Essay/Term paper: Animal rights protests: is radical chic still in style?
Essay, term paper, research paper: Research Papers
Free essays available online are good but they will not follow the guidelines of your particular writing assignment. If you need a custom term paper on Research Papers: Animal Rights Protests: Is Radical Chic Still In Style?, you can hire a professional writer here to write you a high quality authentic essay. While free essays can be traced by Turnitin (plagiarism detection program), our custom written essays will pass any plagiarism test. Our writing service will save you time and grade.
	Over the past fifteen years a powerfully charged drama has 
unfolded in New York's Broadway venues and spread to the opera houses and 
ballet productions of  major cities across the country.  Its characters 
include angry college students, aging rock stars, flamboyant B-movie 
queens, society matrons, and sophisticated fashion designers.  You can't 
buy tickets for this production, but you might catch a glimpse of it 
while driving in Bethesda on particular Saturday afternoons.  If you're 
lucky, Compassion Over Killing (COK), an animal rights civil disobedience 
group, will be picketing Miller's Furs, their enemy in the fight against 
fur.  These impassioned activists see the fur trade as nothing less than 
wholesale, commercialized murder, and will go to great lengths to get 
their point across.  Such enthusiasm may do them in, as COK's often 
divisive rhetoric and tacit endorsement of vandalism threaten to alienate 
the very people it needs to reach in order to be successful.
	The animal rights idealogy crystallized with the publication of 
philosophy professor's exploration of the way humans use and abuse other 
animals.  Animal Liberation argued that animals have an intrinsic worth 
in themselves and deserve to exist on their own terms, not just as means 
to human ends.  By 1985, ten years after Peter Singer's watershed 
treatise was first published, dozens of animal rights groups had sprung 
up and were starting to savor their first successes.  In 1994 Paul 
Shapiro, then a student at Georgetown Day School, didn't feel these 
non-profits were agitating aggressively enough for the cause.  He founded 
Compassion Over Killing to mobilize animal rights activists in the 
Washington metropolitan area and "throw animal exploiters out of 
business."  Since then, COK has expanded to over 300 members with 
chapters across the country, including one at American University, which 
formed in the fall of 1996.  COK organizes protests as a primary activity 
of the group, although some chapters may choose to expand into other 
areas if they wish.  
	COK's focus on direct-action protests and demonstrations is just 
one way that the animal rights movement has mobilized to end the fur 
trade.  The larger animal rights organizations have conducted attention 
grabbing media blitzes with the help of stars like Paul McCartney, 
Melissa Etheridge, Rikki Lake, Naomi Campbell and Christy Turlington.  
Lobbying efforts by animal advocacy groups have resulted in trapping 
restrictions in numerous states and an end to federal fur industry 
subsidies.  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has 
persuaded several fashion designers including Calvin Klein and Donna 
Karan to stop using fur in their clothing lines.  In addition, anti-fur 
concerts, videos, compact discs, t-shirts, drag revues and award 
ceremonies have been used by animal rights groups to advance their cause.
	Each side of the conflict over fur coats has an entirely 
different way of conceptualizing and talking about the issue.  Animal 
rights groups bluntly describe fur as "dead...animal parts" and emphasize 
that animals are killed  to produce a fur garment.  Those involved in the 
fur industry consistently use agricultural metaphors and talk of a yearly 
"crop of fur" that must be "harvested."  Manny Miller, the owner of 
Miller's Furs, refused to describe his business in terms of the 
individual animals; "I don't sell animals.  I sell finished products.  I 
sell fur coats."  These linguistic differences extend to the manner in 
which both sides frame the debate over fur.  COK refers to the industry 
in criminal terms; fur is directly equated with murder and those involved 
in the industry are labeled killers.  Industry groups like the Fur 
Information Council of America (FICA) always describes fur garments as 
objects and clothing; it is "the ultimate cold weather fabric" that is 
"your fashion choice."  
	On Saturday, April 12th, Compassion Over Killing demonstrated 
outside the White House, protesting the Clinton administration's 
opposition to a European Community ban on the importation of fur coats 
made from animals caught in the wild.  In addition, the demonstration 
called for the release of several Animal Liberation Front (ALF) members 
imprisoned for vandalizing property and liberating animals from research 
labs and factory farms.  Several dozen high school and college students 
turned out for the event, but the protest attracted a handful of 
thirtysomethings and an elderly woman as well.  Most of the young people 
there seemed to dress in a similar style; baggy pants, piercings and 
t-shirts advertising obscure "hard-core" rock bands adorned most of the 
activists.  The organizers of the protest provided more than enough signs 
for everyone to carry.  Each sign had a slogan stenciled on the cardboard 
in boxy black letters, including "Abolish the Fur Trade," "Fur is 
Murder," "Stop Promoting Vanity and Death," and "Fur is Dead- Get It In 
Your Head."  Some of the signs displayed graphic photographs of skinned 
animal carcasses.  In contrast to the dramatic messages they carried, 
most of the activists were subdued as they slowly trudged in a circle.  
The inclement weather seemed to dampen their spirits a bit, as for most 
of the three hour protest it alternated between drizzle and half-hearted 
rain showers.  The few passersby seemed intent on getting through the 
rain, and quickly walked past while giving the protesters wide berth.  In 
periods when the precipitation was less intense, the majority of people 
passed by with expressions of studied indifference or disgust and seemed 
to have a visceral reaction to the bloody, explicit posters.  It is not 
necessarily bad to show people what you are against; no one in COK likes 
to look at those photographs.  At the same time, it's important to try to 
reach people at a level where your message can resonate.  Using words 
like "murder" may attract attention, but it has just as much potential to 
turn people off.  The fur industry is trying its hardest to paint groups 
like COK as a radical fringe; one FICA press release said, "the more 
bizarre the activists look, the better we look -- and what they had 
outside were freaks."  COK's choice of words might just be playing right 
into the other side's hands.
	Environmentalists would appear to be natural allies of animal 
rights groups; after all, they both profess concern for the Earth's 
varied inhabitants and passionately organize to protect other-than-human 
species.  But while animal advocates generally call themselves 
environmentalists, the reverse is not true.  Jim Motavalli writes that 
"environmentalists tend to see the animal movement as hysterical, shrill 
and "one note.'  They're often embarrassed by the lab raids, the 
emotional picketing and the high-pitched hyperbole."  If the rhetoric of 
groups like COK alienates groups with a natural affinity for animal 
issues, how can it change the mind of a 55 year old wealthy white woman 
who's always loved the look and feel of a fur coat?
	Although the White House simply stood silently in response to 
COK's sidewalk activities, the scene was quite different when Compassion 
Over Killing picketed Miller's Furs in early April.  Slightly less people 
turned out, but the makeup of the crowd was similar to the one at the 
Pennsylvania Avenue protest; many of the faces were the same at both 
events.  However, a certain contrast was clear; this protest was 
targeting a finite business operation, while the White House 
demonstration seemed to address the entire United States legal system as 
well as foreign policy.  COK's call for the release of ALF members 
convicted of various felonies had an air of futility about it, as the 
activists claimed the right to break all sorts of U.S. laws in the name 
of their cause.  The Miller's Fur protest was more of an even fight.  
This time the activists seemed more powerful, as if they were in reach of 
their goal to close down the Bethesda fur salon.  Their signs had a few 
more incendiary  phrases than those at the presidential protest; "Boycott 
Murder- Don't Buy Fur" and "Stop the Killers Boycott Miller's" appeared 
in addition to those used at the White House protest.  The activists 
excitedly talked about a recent ALF action; the underground group had 
recently spray painted animal right slogans over Miller's windows and 
canopy.  As they circled the group broke into chants directed by COK 
leaders, which seemed to add energy to the  protester's message.  Passing 
cars beeped their horns as their drivers waved in support, in contrast to 
the tepid response from the pedestrian traffic at the protest downtown.  
However, with one or two exceptions those who passed by the fur protest 
on foot in Bethesda seemed to be just as hostile as those in D.C.  Some 
speculate that the entire concept of a fur salon picket is faulty, that 
COK just angers "people when [they] say, "don't buy fur!'and makes them 
want to go and do it."
