Akhav

If you are vegan, and trying to say the veganism itself is anti-capitalist and “fucks the system”.

akhav:

queernonywolf:

I think you need to sit down and read/watch a few things.

Industrial Agriculture is in fact capitalism as well. There is no escape of capitalism unless you are somehow growing your own food, doing a food share, buying directly from a farm source that has no ties to larger farming companies. The grain you eat is also the grain cows in factory farms also eat. Therefore, you have ONE degree if separation from you and the abused* cow, rather than the 0 degrees of separation a person directly eating meat has. One degree is not that far of a separation. Do not boast about simply a half a step left.

Here’s some documentaries that help lay it out:

King Corn

Food, Inc. [link provided. this is the best one for folks, better than king corn]

And some articles:

Costa Rica Battling Monsanto GMO Corn

The GM Genocide (Monsanto in India)

Palm Oil (Found in many vegan and non-vegan foods) Destroys Rainforests

For you Marxists and Leninists, here’s Capitalism in Agriculture

In fact, capitalization of agriculture is historically documented.

Slave and devastatingly low wage labor in agriculture in other countries

as well as in the U.S

Migrant Labor

——

So in summation: your diet is far less radical than you think it is, and you need to own up to it. It’s fine and dandy to be vegan, you’re free to do that. But do not pretend it is the right way to do things.

*I do in fact believe industry farming is in fact abusive and animal cruelty.

Yeah, the vegan following the standard Western vegan diet (consisting of Tofurkey, Silk Soymilk, Yves Smart franken-bologna) in particular has about zero ground to stand on, but it’s really important to acknowledge that even in the case of the ‘ideal vegan’, i.e. one which grows their own crops or purchases/trades/skill-shares from a local farm which wildcrafts its seeds or takes them from seed banks or something - that diet would be no more radical or anti-capitalist than that of someone who grew their own meat or got their meat from a local farm - or better yet, someone who raised, hunted, fished or otherwise obtained their meat in the way their culture has been doing since many generations before the first factory farm came to be.

Therein lies for me the most dangerous and repulsive aspect of mainstream Western veganism  - in practice it is rarely just a set of dietary and purchasing habits, but a distinctly bourgeois, (white) supremacist ideology, one which maintains itself by continually juxtaposing itself in the state it assumes least often (a diet consisting of whole, unprocessed produce, nuts and seeds) to meat production at its very worst (factory farms). Then, when confronted with the reality that there are people on this planet whose dietary practices don’t traditionally involve factory farmed meat but do involve meat and other animal products nonetheless, they respond by blubbering about how the modern miracle of dietary supplements and “nutritious” meat and dairy substitutes makes such diets obsolete, or sheepishly mutter something to the effect of “oh well uh I’m okay with that, they have little impact on the environment! You know, they live in touch with nature and stuff and they don’t eat that much meat anyway” - minimizing and redefining other cultures as is convenient to suit their batshit mythology.  

In any case, as you say - veganism hardly fucks the system. Standard Western Veganism has generated highly lucrative, multi-billion dollar a year markets which involve the same major players in the conventional food industry and others, who have their hands in everything from death squads in Brazil and Paraguy to the collapse of traditional diets. And all that aside - it advances itself using an unmistakably white supremacist (and unmistakably deluded) mythology. Hardly radical. 

(Source: dansphalluspalace)

If you are vegan, and trying to say the veganism itself is anti-capitalist and “fucks the system”.

queernonywolf:

I think you need to sit down and read/watch a few things.

Industrial Agriculture is in fact capitalism as well. There is no escape of capitalism unless you are somehow growing your own food, doing a food share, buying directly from a farm source that has no ties to larger farming companies. The grain you eat is also the grain cows in factory farms also eat. Therefore, you have ONE degree if separation from you and the abused* cow, rather than the 0 degrees of separation a person directly eating meat has. One degree is not that far of a separation. Do not boast about simply a half a step left.

