MON: The Woody Show is off for MLK Day . . . or as Woody & Ravey call it…the day after the Steelers beat the Ravens to go to the Superbowl.

TUES: Tony (in a chicken suit) will try to catch chickens in the studio! Plus The Woody Show wants to find out if chickens will eat….chicken.

THURS: Comic Doug Benson will stop by during SF Sketchfest!

pattrice notes,

Without doubt, being carted to and then chased around a radio station will be extremely distressing to the birds in question. Moreover, mockery is a means by which people distance themselves from animals, in order to make their abuse less ethically troubling. Thus, this event, if allowed to go forward, will not only harm the two birds but also contribute to the callous disregard for animals that facilitates both everyday and extreme abuses of animals. [...]

There is, of course, one more cause for concern about this particular event. Why, on the day that our nation’s first African American president will be inaugurated, will radio hosts be making jokes about eating chicken?

The answer is obvious, but allow me to state it anyway. Clearly, by introducing chickens into their Inauguration Day “joke,” the hosts of “The Woody Show” are invoking an age-old stereotype involving African Americans and chicken:

This section of the Authentic History Center’s “Teaching Diversity With Multimedia” collection focuses on stereotypes of people of African descent from the end of the American Civil War in images of blacks with themes of chicken and watermelon. Analysis of a large collection of artifacts with racist African American imagery reveals several common themes. One is the linking of Black people in a negative way to chicken and watermelon. The origins of these stereotypes are unclear. They may have begun as Southern stereotypes and then evolved into Black stereotypes. It’s also possible that these evolved out of American slavery. Numerous primary sources chronicle Black resistance to slavery through “silent sabotage,” or, day-to-day acts of resistance. Stealing from the master was one example. It seems logical that, given that food would be among the most desirable of items a slave would pilfer, and chickens and watermelons would have been commonly available. [...] The connecting of Blacks to chicken and watermelon was done in a way to dehumanize Blacks and subject them to ridicule. This process helped contribute to prejudice and discrimination. Surprisingly, many young people are unaware of the long history of these stereotypes, while some older Black people refuse to eat watermelon because of that history. And yet the stereotype still exists. In 1989, while stationed at a Marine Air Station in Yuma, Arizona, I was standing in line at the chow hall and noticed a particular theme in the day’s cuisine. The main offerings that day were fried chicken, black-eyed peas, and watermelon. I soon realized, to my horror, that it was Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. I do not know if this gesture was intended as a racist joke, or if the head cook really thought that offering such food was a way of honoring Dr. King.

Here, the “The Woody Show” staff is using animal abuse borne of speciesism in order to make a racist “joke” at the expense of African Americans. To add insult to injury, they’ve specifically chosen to do so on a day which is especially historic for people of color – indeed, all of America – that is, the day of President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Real, live animals will be harmed during this “skit” – and possibly even forced to cannibalize their own. Meanwhile, the racial aspect of this “joke” will contribute to the casual/”softcore” (and overt) racism which is all too common in this country. Indeed, Obama’s candidacy and subsequent victory seems to have triggered a retrogressive racist backlash, in no small order. Racism and speciesism collide in one ugly spectacle.

pattrice suggests,

Don’t wait to protest after the fact. Stop this event before it happens. Call the producers of LIVE 105 at (415) 478-548 and insist that in-studio animal abuse is not funny, on Inauguration Day or any other day.

There’s additional contact for “The Woody Show” here, though I’m not sure calling in live will do much good. Probably your righteous indignation will only elicit additional racist (sexist, homophobic, sizeist, etc.) slurs, along with more than one cry of “I’m no racist!” I’m sure at least one host will even claim to be a “liberal,” “progressive,” or otherwise “tolerant” guy (or gal). And I think it’s a given that every last one of ‘em will crack a defensive joke about enjoying tortured and tormented chicken dishes.

(Crossposted from.)

——————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare action alerts pattrice jones the woody show san francisco Barack Obama Inauguration Day animal abuse animal cruelty cruelty to animals intersections parallel oppressions racism speciesism chicken meat stereotypes kits live 105 radio radio stunt

To wit:

Let’s dissect, shall we?

First and foremost, we have the exoticising and othering of “foreign” (read: non-Western) peoples and cultures: the narrator stresses that the BK “scientists” traveled far and wide, trekked to remote villages, through miles of dirt roads, in order to find – gasp! – people who have never tasted an American burger. They are Whopper Virgins – oh, the humanity! Just look at the silly primitives, with their goat milk and rutabagas and shit! Don’t they know that factory farmed animal parts, pumped full of antibiotics and covered in feces, are the pinnacle of culinary genius?

The voiceover is performed in the vein of a kitschy, retro documentary, thus giving off an air of mystery and gravity (not to mention old-skool ethnocentrism), as though the BK researchers are encountering previously “undiscovered” cultures for the first time, and must record the moment for posterity’s sake. Close your eyes, and you can almost recall a lost episode of Wild Kingdom: now watch as the Serengeti lion stalks her prey, so stealth, quiet, focused…the great beast’s muscles become tense in anticipation of the kill…the antelope senses her presence…

Even the soundtrack reminds the viewer that These People Are Not Like Us, as BK appropriates each culture’s musical style in order to push their product. Listen closely and you can hear the “exotic,” “ethnic” notes of a pan flute, as if floating towards us from far, far away in the mountains. Isn’t that special.

Luckily (for BK shareholders, that is; everyone else is a loser in this deal), Burger King is raring to pop the natives’ Whopper Cherries. Hello, colonialism vis-à-vis American capitalism! 11,300 outlets in 69 countries isn’t enough for the death dealers at BK; no ma’am. The world will not be complete until there’s a BK franchise in every city and every town the world over; who cares about animal abuse, water pollution, global warming, bird flu, food poisoning, environmental degradation, habitat loss, biodiversity, cultural diversity, or public health and safety when there are markets to corner and buxxx to be made? Next stop: Mars! Hey, the world is not enough, am I right?

Like most bigotry, the racism in this campaign doesn’t stand alone: they also throw in a healthy serving of sexism, because what ad would be complete without a little woman-hating?

By equating the non-Westerners’ burger “illiteracy” (as the obligatory white doods refer to it in BK’s documentary) with “virginity,” the BK marketing geniuses are equating the Whopper with a sort of sex. Or rather, the act of eating the Whopper is equated with sex; the Whopper itself is the consumable sexual object. Said consumable sexual object is usually depicted as female in gender, as eco-feminist Carol Adams has astutely noted time and again. While BK doesn’t explicitly make the connection in this campaign series, that’s usually the way it goes. And BK’s no stranger to this tactic, either.

