Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 29 2003 @ 05:14 PM CST

Good article, just wanted to comment on the \"speciesism\" stuff... I think you need to dig a bit deeper - it\'s not just animals, it\'s mushrooms and amoeba and pine trees and cyanobacteria... the lines that science uses to divide \"species\" from one another are always in tension - even the lines that divide the five kingdoms. I always wondered if vegetarians really understood this. What is so much less cruel about killing a carrot plant to eat it compared with killing a chicken?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 29 2003 @ 08:39 PM CST

Agreed, 100%.

The thing is, the article isn\'t about \"speciesism\" per se, it\'s about TACTICS, and where we go from here.

And, there isn\'t much \"anti-mushroom picking\" activism (or whatever) going on, so, there wasn\'t much to write about there.

Thanks for the criticism!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 29 2003 @ 10:00 PM CST

Not everyone who avoids eating meat is a vegetarian. Some of us are fruitarians who avoid eating carrots and mushrooms in as much as we avoid eating meat and fishes.

That said, there are still problems - bacterias and germs, anyone? :D

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 29 2003 @ 10:39 PM CST

i\'m not sure i understand...why fruits but no carrots?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 29 2003 @ 10:41 PM CST

oh...wait...is it cos you typically take the entire plant when you eat a vegetable, and not with a fruit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 12:51 AM CST

Animals have nervous systems and can feel pain. duh.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 12:55 AM CST

geez, look at how active the animal liberation folk are http://www.directaction.info/ its amazing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 09:08 AM CST

This author\'s interpretation of human history as \'10,000 years of European and \"white\" conquest of the earth and its dwellers\' seems extremely superficial, if not downright silly. In the first place, both the concepts of \"European\" and \"white\" are relatively recent, historically speaking; secondly, one doesn\'t need to be a professional historian to know about ancient Egypt, Carthage, the Phoenicians, Assyrians, Chinese, etc., not to mention imperial powers in the Americas such as the Olmecs, Toltecs, Mayans, and Incas. There is indeed a long history of conquest and domination in our world, but it is by no means limited to Europeans or \"whites\" in general.

If one wants to see the practical consequences of certain radicals\' emphasis on \"white-skin privilege\", look at what this article says in praise of the Black Panther Party and the Weather Underground, two notoriously authoritarian groups which happen to have had what this author considers a politically correct position on race relations. Darby Carrgym would have us believe that he is broadening the critique of hierarchy and domination, when in fact he is willing to ignore egregious examples of these two evils.

As for the usual praise of the more harmonious and spiritual lifestyles of certain indigenous groups, I would ask a few questions - do they not eat animals? Do they not use their skins for clothing? Do they not force animals into involuntary servitude for various purposes, including ritual sacrifice? The concern for \"animal rights\" seems to be limited mostly to a small minority of radicals in Western society, and the attempt to establish a link between sexism, racism, classism, etc., and the \"abuse\" of animals is extremely far-fetched.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 09:32 AM CST

Whats far fetched about hierachy Mack?
The industrialization of nature includes as one of it\'s most dangerous manifestations the industrialization of animals for food.This is already leading to declining health rates of kids (obesity,diebetis.)and actual deaths from bse.
This is a clear and present danger so isnt the most important question what can I do to stop industrial animal farming?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 09:48 AM CST

So, PR, is it only the industrialization of meat-eating and animal husbandry that animal rights activists object to, or is it the very concept that humans can rightfully use other animals for their own purposes? I\'m going to assume, for now, that most people in the world eat meat, that most people don\'t have a strong moral objection to using animals in a variety of ways, as long as there is not gratuitous cruelty involved. Personally, as a meat-eater and wearer of animal skins (leather jackets), as a pet owner and supporter of the use of animals for medical research and farm labor, I would draw the line at things like torture or dog-fighting, for example. As for being opposed to industrialization in general, I\'m right there with you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 10:54 AM CST

This article is really bad. I\'ll just lay out the real obvious shit- first of all, the anthropocentric perspective is far from restricted to Europeans. To say that it\'s a European-white thing is really pretty Eurocentric itself, it\'s the European way of romanticizing other cultures which is bullshit. Confucius anyone?

