|
I know a setup when I see it. No organization lives the
maxim “all publicity is good publicity” like People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, and I’m stepping into this like a steel jawed
trap.
The bait was a postcard from PETA soliciting columnists
to write on a poll it commissioned, the results of which ostensibly
show white males less sympathetic to animal cruelty than others.
The card’s front features a wide-eyed cracker type with unkempt
hair, surrounded by thought balloons showing his top priorities in
life – football, beer, women, and cars – followed by “animal
welfare” at number 508.
On the back,
PETA muses “Could it be because white men are raised on ‘sports’
such as fishing and rodeo? Or taught to appreciate the outdoors
with a rifle in their hands? Do they feel like they’re betraying
Dad if they don t give their sons hot dogs at ballgames or that they
won’t grow ‘hair on their chests’ without a slab of meat on their
dinner plate? On the other hand, could it be that people who
themselves sometimes feel disenfranchised and oppressed might, for
that very reason, be sympathetic to the plight of animals?”
PETA has never been shy about jabbing hot buttons and
generally finds the media uncritically accommodating. Still, the
overt racism displayed by the comparison of minority groups to
animals and outlandish Caucasian male stereotypes left me wondering
why poll respondents didn’t just hang up.
The answer is simple: The poll’s actual queries bear
little relation to the conclusions suggested by the flier. Although
the web address provided for the text of the survey turned up only
the usual gibberish, I eventually found the
complete questionnaire with a web search. The questions were
rigged to fabricate trends rather than detect them, but even so, the
results at most indicate white males are somewhat less likely to
consider vegetarianism and more resistant to taxes to cover the
supposed health care costs of meat consumption. Nothing in the poll
even hints at the motivation behind any respondent’s answers, much
less the ranking of priorities purported in PETA’s solicitation to
write.
The poll was, however, replete with loaded terms like
“factory farms” and “artery-clogging saturated fat,” and dubious
research from the agenda driven Union of Concerned Scientists. And
no PETA rant would be complete without over-the-top dramatizations
of animal husbandry practices, such as “within days of birth,
chickens have their beaks seared off with a hot blade to keep them
from pecking each other in overly crowded cages.” In truth,
chickens’ beaks have no more feeling than your fingernail and they
peck each other no matter where they are. Referring to hatching as
“birth” is a clever touch, though.
Perhaps the way to counter PETA is with another poll,
something every bit as calculated but a lot more truthful. Try
this:
“Respected Umea University in Sweden recently found that vegetarians
are
no healthier
than meat-eaters. Women
on low-meat diets report more illnesses while men experience more
headaches and fatigue; both suffer increased rates of depression.
Knowing this, would you like a veggie burger?
“Ingrid
Newkirk, PETA’s founder and president, has stated ‘There is no
rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A
rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.’ Do you understand the difference
between your child and a pork chop?
“PETA
frequently associates racial minorities with animals, and often
equates circuses to
human slavery. If you do not find this offensive, exactly when
did you become a bigot?”
Of course the questions don’t really matter if you plan
to fabricate the conclusions anyway. Perhaps the folks at PETA
would be interested in a column on that – if they hadn’t already
written the book.
Text of PETA solicitation
Unmooved by Cruelty to Animals
If the idea of
animals being castrated without anesthetics on factory farms
isn’t at all unsettling to you, chances are you’re a man and
you’re white. Among the findings of a recent PETA-commissioned
Zogby International poll was the fact that only a fraction of
white males questioned said that they would support
legislation to ban castration without painkillers, compared to
much higher rates of concern among white women, blacks, and.
Hispanics.
White men were
also less likely to support a tax on meat to help keep down
health-care costs incurred because of health problems, like
high blood pressure, cancer, heart attacks, and strokes, that
are related to meat consumption. So, their heartlessness
could have grave consequences.
But are the
“good ol white boys” really less empathetic than the rest of
society, and if so, why? Could it be because white men are
raised on sports such as fishing and rodeo? Or taught to
appreciate the outdoors with a rifle in their hands? Do they
feel like they’re betraying Dad if they don t give their sons
hot dogs at ballgames or that they won’t grow “hair on their
chests” without a slab of meat on their dinner plate?
On the other
hand, could it be that people who themselves sometimes feel
disenfranchised and oppressed might, for that very reason, be
sympathetic to the plight of animals?
If you are
interested in writing a column exploring the differences in
compassion for animals between white men and minorities, you
can read the complete poll results at GoVeg.com. Feel free to
contact me at extension 1342 with questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce
Friedrich |
|
