I've seen this link on a couple of blogs today and thought I'd share it. Recapping, PETA wants to put up billboards along the Mexican/American border reading, "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will — Go Vegan." The billboards will be in both English and Spanish.
Says PETA spokesman Lindsay Rajt:
"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."
I won't dogpile on and talk about how stupid this is (and it's plenty stupid). But, I would like to posit a question: What is PETA's overall political strategy? Not agenda, which might not be much clearer, but actual political strategy? Do they even have one? After looking at their website I couldn't really find anything approaching a specific quantitative goal.
This is important, because this Mexican border stuff just doesn't work. Do they ever hire people to do test marketing on how effective their various campaigns will be? I'm assuming not. This is the danger of having an agenda which is far, far too broad.
If you're PETA here's what you need to do. Pick an issue. Hell, pick three, but make sure that every single one of them can be summed up in less than 25 words. A great example would be: we want to increase the market share of free range eggs from 10% (or whatever it is now) to 30% in 5 years. Then strategies emerge. You make a single, simple, professional video and give it to anyone that will take one. You identify state and federal legislation that you can successfully lobby. You engage in research that allows free range eggs to be more cheaply produced and brought to market. You institute an advertising campaign and publicly state your goal and issue regular progress reports.
Instead, PETA spends time telling people how horrific it is that we abuse bees for their honey. I'm sorry, but nobody cares. We can argue about whether they should, but they don't. You've got to crawl before you can walk, and PETA either doesn't know that or doesn't care. Cut out the crusader crap and start sending some Congressional delegations on golf trips to Pinehurst.
The advertising campaign in question make vegans look like idiots, which is completely unfair, but that's the byproduct. The vegan brand isn't positive to begin with, and that's due at least partially to nonsense like this.
Subscribe To The Pseudo Body Politic
Posts
Comments
Blogs That Might Actually Inform Your View
Friends of TPBP
Skeletonwitch
The Official Band of TPBP
6 comments:
OK, let's put aside the issue of political intent a moment in favor of analyzing the literal content of this message: "if the border patrol doesn't get you..." assumes that everyone entering the country from Mexico is doing so illegally, which I think we can all agree, is playing on a highly racialized image of Latinos. Now, before we get sidetracked on this point, let's get one thing straight: people who risk their lives to walk 200 miles through some of the most inhospitable desert on the North American continent do so because they are desperate--they are, by and large, poor, unskilled workers who cannot find work elsewhere. Simply put, they are not eating anything, much less the healthy, vegan diet attributed to them by Ms. Rajt and her PETA handlers. So, to lecture the starving about their diet demonstrates not only a misunderstanding of the issues at hand, but represents a real sort of misanthropy: one that condescends to human suffering.
Perhaps PETA is less concerned about accomplishing specific goals and more about giving their membership a vague sense that they are engaged in something proactive and uncompromising –one of those, “it’s the thought that counts” kind of things. That said, I think it’s a bit naive to suppose that PETA actually placed the billboard in order to reach illegal immigrants. They did it because it’s odd (and somewhat inflammatory) and will get them press. Any publicity is good publicity (or so I’m told). And more press means happy PETA people and possibly more paying members.
daddy yankee: I agree 100% with your comment, it's just that the blogosphere was filled with similar sentiments yesterday and I wanted to concentrate on the more practical political aspects of their "strategy". Your points are very well take though.
On Jarrod's point though, I'm not sure I agree. I don't generally think this, but I really feel like PETA's message turns people off. I think meaningful minorities of people would agree with, say 10% of their stances, but almost no one identifies with the entire agenda. Spots like this might keep them in the spotlight, but does nothing to advance what should be their agenda. Very with us or against us. Way too many far left groups operate like this imo.
I wish that, like Jerod, I detected some irony in this ad, but I don't. Nor do I sense anything but complete earnestness emanating from Ms. Rajt when she gives us her idealized (and by 'idealized,' I mean 'racially romanticized') notion of the typical Mexican diet (which, as anyone who has spent protracted time in Mexico can tell you, is awash in cheese, oils, and yes, meat). In addition, I guess I would wonder about the imagined audience for such an ad. Anyone coming to settle in another country (even those emigres with means, who resettle legally) rarely have on their to-do list "and give some money to PETA for that snappy billboard ad I saw on US 19 as I was driving up from Nogales." So I'll ask again: who is the intended audience for this ad? College kids coming back from a night of drinking in Juarez? But then, I guess I'd question the efficacy of pitching an ad to kids who are likely so blitzed by the time they read it that they won't remember it come morning. Perhaps, as Jerod suggests, this campaign simply benefits the sensibilities of those people who are already members of PETA (although I'd question how such messages attract any new members, which is, at least putatively, the aim of such advertising. Or perhaps more importantly, I'd ask [along with dp] how it furthers PETA's stated political aims). If there is any irony in all of this, it's that an organization that includes the word "ethical" in its acronym would sacrifice ethics (and in doing so, alienate millions of otherwise sympathetic people) simply for the sake of a little bad press. And if PETA's existance can be reduced to a desire to be uncompromising (which in most cases is just an excuse to embody some sort of "Lost Cause" ethos, which in turn, becomes a stance that, in the end, is not about animals at all, but rather, about self-aggrandizement) then I guess I'd question whether more dogma is really what the world needs. Because dogma, as we all know, can quickly proceed from placing racist billboard ads to putting guns to people's heads. And if that's the kind of persuasion for which they're arguing, they can count me out.
Post a Comment