The native americans were not vegans or deep ecologists or animal rights people, nor did they all have the same beliefs. So it\'s pretty Eurocentric to suggest that they do.

Finally, Chief Seattle never said that. That quote is from a speech written by a white guy for a 70\'s TV movie about Chief Seattle.

If you\'re going to write an article aimed to convince people of anything, at least take the time to do the slightest bit of research. - Ryan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 12:38 PM CST

[I] ...Personally, as a meat-eater and wearer of animal skins (leather jackets), as a pet owner and supporter of the use of animals for medical research and farm labor, I would draw the line at things like torture or dog-fighting, for example... [/I]

Please explain under what authority you place the value of humans as greater than the value of other animals. And if you, in your benevolence, would draw the line at torture but support the exploitation of animals for medical research, how can you fail to recognize the evidence that torture takes place every day in the name of such so-called \"research?\" Focusing only on that aspect of animal exploitation (\"medical research\"), you should visit shacamerica.net and pcrm.org (the Physicians Committee for Resposisble Medicine).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 12:43 PM CST

Hey, flightrisk,

I don\'t need to refer to any authority to justify human use of animals - that\'s just a fact of life. When I talk about torture, I mean just that - the inflicting of pain for its own sake, in order to gain some kind of gratification.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 01:02 PM CST

Downright silly is right!@! Wacko trends like \"primitiveism\" and \"animal liberation\" give every anarchist a bad name. Eat my carrot!@!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 01:07 PM CST

Hey, Kurt,

Don\'t put primitivism in the same boat with \"animal rights\"; primitivism has a much stronger, more coherent critique.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 01:25 PM CST

It\'s the type of question you ask that shows what a wacko you are!@! When I see a chimp build a spaceship and land on the moon, I\'ll be ready to admit more than a raw 97% DNA relationship. If you can\'t tell the difference between a cow and a human being, or a crow and a human being, or a pig and a human being....On second thought, about pigs...in blue...screw U...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 01:37 PM CST

That very much may be true. However, I still think primitivism is wacko. I thought John Zerzan was nuts when I read his stuff in \"Fifth Estate\" two decades ago, and I see no reason to change my mind now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 01:57 PM CST

When I see a slew of personal attacks I know an argument, no matter how terrible or incoherent, has hit home. As a vegan I feel that using animals, their bodies, or their bodily fluids is easily avoidable and wrong. Veganism is magnificent because it prompts people to start cooking their own food, most prepared food goods are not vegan (using common things like mono/diglycerides from animal fat), which also helps foster an individualistic point of view, that you can be self sufficient. Gandhi\'s swadeshi principle was to make oneself independent of their ruling body, and we can apply this to the united states. We hate large corporations that dictate policy without any accountability, so we can become totally independent by growing and cooking everything ourselves.

Vrajabadhu Dasi, a San Diego woman, said it best when she suggested \"we have warning labels on meat similar to those on cigarettes. \'Warning: this product contains the residues from pesticides, hormones, growth stimulants, insecticides, tranquillisers, radioactive isotopes, herbicides, antibiotics, appetite stimulants and larvicides. Has been shown to cause colon and breast cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis, obesity, osteoporosis as well as other diseases. Product contains numerous bacteria associated with the putrefaction and decay of body tissue, which is hazardous to human health and may cause death.\'\" She also points out the USDA not only inspects the meat, but markets it, which must present a great conflict of interest.

There are ethical and health arguments, both of which I abide by. Animal rights are DIRECTLY tied in with anti-globalization messages, as populations of animals are severely effected by new mining efforts dictated by IMF policy. Things like the three gorges dam that is killing dolphin populations, giant factories that displace birds and especially south american non-shade grown coffee plantations.