Here’s some documentaries that help lay it out:

King Corn

Food, Inc. [link provided. this is the best one for folks, better than king corn]

And some articles:

Costa Rica Battling Monsanto GMO Corn

The GM Genocide (Monsanto in India)

Palm Oil (Found in many vegan and non-vegan foods) Destroys Rainforests

For you Marxists and Leninists, here’s Capitalism in Agriculture

In fact, capitalization of agriculture is historically documented.

Slave and devastatingly low wage labor in agriculture in other countries

as well as in the U.S

Migrant Labor

——

So in summation: your diet is far less radical than you think it is, and you need to own up to it. It’s fine and dandy to be vegan, you’re free to do that. But do not pretend it is the right way to do things.

*I do in fact believe industry farming is in fact abusive and animal cruelty.

Yeah, the vegan following the standard Western vegan diet (consisting of Tofurkey, Silk Soymilk, Yves Smart franken-bologna) in particular has about zero ground to stand on, but it’s really important to acknowledge that even in the case of the ‘ideal vegan’, i.e. one which grows their own crops or purchases/trades/skill-shares from a local farm which wildcrafts its seeds or takes them from seed banks or something - that diet would be no more radical or anti-capitalist than that of someone who grew their own meat or got their meat from a local farm - or better yet, someone who raised, hunted, fished or otherwise obtained their meat in the way their culture has been doing since many generations before the first factory farm came to be.

Therein lies for me the most dangerous and repulsive aspect of mainstream Western veganism  - in practice it is rarely just a set of dietary and purchasing habits, but a distinctly bourgeois, (white) supremacist ideology, one which maintains itself by continually juxtaposing itself in the state it assumes least often (a diet consisting of whole, unprocessed produce, nuts and seeds) to meat production at its very worst (factory farms). Then, when confronted with the reality that there are people on this planet whose dietary practices don’t traditionally involve factory farmed meat but do involve meat and other animal products nonetheless, they respond by blubbering about how the modern miracle of dietary supplements and “nutritious” meat and dairy substitutes makes such diets obsolete, or sheepishly mutter something to the effect of “oh well uh I’m okay with that, they have little impact on the environment! You know, they live in touch with nature and stuff and they don’t eat that much meat anyway” - minimizing and redefining other cultures as is convenient to suit their batshit mythology.  

In any case, as you say - veganism hardly fucks the system. Standard Western Veganism has generated highly lucrative, multi-billion dollar a year markets which involve the same major players in the conventional food industry and others, who have their hands in everything from death squads in Brazil and Paraguy to the collapse of traditional diets. And all that aside - it advances itself using an unmistakably white supremacist (and unmistakably deluded) mythology. Hardly radical. 

(Source: dansphalluspalace)

Shamanism

(This is a short, sloppy essay I wrote for an introduction to philosophy class on mainstream academic depictions of shamanism)

This essay is intended to briefly consider indigenous spiritual traditions as they are depicted in mainstream academia (specifically this class), and to propose that these depictions (especially those involving the term “shamanism”) are inappropriately homogenizing and are in the spirit of white supremacist mythology. The term “shamanism” found its way into the English language by way of late 19th century Russian anthropologists studying the Evenks, a people indigenous to south Siberia. After publishing their observations of Evenki spiritual practices, which they termed “shamanism” (based on the Evenki word “shaman”) anthropologists around the world began to use the term to describe the spiritual traditions of unassimilated indigenous peoples. This is thanks to the enormous weight given at that time to social evolutionist theory which provided the foundation for sociology’s inception as a distinct field of study in the middle of the 19th century and which strongly influenced the work of early anthropologists who were already seeking to identify “cultural universals”. The union of these theories would fit snugly into European mythology of cultural supremacy – if universals could be established across cultures, then it would follow that there are certain commonalities which may be used to identify cultures which are at a less-evolved point in their development thus providing insight into the origins of human society and civilization. Although social evolutionism fell out of favor in mainstream anthropology due to the rise in prominence of figures such as Franz Boas and Margaret Mead, its influence on anthropology persists as evidenced by contemporary positions such as the following taken from one of the lectures of this class:

“When we look at the history of human thought, from its origins in shamanism to its evolution and specialization with religion, philosophy, art and science, we can see that both positivism and skepticism play necessary roles.”

