Archive for the 'Vegan/Vegetarianism' Category

Color, Race, and Our Furry Friends

Published
by
Jennifer
on March 21, 2008
in Activism, Environment, Race and Racism and Vegan/Vegetarianism
. 0 Comments

Thank you “La Chola” for this post that deals with the use of comparing people of color to animals—we see this in the testimonies at Winter Soldier and from PETA activists. As someone who also tries to be vegan, but wants to critically engage with the problem she addresses, I agree that it serves no purpose to rank oppressions. Unjust killings of people and animals is done to reinforce the power of a few. At the same time, I do not appreciate campaigns that compare the treatment of people of color to the treatment of animals or the use of women’s bodies to inspire veganism.

For me, personally, my veganism is the result of many things; I justify it for many reasons. I do not believe in a Vegan Utopia and therefore do not believe we should all become vegan. I understand that I am privileged because this diet works for me, for my lifestyle, and for my budget. I am lucky enough to live in a city that has many vegan resources (although I wish we had a veggie restaurant), and I can find support groups very easily. It makes me feel healthy, which only came after educating myself through books such as Becoming Vegan and speaking to nutritionists. I believe that our abundant use of cheap meat is involved in polluting our ground water, using up nature’s resources, the mistreatment of animals, and unfair labor practices against those working in slaughterhouses (which is predominantly an immigrant labor force).

people of color, animals

A long time ago, I began collecting the testimony of soldiers who had participated in genocides. I had been studying the My Lai massacre, and noticed some similarities between the testimony of one of the soldiers there and the testimony of one of the soldiers who had participated in Abu Ghraib violence. The soldier at the My Lai massacre had said killing Vietnamese people was like shooting dogs. The soldier at Abu Ghraib said being in Iraq was like going on a turkey hunt.

The comparison of brown people to animals–the justification of the murder and torture of brown people because they were considered animal like was a disturbing idea that I have continued to explore for almost two years now. It’s brought me to some really dark places, places I’m not really all that sure I wanted to be.

I admit, it is really hard for me to talk/listen to the many white vegans who insist on defending PETA’s comparison of human slavery to the violent treatment of animals in today’s society. I’m very empathetic to the cause of veganism–but the defense of the PETA campaign is often not a defense of veganism so much as it is a defense of seeing nothing wrong with comparing black people to animals. Many white folks are perfectly happy to insist that *they* have no problems at *all* being compared to animals–but it is not white folks that are being killed on genocidal turkey shoots either.

For me, those people who are interested in animal liberation (as I am), must realize, this comparison of brown human beings to animals/insects, is not something in the past that is occasionally drawn on to make a point. The comparison of brown human beings to animals is something that exists in the very fabric of our current society and as such, carries very real repercussions for the people of color that are compared to animals.

The first mission that we had when we got to Iraq was at this place called Al Assad, and our job there was basically to run a prisoner of war camp. And at this prisoner of war camp, our job was basically to keep prisoners who had been deemed enemy combatants sleep-deprived for periods of up to seventy-two hours in order to, quote-unquote, “soften them up for interrogation.” And the way we did that was by yelling at them.

So my first question to the people who were training us on how to do this was, you know, “How do they understand? I mean, they don’t speak English.” And he said, “Well, they’re just like animals. They’re just like dogs. If you keep yelling at them, it doesn’t matter what language you’re yelling at them in, they’re going to get the point. If you yell at them, ‘Get up!’ enough times, you know, just like a dog gets up, they’ll get up. If you tell them to move left, eventually they’ll get it and they’ll move left. And they said, “But that’s not going to always work, because they’re so tired.” By the way, they were hooded with sandbags, and they were tied with plastic restraints, barefoot, and circled around with concertina wire. So they were not only being deprived of sleep, but also of light and sense of space.

I support animal liberation wholeheartedly. And I think that for now, I will continue to approach animal liberation in a way that does not center veganism/vegitarianism. Not only do I have my own issues with eating meat, but I also have to continue to work through this idea that seems to dominate animal liberation movements like PETA that what we *eat* is more important than societal and cultural norms that justify the murders of brown people, women, and animals alike.