Please look into the problems and stop being so stubborn. Give it a try at least, try vegetarianism for a bit if you can\'t make veganism. Products from soy beans are very nutritious and the argument that they\'re bland can easily be solved with a culinary education of spices. Eating fresh vegetable dishes you\'ve grown and made yourself is a very enriching experience.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 02:00 PM CST

I may be slightly butchering it.. but here\'s Gandhi\'s take. \"The western man fills his home
with groceries and thinks that he is self-sufficient.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 02:09 PM CST

No can do, Wrench. I\'m a life-long meat-eater, and I see nothing wrong in principle with eating animals. I have had some excellent vegan food at the Chicago A-Zone, however. Fighting for the preservation of different animal species is NOT the same thing as fantasizing about \"animal rights\". I might try growing my own food someday, including a few chickens, a pig, and a cow. I may one day need to learn how to hunt and fish, as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 02:21 PM CST

Well, Wrench, if you are a part of Food Not Bombs, I warn you in advance: The next time FNB \"organizes\" food at a conference here in NYC, and does not even supply salt, pepper or catsup, I swear to you I\'ll buy a stack of 20 hamburgers, stand out in front of the registration desk, and hand them out in protest!@! I have no problem eating veratarian if it tastes good; but if it\'s Shit Not Food--forget it.

Besides, scientific studies show that vegans have much lower IQs than meat-eaters. Whether this is inherent or acquired, I don\'t know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 04:22 PM CST

You know, as soon as i saw some of the first comments about the carrot and stuff at the beginning - i knew it was going to turn into this whole vegan/veggie vs. omnivore thing.

Can we please keep the discussion back to the article? As I recall it argues for a sort of integration of movements like ALF & ELF into the more broad anti-capitalist movment. I think there is plenty to debate about that w/o going into another flame war about vegetarianism and its opponents.

I myself think that there are some good points, whether one believes animals should be farmed or not farmed, I think everyone can agree that keeping any creature in a setting such as that used in commercial farms is unjust by any standard - whether you are a meat-eater, vegan, or martian, etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 04:42 PM CST

Honestly, though i often disagree with your outlook and approach regarding anarchism, i usually think you offer thoughtful rationales for your posts. But the argument of \"it\'s just a fact of life?\" Seriously? That\'s it, the entirety of how you see justified the exploitation of animals? You know too well the other facts of life. And not the ones with Tootie and Mrs. Garrett. The facts are that we live in a society ruled by the few over the many, blah blah blah, all that stuff that seemingly has us united enough to share space in the margins of social movement activity. So i sincerely do not understand how struggling against oppression is not more likely to be a \"fact of life\" and how challenging all the so-called facts is not a worthy pursuit.

Sadly, most of the people who would be typically battling you because you are YOU are silent, as they have the same low opinion of animal liberation and its proponents. It would be like uniting Nader and Buchannan, bringing you folks together. Maybe animal liberation can serve as the bane that the two camps can rally together to purge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 04:53 PM CST

\"I might try growing my own food someday, including a few chickens, a pig, and a cow. I may one day need to learn how to hunt and fish, as well.\"

...But until that mysterious day in the future comes, I\'ll just throw on my leather jacket (so hip) and go out for a steak instead. Yep, that\'s me, tirelessly fighting oppression, hierarchy and domination in all it\'s forms! All hail liberation!! (hey, pass the lamb, would ya? mmm, it\'so yummy in MY tummy)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 05:10 PM CST

Actually, I don\'t eat much steak - too expensive. A lot of chicken, some tuna fish, occasionally some ground beef or pork. Frankly, I\'ve got more important things to worry about than whether the chicken I\'m eating had a comfortable life.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 05:16 PM CST

Thank you Roig for keeping things to the article.

Notice how the ENTIRE ARTICLE had nothing to do with veganism/vegans. It talked about the AR movement.

Makhno apparently \"has more important things to worry about than whether the chicken\" he ate had a good life, but, he doesn\'t apparently have enough time to actually respond to the article, except made stupid arguments somehow rationalizing his participation in an extremely destructive industry.

And this article has NOTHING to do with \"primitivism\", i hate that term.

This is \"expanding\" the anarchist critique, to include more things, including racism/sexism AND speciesism.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 05:20 PM CST

Hey, Darby,

Perhaps you didn\'t read the first post I made in this thread, at 07:08AM, in which I offered a critique of your rather lame article. Care to respond to that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 05:31 PM CST

And while you\'re at it, Darby, perhaps you could respond to EvilPanda\'s critique of your article, as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 06:45 PM CST

germs

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 07:27 PM CST

\"When I see a slew of personal attacks I know an argument, no matter how terrible or incoherent, has hit home\"

so if i came on to this board and said \"all white people are subhuman trash and must be removed by force from the earth\" and got flamed by everybody you would say \"it hit home\"?