“It is quite amazing to consider that shamanism is the original human culture, found from Africa to Europe to the Americas to small islands in the pacific.”

            If human thought has its origins in shamanism, and has evolved to “specialization with religion, philosophy, art and science”, then it follows that shamanism is a less evolved form of human thought, and that those cultures which practice shamanism are at a rudimentary stage in their development – the original human stage. Because evolution here is defined as approaching ideological and structural likeness to Western societies, these statements also suggest that those cultures which are said to practice shamanism are static – that their spiritual practices have not changed over the millennia, and that they continue to represent the “original human culture”. The first statement also suggests that cultures which practice “shamanism” are not yet capable of religion, philosophy, art and science. Finally, both statements suggest that there is homogeneity among the spiritual traditions and rituals of these people. All of these notions are not just incorrect, but racist and white supremacist.

In the same lecture, no clear definition of the term “shaman” is given, other than that it is “a word from an old Turkish-Siberian dialect that means “one who knows”. This is a rather apathetic description of the term’s origins - Evenki is not a dialect but a group of languages, none of which is spoken in Turkey (which is incidentally nowhere near Siberia - nor is Evenki a Siberian-Turkic language, but a Tungusic language)  and there is in fact little scholarly agreement over the term’s precise meaning and etymological origins – it is translated variously as “fire handler”, “one who sees”, “one who knows”, or is argued to be derived from the Mandarin 沙弥 (sha men) or the Sanskrit शमन (shamana) - both terms referring to Buddhist monks – and still others argue that the Evenki word has no meaning other than to refer to the Evenki shamans themselves and that it has no recent exogenous etymology. Even in the way the term is defined and applied even among anthropologists there is little consistency, except in that it appears to be used as a kind of designation of the spiritual traditions of unassimilated people which are neither Abrahamic, Dharmic, nor Taoic (although it is occasionally used to refer to practitioners of Taoic religions, especially Shinto and Taoism). Most scholarly sources attempt to define shamanism as a spiritual tradition which seeks to alter human consciousness (achieve ecstacy) in order to “contact and utilize an ordinarily hidden reality in order to acquire knowledge, power, and to help others” (Cultural Anthropology, 13th Edition), and that this is achieved by using “…. not only thought itself, but drugs, pain, rhythms (chanting, drumming, rattles) fasting, sleep deprivation, removing oneself from society and meditation (including contemplation and prayer)” (From lecture) – a definition which could be aptly applied to the methods of Abrahamic, Dharmic and Taoic religions.

            In sum, the use of the term “shamanism” to describe the spiritual practices of non-Evenki cultures is racist and inappropriate. It is derived from unexamined white supremacist notions of social evolutionism and was popularized by early anthropology, a discipline which at this time had not yet begun to consider the humanity of the very people it studied. The many thousands of spiritual practices these peoples engaged in cannot be accurately generalized – although there may be similarities in ritual from culture to culture, this does not mean that these practices have equal meaning or significance across varying cultural contexts, nor does it indicate ontological homogeneity. The only basis for this unique classification for the spiritual practices of indigenous peoples is that these peoples share the status of the Other in the eyes of Westerners – they are the unconquered, the unassimilated. 

roguesgalaxy asked: Esperanto was never intended to REPLACE any national or ethnic language; it is an AUXILIARY language intended to foster better relations between people of different backgrounds. While it is Pan-European in composition (a shortcoming one must attribute to the times and circumstances under which it was developed), the modern Esperanto movement does not, IN ANY WAY, believe in the supremacy of Europe racially, culturally, or linguistically. P.S. Its creator, L.L. Zamenhof, was a holocaust victim

L.L. Zamenhof died in 1917. By then Hitler was still known best for his sketches and cartoons. Not that any of that is at all relevant to this discussion, anyway. 