In other words, I almost think that veganism/vegitarianism should be the *last* step to animal liberation or something that happens *after* you lead community workshops on the connecting histories of violence against animals and human beings or other structural/cultural shifting of opinions through dialogue. Not eating meat is an important thing to me, and I continue to work towards that goal every day. But I think that creating a world where the abuse of animals is not used to justify the abuse of the brown human beings requires that different tactics, strategies and priorities than what currently exists.

Thanks to the Vegans of Color for your site, it’s helped me work through a lot of my thoughts.

McDonalds or Your Hummer?

Published
by
Jennifer
on March 12, 2008
in Agriculture, Environment, Maí­z (Corn) and Vegan/Vegetarianism
. 0 Comments

I’m busy “dissertating,” but I have to share this article and the fact that it has my favorite quote of the month: “The US will face a choice between using corn to fuel animals, and using corn to fuel cars.” Simply put: engineered corn used to produce ethanol requires more pesticides and fertilizer, fertilizer has chemicals that kill the environment, our drive for corn to feed the meat industry and our cars is destroying the land, raising prices, and causing a whole set of problems for corn farmers in North America. I knew I would find a way to bring my dissertation research back around to my vegetarianism. ;)

From Environmental Research Web:

Sustainable Futures

Mar 11, 2008
Biofuels threaten sealife in Gulf of Mexico

Nitrogen from fertilizer applied to corn (maize) fields in the US midwest enters the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers and flows into the Gulf of Mexico. It’s been implicated in causing the “dead zone” that appears in the gulf each summer – an area of low oxygen that kills organisms living on the seafloor. Now, scientists in North America say that the increase in corn cultivation needed to meet targets for renewable fuels in the US Energy Bill could increase the annual flux of dissolved inorganic nitrogen to the gulf by as much as one-third.

“We found that meeting the ethanol production targets set for the year 2022 in the Energy Policy will increase nitrogen levels in the Mississippi by 10-34%,” Simon Donner of the University of British Columbia told environmentalresearchweb. “This will make the already difficult challenge of reducing the ‘dead zone’ practically impossible.”

Corn

The US Energy Bill sets a target of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022; 15 billion gallons of this can be produced from corn starch. More than 80% of total US corn and soybean acreage is grown in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya river basin, which covers 3.2 million km2.

When nitrogen from agricultural fertilizers enters the ocean via this river system it boosts the growth of phytoplankton. As these organisms die, they accumulate at the bottom of the ocean, where their decomposition can lower the oxygen concentration to dangerous levels. This hypoxia creates a “dead zone”, killing marine organisms such as crabs, fish, anemones and sea stars. The result has serious implications not only for ecosystems but also for the fishing industry.

Nitrogen levels

In recent years the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico has been more than 20,000 km2 in size. The Mississippi Basin/Gulf of Mexico Task Force hopes to reduce the zone to less than 5000 km2 but recent research indicates this could need a reduction in nitrogen export of up to 55%.

“However, the new US Energy Policy calls for a huge increase in the production of ethanol from corn,” said Donner. “If the US pursues this biofuels strategy, there is little hope for reducing the dead zone. The only way to meet the corn ethanol goals and shrink the dead zone to an acceptable size will be to dramatically reduce the non-ethanol uses of corn. That means less animal feed: the US will face a choice between using corn to fuel animals, and using corn to fuel cars.”

Nitrogen sources

Donner and Chris Kucharik from the University of Wisconsin, US, used an agricultural version of the Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS) – a process-based dynamic ecosystem model – and the Terrestrial Hydrology Model with Biogeochemistry (THMB) to simulate the effects of increased corn production on nitrogen export to the Gulf of Mexico. Nitrogen export depends not only on land use and land cover but also on annual variability in rainfall and river discharge.