Furthermore, if somehting \"hits home\" does that make it right?

thats the same bullshit thinking the primitivists use. You come into a discussion and say something clearly and totally insane and when people are shocked that your opinion is even taken seriously, you claim that proves you right. No it proves that somebody thinks your totally wrong. You MIGHT be right, but reactions from people who disagree with you mean nothing

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 07:35 PM CST

you wrote:

This author\'s interpretation of human history as \'10,000 years of European and \"white\" conquest of the earth and its dwellers\' seems extremely superficial, if not downright silly. In the first place, both the concepts of \"European\" and \"white\" are relatively recent, historically speaking; secondly, one doesn\'t need to be a professional historian to know about ancient Egypt, Carthage, the Phoenicians, Assyrians, Chinese, etc., not to mention imperial powers in the Americas such as the Olmecs, Toltecs, Mayans, and Incas. There is indeed a long history of conquest and domination in our world, but it is by no means limited to Europeans or \"whites\" in general.
If one wants to see the practical consequences of certain radicals\' emphasis on \"white-skin privilege\", look at what this article says in praise of the Black Panther Party and the Weather Underground, two notoriously authoritarian groups which happen to have had what this author considers a politically correct position on race relations. Darby Carrgym would have us believe that he is broadening the critique of hierarchy and domination, when in fact he is willing to ignore egregious examples of these two evils.

As for the usual praise of the more harmonious and spiritual lifestyles of certain indigenous groups, I would ask a few questions - do they not eat animals? Do they not use their skins for clothing? Do they not force animals into involuntary servitude for various purposes, including ritual sacrifice? The concern for \"animal rights\" seems to be limited mostly to a small minority of radicals in Western society, and the attempt to establish a link between sexism, racism, classism, etc., and the \"abuse\" of animals is extremely far-fetched.

You are right, it\'s not 10,000 years of conquest, much less. But, I completely disagree with your non-sensical argument about white-skin privilege, considering white people are in power now (globally and domestically in the US), and, white people have everday privileges people of color do not have.

The article was not \"praising\" either the BPP or the WUO. You fabricated that claim, therefore I don\'t have any response to what you wrote.

Of course SOME native cultures ate animals... so what? They ate animals either out of necessity or out of religious or spiritual tradition: both of which us first world honkies know nothing of.

And, once again, you are bringing this back to consumption, which has nothing to do with the thrust of the article.

Your last sentence is garbled, and frankly has no relevance to what the article is about, or anything of importance. Please don\'t try to clarify your points about all of this, it is clear you have no interest in discussing the issues i brought up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 07:41 PM CST

This article is really bad. I\'ll just lay out the real obvious shit- first of all, the anthropocentric perspective is far from restricted to Europeans. To say that it\'s a European-white thing is really pretty Eurocentric itself, it\'s the European way of romanticizing other cultures which is bullshit. Confucius anyone?
The native americans were not vegans or deep ecologists or animal rights people, nor did they all have the same beliefs. So it\'s pretty Eurocentric to suggest that they do.

Finally, Chief Seattle never said that. That quote is from a speech written by a white guy for a 70\'s TV movie about Chief Seattle.

If you\'re going to write an article aimed to convince people of anything, at least take the time to do the slightest bit of research. - Ryan

No, it\'s not a \"white thing\". Of course not. Makhno tried similiar claims.

Look, I am interested in talking about WHAT WE CAN AFFECT. Not intellectual masturbation. Ok? It\'s a simple principle, and, I think we should stick to it.

That\'s why the article is about WHAT WE CAN DO. It\'s not about Speciesism. You missed the point already.

I wasn\'t claiming \"natives\" were deep ecologists, but you are right, it isn\'t very clear. And, there are LOTS of native cultures out there, so, it\'s not monolithic.

