Beliefnet
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has moved beyond street theater and into depravity. "Holocaust on Your Plate," a sick exhibit featured on www.masskilling.com, a PETA web site, consists, in PETA's own words, of "stomach-churning images of the torturous experiences of both Jews and animals."

In an impressive use of Macromedia Flash, the web-animation program, Masskilling.com juxtaposes images of German Holocaust victims--the skeletal living and the brutally piled dead--with photographs of starving animals and pig corpses. Their point is that animals slaughtered for food are every bit the victims of our inhumanity as those who died in Hitler's death camps.

As might be expected, this distasteful exhibition, which PETA hopes to send on tour around the country, has stirred up a storm of protest. PETA attributes this reaction not to a feeling that the Holocaust's dead have been violated anew by PETA's ad, but rather to the public's failure to come to terms with its complicity in the victimization of animals. "If we are revolted by comparisons between the plight of animals and the plight of human victims of oppression," Masskilling.com intones, "it can only be because we are not yet prepared to accept our own role in the animal's fate."

In an attempt to render this obscenity respectable, the PETA exhibit prominently posts a quote from Isaac Bashevis Singer, "a Yiddish writer and vegetarian": "In relation to [animals] all people are Nazis," Singer wrote, "for [them] it is an eternal Treblinka."

A spinster with a cat, I've often been bemused at some of PETA's wacky antics--the billboards claiming "Jesus Was a Vegetarian," and the naked marches to protest wearing animal fur. Now, I'm appalled.

On reflection, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Shocked, yes; surprised, no. "Holocaust on Your Plate" is very much in line with the philosophy that fuels all of PETA's activities. Whatever they think of animals, PETA seems to find mankind distasteful. Theirs is an anti-humanity perspective. This is implicit in the "Holocaust" campaign and explicit in much of what PETA's founder, Ingrid Newkirk, has written over the years.

People who think of PETA as a band of warm and cuddly animal lovers are barking up the wrong tree. Newkirk has written tracts with titles such as "Things To Do To Make Your Cat Love You" (my little cat Ottoline already loves me, thank you very much), but there is also a darker strain to her work. She has described man as the "biggest blight on the face of the earth."

She refuses to recognize that human beings live in a different moral universe from animals. "Animal liberationists," Newkirk has insisted, "do not separate out the human animal, so 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, they're all mammals." The relationship between human beings and animals, Newkirk believes, is one of exploitation. Even pet lovers can be a problem. "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation," Newkirk has written; it leads to the "human manipulation" of animals. (In our household, I'm the one who's twisted around the paw of a manipulative feline. But never mind.)

The Holocaust campaign follows on the heels of Newkirk's obsequious letter to Yasser Arafat, president of the Palestinian Authority and the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In her letter, Newkirk protested the use of a donkey as a suicide bomber--though protest is too strong a word. "If you have the opportunity," she groveled to Arafat, who is stained with blood that didn't come from four-legged animals, "will you please add to your burdens my request that you appeal to all those who listen to you to leave the animals out of the conflict?"

It should be noted that no human beings died in this incident. If they had, Newkirk says she would not have lodged any protest against their deaths. Replying to a reporter's question, she said, "It's not my business to inject myself into human wars."

Newkirk isn't alone in her views. Peter Singer, a respected ethicist at Princeton's University Center for Human Values, is another proponent of a post-humanist view that human life is no more valuable than animal life. At the risk of sounding a bit eccentric, this ideology is especially disturbing to me because it represents a return to a kind of pagan polytheism.

Christianity elevated man to a position "a little lower than the angels." It recognized human failing--original sin-but also taught that mankind is uniquely different from the rest of creation. The people who died in Hitler's Inferno are altogether a different kind being than an animal sent to slaughter. Putting animals on a par with human beings--I can't believe that I'm actually burning electricity arguing that we-re different from animals--is to return to pagan values and a devaluation of the human.

Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus