In her book titled “The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals,” University Professor Katja Guenther claims that non-white people are abusing animals because of “capitalism, anthroparchy, white supremacy, and the patriarchy.”
Guenther argues that not only is allowing dogs to sleep inside reserved for the “white and wealthy”, but kindness towards dogs in general is rooted in “white supremacy”.
Furthermore, her book outlines the idea that laws and policies against keeping dogs in bad conditions are policies intended to “oppress people of color by imposing white cultural and economic norms”.
The idea argued here, by both Guenther and the supporters of her book, is that laws which are there to prevent mistreatment of dogs discriminate against “anyone in the US other than white, middle-class, and upper-class individuals.”
Sloane Hawes, Tess Hupe, and Kevin Morris of the University of Denver Institute for Human-Animal Connection cite the book in their proposal to relax enforcement of animal protection laws—a proposal that threatens to reverse decades of hard-won progress.
Guenther writes that, because of racism, the overwhelming majority of the dogs who ended up at the Baldwin Park California shelter had belonged to poor people of Asian and Latino heritage and, to a lesser extent, black people.
But this simply reflects the demographic makeup of Baldwin Park itself.
The ethnicity of the people who surrender animals to shelters is largely a function of demographics, not of race.
In the Aereo Magazine book review, animal shelter director Nathan J. Winograd said that Guenther rejects objectivity in her book and research.
“Guenther deliberately rejects objective evidence of this kind, admitting that “it is not possible for me to be impartial”: “I was trained in sociology, a discipline that emphasizes impartiality and the need to systematize observations and analysis in ways that distance the researcher from the researched. I deliberately turn away from these tendencies and instead embrace the messy possibilities of being a researcher with complex ties to the social setting I am analyzing.”
At best, the book presents subjective feelings, anecdotes, and even guesses as compelling evidence for its conclusions — at worst, it ignores evidence to the contrary.”
According to the University Professor’s website, she has Ph.D in Sociology and works within the very useful field of interdisciplinary feminism. Her main areas of research, writing, and activism are “feminist politics and human exploitation of non-human animals.”
If you care to sit through her radical leftist ideology, here is a video of her discussing the details of her book:
Comment below with your reaction to this Professor’s bizarre connection to dog care and white supremacy…