It\'s actually not \"fact\" if \"he\" said it or not. There is a huge debate about it, maybe i will post the link. I saw all the claims about it being written by a white guy, but then it\'s all just speculation. No one knows if he EVER wrote anything. I should have found a better quote.

Just to be clear, even if he didn\'t write it, that principle of humans being \"equal\" to other beings is a common and reoccurring thing that comes up in a lot of native cultures.

I wasn\'t trying to \"convince you of animal rights/deep ecology/speciesism\". It just proves how much you want to yell at people, rather than make a movement.

Look, the article is about TACTICS, and how \"speciesism\" (as i frame it) blinds us from certain tactics. It\'s not very complicated. Reread it perhaps.

Happy Makhno?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 10:10 PM CST

Because plucking an apple off a tree does not hurt the plant. On the other hand, pulling the root out of the ground and consuming it - that kills the plant.

Besides which, fruits are meant to be eaten. It is how fruits-bearing plants reproduce - by attracting others animals to consume the fruits, nuts (aka dried fruits), beans, grains, and at times, seeds. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 10:24 PM CST

Hey, Darby,

Did you say some native cultures ate animals? Which native cultures didn\'t eat animals? So \"first-world honkies\" like us know nothing about religious or spiritual tradition? Do you realize what a stupid racist asshole you sound like when you say something like that? The fact that you may be white yourself doesn\'t make it any less reprehensible. The self-hating, guilt-tripping white liberal agenda of the \"white-skin privilege\" crowd couldn\'t be made any clearer.

Here is what you said about the Black Panther Party and the Weather Underground:

Another less contemporary example of the \"making connections\" dynamic, is when white activists began to support the Black Panther Party (BPP). The unification of white activists under the leadership of the BPP came out of an analysis of white privilege, and the necessity to abolish it in order to succeed in the class struggle. The Weather Underground Organization (WUO) took a similiar position, attempting to organize an army of white youth who would assist the \"black colonies within the US\" in \"ultimately overthrowing US imperialism from within the belly of the beast\". Of course, as we know now, the WUO\'s strategy was ultimately very unsuccessful and counterproductive. The WUO\'s thesis was that if they could engaged in armed struggle, they could take \"heat\" off of Black and Latino groups, and be true allies. Although the WUO was ultimately a failure, the philosophy of white alliances and militant struggle should be maintained for the future.

Nowhere in that section do you show the slightest understanding of, or concern for, the fundamentally authoritarian and hierarchical nature of these two groups; all you care about is their \"correct\" position on \"white-skin privilege\".

You have just admitted that your claim about \'10,000 years of European and \"white\" conquest of the earth\' is complete nonsense; so let\'s say that you are referring to roughly the last five hundred years, taking into account that \"white\" dominance even then is still only relative, if you consider the Aztecs, the Turks, the Chinese and Japanese empires, or the various African kingdoms that were actively involved in the slave trade. How complete is \"white\" hegemony now, at the beginning of the 21st century? Much of thw world\'s oil supply is in the hands of Arab nations; China and Japan are still around; and India, though a very poor country, has an enormous and ever-expanding population. Birth rates are falling in some European countries (and in Japan); and in the US, we have a sizeable black population, as well as a growing Latino minority.

There is a dominant capitalist power structure in the world, and probably the vast majority of people in the highest places of power are \"white\". Racism is a major problem, although it can take many forms, and is usually complicated by factors such as religion, class, educational status, nationality, etc. To take just one example, consider the hatred many inner-city blacks feel towards Korean or Arab merchants. \"White\" privilege, to the extent that it exists, is hardly uniform - is the poor, uneducated white coal miner in Appalachia as \"privileged\" as George W. Bush, for instance?

