In recent years, we’ve witnessed a disturbing trend in American politics: the revival of anti-immigrant propaganda tactics that pull forward some of the worst periods in the nation’s history into our current political environment. Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance is obviously who we will be talking about the most these days. The following analysis examines historical context of his tactics, modern manifestations, and the urgent need for action to counter the toxic effects.
Some particularly alarming incidents have recently come to light, especially for those of us steeped in disinformation history and propaganda use in warfare. A candidate for political office in America caught disseminating anti-immigrant memes and infographics, both through official channels and personal social media is inexcusable and grounds for disqualification from a ticket. The candidates for Vice President and President doing it is obviously a national embarrassment for America.
“They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats,” Trump said during an answer to a question about immigration. “They’re eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what’s happening in our country, and it’s a shame.” Vice President Harris looked away and laughed at the comments while moderator David Muir stepped in, saying there have been no credible reports of pets being harmed by Springfield’s immigrant community. But by the time the debate was over, THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS was trending on [Nazi-publication xTwitter].
Here’s what is meant by “trending” on xTwitter.
At first, statements and images spread about pets might have seemed innocuous — featuring cats or other animals in various scenarios. However, as you can see, things escalate quickly. Those familiar with American history know the rhetorical “threat” from immigrants carries echoes of toxic aggressive hate speech tactics used during previous chapters of xenophobia.
Just to be clear about the seriousness of this study and topic, I warned on this blog in 2015 of this exact tactic in the cybersecurity domain regarding CrowdStrike integrity flaws.
Imagine a ballot for voting, and you are asked to choose between a poisonous snake or a fluffy kitten. This is a very real world example.
Vote for me!Social psychologists have a test they call Implicit Association that is used in numerous studies to measure response time (in milliseconds) of human subjects asked to pair word concepts. Depending on their background, people more quickly associate words like “kitten” with pleasant concepts, and “tiger” more quickly with unpleasant ideas. CrowdStrike above is literally creating the associations.
And what happened with CrowdStrike? Global outages from failing to properly stop harmful content? Lack of integrity controls in 2015, such as targeted use of “kitten” messaging as propaganda, was far more of a risk indicator than most people realized.
History Every American Should Know
To grasp the renewed significance of this situation, it’s crucial to examine some of the most challenging periods in American immigration history. The United States passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, a toxic work of legislation that explicitly restricted immigration based on ethnicity and nationality. It emerged from the usual mix of misdirected economic concerns with misdirected cultural tensions, manifesting into an “America First” platform that campaigned for white supremacy like the Civil War hadn’t ended.
The 1882 act was preceded and accompanied by a widespread propaganda campaign that sought to portray Chinese immigrants as fundamentally different and incompatible with American society. One of the most notable tactics employed in this campaign was the portrayal of Chinese immigrants as consumers of things meant to invoke and represent disgust — particularly pets such as cats and dogs.
Political cartoons of the era frequently depicted immigrants preparing or eating cats. A particularly striking example appeared in an 1882 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, showing Chinese people cooking cats, pigs, and rats. Images were manipulated and spread to heighten feelings of cultural divide as well as reinforce negative stereotypes about immigrants, falsely invoking the sense of “defense” of “vulnerable” American pets against “barbaric” outsiders.
Racist Propaganda as Power in America
Why focus on such a seemingly trivial aspect of culture? The well-known military intelligence doctrine—and the danger—of this propaganda lay in its ability to create a visceral, emotional response from “innocent” and even “peaceful” symbolism. By associating immigrants with direct harm to “defenseless” pets (let alone women and children), American racists intend to tap into deep-seated emotions, bypassing rational thought and appealing directly to fear and revulsion.
This tactic was part of a broader strategy to “other” immigrants. Alongside depictions of immigrants as disease carriers, drug users, and job stealers, the portrayal of them as cat eaters became a lasting, harmful stereotype. It provided a simple, emotionally charged image that could be easily spread and remembered, fueling the fires of xenophobia and providing justification for exclusionary policies and anti-democratic tactics to undermine American government.
