with friends like these, who needs enemies?

i recently participated in a discussion about the unlikely partnerships between animal advocacy corporations and individuals, groups, or corporations who do not focus on animal advocacy work but have chosen to support a particular animal-related issue through press releases, advertisements, or products.

many of these partnerships have been in the news as of late, and each one has certainly given me pause. we have the humane society of the united states pairing up with rush limbaugh to increase awareness about animal cruelty; never mind that in the same breath, limbaugh might be telling women to “put some ice on it” and get over it following a beating by their husbands or partners. we have PETA commending KFC — and referring to their products as “favorites”! — for its inclusion of one vegetarian option in one country in which it does business and the use of a different killing method for the chickens it slaughters. the author of this PETA blog conveniently neglects to mention that KFC is a company founded on the torture, murder, and sale of animals to humans.

advocates of these sorts of arrangement stress that it’s vitally important to get the anti-cruelty message into the ears of as many people as possible. one employee of a large animal welfare corporation told me that the animals can’t be bothered with our high standards for who speaks out for them. we should be grateful for any show support of animal protection we can get — even if it’s from people who otherwise oppress animals or humans.

but what about the potential for losing other voices who are completely horrified, offended, or triggered by the work that these fair weather animal allies are doing when not pairing up with HSUS, PETA, etc? if a handful of republican supporters are persuaded by rush limbaugh’s anti-cruelty message, what if another handful of domestic abuse survivors, and/or LGBT individuals, and/or women are completely turned off by the pro-animal organization’s alliance with an anti-human advocate?

how often have we heard that hitler was a vegetarian? in my experience, most vegans and vegetarians immediately attempt to distance themselves from that association (or even disprove the notion altogether, which, according to the internet, is not true); i’d venture to guess that few of us would reply with, “well, we don’t really consider the other things that hitler stood for, we’re just thrilled to have one more vegetarian among the herd.” a person’s whole body of work — especially when they are being touted as a spokesperson for a particular cause or message — has to be taken into consideration.

falling far short of the vegan ideal, in my opinion those partnerships actually hurt animals and animal advocates. when it is posited that animal abuse is actually more important than the abuse of humans or the denial of human rights — when those issues aren’t even considered when forming these awkward alliances — we are doing ourselves and the animals a great disservice. yes, i prefer that we conduct a litmus test on ourselves and the world around us, and i choose to push toward a vegan world — one in which no one is oppressed.

oh. and for a great post on why i might reconsider my use of the term “ally” from now on, check this blog out.