Submitted by zoom_zip in Vegan

reading some of this anti-vegan posting on completeanarchy, i’ve seen this argument come up that all vegans are racist because hunting is cultural and to say that a culture shouldn’t engage in their cultural practice because it’s hierarchical or cruel is racist

so

culture lovers

give me your best defence of female genital mutilation, forced marriage, child marriage, religious honour killings and other gender-violence, child scarrification, and cultural killing of gay/lesbian/bi/trans people.

i’m interested to hear how all of these things are actually fine because they’re cultural and that any criticism of them is racist

14

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Archaplain wrote

personally i love preventing people from drinking water cause they were born to the wrong family, but hey thats my 1000000 year old culture dont you dare criticise it.

12

moonlune wrote

It's so funny when my acquaintance avoids foie gras during Christmas dinner because of the animal torture, but eats all the other corpses on the table.

9

Fool wrote

While I can't think of circumstances that these are okay, I can think of how people would come up with such practice, generally by completing missing the point of what they were trying to achieve.

"This scripture, after four generations, will turn into literalism and formalism. What a pity.'"

  • Boddhidharma

I think this quote pretty much sums it up.

Genital mutilation - belief in Chaste Sex; if you don't orgasm during sex, you generate Sexual Energy which can harnessed for other things. Destroying sexual body parts stops orgasms... And "sexual energy".

Forced marriage - purely economical, separate romance and sex, just consolidate power.

Child marriage - coming back to Chaste Sex, if they misunderstood Chaste as Virgin... They're still a piece of shit.

Honour killings - Conflation of the method, and the teaching. Actually this is the answer to all of them. See quote above.

Gender violence - See Old Testament, and to a lesser extent the new testament too.

Child scarification - some sort of defence from slavers, disfigure to make people appear cursed/diseased.

Cultural Killings of Queers - There's texts that basically root this in formalisation of Patriarchy. I'll note, that this is largely an Abrehmaic tradition. Fluid sexuality/gender seems pretty normalised in places outside the influence of these religions.

Just to highlight, I'm not arguing for these, just reasoning the possible logic that started these traditions.

2

fortifiedmischief wrote

I truly don't understand why people are so obsessed with other people's (non)vegan status. we have OTHER FISH TO FRY my friends. pun INTENDED.

1

zoom_zip OP wrote

some people like to speak up on behalf of billions of oppressed creatures who are unnecessarily slaughtered every year in a cycle of endless exploitation that is one of the fundamental wheels of civilisation driving us towards extinction

others like to cry because a vegan was mean to them on the internet

who’s to say which side is right

6

fortifiedmischief wrote

Wouldn't it be more effective to work towards shutting down shitty food chains that drive the meat industry, instead of trying to convince individual people to go vegan? People will eat what tastes good and is cheap. Almost everywhere I've been, there is barely any yummy vegan/vegetarian food that doesn't cost a bajillion dollars. The cheapest most accessible food is fast food burgers.

1

zoom_zip OP wrote

i don’t really feel like it’s my responsibility to convert individuals to veganism and i don’t really care if people do or don’t. i just treat them with the hostility that i feel their actions deserve.

Almost everywhere I've been, there is barely any yummy vegan/vegetarian food that doesn't cost a bajillion dollars.

beans and rice? lentils? potatoes, carrots, and tomatoes? pasta?

7

fortifiedmischief wrote

ya if i'm cooking at home lol you don't need to list vegan food to me. Besides, I think most people cooking at home are probably more likely to try non-meat dishes. I figure the issue is with people buying meat as restaurant/take out food. Especially when it's the cheapest option.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

fortifiedmischief wrote

i don't disagree, I'm just arguing for a diversification in approaches to dismantling the meat industry beep boop

1

[deleted] wrote

4

fortifiedmischief wrote

oh ya for sure, definitely fuck that. Which I'm sure often falls under this umbrella of discussing what people's personal dietary choices are. I mean don't get me wrong, I think being vegan is a great thing for someone to do. And a lot of cultures come by it pretty easily. My fam is middle eastern and a lot of dishes are easily made veg or vegan and still tasting amazing.

I just wish there was more focus on bringing down corporate manifestations of animal exploitation and less focus on the individual's dietary choices. People often act on convenience and as long as there's cheap meat available people will buy it. It's a sad thing; fresh, organic produce is hard to come by and expensive. A junior mcchicken is in your hand in 5 mins.

5

[deleted] wrote

4

fortifiedmischief wrote (edited )

Number 1 I can get behind no problem. I love to hear it.