“Even with reductions in other uses of corn, the construction of efficient riparian [river-side] wetlands adjacent to fertilized croplands and the implementation of on-farm nitrogen management practices will be necessary to achieve the large reduction in nitrogen loading required,” write the researchers in a paper in PNAS. “A massive national wetland restoration project, on the order of 22,000 km2 of wetlands and/or widespread adoptions of efficient nitrogen management practices, like a change in diet and meat production, would not be trivial to implement.”

Now Donner is looking at what the conflict between demand for meat and demand for biofuels means for nutrient pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

We Put the Meat on the Pole Not on your Plate

Published
by
Jennifer
on February 28, 2008
in Gender and Vegan/Vegetarianism
. 2 Comments

Any vegan restaurant makes my stomach happy….but a vegan strip club?? I support the idea of any facility serving vegan food and this idea may open up the world of vegan-ness to new people, but the following news story puts my vegan-self against my feminist-self. The reporter’s enjoyment of the story on Casa Diablo is over the top. Additionally, I am critical of the cliche camera-through-the-legs shot and filming the female dancers from below or aimed at their backs, even while the women are being interviewed. One of the dancers is vegetarian, but the reporter dismisses her words and only gives serious time to the owner who says ridiculous and sexist quotes such as “The only meat we have is up on the stage” and “We put the meat on the pole not on your plate.”

The video is from KPTV in Portland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjBPkUFel7U

The Future of California

Published
by
Jennifer
on December 30, 2007
in Agriculture, Environment and Vegan/Vegetarianism
. 0 Comments

With all the talk on global warming, it is becoming difficult to make sense of the horrifying projections of our environment’s future. The article below from AP argues that within the next century California will look drastically different. In a nut shell, rising temperatures will decrease snowfall levels and subsequently our water supply. It only briefly mentions the potential fighting between cities and counties over water supply–I see this as being the issue of the century. Well, of course, there is oil, but without water we can’t live and it only worsens the problems we will face with a shortage of oil. Water feeds California’s agricultural and cattle industry. I’m not pushing for a vegan utopia (see the Omnivore’s Dilemma for a good analysis of this), but I do believe that our push for the mass production of beef is wasteful. It takes 2.6 pounds of grains and 435 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. This doesn’t include how much water is required to produce the 2.6 pounds of grain.

I read the AP article for clues on where I should move to avoid my house falling into the ocean (hint–don’t live in Malibu), but I’ve decided that I need a good plot of land where I can grow my own food and have a well for my own water. However, I now have the problem of affording that land and maintaining a career as a professor. Any ideas? Maybe those hippie communes weren’t such a bad idea…

Global Warming to Alter Calif. Landscape

By NOAKI SCHWARTZ, The Associated Press
2007-12-29 20:04:07.0
LOS ANGELES -

California is defined by its scenery, from the mountains that enchanted John Muir to the wine country and beaches that define its culture around the world.

But as scientists try to forecast how global warming might affect the nation’s most geographically diverse state, they envision a landscape that could look quite different by the end of this century, if not sooner.

Where celebrities, surfers and wannabes mingle on Malibu’s world-famous beaches, there may be only sea walls defending fading mansions from the encroaching Pacific. In Northern California, tourists could have to drive farther north or to the cool edge of the Pacific to find what is left of the region’s signature wine country.

Abandoned ski lifts might dangle above snowless trails more suitable for mountain biking even during much of the winter. In the deserts, Joshua trees that once extended their tangled, shaggy arms into the sky by the thousands may have all but disappeared.

“We need to be attentive to the fact that changes are going to occur, whether it’s sea level rising or increased temperatures, droughts and potentially increased fires,” said Lisa Sloan, a scientist who directs the Climate Change and Impacts Laboratory at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “These things are going to be happening.”

Among the earliest and most noticeable casualties is expected to be California’s ski season.

Snow is expected to fall for a shorter period and melt more quickly. That could shorten the ski season by a month even in wetter areas and perhaps end it in others.