Dangerous Tactics: Food-Based Othering
The use of diet in propaganda to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment or hatred towards specific groups is a conflict tactic employed throughout history. It has been used across different cultures and time periods to dehumanize and marginalize targeted groups, such as these examples:
- Nazi Germany: Propaganda often tried to stoke hate of Jews, which included absurd accusations of cannibalism (a tactic also recently used by Trump), particularly the “blood libel” myth. False claims about dietary habits portrayed Jews as inhuman and threatening.
- British Colonial India: Propaganda often tried to stoke hate of Indians based on spice in foods. Flavor in food was framed as uncivilized or primitive, in contrast to tasteless “refined” British habits. Phrases like “curry eater” were derogatory.
- Anti-Italian America: Italians face discrimination based on eating habits. Garlic and olive oil, despite being staples of fine cuisine, have been used to portray immigrants as smelly and unhygienic. Phrases like “garlic eater” were derogatory.
- Islamophobic EU and America: In recent years, far-right groups in Europe and North America spread misinformation about religious food practices. They manipulate information into false claims about Muslim meat preparation, presenting humane practices as the opposite.
- Anti-Mexican America: Mexicans face discrimination based on eating habits. Spices, ingredients and preparation (grease) all are used in anti-immigrant rhetoric. The phrase “beaners” is a derogatory term for someone of Mexican descent.
Another way of framing it is to see how Nazi propagandists will use “beautiful” images to stoke fear about loss. They hold up something they expect to invoke attachment, such as an innocent looking idealized child or pet, and then they falsely allege a threat to it from immigrants and outsiders. The above examples, along with the historical Chinese immigrant propaganda in the US, demonstrate a clear pattern of using such simple methods for othering and dehumanization.
By focusing on diet and coupling it with notions of idealized vulnerability, the Trump campaign propagandists know they can ramp small differences or preferences into public disgust, making it easier to justify anti-American discriminatory policies and even domestic terror.
Fueling the fire, President Donald Trump repeatedly referred to COVID-19 as “the China virus.” “That old-school rhetoric that we eat bats, dogs and rats — that racism is still alive and well,” said Clarence Kwan, creator of the anti-racist cooking zine “Chinese Protest Recipes.” The speed with which such false stereotypes resurfaced during the pandemic is “a reflection of how little progress we’ve made,” Kwan said.
MAGA Weirdos Take America Back to the Worst Times
Nearly a century-and-a-half after the 1882 Exclusion Act, driven by politicians who sounded just like Trump and Vance, we see a deliberate continuation of these historic tactics as if nobody would comment on how and why things haven’t changed. The recent incidents involving Vance in particular (as a veteran of military intelligence and propaganda) shows that American platform disinformation strategies are not relics of the past. They are active tools in the present-day arsenal of those seeking to sow division and fear for political gain.
The use of cat imagery by Vance in this modern context is particularly insidious. It provides the veneer of innocence and plausible deniability. Imagine how the Swastika was used in the years up to 1933, rapidly shifting from innocent symbolism into racist hate, dictatorship and then genocide. If challenged, the growing number of assets spreading the seed images can claim ignorance, misinterpretation or overreaction. Yet, for those familiar with the historical context, the message is clear: intentional and unmistakably aggressive attempts to campaign for fascism and an end to democracy.
Specific examples of this tactic in action include:
- The use of seemingly innocent memes featuring cats to subtly invoke anti-immigrant sentiment
- The spread of misleading statistics about immigrant crime rates, echoing historical tactics of portraying immigrants as threats
- The promotion of “America First” rhetoric, which directly mirrors the language used by nativist movements in the early 20th century
The Stakes (Pun Not Intended) Are High
The implications of Vance using pets as symbolism to stoke hate extend far beyond a single group or set of images. It raises serious questions about the penetration of xenophobic ideologies into the national security apparatus. How widespread are these sentiments within military and intelligence communities? What impact might such methods have on unit cohesion and a capabilities to serve, especially given evidence white nationalists continue to infiltrate the armed forces?