Anyway, back to all that hot, nasty, life-altering sex the Whopper Virgins are being introduced to. When BK compares eating a Whopper to having sex, let’s think about what they’re suggesting. “Burgers” are made of “meat.” Factory farmed “meat.” This “meat” consists of a collection of corpses of abused, exploited, tortured and ultimately murdered animals; animals which were previously living, breathing, feeling, sentient creatures. “Meat” is, above all else, death and destruction.

Sex = meat = death.

Now that’s a fucking lovely concept to promote, eh? On its face, it’s misanthropic – harmful to men and women alike – until you also consider that women are more often compared and reduced to “pieces of meat” than are men, and meat is advertised in highly sexual, gendered terms. So it’s not much of a stretch to infer that, in the Sex = meat = death equation, women are just as likely to be the consumed as they are the consumer.

Not that any of us should be the consumer; meat consumption, at least in industrialized Western societies, is not only wholly unnecessary, but it’s also harmful: harmful to the environment, harmful to our health and, above all else, harmful to the animals we’re killing and consuming. The speciesism in the Whopper Virgins series is the most prevalent of the “isms” – and it’s also the least visible, because it’s so widely accepted as “how things are.”

The thinkers at ABC News, for example, noted the irony in Burger King blowing their wad to travel around the world and seek out “virgins” who have never tasted a Whopper – while 16,000 children die every single day from hunger-related causes.

No word on the billions of animals slaughtered annually, though.

Instead of exporting these destructive dietary habits, we should reform them, starting with our own plates.

I say*, give me Whopper Virginity – because the alternative, is Death.

* In my very bestest Tyler Durden voice, natch.

(Crossposted to.)

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare burger king bk whopper whopper virgins advertising race racism othering colonialism sexism misogyny sex carol adams the sexual politics of meat youtube videos commercials ad ad campaign meat factory farming speciesism intersections parallel oppressions animals and women

Lifelong atheists, the Mr. and I have had an increasingly ambivalent relationship with Christmas. On the one hand, x-mas is undoubtedly *the* biggest holiday of the year – and yet, it’s also a very *religious* holiday, crass consumerism and Santa hats aside. July 4th, President’s Day, Flag Day, St. Patrick’s Day…no secular holiday can compare. Even Thanksgiving and Halloween carry religious connotations. Besides protesting the holiday by spelling it with an “x” instead of a “Christ” (the weakest of protestations, I might add), what’s a godless blasphemer to do, hmmm?

In ’06, we tried celebrating Festivus in conjunction with x-mas. Given that Festivus – having only appeared in one episode of Seinfeld – is a pretty sketchy holiday, our Festivus was “Festivus” in name only: we still decorated the house with a Christmas tree, red-green-gold-silver tinsel, stockings, Santas, etc., dressed the dogs in holiday apparel, and opened presents and devoured vegan eats on December 25th. What were we gonna do – display an aluminum pole and yell at one another over dinner? We weren’t kidding anyone: it was CHRISTmas, more or less.

Last year, I had an epiphany – why not celebrate FSMas instead? We could decorate the house with pasta and pirates, and perhaps even celebrate on a day other than the 25th. And that’s what we did – I made macaroni ‘garland’ by stringing pieces of penne together, hung maroon satin bulbs (soy balls) and red lights on the tree, framed photos of His/Her/Its Noodliness, made a pirate alter in the front window, and created festive mini Flying Spaghetti Monsters using tinseled pipe cleaners, pom poms and googly eyes. We ‘officially’ recognized the holiday on December 24, so we could lounge around and relax on the 25th. (In between phone calls home, of course.) The dogs dressed as pirates, and Kaylee posed for our FSMas card surrounded by gold doubloons and Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum.

We had so much fun that we’re doing the same this year, only bigger and better. I’m reusing many of the decorations I created last year, and hopefully I’ll find time to follow up on some other ideas (especially that Noodle House – like a Gingerbread House, but with lasagna and the like). While the general theme is pasta and pirates, I’ve kind of relaxed the rules a bit from last year. As a for instance, I stuck to red (red sauce) and gold (gold booty) tinsel last year, but am also including green (pesto sauce) and silver (silver booty) tinsel this year…because I’ve got a ton of the stuff. X-mas themed stuffed animals are also allowed out of the closet this year, but only if they agree to wear pirate hats, eye patches, and gold hooks. Pirates are again all the rage, but whereas “pirates” meant eye-patched, sea-faring thieves in ’07, the definition of pirates has expanded in ’08, to include much beloved space pirates as the crew of Serenity. (Where do y’all think we got the names Kaylee and Jayne, hmmm?)

Anyway, I’ll be blogging it all on Smite Me!, so if you’re interested, keep an eye out.

Also last year, we began a tradition of starting the FSMas decorating the weekend after Thanksgiving. Which got me thinking about Thanksgiving, and whether I want to recognize a holiday that commemorates the genocide of millions of Native Americans with the genocide slaughter of millions of birds at all. (Update, 11/30/10: Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a” [group]. Clearly, the farming of animals including turkeys does not fit this definition. The attempted extermination of wolves in the U.S. by ranchers, though, is another story…)

I’ve never been a big fan of Thanksgiving; doubly so since I went vegetarian roughly 12 years ago. Those early years, spent at my father’s mother’s house, I was lucky if there was a dish or two I could eat. I was both allergic to milk and ethically repulsed by meat, so there were precious few foods suitable for my diet. Later on, the Tofurky worked its way into pop culture consciousness and onto our table. But even then, my options mostly consisted of the Tofurky, olives (which my grandmother, having lived through the Depression, rationed out as though they were caviar) and salad. Not exactly the stuff of a feast.

Of course, as I got older and more politically aware, the racist roots of the holiday became increasingly obvious to me. And with my terra-ist animal liberationist awakening, I further recognized Thanksgiving as an unadulterated orgy of animal cruelty and abuse. Not really something I want to be a part of, you know?

So lately I’ve been considering how I might alter or even abandon the holiday altogether. This year, I consciously referred to Thanksgiving as Thanksliving; in years past, I alternated between Tofurky Day (which seems quaint now, what with the newfangled Celebration Roasts and such) and Save-a-Turkey Day, but neither seems like the perfect counterpart to Thanksgiving. Tofurky Day kind of reinforces the reverential importance placed on the centerpiece of the meal, the turkey; and while it redirects that adulation to a vegan alternative, it fails to challenge the other problematic aspects of the holiday, such as whether we should be celebrating it at all. Save-a-Turkey Day is better, because it could refer to the meal (save a turkey by eating another dish, preferably not an animal) or a holiday practice (such as sponsoring a rescued turkey). But again, it doesn’t address the human cost of the holiday – its celebration of colonialism and genocide.

Thanksliving, because it doesn’t specify a species, is my favorite of the three. But how to “celebrate” Thanksliving? – That’s the question.