Whether from short-term drought or long-term changes, the ski season already has begun to shrivel in Southern California, ringed by mountain ranges that cradle several winter resorts.

“There’s always plenty of snow, but you may just have to go out of state for it,” said Rinda Wohlwend, 62, who belongs to two ski clubs in Southern California. “I’m a very avid tennis player, so I’d probably play more tennis.”

—

Because California has myriad microclimates, covering an area a third larger than Italy, predicting what will happen by the end of the century is a challenge.

But through a series of interviews with scientists who are studying the phenomenon, a general description of the state’s future emerges.

By the end of the century, temperatures are predicted to increase by 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit statewide. That could translate into even less rainfall across the southern half of the state, already under pressure from the increased frequency of wildfires and relentless population growth.

Small mammals, reptiles and colonies of wildflowers in the deserts east of Los Angeles are accustomed to periodic three-year dry spells. But they might not be able to withstand the 10-year drought cycles that could become commonplace as the planet warms.

Scientists already are considering relocating Joshua tree seedlings to areas where the plants, a hallmark of the high desert and namesake of a national park, might survive climate change.

“They could be wiped out of California depending on how quickly the change happens,” said Cameron Barrows, who studies the effects of climate change for the Center for Conservation Biology in Riverside.

Farther north, where wet, cold winters are crucial for the water supply of the entire state, warmer temperatures will lead to more rain than snow in the Sierra Nevada and faster melting in the spring.

Because 35 percent of the state’s water supply is stored annually in the Sierra snowpack, changes to that hydrologic system will lead to far-reaching consequences for California and its ever-growing population.

Some transformations already are apparent, from the Sierra high country to the great valleys that have made California the nation’s top agricultural state.

The snow line is receding, as it is in many other alpine regions around the world. Throughout the 400-mile-long Sierra, trees are under stress, leading scientists to speculate that the mix of flora could change significantly as the climate warms. The death rate of fir and pine trees has accelerated over the past two decades.

In the central and southern Sierra, the giant sequoias that are among the biggest living things on Earth might be imperiled.

“I suspect as things get warmer, we’ll start seeing sequoias just die on their feet where their foliage turns brown,” said Nate Stephenson, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who is studying the effects of climate change in the Sierra Nevada. “Even if they don’t die of drought stress, just think of the wildfires. If you dry out that vegetation, they’re going to be so much more flammable.”

Changes in the mountain snowpack could lead to expensive water disputes between cities and farmers. Without consistent water from rivers draining the melting snow, farmers in the Central and Salinas valleys could lose as much as a quarter of their water supply.

Any drastic changes to the state’s $30 billion agriculture industry would have national implications, since California’s fertile valleys provide half the country’s fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ study.

“Obviously, it’s going to mean that choices are going to be made about who’s going to get the water,” said Brian Nowicki, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Ariz.

—

Among the biggest unknowns is what will happen along California’s coast as the world’s ice sheets and glaciers melt. One scenario suggests the sea level could rise by more than 20 feet.

Will the rising sea swamp the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the nation’s busiest harbor complex, turning them into a series of saltwater lakes? Will funky Ocean Beach, an island of liberalism in conservative San Diego County, become, literally, its own island?

Among the more sobering projections is what is in store for marine life.

The upwelling season, the time when nutrient-rich water is brought from the ocean’s depths to the surface, nourishes one of the world’s richest marine environments.

That period, from late spring until early fall, is expected to become weaker earlier in the season and more intense later. Upwelling along the Southern California coast will become weaker overall.

As a result, sea lions, blue whales and other marine mammals that follow these systems up and down the coast are expected to decline.

The changing sea will present trouble for much of the state’s land-dwelling population, too. A sea level rise of 3 to 6 feet would inundate the airports in San Francisco and Oakland. Many of the state’s beaches would shrink.

“If you raise sea level by a foot, you push a cliff back 100 feet,” said Jeff Severinghaus, professor of geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. “There will be a lot of houses that will fall into the ocean.”