Your number 2 leads me to believe I may have just not expressed myself clearly (which is fine lol). I am not condemning the practice or need of convenience (although in many areas of life I wish people, myself included, were not so easily drawn to the allure of convenience, thus missing out on the fruits of a little labour). What I am trying to say is that I think we should work to make good, organic, vegan food more convenient.

For me this battle involves doing anything we can to refuse fast food chains opening in our neighbourhoods, protecting local food suppliers and farmers, collaborating with people in order to buy food in bulk directly from wholesalers so that it's cheaper... etc you get the gist.

"Pre-McDonald's purity" is maybe a bit dramatic, but I do believe that most people have lost their connection to food and are stuck in a loop detachment, hunger, and convenience, and it results in a total loss of agency over what we can eat. Ok I guess "total loss" is exactly what we're discussing here because you're advocating for individual decisions to consume suffer-less food. Which I'm down for. My qualm is energy is finite and I wish there was more energy spent on making quality organic/vegan/vegetarian food convenient.

I also do very much wish that more people had the time and energy to cook food at home, with their friends, family, neighbours. But that's a whole other can of worms (VEGAN GUMMY WORMS THAT IS).

1

notcreativename wrote

Well, that's a bit of a false comparison.

Not practicing FGM won't result in the starvation or mass migration of a group of people. Not hunting will result in the starvation or migration of that Sami and Inuit people, at the very least.

Primarily plant based is 100% the way to go for the vast majority of the world's geography, but, that isn't the case for the entirety of the world's geography. As with all things, nuance and context are going to be extremely helpful when dealing with groups that do not fit a general mold. Pointing out that a blanket statement regarding diet excludes the needs of select groups is not saying that vegans are racist, it is specifically saying that a general dietary restriction of no meat and no animal products will negatively affect those select groups, possibly to the point of eliminating them. And is generally begging a more nuanced approach to accommodate people.

−1

zoom_zip OP wrote

the population of these very specific groups that live in such hostile environments they need to hunt to survive (not the same thing as culture—survival necessity) is something like 1%.

so if 99% of the world stopped being animal abusers and 1% were doing it out of pure necessity, wouldn’t that be better than the current demographic of 99% animal abusers and 1% vegans?

but no, because a few people need to hunt to survive, 99% of the world population sits behind their computer dripping mcdonalds burger grease down their chin saying “but what about the inuits!”

3

notcreativename wrote

Yeah, 100%, that would be awesome.

Why are you characterizing me like that? Your treatment of people that are not even disagreeing with you, but explaining why in very specific circumstances they advocate for meat eaters is kinda over the top.

0

zoom_zip OP wrote

i didn’t use the word “you” once in that comment, so why are you assuming i’m characterising “you”?

3

notcreativename wrote

But that is blending other comments together, so, admittedly, I was doing it incorrectly.

1

notcreativename wrote

We were talking to each other and that seemed like that more common assumption as opposed to a group that wasn't mentioned prior. Also, the final "Stop using others to justify who you are." Does seem to target me.

1

zoom_zip OP wrote

you’re right. it does seem targeted, but the thing is… i don’t know you. i don’t know anything about you; so while what you said prompted it, it’s still a generalisation because i don’t know if you’re vegan or not. i wasn’t saying “you” are that person described. i’m saying it is common for a large majority of meat eaters to use a very small percentage of the global population out of context in order to justify their own actions.

if you do that, i don’t know. only you know.

2

notcreativename wrote

Yeah, I'm understanding now that it was an untargeted complaint, not directed at me. Sorry for taking it personally, and for touching on arguments that others use to undermine cause. I'm getting a bit confused with the different comments here, also, so, I'm sorry for any of unwarranted emotional argumentation towards you.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

notcreativename wrote

Now, granted I don't take part in this veganism debate often, but is the idea of not imposing an impossible dietary choice on vulnerable groups of people analogous to rape-apologia?

I live in Canada, so the Inuit and Pacific Native hunting rights are brought to my attention maybe more than someone that doesn't live near a group that would be negatively affected by a global end to meat consumption, but, even with that bias, it's fucking poor taste to ask why people are defending indigenous hunting rights while comparing them to wholly unjustifiable acts only to compare any of their defenders to rape apologists.

−1

[deleted] wrote

4

notcreativename wrote

Yo, so, I don't hide that I source the overwhelming majority of nutrition is through plants but I will totally eat a burger on a birthday or whatever. I definitely view plant-based diets as a less harmful choice to the planet, but I'm not ashamed that I don't view animal rights differently than human rights. That's not a carte blanche in my mind. Needless cruelty is fucked up, and needless cruelty that poisons the planet is mind-boggling. I have my view on diet, that I don't justify with marginal groups' needs, and it's a bit textured, but by no means comprehensive.

