Fifteen Eighty Four

When viewers watched the first presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, they were astonished when the latter candidate made the claim that immigrants in Ohio are eating cats and dogs. Trump said, “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there. This is what’s happening in our country, and it’s a shame.”

Trump was swiftly corrected by one of the ABC News moderators, David Muir, who was fact checking the statements in real time. Muir noted, “there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused” (by Haitian migrants).

Trump did not back down on his claim despite the refutation, saying at the end of the exchange, “We’ll find out.”

The incident had already exploded on social media, where it was met with skepticism and generally ridiculed. Local Springfield officials have since come forward and confirmed that this rumor is not true. In the presidential race, Conservatives have made Springfield, Ohio’s growing Haitian population a major issue, leading to many allegations against them. Immigrants have long been unfairly targeted as scapegoats for a nation’s problems.  

Trump was, however, appealing to a classic racial stereotype. In Western society, the idea of consuming a dog or cat—animals that are mainly kept as pets—is viewed as abhorrent and morally corrupt. Urban legend holds that Chinese restaurants serve dog or cat meat, or that if a beloved pet goes missing, it was stolen and has ended up on a foreigner’s dinner plate. For decades, immigrants have been labeled as “pet eaters” to demonize them, casting them as “primitive” and “savage.”  

Foreigners and immigrants are often associated with their ethnic foodways, that is, the eating habits and staple dishes that sustain their group’s identity. For centuries, food names have been turned into ethnic slurs. During World War I, Germans were insulted as “krauts” (from sauerkraut), the British disparaged the French as “frogs,” while in turn, the French called the British rostbif or “roast beef.” Fast forward to today, when Indian people are abused as “curry munchers” and Hispanic people branded as “beaners.” 

Foodways often give us an overly-simplistic and reductionist view of the culinary habits of other cultures, for example, the idea that all Asian people eat rice, all Indian people eat curry, and that all Italian people eat garlic. Claims of people eating more exotic foods, such as cats and dogs, are invoked to incite fear and disgust in other cultures. In general, cultural stereotypes fuel beliefs that immigrants are different to us, in a bad way, and that they pose a serious threat to our Western way of life. 

In reaching for this old chestnut, Trump aimed to shock and outrage his audience. He also attempted to vilify and “other” US immigrants, dehumanizing them as cruel, evil, and inhumane. This kind of fear mongering creates an “us and them” dichotomy that is dangerous. History teaches us that such discrimination can lead to persecution, war, and ultimately, genocide. 

Dr. Karen Stollznow is the author of On the Offensive: Prejudice in Language Past and Present and her latest book is Bitch: The Journey of a Word.