Saturday
Dec222007
What Would PETA Do?- Michael Vick Holiday Snow Globe
Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 10:31PM The Blogmother 
PETA is off the chain. I love that they are uncompromising in their defense of animals. They are crazy, yet effective. So this holiday season, PETA has placed various celebrities committing crimes against the animal kingdom in their Holiday Snow Globe.
Pick a celebrity to put inside PETA's Holiday Snow Globe for a holiday adventure! Give the globe a shake, and then send the e-card to your friends! PETAThey aren't just picking on Michael Vick either. Your celebrity options are
- Cold Blooded Colonel Sanders
- Hairy Kate and Trashley, the Olsen Twins
- Pelt Pusher Anna Wintour, Editor of Vogue
- Fur Hag Kate Moss
- Dog Fighter Michael Vick
- Hunter Dick Chaney
Disturbing, yet hysterical. Especially Anna Wintour:
Inside the virtual globe, fearsome opera plays as Anna drifts through a fiery netherworld inhabited by workers in Karl Lagerfeld glasses whose job, it seems, is to skin shrieking animals and toss their carcasses into a massive pile for "pelt pusher" Anna's future coats. It's creepy, of course, but it's still kind of fun to shake the globe and watch "Anna" bounce around in the snow. Until you realize that, whenever she falls, her neck bends at a disturbing angle. New York MagazineI wonder if they have gotten a gander of Patti Labelle and Mary J Blidge?
My mantra for 2008 may very well be "What would PETA do?" If they are willing to go THERE on behalf of animals, shouldn't we be willing to at least go halfway there. When was the last time someone appealed to PETA for UNITY?
UPDATE: Thanks to WAOD Reader Tami from the blog What Tami Said, for a link to the documentary "I Am Animal" I definitely need to check it out.
I actually think that PETA's communications methods are ineffective if their goal is to get people to be sympathetic to animal rights. They definitely know how to get attention and that's one part of the battle for an activist group. The problem is their tactics often turn people off to their message...Gina, MDC--If either of you want to study PETA in action, there was a documentary that aired on HBO about a month ago called "I Am An Animal." It told the story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA. It was generally positive and looked at the origins of the group and some of their campaigns. It did show that some other animal rights activists, including (If I recall) one of the co-founders of PETA, worry that the organization's antics may be overshadowing what they are trying to say.
Hahaha Tami, Whew Tami! I just read the resources page over at HBO.com and WOW! Just WOW. You should especially read the Personal Reflections of some of their targets. Lots of food for thought going forward. Especially the final two paragraphs of this statement from one of the founders.
Don't forget to like our Facebook Page. We shut down our NING network. My book More Than Words is now available for download for $3.99 | 15 Comments | Share Article
15 Comments | Share Article tagged Michael Vick, What Would Peta Do
Michael Vick, What Would Peta Do
Reader Comments (15)
Hi Gina,
My problem with PETA is that a couple of years ago their advertising campaign included a comparison between the treatment of African Amercans and the way animals are treated.
I think it was called the "Animal Liberation" campaign.
Since then I really don't care what PETA has to say.
You dont have to care what they say. You ought to study how they say it.
they are strategic geniuses as far as I am concerned and yes, i will be eating some KFC on occasion. So the point of the post if you can look past your PETA animus is that they are creative in getting their word out.
Like you pointed out, they are not always successful in their message that doesn't mean you can't tudy their strategy.
Notice the post was called what would they do, not what would they say.
Gina,
You're right, we can learn a lot from them. They (PETA) get their message out very well.
I actually think that PETA's communications methods are ineffective if their goal is to get people to be sympathetic to animal rights. They definitely know how to get attention and that's one part of the battle for an activist group. The problem is their tactics often turn people off to their message.
For example...If the ultimate goal is to get people to come around to PETA's way of thinking, I think running ads that compare animals to African slaves and Holocaust victims do more harm than good. Viewers are shocked, but also offended, so they stop listening and don't hear about all the legitimately horrible things that happen to animals on factory farms. Also, with these particular campaigns they played into the hands of their detractors by appearing to lack compassion for human beings (black and Jewish people).
That's just my two cents as a PR person and someone who is actually open to PETA's message. I KNOW what they are trying to do and find myself turned off.
I do agree that there are some things activists can take from PETA. No one beats them for exposure and partnerships with high-profile people.
Gina, MDC--If either of you want to study PETA in action, there was a documentary that aired on HBO about a month ago called "I Am An Animal." It told the story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA. It was generally positive and looked at the origins of the group and some of their campaigns. It did show that some other animal rights activists, including (If I recall) one of the co-founders of PETA, worry that the organization's antics may be overshadowing what they are trying to say.
