What do you think?
Rate this book
Activism
Presents essays from a variety of perspectives on activism, discussing such topics as whether or not activism should be taught in schools, the effectiveness of celebrity activists, and whether nonviolent activism can be successful.
120 pages, Unknown Binding
Published October 26, 2009
1 person want to read
About the author
Jill Hamilton
44 books1 followerLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 16, 2011
I picked this book up at the library after skimming through it for a few seconds. I was intrigued by the article "PETA: Whatever It Takes" (renamed "Provocative Activism Tactics Work" for the book's purposes) by Jan Frel. I'm somewhat on the fence when it comes to PETA. I don't approve of most of their tactics and campaigns, but I haven't made up my mind whether or not their existence is overall more beneficial or detrimental to animal rights at this time (now that there are less polarizing/alienating groups to spread awareness). Someone coming to PETA's defense and claiming that their "anything at all" take on publicity helps animals? That's intriguing, right? Not so much when the article does nothing to establish the efficiency of PETA's tactics.
An excerpt:
I reached back to something for [PETA's communications manager] O'Brien that I knew had been a massive publicity success: the fax PETA sent to [Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat in the spring of 2003 asking him to stop using donkeys as portable bomb devices. A donkey strapped with explosives had recently exploded on the road between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Gush Etzion, killing only the animal.
There's no more dependable source of pious reporting and righteous outrage than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And with that letter, PETA struck gold. Network and cable television anchors just couldn't resist a bite on it, including Fox News' Brit Hume (who used the incident as a platform to pop in Ari Fleischer's Orwellification of the term "suicide bomber"):
"PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has faxed Yasser Arafat protesting the use of a dynamite-laden donkey as a homicide bomber. The group, which complained about the exploding ass but not the coincidental murder of Israelis, urged Arafat to, quote, 'Leave animals out of this conflict.'"
That's a towering home run for the animal rights movement.
Um, it is? All I know of this particular instance is what I just read in this article, but from that information I don't glean "success story."
Of course, PETA didn't get anything close to a promise from Arafat, and it didn't really matter. The point is it siphoned piles of headlines and TV coverage away from a bunch of cynical demagogues in the Middle East and in the direction of the animal rights cause. All it took was a fax with an absurd request to the head of the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization].
So, perpetuating the misconception that vegans and animal rights activists care only about animals, and not other humans, is a win? Also, using a serious conflict that has led to the loss of many lives as a publicity stunt with no real intention of saving the animals involved is also acceptable? The end justifies the means, perhaps, but I see no positive result from this. I'm betting that this stunt alienated more people than it enlightened.
And not to be a total cunt, but if Jan Frel thinks PETA's tactics are so effective, then why is the author admittedly neither a vegan nor a vegetarian? I think that alone supports those in opposition to PETA's publicity stunts: Sure, people like looking at Pamela Anderson's tits, but people don't go vegan because of them.
No worries, Frel, P. Michael Conn's "Terrorism in the Name of Animal Rights" (renamed "Extreme Animal Rights Advocates Are Terrorists for the book's purposes) outdid your article on a scale of one to ANNOYING by a landslide. Excerpt:
I'm a researcher and director of research advocacy at the Oregon Health and Science University, where humane, federally regulated animal research is conducted. I don't believe that animals should be treated as the ethical coequals of people. One way to understand the issue is to carry the underlying logic to its extreme: Would you extend to the surviving family of a rabbit the right to sue the fox that killed it?
Are you twelve years old or ARE YOU FUCKING TROLLING ME? There's nothing logical about that, and no one with a basic understanding of animal rights would be so ignorant. READ A FUCKING BOOK.
Want to hear a joke? "...where humane, federally regulated animal research is conducted." Federally regulated? Oh, that must be some FOR SRS protection! Oh wait, under federal regulation, any procedure can be performed on an animal if it can be successfully argued that it is "scientifically justified." Like how March of Dimes funded research to sew kittens' eyes shut? Someone found that scientifically justified. Not to mention that the most commonly used vertebrate in animal researching is the mouse... and mice, along with rats and birds, bred for use in research labs are expressly EXCLUDED from ANY protection whatsoever under the Animal Welfare Act.