Al malsaĝulo ne helpas admono, nur bastono.

So someone posted some of the things I had to say about Esperanto on a popular Esperanto forum. The responses generally range from fucking racist to fucking racist and stupid. This is the gem of the lot though: 

Have you ever thought about how people are constructing new languages and new cultures? While the natural tribal languages of Earth fall victim to modern civilization, new languages and new cultures like Na’vi, Klingon, Elvish, and thousands more are being thought into existence. Esperanto and other IALs are part of this. I speak English natively. There’s no reason for me to learn another language, but I do it anyway because it fascinates me. I’ve even created my own languages with their own unique cultures. Point being, people’s fascination with different languages will not abate. New languages and cultures replace the lost ones, just as natural death makes way for new life.

http://en.lernu.net/komunikado/forumo/temo.php?t=12084&p=4

So there you have it. Why fuss over language and culture preservation when you can become a Klingon or Elf warrior? Or both? The possibilities are endless!

neverwillstop:

When you commit a racist act out of ignorance, that doesn’t make you racist. What makes you racist is your defense of the racist act, your unwillingness to take responsibility for the racist act, your reliance on your ignorance to absolve your responsibility for the racist act.

When you commit a racist act knowingly, well, I don’t have to explain that one.

I don’t see how doing something racist in ignorance makes one not a racist. If one says or does something racist, then they’re a racist - otherwise they wouldn’t do it. Owning up to having done or said something fucked up is great and shows that there’s hope for improvement and progress, but it doesn’t change the hurt and trauma that may have been caused for someone else - the result is the same, regardless of intention or what one could have or would have said had they had more time to think about it. 

As you say, it’s important to take responsibility for what one says and does and for the implications thereof, but that holds true even if the implication is that one still holds onto racist notions or belief systems. 

Anonymous asked: Are all supporters of the Esperanto movement racist?

To support the Esperanto movement (as in, the movement which seeks to establish Esperanto as a second language for everyone in the world) one would have feel that linguistic diversity is a problem which could be solved by teaching everyone a language that is indisputably Eurocentric, then somehow ignore the fact that basically every lingua franca or “universal” language which came before it has had the effect of reducing linguistic and cultural diversity and enabling empires, corporations, ideologies, and even culture to become universal in their influence as well. 

So, in answer to your question - yes. 

Anonymous asked: "In other words, Esperantists argue for a homogenization of world culture, for a world which is obligingly accessible for white people and white culture, and for a world which caters to white need for convenience." Do you see the irony of making that statement in English, which has done all of these things in practice and not just as a hypothetical theory? And does that make English even more racist and pro-genocide?

No, I don’t see the irony in making that statement in English.

English is my first language - like many immigrant parents, my father didn’t want to risk hindering my development by teaching me Spanish - another colonial language, which his great grandparents opted to teach their children and not their indigenous language, because they didn’t want to hinder their development.

The reality is that people will do what they have to do to survive (or what they think they have to do - research of course now shows there are cognitive benefits for children raised bilingually).

That is why I am opposed to Esperanto - I don’t want parents to have another reason to not teach their children their own language and the language of their grandparents. 