Gina,
You know you are truly an angry black woman. Most of your rage filled rants are on point. I applaud you in your efforts to wake up the world. To shake up the world. To get people to at least take note and DO SOMETHING.
But you're fighting EVERYBODY. Even the people who want to help you. If you're objective is to get people to take note - you've done that. If you're objective is to get people to act - you've accomplished that - on a small scale. But if you're objective is to get people involved in the masses and really make a HUGE difference, your ego will kill it.
Dang Gina, do you see how you respond to people sometimes. You're condescending, angry, abrasive, belittling and dismissive. (read that twice) You speak (write) this way to people who want to help you. People who want you to succeed.
If you want to mobilize your readers/supporters, you've got to start respecting them. Do you have to respond so condescendingly to posters who dare offer a unique perspective? You act as if it's a felony if someone goes a off topic. It may not speak to you but it may speak to others. AND it may inspire someone to DO SOMETHING.
Would it hurt you to respond to someone with respect - first. Give people the benefit of the doubt. You hate people coming at you without respect. But yet you show none. Could you kill the sarcastic, quick witted comebacks - give someone a nice warning once or twice. And then slam the hell out of them.
I know you can't please everybody. But one less reader/supporter means one less person who can help make change.
You are your worse enemy.
Miss Thang,
I know that Gina needs no one to come to her defense, but I feel compelled to respond to your comment.
I have to completely and utterly disagree with your opinion of Gina. I know her personally, and will say without hesitation that your assessment is way off base!
Gina is an extremely respectful person... well, except to people who spew out 'foolishness', but that's beside the point. She has managed to draw together many women who are powerhouses in their own right, and has effected more change in 6 months than all of the other blogs that I read put together.
I think that one of the most difficult aspects about written communications (such as blogs and comment sections) is that 'tone' is created in the mind of the reader. We are forced to imagine the intent of the writer, and in many instances, we are incorrect.
So what some are interpreting as 'ego' I am convinced is the blunt talk of a woman with a high level of conviction and passion.
I also find her sarcastic comments and use of hyperbole extremely humorous -- and it helps me diffuse my own anger. This blog is my safety valve.
In a nutshell, I am very proud of Gina and this blog.
Clearly someone is projecting. I have nothing to do with how you interpret what I say or do. This blog is what it is. If you don't like it.... you know the drill. We'll miss you, but thanks for visiting.
Again, the What About Our Daughters Disgruntled Readers Association meets at 6:00PM Sundays at the Bedside Baptist Church where the honorable Rev. Dr. A. Larm Clock Sr. is pastor.
**Happy Holidays Y'all!!!***
Gina...You're condescending, angry, abrasive, belittling and dismissive...
Ok, so what's your point?
Thanks for the link to "I am animal"
Tami!
No problem, Gina. Allow me to share more communications geekiness:
You know whose communications strategy I'd really like to study? Karl Rove and the Republican Party. The Republicans have caused a major cultural shift in the country over the last decade.
They get the general public signed on to memes like "The media is liberal" or "Barack Hussein Obama may be a Muslim."
They have a coalition of powerful foot soldiers who all ALWAYS stay on message--from conservative senators to the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world. When I talk to Republican friends and colleagues, I find it interesting that they repeat party messages exactly as they are presented. A colleague asked me just last week if I really thought it was smart to "cut and run" in Iraq.
Republicans have their competition (Dems and liberals) on the defensive, reacting to GOP messages rather than developing their own.
They have harnessed groups like Evangelicals, who felt they were forgotten in politics, and positioned the Dems as the opposite of all that is holy.
As much as I hate the Republican platform, I gotta hand it to them for the way they communicate it. It is sometimes, sneaky and underhanded, but damned effective.
You also may want to check out "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" by Joe Trippi, who led Dean's campaign in 2004 and is leading Edward's campaign now. The book has been on my shelf for months and I think I'll tackle it over the holidays.
Basically, Trippi talks about how how the netroots carried Dean from longshot to powerful player. His opinion is that the Internet is distributing power to the people right now. Folks that understand the coming revolution (That would be us!)will be the first movers in the new era. Those that don't will get left behind.
The final chapter of the book offers Trippi's advice for harnessing the power of the Net.
Gina,
Went to the HBO site...
