Analogies in a Controversial Debate

Analogies are often used to elaborate on a point. Very often though, they end up becoming the point, and are debated as if they were explicit arguments themselves. 

Here's an example:

Terese: The way that we treat animals today - as if they were mere tools for our own ends - is exactly the same way black people were treated during the days of chattel slavery.

Craig: That's the most racist thing I've ever heard. Are you comparing animals to black people, Terese?

Here, Terese uses an analogy to slavery to illustrate her thoughts on the plight of animals in modern society. However, Craig then accuses her of making a false equivalence. The problem is...has he committed a strawman fallacy here?

I think the question of equivalence is debatable. However, I'm pretty sold that Craig is at least making a hostile interpretation of what Terese meant. What are your thoughts?

Any analogy can be a strong one as long as the way in which the things compared are similar is pointed out. And any accusations of racism, bigotry, sexism, etc. typically abandons reason for political correctness. This analogy does point how how they were the same ("as if they were mere tools for our own ends"). Like science, reason/logic addresses what IS. IF Black people were treated like animals, rejecting this is being wrong in order to be politically correct (although denying this seems like the politically incorrect position.)

A strawman is debatable here because on the one hand, Terese did actually compare Black people to animals, but on the other hand, Craig is misrepresenting the intent and scope of the comparison. The point of Terese's comparison was to point out the injustice of the past treatment where Craig appears to be suggesting that Terese is saying that Black people are (currently) like animals in general. This is a common rhetorical device used in debate to poisoning the well — make your opponent look (racist, sexist, uncaring, cold, heartless, etc.) by misrepresenting the intent and/or scope of their analogy.

Similar side note, some members of the medical community recently "compared COVID to the Flu," IN THAT, kids under 12 are just as likely to suffer serious effects from COVID as they are the FLU. Of course, COVID is very different (larger scope) than the flu. But in the scope of 12 and younger, is very similar. The intent wasn't to dismiss COVID as "no worse than the flu," but to point out that when it comes to kids 12 and younger, it is similar.

It appears to me that Craig went out of his way in his response to beat the drum of the day. In doing so he changed the focal point of the discussion. 

In doing so, Craig committed the Fallacy of Diversion (when you have no answer to the topic at hand, you divert the discussion to something more comfortable).