Really, Darby, your whole argument about animal rights and anthropocentrism would have been stronger if you had just left all this \"white-skin privilege\" nonsense aside. I found two definitions for anthropocentrism:

1 : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
2 : interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences

Definition (1) is a bit much, but (2) seems more reasonable. I don\'t see anything wrong with arguing for a more spiritual or holistic view of the world, but to pretend that your own species has no more value to you than others is ridiculous. Promoting environmental consciousness and more humane treatment of animals may be a noble endeavor, but to frame your position in terms of a nebulous concept like \"animal rights\" makes it far less convincing. The analogy between human domination and exploitation of other humans and the human exploitation of nature can only be taken so far; issues such as class, race, sex, gender, power and hierarchy need to be addressed regardless of whether or not people embrace \"animal rights\", and you have not made much of a case for AR\'s centrality to the struggle to end various forms of oppression.

You said that we need to transcend the need for well-written essays. Well, you\'ve certainly done that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 11:43 PM CST

Well obviously you\'re a bit miffed or you wouldn\'t reply. I wasn\'t saying it is justifiably \"correct\" if this or that, you\'re reading too deep. I simply meant I thought it was funny that the article wasn\'t addressed, I apologize if I came across wrong.

I came across with the impression that this was going to be about globalization, as the title is a play off Joseph Stiglitz\'s book \"Globalization and its discontents.\" I meant simply to say I personally think animals should be taken into consideration in the area of globalization, its an argument rarely used, that huge populations of animals are killed off and displaced, animals that are very rare and nearing extinction. Owl populations in forests, tropical birds in coffee plantations, the dolphins of the three gorges dam project, tigers in bamboo forests where mining is going to happen in india, etc. I believe they have an inherent \"right\" to live just as anyone else, why not use that in your fight. You might gain a lot of sympathy from those who are like-minded at least in the animal perspective, and have them later get interested in the anti-capitalist globalization movement.

If you want to critique my words please extend the criticism to the rest of my reply. Not offered as a challenge, but I felt I wrote something that wasn\'t just full of personal attacks, if you are to take the side of those ignoring animal populations disappearing then refute my claims.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 12:59 AM CST

You said that we need to transcend the need for well-written essays. Well, you\'ve certainly done that.

I agree. Now, can you stop attacking people and do something? Seriously!!! I thought we were all comrades here?

And, for the record, your race analysis is ridiculous...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 01:27 AM CST

Hey, Darby,

For the record, if you\'ve got any actual reasons for calling my ideas on race \"ridiculous\", I\'d like to hear them. From where I stand, your pathetic white liberal whining about \"white-skin privilege\" looks pretty ludicrous.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 01:44 AM CST

Hey, Wrench,

FYI, Joseph Stiglitz got the title for his book from Sigmund Freud\'s essay, Civilization and Its Discontents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 08:52 AM CST

Wow, A \'Makhno\' post that I can actually agree 100% with (but I can fish). I don\'t think I\'ll ever recover from this!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 08:56 AM CST

It seems to me that this article, like much of the animal rights movement, downplays or sidesteps the specific needs -- and opportunities -- presented by the cruel intersection of animal exploitation and specifically capitalist exploitation. Thus, it would have been better for the author to talk more deeply about capitalist exploitation and indulge less in simplistic comparisons between \"specieism\" and racism or sexism, with his(?) highly debatable simplification about the history of white colonialism, etc. The real cruelty against animals occurs as a consequence of the demands of the capitalist system -- e.g., the cruelties of factory farming or experimentation on animals to create \"safe\" and saleable mass-produced products.

A lot of people concerned about cruelty to animals in the meat industry would do well to focus more specifically on the horrors of factory farming. By doing so, they can also make connections to the exploitation of people, especially workers, as factory farming directly links exploitation of animals with exploitation of people. A really concentrated focus on factory farming could bring in mass support, even support of the working class (however we want to define that). It would certainly be a more palatable approach for a large number of people than asking them to stop eating meat.

IMO, the main problem isn\'t \"specieism,\" it\'s capitalism. I don\'t think it\'s particularly unnatural or cruel for people to use animals as a source of nutrition (which is something that occurs throughout the animal \"kingdom\"); what is cruel and unnatural is to ignore the fact that animals are living beings that feel pain and suffer, treating them as inanimate objects to be manipulated endlessly (and painfully) specifically for the purpose of capitalist mass production.

(There was actually a pretty good article about this written in, of all places, the New York Times Magazine.)