This article is obviously addressed to people completely uninformed of the issues, and it strikes me as intentionally misleading and deceitful. It frustrates me to no end that such utter BULLSHIT is presented here with no opposite view expressed in regards to vivisection.
An excerpt:
I reached back to something for [PETA's communications manager] O'Brien that I knew had been a massive publicity success: the fax PETA sent to [Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat in the spring of 2003 asking him to stop using donkeys as portable bomb devices. A donkey strapped with explosives had recently exploded on the road between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Gush Etzion, killing only the animal.
There's no more dependable source of pious reporting and righteous outrage than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And with that letter, PETA struck gold. Network and cable television anchors just couldn't resist a bite on it, including Fox News' Brit Hume (who used the incident as a platform to pop in Ari Fleischer's Orwellification of the term "suicide bomber"):
"PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has faxed Yasser Arafat protesting the use of a dynamite-laden donkey as a homicide bomber. The group, which complained about the exploding ass but not the coincidental murder of Israelis, urged Arafat to, quote, 'Leave animals out of this conflict.'"
That's a towering home run for the animal rights movement.
Um, it is? All I know of this particular instance is what I just read in this article, but from that information I don't glean "success story."
Of course, PETA didn't get anything close to a promise from Arafat, and it didn't really matter. The point is it siphoned piles of headlines and TV coverage away from a bunch of cynical demagogues in the Middle East and in the direction of the animal rights cause. All it took was a fax with an absurd request to the head of the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization].
So, perpetuating the misconception that vegans and animal rights activists care only about animals, and not other humans, is a win? Also, using a serious conflict that has led to the loss of many lives as a publicity stunt with no real intention of saving the animals involved is also acceptable? The end justifies the means, perhaps, but I see no positive result from this. I'm betting that this stunt alienated more people than it enlightened.
And not to be a total cunt, but if Jan Frel thinks PETA's tactics are so effective, then why is the author admittedly neither a vegan nor a vegetarian? I think that alone supports those in opposition to PETA's publicity stunts: Sure, people like looking at Pamela Anderson's tits, but people don't go vegan because of them.
No worries, Frel, P. Michael Conn's "Terrorism in the Name of Animal Rights" (renamed "Extreme Animal Rights Advocates Are Terrorists for the book's purposes) outdid your article on a scale of one to ANNOYING by a landslide. Excerpt:
I'm a researcher and director of research advocacy at the Oregon Health and Science University, where humane, federally regulated animal research is conducted. I don't believe that animals should be treated as the ethical coequals of people. One way to understand the issue is to carry the underlying logic to its extreme: Would you extend to the surviving family of a rabbit the right to sue the fox that killed it?
Are you twelve years old or ARE YOU FUCKING TROLLING ME? There's nothing logical about that, and no one with a basic understanding of animal rights would be so ignorant. READ A FUCKING BOOK.
Want to hear a joke? "...where humane, federally regulated animal research is conducted." Federally regulated? Oh, that must be some FOR SRS protection! Oh wait, under federal regulation, any procedure can be performed on an animal if it can be successfully argued that it is "scientifically justified." Like how March of Dimes funded research to sew kittens' eyes shut? Someone found that scientifically justified. Not to mention that the most commonly used vertebrate in animal researching is the mouse... and mice, along with rats and birds, bred for use in research labs are expressly EXCLUDED from ANY protection whatsoever under the Animal Welfare Act.
This article is obviously addressed to people completely uninformed of the issues, and it strikes me as intentionally misleading and deceitful. It frustrates me to no end that such utter BULLSHIT is presented here with no opposite view expressed in regards to vivisection.
December 30, 2013
This book is a compilation of essays by different writers, on various topics related to activism. Most of the essays were argumentative, and I liked how the "for" and "against" viewpoints by different authors were both presented. The essays themselves range in length from a few pages to an entire chapter's length.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews