No Mongrels Need Apply

Harrington, Paula

doi:10.1215/00265667-2010-73-74-219

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the contemporaneity of the establishment of the AKC and the unveiling of the Statue of Liberty, both in the mid 1880s, Harrington (2009) writes how, "the embrace of purebred dogs coincided with the scorning of immigrants, " and, "at the height of nineteenth-century immigration, when Irish, German, Italian, Jewish, and other so-called 'races' kept arriving, a purebred dog was not a mongrel, much as someone born in the United States-read a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant-was not an immigrant. " Harrington further writes how, "this growing popularity of purebred dogs coincided with a revival of nativism, the movement of 'pure' Americans of the 1840s and 1850s, " and likens the "Fitter Family" eugenics contests of the 1930s to AKC dog shows which had become tradition (Harrington 2009). About that time, in 1924, the state of Virginia passed the "Racial Integrity Act, " also known as a law against miscegenation (etymologically referring to the mixing of biologically distinct taxa), which prohibited marriages between whites and nonwhites with few exceptions.…”

Section: "General Appearance: Known For Centuries Along Portugal's Comentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inherent to the analogy is the transference of beliefs about pure-bred dogs onto notions of human racial "purity" (e.g. Castle 1942;Harrington 2009), which helped U.S. legislators pass anti-miscegenation laws in the early twentieth century (Lombardo 1987). In 2016, Mother Jones demonstrated how mainstream and persistent the analogy is when they published their interview with a leading white supremacist who equated human races to dog breeds (Harkinson 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1956, evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane posed a question to anthropologists: "Are the biological differences between human groups comparable with those between groups of domestic animals such as greyhounds and bulldogs…?" It reads as if it were posted on social media today. The analogy comparing human races to dog breeds is not only widespread in history and pop culture, but also sounds like scientific justification for eschewing the social construction of race, or for holding racist beliefs about human nature. Here we answer Haldane's question in an effort to improve the public understanding of human biological variation and "race"-two phenomena that are not synonymous. Speaking to everyone without expert levels of familiarity with this material, we investigate whether the dog breed analogy for human race stands up to biology. It does not. Groups of humans that are culturally labeled as "races" differ in population structure, genotype-phenotype relationships, and phenotypic diversity from breeds of dogs in unsurprising ways, given how artificial selection has shaped the evolution of dogs, not humans. Our demonstration complements the vast body of existing knowledge about how human "races" differ in fundamental sociocultural, historical, and political ways from categories of nonhuman animals. By the end of this paper, readers will understand how the assumption that human races are the same as dog breeds is a racist strategy for justifying social, political, and economic inequality.

show abstract

Section: "General Appearance: Known For Centuries Along Portugal's Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Residents’ Management of, and Attitudes Towards, the Dog Population on Two Mariana Islands

Schafer

Farnworth

2019

Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residents' management of, and attitudes towards, the dog population on two Mariana Islands This study reports the level of care dogs received from their caretakers and the caretaker and non-caretaker attitudes towards dogs on the islands of Guam and Saipan in order to identify hurdles in dog care and management options for the stray population. Surveys were collected from residents of Guam and Saipan "(274 and 275 respectively)" and analyzed using chi-squared tests. Dogs were the most popular companion animal (Guam 66.4%; Saipan 72% ownership) with a strong preference toward pedigree, male puppies (Guam 45.4%; Saipan 62.4%). The more preferred dogs were housed inside and fed dog food, while the less preferred local mixed-breed dogs were free-roaming and fed table scraps. The majority of caretakers in Saipan and the minority in Guam (59% and 22.8% respectively) had never provided veterinary care to their dog. Generally, caretakers on both islands did not sterilize their dogs, which may result in the potential for unplanned litters and a growth in the dog population. Residents of both islands reported witnessing abusive acts toward dogs, despite dogs being reported as having an important role on the island. This paper considers obstacles regarding veterinary cost, free-roaming populations, and low sterilization rates.

show abstract

The Dog Fancy at War: Breeds, Breeding, and Britishness, 1914-1918

Howell

2013

Soc Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay examines the impact of the Great War on the breeding and showing of pedigree dogs (the "dog fancy") in Britain. Hostility toward Germany led first to a decline in the popularity of breeds such as the dachshund, with both human and canine "aliens" targeted by nationalist fervor. Second, the institutions of dog breeding and showing came under threat from accusations of inappropriate luxury, frivolity, and the wasting of food in wartime, amounting to the charge of a want of patriotism on the part of breeders. Third, the paper shows how the "dog fancy" responded to this "agitation against dogs," turning on mongrels, stray dogs, and "useless" and unpatriotic humans, exposing deep divisions within the dog breeding community. By looking at the politics of the "dog fancy" in wartime, this paper extends the discussion of animals and national identity, arguing that while dogs could be used to articulate patriotic sentiments, their conditional citizenship meant that they were uniquely vulnerable at a time of national crisis.

show abstract

No Mongrels Need Apply

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy

Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy

Residents’ Management of, and Attitudes Towards, the Dog Population on Two Mariana Islands

The Dog Fancy at War: Breeds, Breeding, and Britishness, 1914-1918

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About