I genuinely don't understand this. I'm pretty comfortable with the concept of privilege, but I fail to see how my choices in foodstuffs contribute to it. I'd order the book to find out, except that it sounds very, very silly.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The book might sound a good deal less silly if only every sentence at the website you've linked to wasn't so poorly written.
I love the "quotes" around "words" like "ethics" and "colorblind." Clearly, the writer is "pompous" and and "ironic."
Have you ever met a African-American vegan? I rest my case.
You've honestly never thought of this? You know that Japan surrendered, right? Even stuffwhitepeoplelike and the New York Times Style section are on this one.
Well vegans do tend to be lily-white... and maybe there's something in aggressive veganism that ignores cultural custom or even religious practice in places like Africa or East Asia that some might find racist or ignorant. But that's all I can think of.
The title of that anthology took me straight back to this gem from comic strip lore: "The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes."
At any rate, it strikes me that there is only one significant difference between a starvation-level subsistence agrarian laborer in a third world country, and a western white vegan: the former lives that way because he doesn't have the means and knowledge for a balanced diet, the latter lives that way because he does. For a very large spectrum in between, you include a range of meat and/or dairy products in your diet, and most of the nutrient problems take care of themselves.
I think the point the editors are looking to make is something about the increased cost of food grown with some organic/sustainable/ethical methods are more expensive than conventional agriculture.
The only other thing that comes to mind is the GM foods. Presumably they would be cheaper and easier to grow in poor countries allowing them to feed themselves.
But yes it does sound silly.
They're questions that someone should ask when looking at secondary and tertiary effects of the animal rights/organic movement. But an entire book about the subject?
One interpretation:
- "I'm going to eat what I want, and if you don't happen to like what I eat, tough."
vs.
- "Sharing in food is a part of taking part in one's community, and you should be mindful of others' tastes as a welcoming gesture."
Now, I think it's probably pretty easy to make an analogous argument about a lot of things, and it's rather ignorant to hate foods, but certainly lifestyle choices affect your place in society in some fashion.
It's about consumption choices, sure, but more than that it's about the promotion of certain consumption choices.
For example, sustainability, veganism, local consumption, organic, green... they often focus on the consumer rather than the producer. Why should the consumer bear the burden when the producer is the one causing all the harm? Why is the moral lens applied to the consumer just as or more harshly than to the producer? And isn't this application of the moral lens fraught with problems if people with privilege are the ones most often applying this lens?
If you understand privilege, you'll understand it affects everything you do. Everything. So maybe you'll see why white vegans might, in general, act slightly differently than Chinese vegans or Indian vegans or Mexican vegans or Black vegans. This is NOT to say veganism is privileged. But rather, that veganism MUST acknowledge or better yet include anti-racism as well as other movements of liberation.
Well, that's part of the equation anyway. It's a place to start.
There's a reply, but it doesn't actually advance any real arguments that don't amount to "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand".
That webpage reads like a right-winger's parody of college pomo-speak. Are you sure it's genuine?
Perhaps getting to that book requires the reading of a more mainstream thesis.
Come on. I find it hard to believe that you genuinely don't get this immediately. Vegans can come off as smug and morally vain. (You haven't always escaped this. The reports of your endless discussion with friends about the moral and social impact of your choice of bacon give me the impression of a bible belt Baptist women's Sunday school class.) And you must know of people who use their food requirements as a method to control others and make them cater to their needs. Since these food taboos tend to be class markers of certain white social classes I'm shocked that it took this long for the grievance industry to jump on it.
But rather, that veganism MUST acknowledge or better yet include anti-racism as well as other movements of liberation.
Stupid question time. How can veganism acknowledge or include anti-racism?
Elaine, you are not going to influence anybody's consumption choices by turning food into an issue of politics and privilege. Nobody likes being berated. Especially during mealtime.
And I'm with Tracy, I don't see what veganism has to do with racism, pro- or con-. Eat what you want and recruit for your political rallies after you're done.
PETA got a lot of flack for a series of campaigns that compared the factory farming of animals to both concentration camps and the enslavement of Blacks. Perhaps to people who are familiar with the methods of factory farming -and believe me, not many people are- how do you think a Jewish person or an African American would react if they saw these ads? I imagine their reaction would, in large part, be one of anger (e.g., "How dare they compare slavery or the mass extermination of millions of people to an animal?") Many whites may not see anything wrong with this comparison, but the way it is presented with little explanation is damaging not only to people who may one day consider veganism but it damns vegans who already bare the brunt of many a joke, giving a skeptic yet another reason not to take veganism seriously.
People become vegan for a number of reasons - some do it for health reasons, some got on the "Skinny Bitch" bandwagon, some approach from a social, environmental or ethical perspective, or a combination of all of the above and then some.
Some vegans see nothing wrong with spending a hefty chunk of money on specialty vegan items, and some struggle to pay the rent and rely on traditional (meat analogue-free) staples. The point I'm trying to make is that, unlike what some of the above commenter's and Ms. McArdle have generalized, not all vegans fit into a mold. They come from a variety of backgrounds. Unfortunately many vegans of color encounter the same biases, prejudices and overgeneralizations that are a sad but true part of everyday life.
Veganism is an ethical standpoint that seeks to eliminate the dominance of all beings, humans and animals. Since there are a lot of people who try veganism as a fad (or "cleanse") this is a foreign concept, thus rehashing the same structures of dominance, and failing to see the wider picture -- that it's not about you, the individual, it's about wanting to see wide scale change.