I'm not hiding behind the native groups that I've mentioned to justify my own diet, I'm checking a general statement to be more specific because if that generalization proliferates it hurts people I care about. When I read the post, my first thought was the continual controversy over fishing rights that I'm immersed in, that was the culture that was being compared to. Which, tied into the Inuit which are even more meat dependent, and they tied into the Sami, fairly analogous but tragically decimated by the Chernobyl fallout.

Maybe I am a bit overly sensitive to this issue. Native land rights, and the history of their exploitation is really commonly in the forefront of my day to day, so I definitely do concede a bit of a hair trigger on my reactions. Did so earlier, will keep saying it if necessary.

Also, small internal self-correction like this within a community has been a regular experience for me.

0

[deleted] wrote

2

notcreativename wrote

Kind of. I was set off by the OPs arguments paralleling those used to undermine indigenous land rights, in fights that are local to me. And I ended up using arguments that undermine vegan advocacy.

The original post didn't say "I hate that argumentation used to defend vulnerable groups is being used in bad faith to oppose a cause I believe in." They compared all hunting cultures to FGM and some of the most heinous acts that human commit against other humans. This is really gross, on its face, but, I understand that it comes from a place of frustration and anger, and isn't meant to target the people that I'm thinking of. But, it is still completely apathetic to them.

And in the continued conversation in comments, some kind of concerning racism cropped up with comments about Native groups not having phones or speaking English, so I'm not convinced that there isn't a thread to pull on here.

Also, I admitted in other comments, I'll do so again now, I am sensitive to this specific issue, it is close to home for me. I mentioned that it's been my experience that self-correction is encouraged in person in groups with similar ideological overlap, if I'm overstepping here I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to be obstructionist. I did mention almost immediately that what I was hoping to get was a bit of nuance to accommodate vulnerable groups, and a slight shift in perspective to be mindful of how generalizations might hurt people in future.

0

lettuceLeafer wrote

And in the continued conversation in comments, some kind of concerning racism cropped up with comments about Native groups not having phones or speaking English, so I'm not convinced that there isn't a thread to pull on here.

But like that the kinda group people bring up when defending reasons to not be vegan. It's the indigenous people who haven't integrated much into western society that would conceivable have some reason to not be vegan. The indigenous people with phones who integrated into colonial society has no reason to not be vegan.

When a Reddit says what about the indigenous people who hunt sustainable they are talking about rural indigenous people who have mostly kept their culture. The indigenous people who know about veganism and have access to veganism aren't the people brought up. It's allways a picture of a Inuit in a homemade jacket ice fishing or like some nonwhite person in a loincloth with a bow.

I dor think it's racism in that contend bc the argument being brought up is about non assimilated indigenous people who usualky don't have phones and often don't have the resources to learn english.

2

notcreativename wrote

It is racist, and you've openly displayed the prejudice here.

That image you have of the Inuit in skins is a sign of that. In Labrador, Inuit people live in developed communities. That impression you have, that stereotype that you're advocating the validity of, is racist.

1

lettuceLeafer wrote

This is ur imagination run wild I'm afraid. I never made a statement that all Inuit people wear skins and go ice fishing.i have even in this thread as a critique of moonlune gave evidence about Inuit people having phones and using the internet. And even in the study about Inuit people in college.

So no clue how u could have gotten the conclusion that I think all Inuit wear skins ad go ice fishing. Lol

2

notcreativename wrote

Okay, read a bit in, and I'm confused, sorry. I was confusing your impression of what a redditor might imagine as an indigenous hunter with a view you held yourself. It also initially read as though you were defending the validity of that stereotype. My bad, entirely, sorry.

It still feels weird, though, like, why is this the go-to (total tangent)?

In talking with someone else (I think), I realized that this might be that I'm not coming to this from the same direction. I do view human rights as being more important than animal rights, and not having those equated means that I'm not viewing this as arguing the racist connotations around a murder investigation, I'm seeing this from a perspective where the vulnerable group of people are more important than the fish and seals that they're eating. I'm hyper sensitive to those fishing rights (and by extension analogous rights for groups a bit more distant), but not to the fishes' rights. To me, it feels weird, like its excusing racism without any real reason to do so.

1

lettuceLeafer wrote

So since your not vegan you prob don't know this. For vegans people oncstantly come up to you with these same 50 arguments. The most common one for leftists to say is to talk about the culture or the ability of indigenous people as a reasons people can't go vegan. And in fairness usually I think it does come from a racist stereotype of indigenous people. But on some level that isn't super important because some indigneous people might not be in the predicament to be vegan. But the fact of the matter is in this argument about inidgenou culture I know of no one who brings it up to argue that the indigneous people who live in new york city or austin texas and have regular jobs have a good reason to not be vegan because they are vegan.