Do we spend the day volunteering? If so, where? A soup kitchen? But a soup kitchen will most likely serve meat dishes (bad!), and engage in a Thanksgiving Day feast which unquestioningly celebrates a genocidal holiday (bad again, since that’s what we’re trying to avoid, no?).

We might instead volunteer at an animal sanctuary. However, as we live in the so-called “heart”land, there are precious few large animal / farmed animal sanctuaries to be found. The closest that I know of is located on the other side of the state, in St. Louis (we live just north of Kansas City) – so that’s a no-go, for us anyway.

Another alternative is to donate money instead of time, for example, by sponsoring a turkey. That’s something we’ve done the past few years, but it still doesn’t seem like enough to offset the “guilty” feasting we’ve engaged in afterwards.

Maybe we celebrate the holiday on a day other than Thanksgiving proper? Perhaps bump Thanksliving up to the first or second weekend of the month, and even get a early start on all that FSMas decorating? This is an idea I’ve been toying with (especially as I’m feeling rushed to finish the holiday decorating), but the obvious problem is that the Mr. gets the Thanksgiving weekend off, whether he wants it or not.

I’ve also considered ditching Thanksgiving altogether (well, save for sponsoring a turkey), and instead using Halloween (which I much prefer) as a kind of kick off for the FSMas holiday season. I’m too lazy and indifferent to decorate the house for any holiday other than FSMas/Festivus/x-mas, but rolling FSMas into Halloween might change that. I could put up the pirates for Halloween and then add the pasta some time in November. This would also give me plenty of extra time for holiday shopping, making new holiday ornaments (you can never have too many Flying Spaghetti Monsters, dontchaknow), putting my FSMas cards together (as the card always features a least one of the dogs, you can imagine what a pleasant pain it is), and blogging it all. But two+ months of holiday decorations to clean around…I worry that it might be a little too much holiday cheer.

An obvious problem with celebrating either of the two (or three) holidays is the consumerism, as is exemplified by the mob mentality of Black Friday: buy, buy, buy! I alluded to “holiday shopping” in that last paragraph, but allow me to explain. As of last year, most of our “holiday shopping” involves donations made in the recipient’s name, primarily via the internets, natch. No driving, no consuming, no useless junk. Of course, we try to choose non-profits that jive with the recipients’ interests, rather than our own. But we also studiously avoid groups which violate our own values; you won’t see a charge from Heifer International on our credit cards, no ma’am.

Also wrapped into gluttonous consumption is the issue of overly indulgent holiday feasts. Because we’re big pasta eaters, FSMas thus far has consisted of harder-to-make versions of dishes we already eat: instead of pasghetti and red sauce, for example, we made lasagna with red sauce last year. If you’re going with a vegan/pasta theme this winter holiday (no matter the day you choose to celebrate), you’re already ahead of the curve in regards to overconsumption. Ditto vegan meals on Thanksgiving.

But.

As Twisty notes:

Like all holidays, it is riddled with horrors. Smallpox blankets. The spurious Squanto mythology. Genocide. The expectation that one manifest a hearty, convivial mood in the bosom of the fam despite the fact that the whole binge is (a) quasi-godbagious, (b) a shitload of extra work for the womenfolk, and (c) poultry-based.

Regale me not with sanctimonious tales of your tofurkey, by the way. It’s not like the soybean industrial complex isn’t a major player in the megatheocorporatocracy.

And you know? All the vegan Thanksgiving feasts the details of which many of you will not be able to resist posting in the comments section? Still no good. That’s right. Because feasting of any kind, while fun-filled on the surface of it, cannot, in this culture, be accomplished without guilt.

There’s the rub. You can offset it with volunteerism and gift donations, but there’s just no getting around it.

For me, Thanksgiving is the one holiday most emblematic of this gluttonous “guilt.” But Christmas/x-mas/Festivus/FSMas has it, too.

Even if I choose to forgo a lifetime of holidays, there’s still the guilt (i.e., complicity) that privilege brings. Since I can’t ditch it, I may as well embrace (i.e., recognize) it – and structure my holidays in such a way as to not encourage or accept it. What such a holiday might look like probably varies from blamer to blamer, I guess. For me, it’s a FSMas filled with spoof religious symbols, as many eco-friendly decorations as possible and donations to do-gooder groups; possibly a nixing of Thanksgiving, or perhaps a Thanksliving Day celebration which focuses the rights of human- and non-human animals.

Though just how this might be accomplished, I don’t know.

Any ideas? Anyone? Bueller?

Bah, humbug, methinks I’ve rambled enough for today. I’ll revisit the issue of what a Thanksliving Day celebration might look like later, in January maybe. For now, I’ve got some FSMas donating to do.

In the meantime, enjoy the Guinea Pirate. He may look cute, but he’s super-startling, dontchaknow.

(Crossposted from.)

——————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare human rights racism sexism genocide holidays christmas xmas x-mas festivus fsmas fsm flying spaghetti monster pasta pirates thanksgiving thanksliving save-a-turkey day tofurky day guinea pirate south park flickr photos consumption religion atheism secularism war on christmas

Racial Slur on Receipt Shocks Family

Last Edited: Wednesday, 22 Oct 2008, 9:53 AM CDT

OVERLAND PARK, KAN. — A shoe return deeply offended a family, got a worker fired, and the Justice Department involved.

College student Keith Slater, 22, came to Oak Park Mall on Friday night with his mother and sister. He bought a pair of $80 shoes. But, quickly found a better deal.

So, he went back to the original store, Journeys, and returned his first pair. When he looked at the receipt, he couldn’t believe his eyes.

“Amazed and just shocked,” said Keith Slater, the man’s father.

Rather than the man’s name, it reads “dumb n*****.”

As in, the cashier entered “dumb nigger” in the “GUEST” field. Yeah.

The other incident – which apparently is so ho-hum that I can’t find it on the local Fox affiliate’s website – involves a string of vandalized Obama/Biden signs along Ward Parkway (for those not in the know, Ward Parkway is an upscale, mansion-lined boulevard in Kansas City, Missouri, along the Kansas border). Rather than the predictable slurs, such as “Barack Hussein Obama” or “Osama Obama” (or “dumb nigger”), the vandals spray-painted “USSR” across the signs.

So…I guess we’ve moved on from racism and xenophobia to ’50s-era McCarthyism and xenophobia? Um, yay progress?

Well, at least a Kansan has yet to slaughter a black bear cub and staple Obama signs to her forehead. Nope, that was North Carolina.

There’s your small-town, “real America” American values right there, Ms. Palin.

Sigh.

