals in close quarters (think agriculture – man made) and is extremely rarely seen in humans. I understand Ingrid’s anger. Cram a bunch of animals who normally like to graze in fields into cramped feces-filled quarters too small for their bodies, put antibiotics in their feed because of the rampant illnesses, throw their bodies to the side if they get sick anyway, just so humans can have that quarter-pounder. Doesn’t that make you more than angry? And how many times have each of us said, “I could just kill that person, they make me so angry!”? Expressing a desire to set a lab on fire is the animal lover’s way of saying that they are so angry they just can’t take it any more. If that lab had your pet in a cage with wires attached to its skull you’d want to burn it down too.
I’ve seen Food Inc. and thought it was pretty good. I have encouraged several people to watch it, but it’s good only as sort of an introductory paragraph to Animal Protection 101. Its angle is primarily a human one and I value its efforts to engage Americans in the fight to improve their health, the environment, and the working conditions for the workers, but I feel it only used the footage of the suffering food-industry animals as part of the “eew” factor. I’m not against using a human angle to improve the lot of animals, but it’s disingenuous and anything sneaky like that never holds up.
Violence? To my knowledge PeTA has never committed violence against another human being. They have thrown paint on fur coats, let animals out of cages, protested loudly, stripped naked, and made outrageous statements, but their tactics are lawful and above ground. In addition to these stunts they also do gentle, patient acts, like go to schools and teach children to love and respect animals, teach veggie-wannabes how to switch to a vegetarian diet, and ask people to write to circus companies to stop beating the elephants, and so on. I remember you participating in distributing leaflets outside a circus during your college days. You weren't violent, you were gentle and patient, but you received the anger and taunts of people passing by. It takes a lot of courage to put yourself out there, and that's what PeTA does.
Like I said in my post, I don't necessarily agree with everything PeTA does, but I can't think of any organization that has done more to bring the plight of abused, used, and neglected animals to the attention of those of us who care and want to help. Laura Thatcher Ulrich ("Well-behaved women rarely make history"), Martin Luther King, Jr. ("Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"), and Maggie Kuhn ("Speak you mind even if your voice shakes") would, I think, agree with me.
Violence? To my knowledge PeTA has never committed violence against another human being. They have thrown paint on fur coats, let animals out of cages, protested loudly, stripped naked, and made outrageous statements, but their tactics are lawful and above ground. In addition to these stunts they also do gentle, patient acts, like go to schools and teach children to love and respect animals, teach veggie-wannabes how to switch to a vegetarian diet, and ask people to write to circus companies to stop beating the elephants, and so on. I remember you participating in distributing leaflets outside a circus during your college days. You weren't violent, you were gentle and patient, but you received the anger and taunts of people passing by. It takes a lot of courage to put yourself out there, and that's what PeTA does.
Like I said in my post, I don't necessarily agree with everything PeTA does, but I can't think of any organization that has done more to bring the plight of abused, used, and neglected animals to the attention of those of us who care and want to help. Laura Thatcher Ulrich ("Well-behaved women rarely make history"), Martin Luther King, Jr. ("Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"), and Maggie Kuhn ("Speak you mind even if your voice shakes") would, I think, agree with me.
4 comments:
Actually, it was me outside the circus in college handing out leaflets about the cruelty to animals. Did Tita do it too?
-Shirin
Mom, thank you for responding so completely to my comment. Here is my response:
First, you are preaching to the choir. There is no doubt that the things that humans are doing to animals are atrocious, disgusting and unforgiveable. I am SO angry about it all too. AND, I think it's also important to take action, such as protesting in the streets and other things you mentioned that PETA does, only without the other negative stuff. ALL of it matters! That PETA has thrown paint on people and made comments such as the ones I mentioned is NOT gentle and non-violent. I do recognize the good things that PETA has done, but just a few stunts like this can be enough to completely wipe out the credibility of such an organization the the principles and people it represents.
Learning tools like Food, Inc. are jumping off points. You have to meet people where they're at if you want to reach the masses. I know a lot about culture, and we know that in order to change attitudes (one of the hardest things to do), you have to create an emotional reaction in someone about something that they can relate to personally (we are very selfish creatures). Many people in this world grew up with the notion that animals' sole purpose is to serve human life. That animals have rights is a completely foreign concept to many people. For many, the human angle is the ONLY one that is peronal enough to get their attention and to create the emotional reaction needed to change their attitude, so that they might become more open to looking at animal rights. This may not be the approach that makes most sense to us, but that's because we're already animal people.
Anyways, I could go on but I will stop here. Much love, tita
Shirin - I know you were there but I believe Tita was too.
Tita - There are a lot of people who feel the way you do and as I said, I used to, but PeTA has grown a lot over the years. That means that many people like what they do, appreciate their hard work and aggressive ideology, and donate lots of money for them to continue doing it. All those donations (people don't part easily with their hard earned cash) mean that many people don't at all feel the way you do. Animal rights advocates have been around since the 1800s and although they made a difference they didn't make a significant dent in the problem. It's sort of like the civil rights movement. It chugged along quietly and politely while people were brutalized and died. Then came the civil rights movement in the 60s (actually started in the late 50s) which was noisy, often impolite and aggressive. People who wanted it to go away couldn't ignore it any more. I believe this is what PeTA does for animals.
I agree with you about 'Food Inc' being really just a starting point. Most people need to be introduced slowly to a new idea and have it bounce around in their heads for a while and yes, need it to be meaningful from their human-centered way of thinking. Still, there are personal stories of people who accidentally bumped into the PeTA message and were immediate converts. Both avenues should exist, both have value, and we need to use every tool in our arsenal to make the much needed changes, even those that rankle.
Yes, I was there too protesting the circus Shirin.
Post a Comment