The English language itself is not inherently racist or pro-genocide - what is racist and pro-genocide is the white supremacist mythology which brought the English language to its current state of hegemony. Likewise Esperanto is not inherently racist - I learned Esperanto and continue to learn it occasionally when I’m in the mood - but the movement behind it is racist and espouses a similar white supremacist mythology to the one which allowed for the current state of hegemony of the English language - one which states that linguistic diversity is a problem (“la lingva problemo” i.e., the language problem) which must be solved (“la fina venko” i.e., the final victory) and which claims neutrality despite being very obviously Eurocentric (Mi trinkas la viskion).

iscottles asked: Forgive the disjointedness but there's a character limit to work with. Is your issue with Esperanto simply the idea of a lingua franca being oppressive to local cultures, or that it is eurocentric? Also, as for the eurocentricness, you can hardly blame modern Esperantists for lexical decisions made over 100 years ago. I disagree with you about the syntax, though. I could be mistaken, and correct me if I am, but doesn't the accusative (-n) suffix allow for deviation from your native syntax?

Lingua francas are generally harmful to local cultures and local languages, particularly when they are completely unrelated to the local language culturally and linguistically, and especially when they are imposed by a colonial power. Consider the impact of Tagalog being adopted as the national language of the Philippines on other Filipino languages, or the prestige status given to English in Sweden and the impact on Swedish language literacy, or perhaps even more candidly, the impact on Latin on the languages of Western Europe. I know Esperantists say they don’t want to impose their language on anyone but they’re not kidding anyone (at least not me) - roughly every two years the World Esperanto Association (UEA) petitions the UN to recommend that its member states require the teaching of Esperanto in their schools and expand local Esperanto education programs. 

The accusative suffix is inconsequential - theoretically it allows for more free word order, but colloquial Esperanto is faithful to SVO word-order. Remember - grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. 

I can assure you, Esperanto is quite irrefutably Indo-European in syntax. It is rendered in the Latin alphabet, its lexicon is overwhelmingly Indo-European (mainly drawing from Latin, other Romance languages, Germanic languages, Greek, and some Slavic languages) with very few deviations (which themselves seem contrived, and ironically in most cases alternate Indo-European forms exist - e.g. boaco, reindeer, from Northern Sami, boazu, alt. rangifero, from Latin, or norda cervo, “northern deer”, also Latin). Its grammar consists of definite articles, conjugation of verbs to indicate present, past, and future tenses, conditional and jussive moods, declination of nouns to indicate plural and accusative case, compound tenses, noun-adjective agreement, compound tenses, and numerous, numerous other features which in concert produce something which sounds totally alien (or at least European) to the ears of anyone who doesn’t already speak an Indo-European language. The cherry on top is the fact that most idiomatic expressions in Esperanto are European in origin. To call that neutral is truly exemplary and typical of white supremacist Esperantist bullshit. 

And yes, of course I can blame modern Esperantists for upholding those Eurocentric lexical decisions made 100 years ago. Modern Esperantists are the ones billing Esperanto as a “neutral” and truly international language when it is clearly a European language, both in origin and in appearance (do they think people are stupid? I mean, the first sentence you learn in most Esperanto courses is “La birdo estas bela”. That sentence is about as neutral and international as the European Union). Modern Esperantists are the ones who can stop perpetuating this racist and uninformed myth that Esperanto is more easily learned than any other natural language (tell that to a native speaker of Mandarin, Japanese, Lao, Arabic, Tamazight, Telugu, Malayalam, Amharic, Tegrina, or any other non-Indo-European language rendered in a non-Latin script).

In fact, for that matter they can also stop upholding this insane notion that there exists something called a “language problem” which must be solved, and that it can be solved by imposing another European language on the world. Despite the intentions of individual Esperantists and how much they talk about language diversity and language preservation nowadays, the reality is that minority languages are marginalized enough as it is by national languages, and that no language is neutral. All languages acquire a certain status within the communities they are used in, and like it or not an international language will inexorably become one of commerce. Coupled with the ever-expanding purview of globalization, international capitalism and neo-imperialism (which are all basically the same thing), and people will increasingly see less value in learning the languages of their parents and grandparents in their effort to get by in the world. To kill a culture, you start with the tongue. 

So anyway, to conclude, Esperanto is racist both by design and as a movement.