**sob**

——————–

Tagged: kansas missouri ks mo kcmo kcks kansas city ward parkway 2008 elections barack obama racism xenophobia racial slurs animal rights animal welfare animals

MR. TOM BROKAW: Our issues this Sunday: He served as President George W. Bush’s secretary of state and was once called the man most likely to become the nation’s first African-American president. He has been courted by both the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns and said this last month:

(Videotape)

GEN. COLIN POWELL (RET.): I have been watching both of these individuals. I know them both extremely well, and I have not decided who I’m going to vote for yet.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Is he now ready to make an endorsement in this presidential race? What are his thoughts on the major issues facing the country and the world? Our exclusive guest this Sunday, former Secretary of State General Colin Powell. [...]

MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you’re prepared to support?

GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I’ve known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes. And I’ve said to Mr. Obama, “You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.”

And I’ve watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I’ve had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I’ve gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He’s crossing lines–ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I’ve also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he’s a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that’s inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration. I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

I admit, I blubbed a bit when I heard the audio. The rationale moreso than the endorsement; if I wasn’t going to vote for Obama before (I wasn’t), a Powell endorsement certainly doesn’t help seal the deal.

And yet – even in our “post-racist” society (*coughcough*) – there are still those who ignore the significance of a Republican icon crossing over party lines in order to endorse the Democratic presidential candidate, instead questioning whether this is just another case of them black folks sticking together.

Like, um, Tom Brokaw, playing devil’s advocate during the interview:

MR. BROKAW: And you are fully aware that there will be some–how many, no one can say for sure–but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race.

GEN. POWELL: If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.

And Rush Limbaugh, who weighed in with this brain turd after the show:

“Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race,” Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. “OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.”

I wonder when the pundits are going to start questioning the many white dudes who endorsed John McCain whether their endorsements are a case of “distinguished [white] Americans…supporting another [white American] because of race.”

Probably, never.

————–

Tagged: 2008 elections barack obama colin powell endorsement tom brokaw rush limbaugh racist video politics republicans

Via Color of Change:

McCain-Palin rallies have started to look more like mob scenes than political events. The candidates keep asking “who is the real Barack Obama?” (a question that also kicks off almost every McCain television ad).In response, supporters have yelled “terrorist!” and “traitor!” And the venom goes beyond Obama–one McCain/Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at a Black member of a news crew, saying “sit down, boy.”

McCain and Palin are going down a dangerous path. Watching some of their supporters being interviewed shows the kind of fear their campaign is stoking and exploiting.McCain and Palin are clearly in the driver’s seat. They’ve personally made it a point to use “terrorist” and “Obama” in the same sentence; they have surrogates repeatedly refer to him by his middle-name;and they keep pushing the discredited guilt-by-association smears that have long been debunked.

All of it plays on the much more sinister rumors in anonymous smear emails which claim Obama is Muslim, anti-American, and is somehow connected with terrorists. This strategy is powerful because Obama is Black, and it’s designed to make Obama’s race a disadvantage without appearing overtly racist.

As Americans of all stripes, we’ve seen how Barack Obama’s historic candidacy has moved our friends and family to have a more honest conversation about race in this country. It’s inspired a lot of people to step out of their comfort zone and confront racism in their own communities, with their friends, neighbors and families.

In the final days of this campaign, we can’t let a desperate John McCain and Sarah Palin drag us down. If enough of us act, we can create a powerful story in the media about Black people and our allies of all races standing together against race-baiting and fear-mongering coming from the McCain/Palin campaign. But it will take a lot of us speaking in unison.

Will you sign an open letter to McCain and Palin, telling them who you are and why you won’t let them move our country backward? ColorofChange.org will publish the letter and make sure John McCain is forced to respond.

You can sign the letter here – or check out Shakesville’s Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch, now at part 96; the latest entry hails from my current state of residence, Missouri. Fucking awesome, right?

———————

Tagged: color of change actions alerts 2008 elections john mccain sarah palin barack obama racism xenophobia war on terra godbags video brave new films

Via the Arizona chapter of the Sierra Club, by way of Deb at Invisible Voices, an eloquent illustration of intersecting “isms.” In this case, racism/xenophobia (“ZOMG! ILLEGAL ALIENZ!!!1!!1!”) and speciesism (“ZUH? THERE ARE ANIMALS ON TEH BORDER?”):

The Border Campaign of the Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter has completed a 20 minute video about the environmental effects of the current border policy, “Wild Versus Wall.” This video covers the ecological effects of enforcement and infrastructure in the four states that share boundaries with Mexico.

Tucson-based filmmaker Steev Hise has been working on the film since January, 2007. He traveled to Texas and California during the spring to interview land managers, scientists, and activists who are working to limit the ecological impacts of border wall construction.

“I have been covering border issues in southern Arizona for a while,” said Hise. “One of the great things about this project was traveling to other places along the border and to see how people concerned about the recent border militarization have the same outlook as people do here. They are also trying to stop the Department of Homeland Security from running roughshod over natural resources and constitutional rights.”

Hise also gathered footage from a diverse array of sources, including some of the Border Patrol’s own employment videos, which show agents blazing along on off-road vehicles. Numerous photographers contributed images of the rich ecosystems and species that are impacted by border infrastructure projects and local biologists lent their eyes and ears to the factual background of the habitats at stake.

Order your DVD today! Send $20 to 738 N. 5th Ave., Suite 214, Tucson, AZ 85705. Be sure to include Wall vs. Wild in the memo line of the check.

Understandably, the Sierra Club focuses on the environmental impact of the border wall, since that’s what they do and all. Even so, this is an area that’s ripe for coalition building between pro-immigration/anti-racist and environmental/animal advocacy groups, since they share a somewhat similar goal: sensible immigration policy, specifically pertaining to border security.

The Center for Biological Diversity has has written extensively about the US-Mexico border wall; Google search here.

(Crossposted to.)

———————–

Tagged: sierra club arizona border wall border fence immigration racism xenophobia speciesism center for biological diversity animals animal rights animal welfare wildlife video environment

Spoiler alert: Danger ahead, oh the horra! Plot spoilers abound! If you haven’t yet read the book, consider yourself warned. In fact, back away from this blog asap, go borrow The Handmaid’s Tale from your local library, and come back when you’re done. We’ll still be on the internets, promise.

Dear Dystopian Deniers

Perhaps the most widespread criticism I’ve seen of The Handmaid’s Tale is that it is improbable, unrealistic, a stretch of the imagination.

To wit:

Not Realistic Enough to be Scary; [A]lthough there were a great deal of things about this book that touched me and made me think, I found it simply unbelievable that anyone, male or female, would have tolerated this social system for very long.

Handmaid Tale…; Atwood made this society where it is supposed to be the future, yet women are still being repressed by male dominated society. Theocracy should have been eliminated by this point in time.

Trite and unrealistic.; This book in no way convinced me that American society would end up in the bizarre ’1984′-like ripoff presented here. To even suggest this as the logical future is completely shortsighted and ignores all advances women have made towards equality in the past hundred years or so.