Moreover, in an age where information spreads at the speed of a click, the potential for these images and ideas to reach and influence a wide audience is unprecedented. They can contribute to the radicalization of both military personnel and civilians, potentially leading to widespread domestic terrorism attacks like the early 1900s again.
A Call to Action
It is incumbent upon American media and policy makers to recognize and respond to this threat. The public must be informed to be vigilant against a targeted resurgence of historical tactics of division and exclusion. This requires not only addressing individual incidents as they arise but also fostering a broader understanding of the historical context and implications of such propaganda used by Vance, not to mention foreign-born immigrants and extreme right-wing agitators Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.
American institutions need to be strengthened against ideological infiltration, with enhanced training on dangers of propaganda and disinformation. Ideally commitment would be made to values of diversity and inclusion that made the nation strong enough to be on the right side in WWII, let alone undo the earlier Exclusion Act.
Key historical insights to understand when confronting nativist “America First” ideology and MAGA rhetoric:
- The cyclical nature of racist propaganda in American history, from its origins to modern anti-immigrant sentiment
- The persistent use of false or misleading claims about immigrants throughout U.S. history
- The historical role of diverse coalitions in challenging xenophobic policies
- The long-standing debate over education’s role in combating racist ideologies
- The complex socio-economic factors that are manipulated and blamed for racist sentiments
- The often-overlooked xenophobic and genocidal legacies of revered American men such as Leland Stanford
Conclusion
The resurgence of these propaganda tactics isn’t merely a recycling of old ideas, but a clear indication that the underlying xenophobic ideology persists. Trump and Vance’s rhetoric demonstrates a continuity of exclusionary thinking that has long served the interests of wealthy elites. Their approach echoes historical patterns where powerful figures manipulated public sentiment for personal gain, often at the expense of vulnerable communities. This persistence underscores the ongoing nature of the struggle against discrimination and highlights the importance of historical awareness. By understanding the roots and evolution of these tactics, we can more effectively counter them and work towards building a truly inclusive society that resists such divisive manipulation.
To face this challenge, it should always be highlighted that America’s strength famously comes most from its diversity, standing together rather than apart (as discussed in The Open Society and Its Enemies). Active measures, based on the paradox of tolerance, taken against hate and division can ensure the nation lives up to its basic ideals. In this context, it’s worth noting that Leland Stanford, namesake and founder of Stanford University, was one of the most racist and genocidal leaders in world history. Ironically, today we see staff at Stanford publish research under his name showing that the Republican party’s current rhetoric closely mirrors the language Stanford himself promoted in building the school.
…hostile rhetoric toward Mexican immigrants today is very reminiscent of that used against Chinese immigrants in the late 1800s, when they were targeted by the nation’s first country-based restrictions on immigration. …in the past 20 years, Republicans [increasingly invoking Stanford’s horrible history] have referred to immigration much more frequently using words associated with crime, legality, deficiency, and threats.
Stanford’s recent publications on immigration attitudes highlight the persistence of anti-immigrant rhetoric, yet fail to reckon with the institution’s own historical role. Leland Stanford, the university’s founder and governor of California, referred to Chinese immigrants as a “degraded” race and perpetuated myths about their dietary habits, fueling discriminatory policies and violence.
The revival of pet-related anti-immigrant rhetoric by figures like Trump and Vance shows the enduring power of these propaganda tactics. It’s a stark reminder that the xenophobic playbook hasn’t changed much since Stanford’s era for the men trying to celebrate it as “great” – only the targets have shifted.
This persistence underscores the need for institutions like Stanford to not only research current attitudes but to actively confront their harmful legacies. Until they fully address this history, they remain obviously complicit in perpetuating continuation of the very xenophobia that their research purports to analyze.