Its allways some rural indigenous peope in extreme poverty who can't live without eating meat. Which often used as a racist way needs to be argued against as some indigenosu people are in the circumstance. In sierra leon there are at lease a couple extremely poor wood cutters who rely on fishing to feed themself and many of the mayans in chiapas to my undertanding rely on some level of cattle to survive.

So the question of do these indigenous people need to change is a interesting vegan question. But if you don't have that context from the ongoing disscussion that yes we are not going to talk about a large chunk of indigneou people that is assumed in this discussion I can see why it looks racist. Though in moonlunes cas I think they were stereotyping iniut people but I know moonlune knows that many indigenous people aren't rural and use little technology. So it was just a problem of reminding them to not fall into cultural norms and give them evidence to help them not be ignorant as most people are. And it wasn't a case of moonlune just being ignorant on indigenous people as a whole. Just a off collar joke that was informed by ignorance and wasn't thought about enough to notice why it was ignorant.

1

notcreativename wrote

Am I confusing you with someone else? I've done that a couple times and I'm sincerely sorry if its the case (I am trying my absolute best to keep the multiple conversations straight).

1

lettuceLeafer wrote

Ah yeah maybe. I've done that plenty.

From my understanding you have a problem with moonlunes comment on the Inuit people not having phones. Which I also critiques moonlune for. But I commented at you because I felt you were being too hard on moonlune based on the context on the debate and moonlunes history.

So we are in agreement about all Inuits not being integrated into western society but many are initiated on some level.

Im arguing with both sides here bc I think u and the overall vegan stance on indigenous people are meaningful things to say and things worthy of critique basically.

But I'm glad ur here bc portraying indigenous people as a stereotype isn't something I think should be tolerated.

2

notcreativename wrote

Thanks for the understanding. I'm trying here, and not to fuck up anyone's motive or cause, but to answer what felt like a semi-rhetorical call for understanding and to shine a bit of light on a blind spot. We all have them, and we're all better when we finally see them. It's just one hell of a needle to thread, to be constructive and not obstructive, especially with a weird brain.

1

[deleted] wrote

1

notcreativename wrote

We do disagree there. I am admittedly biased in favour of humans. I support the continued production of insulin and anti-venoms, as well as any other life saving medication that is dependent on the suffering of animals. I realize that puts us at odds in the margins of agricultural reform, with the majority still being largely agreed upon.

We are also going to have to disagree regarding Moonlune's comment, and their intentions. I do not read that comment as parodying a racist caricature to make a point, especially when their argument is relying on their being truth to it. And while I'm having an issue ordering the comments here and their authors, the further plumbing of that topic has had the same colonial racism come up. Where Inuit people are undeveloped savages living in fringes, and not a robust and developed culture living in the modern age (granted, with a large portion North of the tree line).

Was I acting like a cop? Did I agree with a shift to plant based nutrition, with the condition of respecting and accommodating specific vulnerable cultures? From this side, it would be effortless to assume that you've just been asked to consider a group that you're obviously quite ignorant of, and you responded with the knee-jerk defense that you are entitled to obliterate those people and that any defense of them must be in poor faith. Emotions run high, but getting defensive like that, and then not being accountable for it is a recipe for blindness. Especially when you find yourself defending what is naked racism.

Also, as I type that, I realize that this could have such a greater emotional weight to someone that might equate free range ranching with reservations. In that case, yeah, the racist treatment of that vulnerable group of people pales in comparison to the crimes committed against animals. And I am not primed to consider those crimes against animals as being similar to crimes against people. So I'm focused in on the racist viewpoint, whereas to someone else that could seem like a wholly unnecessary tangent.

There's a difference between policing people's behaviour, and coaching blind spots. And I think it comes down to intention, reception, and context. Telling someone that is generally advocating for vulnerable groups that they are marginalizing a culture or species in a polite and respectful way, with the hope of having them incorporate that into a more encompassing perspective is good, especially when received well. I get that it's frustrating sometimes, and, that it's used as a weapon to immobilize, but its also the defining action that allows for a continual improvement of ideology and method. I'm not trying to stop you from advocating your cause, I'm shoulder to shoulder with you on 99% of it, and want it to move forward. But, it is an ever-present fear that any group I support is going to start turning people into "others." I am scared of the Bolsheviks, in short.