…and my personal favorite, from “a female conservative”:

Intriguing, but Unlikely; Several of the other reviewers argue that Atwood’s vision is not at all farfetched because of the state of women in Islamic countries. Exactly! I had the same thought in the back of my head the whole time I was reading this book. It is so-called Islamic countries in the Middle East and not Western nations where women are limited to lives as wives and mothers and where the sanctity of the individual is not respected. Had Atwood set her novel in present-day Iran or Iraq, it would ring true in a way that setting it in near-future-day America does not. We have a centuries-old tradition of respecting individual rights in America.

Shorter female conservative: It’s the darkies who are bigots, silly!

Or: What slavery?

Granted, these criticisms are all from regular schlubs on Amazon, so maybe I shouldn’t take them so seriously. (One reviewer name “Brittany” pats herself on the back for hunting down Offred’s real name, which she incorrectly identifies as “June”, while another dismisses it as a “chick book”, and there’s also quite a bit of whining over the book’s “loose ends”…I guess they’d prefer the same sanitized, feel-good Hollywood ending that effectively butchered the movie.)

But it’s a fair point, and one that’s especially pertinent if you’re viewing the 1990 film adaptation which, in its pared down form, didn’t offer much of a back story. So, a refutation for the dystopian deniers. First, I’ll discuss the Republic of Gilead, including their rise to power and how they managed to sustain a dictatorship for as long as they did. I’ll also consider The Handmaid’s Tale in a global context; could it ever happen here?

Given the disjointed flashback/real time/flashback structure of the book, the story of Gilead’s formation is told piecemeal; we never fully grasp how the godbags managed to grab the east coast until the end of the book, in the “Historical Notes”. Rather than being a sudden, violent revolution, it was a slow, gradual erosion of individual rights and civil liberties.

Through Kate’s flashbacks, we learn that her childhood years – the 1980s, roughly the time Atwood was writing The Handmaid’s Tale – were similar the ’70s in terms of the radical feminist activism taking place. Kate’s mother is a prominent feminist activist (I picture her as Gloria Steinem), a single woman raising a daughter on her own, trying to mold Kate into a radical blamer. Kate (then and now) is your (stereo)typical “third-wave” “sex positive” “fun” feminist. As in, not especially. Kate finds many of her mother’s ideas antiquated, particularly when it comes to equality (or lack thereof) in intimate male/female relationships. Kate is sometimes presented as a retrogressive character; during one flashback to her college years, she even admits to temporarily withdrawing from Moira (her BFF) when Moira outs herself as a lesbian. By the time Kate has reached her teen and early adulthood years, the cultural backlash against “second-wave” “radical” feminism is in full swing, and Kate’s even buying into a bit of the hype – despite (or perhaps because of) being raised by a radical activist.

The Sons of Jacob, described as a “top secret…think tank..at which the philosophy and social structure of Gilead were hammered out”, was probably active during this time, if not earlier. The Sons of Jacob planned to take advantage of the current social unrest in order to overthrow the government and install their own theocracy. By “current social unrest”, I don’t mean to imply that a backlash against feminism and women’s liberation was the only contributing factor. There were also declining fertility and birth rates (both voluntary and not), coupled with immigration and xenophobia; environmental catastrophes, including pollution from pesticides and nuclear spills (which also contributed to declining fertility and birth defects); and scientific mishaps, like the “sterility-causing virus…developed by…gene-splicing experiments with mumps”.

Neither was the social instability confined to North America; although Atwood doesn’t elucidate the specific social issues affecting other countries (food shortages, oil, the diamond trade, desertification, climate change, declining fish populations, etc.), it is clear that unrest was widespread and at times, quite violent. For instance, before the Sons of Jacob was formed, world governments “recogniz[ed] the superpower arms stalemate and…sign[ed] the classified Spheres of Influence Accord, which left the superpowers free to deal, unhampered by interference, with the growing number of rebellions within their own empires.” Such an agreement suggest that many world governments were dealing with social unrest. (The Accord also helps to explain why the other global superpowers did little to challenge Gilead’s human rights abuses.)

In an America already distracted by “culture wars”, looming environmental catastrophe and possibly the specter of terrorism, the Sons of Jacob plotted their revolution.

For example, the scientists describe one Son of Jacob thusly:

Judd, on the other hand, seems to have been less interested in packaging and more concerned with tactics. It was he who suggested the use of an obscure “CIA” pamphlet on the destabilization of foreign governments as a strategic handbook for the Sons of Jacob.

Far from a rushed, half-assed affair, the Sons of Jacob seem to have planned and plotted Gilead for quite some time. They managed to infiltrate the government, including Congress and possibly even the President’s close personal circle. The group also includes security experts, who compromised security systems, including those protecting prominent politicians. Some Sons wormed their way into financial institutions, natch; how else to explain the freezing of all bank accounts marked “F”? Still others militarized, armed themselves to the teeth, created their own, alternate army. (Leaving this admittedly paranoid blamer to wonder if that’s the real reason why so many conservatives lurv their guns so much.)

Once all the True Believing ™ fundie operatives were in place, they disabled the American government.

Kate recalls,

I guess that’s how they were able to do it [freeze the women's bank accounts], in the way they did, all at once, without anyone knowing beforehand. If there had still been portable money, it would have been more difficult.

It was after the catastrophe, when they shot the president and machine-gunned the Congress and the army declared a state of emergency. They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time.

Keep calm, they said on television. Everything is under control.

I was stunned. Everyone was, I know that. It was hard to believe. The entire government, gone like that. How did they get in, how did it happen?

That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on. [...]

Things continued in that state of suspended animation for weeks, although some things did happen. Newspapers were censored and some were closed down, for security reasons they said. The roadblocks began to appear, and Identipasses. Everyone approved of that, since it was obvious you couldn’t be too careful. They said new elections would be held, but that it would take some time to prepare for them. The thing to do, they said, was to continue on as usual.

From there, the situation kept deteriorating, though some changes – such as the disappearance of the Pornomarts, Feels on Wheels vans and Bun-Dle Buggies – were seen as positive. Soon afterwards all females were fired from their jobs and their bank accounts were frozen. As Kate described it, their feet were cut off, literally and damn near figuratively: with no money, women couldn’t leave the country on their own. Later, after Gilead was officially established, no one was allowed to leave. The borders of Gilead were patrolled regularly, and potential refugees were either captured and returned to Gilead or murdered. (The women, some of whom were considered valuable property, were more likely to be captured alive and returned to Gilead against their wills.)

