PETA Idiocy

PETA outdoes themselves this time with utterly irrelevant, out of touch, and pointless commentary about Obama killing a fly.

Via Rob

PETA Sucks

I really hate PETA. In fact, although an environmental historian and someone who cares deeply about the environment, I can't stand the whole animal rights movement. There are many reasons for this--from its puritanism to its ideological inconsistencies on which animals deserve protection to its flirtation with anarchism in the 90s to its rampant sexism. The utter tone deafness of PETA is really shocking.

And now, in the wake of George Tiller's assassination, PETA has reached a new low.

A national animal rights group plans to erect billboards in Wichita urging people on both sides of the abortion debate to go vegetarian.

One version of the billboard says, "Pro-Life? Go Vegetarian." The other says, "Pro-Choice? Choose Vegetarian." Both feature a photo of three baby chicks.

Lindsay Rajt, campaign manager for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said the billboards were prompted by the recent shooting death of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was killed Sunday at his church.

"The discussion of the value of life is front and center right now in the public conversation," Rajt said today.

"We think we would be irresponsible if we don't talk about how we're all guilty of extreme cruelty to animals every time we sit down to a meal that includes meat.

Um, no. Equating meat with killing an abortion doctor is simply immoral. And I'm sure that people who believe differently than myself think the same thing about comparing meat to fetuses. What do they think they will accomplish here?

PETA is completely clueless...

I have been a vegetarian for over ten years now, but I have nothing but hatred for PETA. Have they done anything worthwhile in their almost 30 year history? Maybe, but most of their campaigns seem counterproductive and give those of us who are somewhat sympathetic with their aims a bad name. 

As if I needed another reason to loathe this group, PETA has decided they want to buy ad space on the border fence between Mexico and the U.S. to encourage border crossers to beware of the unhealthy diet in the U.S. and to go vegan. Sounds effective.... I agree with Feministing that the proposed ads are misoygnist and racist in the way they depict Mexicans. Way to go PETA, and thanks for giving your support to the construction of the border fence!!

I have another problem with PETA's strategy as well, they should do some research on the Mexican diet:

From the Houston Chronicle:

"The billboards, in English and Spanish, would offer the caution: "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will — Go Vegan."

"We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables," said Lindsay Rajt, assistant manager of PETA's vegan campaigns."

First of all, they assume Mexicans have a healthier diet than Americans. While traditionally, the Mexican diet is healthy, so are many traditional diets. The problem is that the reality is far different. The increase of greasy junk food and soda in the Mexican diet since NAFTA has been astronomical, to the point where the rate of obesity in Mexico is on par, if not greater, than that in the U.S. (sorry the link is old, but things haven't changed much in three years). While there is a difference between rural and urban areas in Mexico, its not accurate to characterize the Mexican diet as mainly tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables unless we are talking about some mythical past.

Second, if PETA actually cared about the diets of Mexican immigrants in this country, maybe they would try and do community work in areas where immigrants live and try to educate people on how to eat healthy on a limited budget. But, since they don't really bother to do this with Americans either, this seems unlikely. Like most interest groups, they prefer the flashy and controversial methods of getting their message out, rather than effective ones.

(Thanks to MJ for telling me about this story!)

What Is An Environmentalist?

Via Emily Gertz, David Roberts tackles PETA's claim that meat-eaters cannot be environmentalists.

Roberts rightly scoffs at PETA:

"This is a deeply silly question. The term "environmentalist" is socially contingent and highly contested. Environmentalism has no metaphysical essence. "You aren't an environmentalist" is moral judgment masquerading as an assertion of fact."

Right. PETA, along with other more self-righteous "radical" environmental organizations, frequently try to define what environmentalism in based on their own behavior. Environmentalism has not only changed throughout American history, but it has no easy definition. Do you have to be a member of PETA or EarthFirst to be an environmentalist? What if you just recycle? What if you are a meat-eater who throws away all your cans and bottles, but you don't have a car?

PETA's attempt to define environmentalism based on their own behavior reminds me of two historical episodes. First, making moral statements that places oneself above the rest of the world is reminiscent of Anglo-Saxons in the early 20th century creating race charts to justify their own position as imperialists. While the racist imperialists both had more power and were worse people than PETA members could ever dream of, both group started from a position of moral superiority to the rest of the world and then created systems of knowledge to reinforce themselves.

Second, and perhaps more relevant, this reminds me of the spotted owl crisis in the Pacific Northwest in the 1980s and early 1990s when environmental groups demonized loggers because they cut down trees. Rather than think about the lives of average working people and their interactions with the environment, they preferred to condemn with a wide net, making thousands of enemies in the process. Never mind that many loggers are also avid hikers, fishers, hunters, bikers, etc. Because they logged for a living, they hated the forests. Of course, these groups used paper products as an important way of spreading its message. Likewise, PETA is excluding millions of environmentally sensitive Americans from the movement based upon one personal behavior. Unlike logging, where people worked in the forests to put food on the table, meat-eating is a more personal choice, but one with deep social, cultural, and class implications that many people cannot so easily throw away.

Is PETA right that people should not eat meat? From an environmental perspective, yes. There is no doubt that meat consumption is one of the most environmentally damaging actions we can do. Raising cattle destroys forests in Central America, while chicken and pig farms produce prodigious amounts of waste that often are improperly treated.

But of course this is not PETA's only argument. They also equate morality with their own brand of environmentalism. Thus eating meat is evil as well as environmentally damaging. This is a much harder argument to accept. Not only is it fairly absurd on its face, but it is alienating to the general public. Are they advancing their cause by saying meat-eaters cannot be environmentalists? Not at all. Rather, they are annoying people with their self-righteous, and often hypocritical, behavior.

We should make arguments that people should cut down on meat consumption. We should also encourage more humane and environmentally sustainable ways of producing meat. But I deeply oppose PETA's claims. Not only is PETA wrong, but, as usual, they damage the entire environmental movement through their blanket claims.