I like this statement from one of PETA's founders:
I believe that it is best to take a strong ethical stand and to be strategically assertive, never forgetting - not even for a minute - our ultimate goal. Realizing that total abolition of some aspects of animal exploitation may never come, we should not simply demand 'total abolition or nothing at all', as that often ensures that those suffering today will continue to suffer. Nor should we hold a conservative line, which will also make tomorrow's suffering assured and accepted. Difficult as it may be, I believe that tactfully and strategically we must combine parts of both approaches: we must fight for today's reforms while aiming for and advocating abolition.
You can totally apply that to the battle we are fighting against denigration and violence against black women. I agree that any movement needs both diplomacy and a willingness to get dirty and get in people's faces. A really effective movement knows how to deftly use both to advance the cause. You shouldn't use diplomacy when a sledgehammer is called for, and you can't use a sledgehammer when a pen would do. Before choosing a tactic, I think we have to have our eyes on the final outcome and whether what we're doing will help or harm us.
Sometimes I think PETA doesn't think it through. (Like with the Holocaust, slave trade stuff.) Other times they are dead on. If you see the film, check out how organized they are when going undercover in a slaughterhouse. The film they capture on those missions makes your heart drop. It is very persuasive. I have actually considered becoming a vegetarian because of it (and other reasons).
You can totally apply that to the battle we are fighting against denigration and violence against black women. I agree that any movement needs both diplomacy and a willingness to get dirty and get in people's faces. A really effective movement knows how to deftly use both to advance the cause. You shouldn't use diplomacy when a sledgehammer is called for, and you can't use a sledgehammer when a pen would do. Before choosing a tactic, I think we have to have our eyes on the final outcome and whether what we're doing will help or harm us.
I definitely cosign with what you're saying, Tami.
Just a thought about when to use diplomacy vs a sledgehammer:
History has shown that 'radical approaches' are usually very necessary in the early stages of a movement (Boston Tea Party, feminists burning bras, etc).
Once a certain level of progress has been made and you have finances and genuine power on your side, the radical approaches start working against you.
Of course, it's not that cut and dried though.
The best political movements succeeded because there was BOTH the 'radicals' AND the 'diplomats' on the same side of the issue, working at the same time (and arguing all along the way).
For example, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement.
This mixture is the most effective of all because Americans tend to be bifurcated, 'either/or' thinkers.
Folk will start to think in this vein:
"We can EITHER get harmed by the radicals (which scare us) OR we can start making concessions to the diplomats"... instead of thinking, "We can EITHER listen to the radicals, OR stop them."
I do respect PETA's passion cuz ain't nobody this passionate about human beings. My beef with them is their strategies. Their passion & strategies cancel each other out. If an org wants to be thoroughly effective, consistency is key.
1. Don't offend Blks & Jews (or anyone) by comparing animal abuse to their respective historical atrocities. Last I checked, Blks were treated as animals. Three-fifths anyone?
2. Throwing paint on ppl who wear fur is counterproductive & does not really promote awareness.
3. Funding homeland terrorists like ALF & ELF is insane & tells me that you hate humans.
4. Having lesbians swapping spit in Midtown Manhattan to promote your "Vegans Do It Better" campaign doesn't leave salivating men, who made great uses of their camera phones that day, wanting to give up a hamburger.
5. Being an opponent of a cure for AIDS founded through animal testing is asinine.
6. Those globes are tasteless.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
The HBO PETA flick is on my Netflix queue & I can't wait to see it.
If the issue is getting attention than yeah, PETA runs with the best.
They have managed to get in the lead of any issue dealing with animals.
At the same time because of their tactics they have failed to bring attention to the issues instead they brought it upon themselves.
No one is going to stop eating meat, wearing fur, or dogfighting because PETA wants to masquerade as a terroist org.
You do not change people's minds that way what you do is ready them for a fight. What people do not talk about is the backlash that PETA has caused amoung people who were middle of the line about animal issues.
Comparing them to militant civil rights organization is an accurate discription but what people forget is that those militant org only managed to get the goverments attention long enough to be targeted for destruction. They did not scare any one in to running into the arms of diplomacy. To do that you would have to have power. They did get some good "Highlights" though.
Happy Holidays to every one in WAOD.
PETA's antics definitely had a chilling effect on the use of fur in Hollywood. After several embarrassing episodes of celebrities getting splashed with 'blood' in front of cameras, suddenly everyone was going out of their way to proclaim that they were wearing 'fake fur'.
At least in the white mainstream, the use of fur coats (which used to be the most common way to depict wealth and social status) in movies, has plummeted in the past 20 years.
Nowadays, you mostly see rappers, and other minority ethnicities proudly wearing furs. And PETA ain't going after them, because they know they'll get shot, lol.