The Republic of Gilead continued to enforce more and more stringent rules. At first, unmarried men and women were allowed to cohabitate; in time, such things were (presumably) outlawed, and all “illegitimate” marriages were annulled. Even the definition of a “legitimate” marriage changed; while at one point Gilead accepted all heterosexual unions in which neither spouse had previously been married, eventually only those marriages performed by Gilead were recognized. Families were torn apart, but gradually. And not just physically, by the government itself, but also by the mutual distrust fostered between the sexes by the government’s misogynist policies. (See, for example: “But What About Teh Menz!!!1!?”)

Once established, Gilead ensured obedience and conformity in a number of ways. Most significantly, they created a police state which was teeming with spies, and not just the Eyes: friends, neighbors, acquaintances, employees, associates, strangers on the street – all are encouraged to eavesdrop and tattle on one another. Through Kate’s narration, you see that her every move is carefully choreographed, down to the greetings she uses when she meets with her paired Handmaid. Speaking of which, Handmaids are sent shopping in pairs with the understanding that they’ll keep one another in line. Though government propaganda claimed that it wanted a society in which women – and men – are all “Comrades”, in truth no one is to be trusted. The slightest misstep could get you killed, as with the Martha who was gunned down by Guardians when she fumbled for her Identipass in her robe. (The Guardians took her for a dissident suicide bomber in drag.) Even in the early days, after the President’s Day Massacre, citizens were already highly distrustful of one another, to the extent that Kate and Luke killed their pet cat before attempting to flee the country, lest she hang around and arouse the neighbors’ suspicions.

Dissidence is dealt with swiftly and brutally. Many nonconformists – gays, lesbians, liberals, religious minorities, people of color, feminists – and “worthless” (i.e., infertile) women are sent to The Colonies to either labor in the fields or clean up radioactive waste (a sure death sentence). If you’re lucky, the state executes you straight away and hangs your corpse on The Wall for all to see. Otherwise, you may be tortured first, or perhaps killed in a public ceremony: a Salvaging, maybe, or a Particicution. Both ceremonies are horrific in their own right.

Women’s Salvagings (we never do get a glimpse of Men’s Salvagings) involve the hanging of sinful women – Handmaids who have had sex with men other than their patriarchs or Wives who have harmed fertile, functioning Handmaids, mostly. Instead of a Hangman, however, all the women collectively participate in the execution: at the other end of the noose is a long, winding rope, with room enough for each woman’s hands to pull, pull, pull! until the “criminal” takes her last breath. In this way, they are all murderers; no woman is innocent. They are co-conspirators in their own oppression.

Particicutions are also a collective effort, though just for the Handmaids. In addition breaking down the women’s sense of morality and ethics, Particicutions provide a scapegoat on which the Handmaids can unleash their anger and frustrations. Here, the Handmaids are literally set loose on a man, usually one who has ostensibly been convicted of raping, murdering or otherwise harming a Handmaid. Most of these so-called misogynists are actually political dissidents, as we see when Ofglen mercifully knocks a fellow May Day member unconscious so that he’s not awake and suffering as the Handmaids rip him apart.

Aside from corporal punishment, Gilead also makes use of propaganda to control its citizens. The media is all owned and operated by the government, and as such, the programming is a mix of Biblical shows and news programs. The religious content conforms to and reinforces Gilead’s specific sectarian ideology, while the “news” shows show proper laudatory deference to the government. Most of the news coverage focuses on the Civil War, and only reports on Gilead’s victories. This feeds into the sense of hopelessness that most Gileadean citizens must surely feel – there’s no one to help free them of this oppressive regime, not other world governments nor guerrilla fighters or rebels. Resistance is futile, and self-preservation is the only solution.

Gilead’s propaganda takes many forms. In fact, the government is rarely truthful with its citizens. They omit, add to and intentionally misrepresent Biblical verses, in order to support whatever unjust new law they’ve devised. (The Bibles are kept locked up, so the women folk will never know otherwise!) Social interactions such as greetings and farewells are highly scripted, thus encouraging a sort of mindless fugue state; religious phrases repeated ad nauseum start to take hold here, when a person’s defenses are down. “Blessed be the fruit.” “May the Lord open.” “We’ve been sent good weather.” “Which I receive with joy.” “Praise be.” “Under His Eye.”

Simply put, Gilead is a cult: citizens are broken and brainwashed, and those which cannot be forced into conformity are killed or sent away. These changes weren’t introduced all at once, but piecemeal. Once one egregious policy gained widespread acceptance (or tolerance), another was introduced, and so on. By the time it became obvious what was happening, Gilead was already a carefully patrolled police state, within and without. Those who wanted to leave, couldn’t.

(For a more in-depth discussion of how Gilead controls women, see: Misogyny & the Oppression of Women; for men, see: The Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.)

Not all of Gilead’s citizens readily accept their new lots in life, however. We see through Ofglen, Nick and Moira that there’s a highly secretive and organized resistance movement active within (and without) Gilead’s borders. Several hundred years later, it becomes clear that they – and possibly others – did succeed in toppling Gilead.

As for the realism (or, more accurately, lack thereof) in Atwood’s story, the only aspect of Gilead’s story I find questionable is the President’s Day Massacre. With 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, the U.S. Congress is quite large. Could the Sons of Jacob assassinate 537+ people (some of them, including the President and VP, tightly guarded) in a single day? Personally, I find it improbable, but not impossible.

Even so, that’s really the only suspension of belief required in The Handmaid’s Tale – the rest is quite believable. The ways in which Gilead controls its citizens are nothing new; indeed, our scientists of the future observe, “[T]here was little that was truly original with or indigenous to Gilead: its genius was synthesis.”

In addition to bolstering the believability of Atwood’s story (i.e., not only did Gilead come to power, they did so using proven strategies, employed by similarly oppressive governments in the past), our future scientist’s remarks also go to the questions of whether such a thing might happen in the here, the now, on American soil, even. The answer is a resounding YES!

Looking to the past, human history is littered with oppressive regimes and movements: the Crusades of the 11th to 13th centuries, the European witch hunts from 1450 to 1700, Nazi Germany, Stalinism. Today, we see theocracies in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey; military juntas in Myanmar and Zimbabwe; genocide in Sudan.

Even America, in its brief life, is guilty of heinous human rights abuses – slavery, segregation, prohibitions against interracial and gay marriage, relegating women and people of color to varying degrees of property status, the denial of women’s and POC’s suffrage, genocide (e.g., Native Americans, among others), the internment of Japanese-, German- and Italian-Americans during WWII…the list is painfully long.

Even today, (particularly though not solely) under the Bush administration, there’s a palpable but gradual erosion of civil liberties, to the point where vegan potluck-goers are identified as “the number one domestic threat”. Much of this is done under the guise of fighting terrorism…and so is tolerated, even accepted and encouraged, by many Americans. Meanwhile, Christian fundamentalists, in their quest to enact religiously-based laws, mourn the secularization of America…all the while decrying “Islamofascism”. Ironic, dontchathink?