	The women that dared to cross Miller's threshold attracted every 
protester's attention, as they shouted "Shame! Shame! Shame!" in unison. 
 As one customer left the store loud voices yelled out, "That's 
Disgusting!", "Shame!", "How'd They Get The Blood Out Of Your Coat?" and 
other slogans which were drowned out by others' hissing and boos.  The 
effect was very much like that of an angry mob; tension and vitriolic 
energy filled the air.  This atmosphere may release pent up emotion, and 
discourage people from buying fur in the short term, although in the long 
term it runs the risk of damaging the animal rights cause.  A recent 
survey revealed that an overwhelming majority of Americans strongly 
disapprove "of protesting fur coats in a harassing manner."  Animal 
advocates certainly don't need their tactics compared to radical pro-life 
groups that make abortion clinics warzones.
	As all the activity unfolded outside their door Miller's Furs 
taped a small sign to their window that read "Medical Research Saves 
Lives."  This seemed off-topic at first glance, but after visiting the 
FICA web site and reading other pro-fur literature, it was apparent that 
the sign was part of a pattern.  The fur industry initially ignored 
criticism from animal rights groups and relied on their product's 
glamorous image to state their case.  As the column inches devoted to the 
animal rights movement's allegations of cruelty began to accumulate and 
sales began to drop; the industry's strategy shifted.  Fur companies 
began to try to draw attention away from themselves by pointing out the 
most controversial parts of the animal rights agenda to the mainstream 
society.  Arguably the animal rights issue with the least amount of 
public support is medical animal testing.  Although this  topic divides 
the animal rights community, many of the movement's leaders favor total 
abolition of any testing on animals.  The fur industry is only too happy 
to point this out to anyone who'll listen.  
	Compassion Over Killing and other animal rights groups are 
actively trying to change the social "rules" that prevail in this 
country.  While in the short term they may not be advocating a ban on fur 
coats, COK's protests are aimed at making it socially unacceptable to 
wear fur.  This effort has shown signs of succeeding, as fur sales have 
fallen almost 50% below their peak volume in 1987.  However, they have 
begun to creep upwards again in recent quarters.  As with every social 
movement, animal advocacy groups need to pause and reevaluate their 
public relations strategies. Perhaps it's time for organizations like 
Compassion Over Killing to cut back on their use of emotionally charged 
phrases and tacit endorsement of felonious acts a la ALF.  Without 
considering these issues, COK runs  the risk of marginalizing the group 
and losing its battle against fur.
Works Cited
Cowit, Steve. "Hollywood Hypocrites." Fur Age 
<http://www.furs.com/FUR/FurAge9.html> 
     04/06/97 11:35:32.
Feitelberg, Rosemary.  "Surge in Luxe Business, Designer Participation 
Bode Well for Fur Week."       Women's Wear Daily 14 May 1996: 1+.
"Freak Show Protest Falls on Deaf Ears." Fur Age 
http://www.furs.com/FUR/FurAge76.html>      04/06/97 11:41:16.
Fur Information Council of America. "Fur, Your Fashion Choice."
Motavalli, Jim.  "Our Agony Over Animals." E Magazine Oct 1995: 28-37.
People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Annual Report." 1994.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.   "The PETA Guide to Animals 
and the 	      
     Clothing Trade."
Responsive Management.  "Americans' Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare, 
Animal Rights and 
     Use of Animals."
Riechmann, Deb.  "A Harvest of Fox Fur And Anger."  Washington Post 5 Jan 
1995: M2.
Shapiro, Paul.  "An Interview With the Owner of Miller's Furs."  The 
Abolitionist 	      
     Summer 1996: 3-4.
Shapiro, Paul. Personal Communication. Bethesda, MD. 5 April 1997.
Singer, Peter.  Animal Liberation: A New Ethics For Our Treatment of 
Animals  New 	      
     York: Avon, 1975.
Stern, Jared Paul.  "Are You Fur Real?"  Fashion Reporter June/July 1996: 
5-6. 
Other sample model essays:










 
		 +
   + 