Also, am I white now? Last I checked I was getting the brackets, but that shit changes with the wind. And does my argument lose steam when I'm advocating for a group that I am not a part of? Am I only allowed to advocate for people born into Jewish families that lose their faith but are still forever Jewish in the eyes of the religious right?

1

lettuceLeafer wrote

I'm not ashamed that I don't view animal rights differently than human rights.

Don't worry I'll start being ashamed as soon as u talk to a typical American. Most Americans are less intelligent than many cattle imo.

0

notcreativename wrote

Jokes aside, it's good to remember that we're all about the same. We have different experiences, educations, and perspectives, but that capabilities of people are about equal.

It's a keystone for building a better world, that absent that continual brainwashing and propaganda all people will give up their chains. Even "typical Americans"

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

No americans best interests are gained from keep most people under immperialism pumping out extremely cheap consumer goods and bombing random 3rd world countries for sport. The material status of americans makes most of them diametrically opposed to improving the move impoverished peoples lives. Plus what am I? some kinda nasty populist. A better world requires getting a really big stick and beating the crap out of the american public to prevent their wants and desires form being made or make them materially reliant on you so you can control them lol.

1

lettuceLeafer wrote

I'm not ashamed that I don't view animal rights differently than human rights.

Don't worry I'll start being ashamed as soon as u talk to a typical American. Most Americans are less intelligent than many cattle imo.

0

lettuceLeafer wrote

I actually really appreciated this comment. It's a message I think is pretty important so I'm glad to see u viewing things in a similar way.

The discourse on raddle could be pretty great if this mindset was popular. Well that's my guess I could be wrong tho.

0

[deleted] wrote

0

lettuceLeafer wrote

I think its just a really tough pill to swallow. I remember it being pretty devastating for me to switch over to such a mindset. Moving from viewing oneself as good person who always does whats right to a nuanced character who is extremely flawed and is implicated in a lot of negative things because life isn't a story and sometimes is involved in villainous things due to the nature of life.

To portray oneself in your own mind in a negative way rather than giving yourself an excuse is really uncomfortable. Like doing something really messed up to someone and then realizing it and admitting you hurt them is really difficult emotionally. I think its like that but on a existential level.

1

moonlune wrote (edited )

NOOOO!!!! the angry vegan's rant on the obscure internet forum will hurt the feelings of this specific group of people who don't have phones I need to protect them and make sure they're not included in the angry vegan's violent blanket statements written in english languge!!!

3

notcreativename wrote

I was responding to a question in good faith, because I happen to be in a position to have a tangent of this specific argument come up fairly regularly in my community.

It's been my experience in obscure little groups that checks are appreciated. So when someone rants hard, and includes vulnerable people in their reticle that in no way deserve the animosity, it's just been common place to say "yo, bud, there's this perspective here that you're missing"

2

moonlune wrote (edited )

Oh sorry it's just that this argument has been used so much by people to justify them buying meat from the store. No offense but if there's a counterargument to veganism, vegan anarchists have probably thought about it.

Also I was angry for other irl reasons when I wrote that comment I could have been more polite sorry.

2

notcreativename wrote

It happens, no harm here. I'm glad that I'm not making your day worse, and I'm sorry too if I touched on common glittering generalities that get used to undermine the cause.

2

notcreativename wrote

Also, if we're calm.

This isn't an insult, just something that's a bit concerning. The comment about not having phones has a bit of the colonial racism hanging onto it. It's factually incorrect, and potentially biasing Native people as technologically backwards.

1

moonlune wrote

I don't think there are that many people who have the ability to check raddle while only surviving on hunting (no gathering) and for which a vegan diet would be impossible.

1

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/etd/24cdf505-d85c-4333-a1f3-8b66ef3716ed/etd_pdf/6cf1156499c8c2bc51651514fc13097b/castleton-inuitidentityandtechnologyanexplorationof.pdf

Wrong many Inuits use computers n stuff. Hence said study about social media use of Inuit youth. Plus I've seen a ton of pics of Inuits ridding snowmobiles which isn't a phone but many Inuits are living super primative.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are Inuits living in a way with almost no influence of western culture. But like Inuit is a broad term and many of whom are pretty integrated into what would be a life similar to u or I.

1

moonlune wrote

In which case those who are assimilated into western civilization should probably be able to consider veganism and aren't trapped into eating meat for life?

tbh I don't know/care much about the fringe populations who only have access to meat but are still able to be offended by me telling people not to eat it.

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

yeah I totally agree. Just its important to be careful to not portray indigenous groups as a common stereotype which is hard to avoid because often the anti vegan prompt is someone racist.

3