I am not sure what to call this particular phenomenon -- maybe de-animalization? It has to do with our complete lack of perspective regarding our relationship to nature, specifically brought about by the capitalist system\'s commodification of everything. Thus, we don\'t see a steak as a piece of an animal that\'s been grazing on our farms; we see it as a product wrapped up on the grocery shelf. (This was also brought out by the NYT article, but has been described and illustrated especially well in some extremely well written essays by John Berger.) This phenomenon, which is the main cause of people\'s abilities to ignore, or not even be aware of, horrors such as factory farming, is a symptom of the absurdity of capitalism.

Anyway, I agree that the main problem with this essay -- and probably much of the animal rights movement -- is its superficiality -- or intellectual sloppiness, to be more precise. (And I apologize for not being able to transcend my need for well-written essays...)

The article gets better as it goes into the discussion of tactics. Animal rights activists have always been a bit more courageous, daring, and accepting with regard to the possible diversity of tactics than most of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 09:40 AM CST

Most people think that anarchists are wackos. How about being a bit more tolerant and inclusive when you are already part of a much-maligned political philosophy?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 10:06 AM CST

Makhno,

Understanding that white people have advantages in U.S. society that are unavailable to people of color is hardly liberal whining. The attempts by radicals to work against white skin privelge is generally sloppy and under-developed. It doesn\'t mean its not worth doing. Calm down. While I generally disagree with a lot that you say, you usually don\'t sound nuts. Get a grip.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 10:22 AM CST

Hey, Duke,

Get a grip on this. To speak of some homogeneous group of \"white people\" in the US as privileged ignores class differences (you, of all people, should be aware of that), differences of nationality, education, religion, etc. Racism is an enormously complex phenomenon, and is rarely based on skin color alone; for instance, in Chicago, it is well known that a lot of recent black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean hold inner-city American blacks in great disdain.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 11:13 AM CST

Of course race is a complex issue and can be easily misunderstood without a class context. Look at the problems between NY African-Americans and Jamaican immigrants. It doesn\'t change the reality that you have a leg up by being white than if you aren\'t. Are you really disputing that or just trying to look more deeply into an admittably complex issue. Its hard to tell from your angry retorts to people.

If what you are saying is that there is white-skin privelage that needs to be understood in a context of class and national origin (among other things), then few people would disagree. If what you are saying is that white-skin privelage doesn\'t exist, then you\'re fuckin loony.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 11:47 AM CST

Hey, Duke,

In case the Infoshop moderators decide not to post the article I just submitted, check out Racism is Not about White-Skin Privilege. It doesn\'t cover all of my objections, but it\'s definitely worth discussing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 01:34 PM CST

I gotta catch a flight in a few minutes so I was only able to skim the article. Some of the analysis looks on topic, but I think the author (and you) are missing a fairly simple point in the debate. There is white skin privelege in our society. Acknowledging that is a good thing. However, understanding that it is a real phenomenon doesn\'t mean that it is an end all be all analysis of the many complex social problems and won\'t lead towards a resolution of that particular issue. For example, when I apply for a job as a white person I will most likely have a better chance than a person of color with all other things being equal (education, class, etc). That\'s white skin privelage and its real.

The issue then comes to how to work to change that. I won\'t go into it now, cause then we\'ll start down the road of class reductionism this and 19th century views that, etc. Anyway, off to sunny New Mexico. Woohoo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 02:15 PM CST

Hey, Duke,

I think you had better read the article a little more carefully when you have time. The author makes the point that the concept and terminology of \"white skin privilege\" are quite problematic in relation to the fight against racism and other forms of oppression.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 31 2003 @ 11:49 PM CST

hey, who up there said that meat eaters have higher IQ\'s than vegans??

prove this.

rediculous crap.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 01 2003 @ 06:52 PM CST

How will the anarchist movement ever succeed in freeing ourselves from the domination of the insane destructive capitalist system if a simple discussion on animal right devolves into childish name calling.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 02 2003 @ 10:16 AM CST

Lighten up, dude. I was just kidding. Actually, some of my best friends are vegans.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 06 2003 @ 01:40 PM CST

Yeah. Got that. Hence me disagreeing:)

[ Reply to This | # ]