While this blamer generally considers herself a pessimist, I do believe that human progress is lurching forward, albeit slowly and erratically. Life in America is better today for most (all?) marginalized groups than it was at America’s (“New World”) conception. Yet, complacency is dangerous. Without continued vigilance, there’s the ever-looming risk of falling backwards, into regressive, oppressive modes of being. The specter of terrorism (or socialism, atheism, “loose” morals and the like) must never be used – or, more to the point, accepted – as a justification for the government to curb our civil rights and liberties. And yet, it’s happened many times in our past – and it’s happening in our present.

A Republic of Gilead in Northeast America? Totally believable. Not in spite of all the progress we’ve made, but because of it. Because, the further we move away from our history (especially in memory) – the more we romanticize and dismiss it – the more we doom ourselves to repeat it.

So thank you, “female conservative”; thank you for your willful ignorance, your xenophobia and racism, your blind nationalism and unquestioning patriotism. When I find myself imprisoned as a Handmaid, you’ll be partially to blame.

———————–

The Handmaid’s Tale(s): Table of Contents

1. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Book (Margaret Atwood, 1985): Intro & Plot Summary

2. Misogyny & the Oppression of Women

3. Race, Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation: Gilead is a Society of Isms

4. The Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too (or, “But What About Teh Menz!!!1!?”)

5. A Theocracy is Harmful to Believers and Infidels Alike

6. Hypocrites, Egotists & Apologists: Who’s Sorry Now?

7. Dear Dystopian Deniers

8. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Film (Volker Schlöndorff, 1990)

9. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Dramatization (BBC Radio 4, 2000)

———————–

Tagged: margaret atwood the handmaid’s tale books book review literature fiction dystopian scifi science fiction politics theocracy christian fundamentalist godbags feminism religion misogyny racism homophobia classism oppression patriarchy ibtp sex reproductive rights flickr photos

While many view the contentious border fence as a government fiasco, an animal rights group sees a rare opportunity.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans today to announce an unusual marketing pitch to the U.S. government: Rent us space on the fence for billboards warning illegal border crossers there is more to fear than the Border Patrol.

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.

The Department of Homeland Security is working to meet a deadline to complete 670 miles of fencing and other barriers on the Southwest border by Dec. 31. The fencing operation has run into stiff opposition by landowners fighting government efforts to obtain their land through condemnation.

PETA says its billboards would picture “fit and trim” Mexicans in their own country, where their diet is more in line with the group’s mission. Another image on the sign would portray obese American children and adults “gorging on meaty, fat- and cholesterol-packed American food.”

PETA’S offer to the feds is expected to arrive in a letter to Border Patrol officials today.

But a government spokesman in Washington said the request will be rejected because it would limit visibility through the fence. And Border Patrol does not allow advertising on its property or installations, the officials added.

“The fencing being put in place is, in many cases, mesh fencing to allow our officers to see what’s happening on the other side and to better secure the border,” said Michael Friel, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

One property owner on the Texas-Mexico border laughed at PETA’s proposal.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” said Noel Benavides, who is contesting the construction of a fence dividing his family’s 145-acre ranch in Roma on the Rio Grande. “I can’t see the point of something like that.”

But Rajt said the rent money they’d pay would help offset the huge costs of the fencing — and the advertising message “might even be frightening enough to deter people from crossing into the U.S.”

PETA has often been criticized for its aggressive animal rights crusades. It’s used billboards to push many of its controversial positions such as “Buck Cruelty: Say NO to horse-drawn carriage rides” or “Feeding Kids Meat Is Child Abuse.”

(Emphasis mine.)

Over on an official PETA blog, The PETA Files, PETA staffer Sean Conner confirms the story and even posts Spanish- and English-language versions of the proposed poster. Reaction on The PETA Files is mixed, but mostly positive, while the bloggers and commentators at VoC are less impressed with the idea.

My feelings on PETA are somewhat mixed. Some of their campaigns, I support (e.g., their “Think you can be a meat-eating environmentalist?” ads, which links meat consumption to climate change), while others just piss me the fuck off (for example, their efforts to get Michael Moore on the veggie bandwagon…by calling him a fatty mcfatty, in so many words, i.e., alluding to Moore as “the elephant in the room”). Most of their campaigns, particularly those involving naked or scantily clad female bodies, inspire distressing levels of ambivalence in this vegan feminist.

Suffice to say that mostly I’m just sick of PETA already: sick of non-vegans conflating PETA’s brand of animal welfare with the abolitionist concept of animal rights; sick of carnivores looking to Newkirk and Singer as the spokespeople for animal advocates everywhere; and, most of all, sick of the “isms” that PETA sometimes employs in the course of combating speciesism. Just as I don’t think human animals are more deserving of ethical consideration than are non-human animals, nor do I think non-human animals are more important than their human counterparts. By resorting to racism, misogyny, sizeism, etc., PETA is advocating against one form of oppression by engaging in another – and there’s nothing ethical about that.

Which brings me to the border fence billboard. I find this stunt problematic and, quite frankly, offensive for several reasons.

For starters, there’s the fence itself. 670+ miles of fencing in a sweltering hot – and ecologically significant – area is both inhumane and environmentally unfriendly. A border fence isn’t going to deter (most) immigrants from entering this country “illegally”, rather, it’s just going to make it more dangerous to do so. People don’t flee their homeland for shits and giggles; rather, poverty and unemployment kind of force their hands, no? Unless the US government is going to employ Mexican citizens to build the damn thing, a border fence does nothing to address the fundamental reasons underlying immigration. (Not to mention, up to 45% of undocumented immigrants enter the country through legal channels but overstay their “welcome”.)

Plus, ya know, you can always go up, around or over a fence. Even my dogs know that.

And then there’s the environmental impact of arbitrarily separating a large piece of land. The Center for Biological Diversity breaks it down:

Unfortunately, the administration also has failed to consider the environmental costs of its policy. Construction of a 700-mile border fence would irreparably harm some of the Southwest’s most significant lands, including wildlife refuges, national parks, national forests, and wilderness areas.

The Center’s “Arizona Assessment” project has identified 29 imperiled species that live on or near the Arizona border, 15 of which live or move directly in the path of the proposed fence. Among the species that could suffer severe impacts to their habitat and migration corridors as a result of a border wall are the Jaguar, Mexican Gray Wolf, Sonoran Pronghorn, Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy- Owl, and Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, as well as numerous riparian plants and animals that depend on unfragmented binational rivers and streams. The Center maintains that this “Berlin Wall” will do nothing to address the underlying causes of illegal immigration nor stop the flow of migrants crossing the border in increasingly remote and deadly regions, but will have devastating effects on the fragile desert lands and diverse wildlife of the Southwest. We oppose wall construction, and we call upon the administration to bring more wildlife- friendly and socially and environmentally responsible options into the debate.

(Much more here.)

By purchasing ad space on the border fence, PETA would be sponsoring these atrocities – which is something they seem to be down with when their spokesperson argues that “the rent money they’d pay would help offset the huge costs of the fencing”. Not cool. Not cool at all.

Of course, there’s also the likely possibility that PETA knew damn well that they’d never be able to rent space on the border fence – it’s a fence vs. a wall for a reason, right? – and so they also knew that their cash (their supporters’ cash, really) would never go towards supporting such a human-, animal-, and environmentally-unfriendly project. Which makes this all a stunt, capable of redemption.

Over at VoC, most comments are along the lines of Noemi’s titular “wtf seriously”, but Elaine suggests that the ad is PETA’s best attempt at being subversive. And, you know what? I can actually see a (different) version of this stunt being subversive.

The border fence serves as both a symbol and tool of the American megatheocorporatocracy: symbolically, it reinforces territorial borders, fosters nationalism and xenophobia, and makes us feel as though our country is safe from all those hard-working brown people when in fact, fences are rather ineffectual deterrents. Quite figuratively and literally, the border fence defines and crystallizes the divide between “us” and “them”; it transforms an entire continent into the “other”.

As a tool, it punishes the victims of the system (i.e., the “illegal” immigrants), while conveniently overlooking those who really benefit from the megatheocorporatocracy: the businesses who employ undocumented workers and then use the workers’ “illegal” status to exploit them, for example, by paying them a fraction of what “legal” employees would earn. Consequently entire persons are criminalized (the phrase “illegal immigrant” or, worse still, “illegal alien” criminalize the person vs. the crime), while any actions that benefit the “free market” are lauded (or, at best, ignored by the government).

So such a symbol/tool is ripe for subversion or satire. But PETA’s ad not only falls flat on these counts – it resorts to fat phobia and perhaps classism as well.* (Redemption: FAIL.)

Let’s start with the classism. The ad itself reads, “If the Border Patrol Doesn’t Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will — Go Vegan.” And in the article above, “assistant manager of PETA’s vegan campaigns” Lindsay Rajt says, “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.”

How’s this classist, you ask? Well,

according to the World Bank 17.6% of Mexico’s population lives in “extreme” poverty, while 30.1% live in “moderated” poverty, for a total of 47.7%

Like I said before, poverty is a primary cause of Mexican immigration into the United States. Immigrants aren’t worried about getting “fat” – they’re worried about feeding their families. Too much fatty food? Not so much their chief “fear” as no food at all. So to paint obesity or an overabundance of “bad” foods as an immediate concern for those facing crippling poverty is, yeah, somewhat classist.

PETA also points to traditional Mexican fare as a healthier alternative to American fast food. Yet they completely ignore the issues that make sustaining such a diet increasingly difficult for impoverished Mexicans, such as the Mexican government’s seizure of communal village land. Like, duh, you can’t grow (and eat) that traditional, healthy food if you don’t have any farmland on which to grow it. Keep on with the helpful advice there, PETA.

Granted, this all isn’t spelled out explicitly on the billboard(s) so much as elaborated on in their press releases and such, but still. These are classist attitudes just the same. In addition to offending POC and those who suffer from poverty, it makes the rest of us middle-class white vegans look like clueless fuckwits. Thanks, PETA!

Next, on to PETA’s fear of fat, which perhaps takes center stage in this particular campaign. (Again with the sizeism! WTF PETA?)

Here’s PETA describing the billboard:

PETA says its billboards would picture “fit and trim” Mexicans in their own country, where their diet is more in line with the group’s mission. Another image on the sign would portray obese American children and adults “gorging on meaty, fat- and cholesterol-packed American food.”

If you click on over to the images at the PETA Files, you can see that, yes indeed, we gluttonous Americans are all a bunch of fatasses.

PETA reinforces several misconceptions with this imagery (and the accompanying sound bites):

1) Weight is determined (primarily) by diet.

2) Meat-eaters are mostly obese, while those who follow a vegetarian or vegan diet are mostly trim.

3) Fat is necessarily unhealthy, while thin is necessarily healthy.

4) Thin is the ideal.

As usual, fat phobia abounds in PETA’s campaign materials. I hope it goes without saying but: you can be a veg*n and eat a poor, deficient diet; some “fat” people are actually more fit and healthy than some thin people; undereating can actually be worse for your body than overeating; and, hell’s bells, not all humans are shaped liked Cindy fucking Crawford! (I feel like I’m belying my age with this supermodel ref, but wevs.)

Pushing your vegan message – which is a good message, a great message, don’t get me wrong – by reinforcing stereotypes about overweight folks is, again, not cool.

For all the non-veg*ns reading this on the interwebs, please trust me when I tell you that PETA is not the be-all, end-all of the animal rights movement. Saucy FSM, many of us veg*ns question whether PETA can even be considered an animal rights group. (See here for the difference between rights and welfare.) We don’t all think like PETA, and hell, PETA is such a large organization, I sometimes wonder how many of PETA’s on-the-ground, grassroots volunteers even agree with the bulk of their campaigns. If you read me over on easyvegan.info, you’ll notice that I’ll oftentimes link to PETA’s campaigns or reprint their alerts. They can be an excellent source of info, despite their other flaws. Even I can’t escape the reach of Mother Ingrid and Grandfather Peter.

While they might be the most popular animal advocacy group in the US, they’re not the only one; and many other animal advocates are striving to rebuild the bridges that PETA’s scorched. Many of us care about issues of racism, classism, misogyny, homophobia, sizeism, ableism, etc. Don’t let PETA turn you off from the movement. A concern for the rights and welfare of non-human animals is integral to – rather than incompatible with – a concern for the rights and welfare of their human counterparts. Despite what PETA’s latest campaign suggests.

————————-

* After writing but before publishing this piece, I hopped on over to VoC to catch up on the newest comments. In response to the actual images, Meep says

I feel kind of like someone stole my culture a bit.

So you can add racism by way of cultural appropriation to the list. Yay PETA!

(Crossposted from.)

————————-

Tagged: peta people for the ethical treatment of animals sizeism classism border fence illegal immigration immigration vegan veganism vegetarian vegetarianism environment wildlife conservation mexico food diet fat phobia speciesism intersections parallel oppressions

Suffering through Stephen’s fanboy drooling over Keith was bad enough, but imagining him air guitaring along to racist and misogynist ditties like Getcha Some, The Taliban Song and – of course – Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue? Well, that just breaks my heart. Or puts a boot in my ass. Whichever is more painful, I guess.

——————-

Tagged: the colbert report stephen colbert toby keith willie nelson racism lynching beer for my horses