Carol Adams: the IDIOCY of Veganism's "Academically Respectable" Leaders.

the assumption that the best protein comes from corpses is a racist belief human is actually defined as white male property owner and then there's a species boundary and everyone else that's a topic for a video 21st century animal eating requires our complicity in a new colonialism we know how settler colonialism worked and a race and replace system that forced indigenous people off the land replacing them with cattle and white settlers one of the defining aspects of the colonial legacy is an ongoing white supremacist belief system and an ownership paradigm when you own the land you get the title to it entitlement and ownership are linked what we have is a white supremacist misogynist conceptualizations of the other they're separate issues no we must have a theory that links animality and white supremacy and misogynism misogyny your hamburger comes with a dose of misogyny so the intersection of race gender and species is always happening in obvious ways by racially marking an animal as non-white now this doesn't happen a lot where the animals are marked as non-white so this is unusual but when when it happens it's often with beavers this is actually a three-dimensional sign in upstate new york so that if you're looking at it from the side her breasts jumped shut out so meat advertisements are saying something about race as well as gender and species we have animalized racialized women and feminized sexualized and racialized animals white supremacists weapon weaponized eating meat eggs and dairy images of milk drinking white men of platters groaning with meat and the baiting of liberal men as so-called soy boys are all part of the neo-nazi messaging [Applause] this is their right the neo-nazis say this is their identity the new colonization rests on the unstable foundation of white men's insecurities to say you care about animals is considered a sign of weakness in a world still committed to the gender binary that values stereotyped masculine reason over stereotyped feminine feeling the perspective represented is about the natures of whiteness and masculinity and the recuperation of white maleness a human animal binary functions in racist and misogynistic logic anthropocentrism is inevitably racist in its human centeredness well it's man-centeredness right so anthropocentrism our views about animals is inevitably racist in its man-centeredness you're with me so far whiteness informs the definition of human and animal through colonial power the diet of beef-loving english people became normative the food heritage of pre-conquest peoples like the land itself was overrun it was the colonizers especially the british who declared that the virility of meat-eating nations explained their success over the supposed feminine and weak rice-eating countries that they defeated the assumption that the best protein comes from corpses is a racist belief tonight you're being asked to vote on whether you accept this new colonialism or not our menu choices don't stay on the plate and i heard all your laughter i know some of these must be new ideas or you think they're fringe or whatever our whiteness is part of the problem of meat eating some of the advertisements promoting bacon promoting beef promoting milk some of them are kind of sexist some of the advertisements for alcohol are kind of sexist some of the advertisements for cigarettes are kind of sexist even if all that's true this discussion has to begin and end with me having the honesty to say that is irrelevant to my decision my decision to refuse to smoke cigarettes and it's actually irrelevant to the political discussion about what our policy on nicotine and tobacco should be the facts that people employ to support their own arguments in politics the facts that people selectively choose to illustrate and prove the validity of their own position are often completely irrelevant to the matter at hand they're completely spurious to the decisions we have to make something can be irrelevant something can be spurious whether it is true or false factually i do not think any of the claims made by carol j adams in that argument are valid the claims she makes about racism the claim she makes about the history of colonialism about the cultures of indigenous people and how they were all supposedly vegetarian until five minutes before the british empire showed up and conquered them and converted them to eating animals on a range of issues her factual claims are from my perspective outrageously laughably false but even if they were true they'd have to be dismissed as irrelevant let's say we're debating the question of whether or not turkey should be a member state of the european union or whether or not any particular country whether it be england or canada should set up a special free trade agreement with turkey embrace the turks politically economically have unlimited amounts of immigration from turkey if you tell me that you're opposed to this and i say why why would anyone be morally or politically opposed to us having warmer ties with turkey if your answer is well you know there's this war on the island of cyprus is that the reason if i press you on i say okay hypothetically what if tomorrow turkey commits to withdrawing all of its troops from cyprus reunification of cyprus the war is over if that also lands tomorrow if they do that then will you support the free free trade agreement with turkey then will you support turkey becoming a member or are you going to move on to presenting another perhaps factually valid but irrelevant reason oh well you know turkey um i don't like the way they they oppress the kurds they're an ethnic minority the kurdish and they're kind of racist against the words okay what if what if somehow magically we could remove that from equation is that really why you're opposed to this free trade agreement well you know uh the status of women the kind of sexist you know it's kind of a backward you know patriarchal society oh okay really you know in this way we have to disambiguate in politics what our position really is what it is we're really arguing for or why i'm i'm morally opposed to xi jinping being the political leader of china a lot of people are a lot of people say but if you talk to someone face to face say okay so why are you why are you so anti-china why are you so hostile china today they're very likely to say to you that it's because of the mistreatment of the muslim minority in the chinese province of xinjiang let me ask you would you actually support xi jinping would you be pro-china instead of anti-china if overnight they changed their policy on the muslim minority incident no you'd find some other pretext some other excuse some other reason even if these things are factual and very often they're not the particular facts people employ people deploy people cling to people select and present are often utterly irrelevant meat eating is not racist meaning does not support white supremacy the connection between meat-eating and colonialism and masculinity it's laughable but if it were true if each and every step taken in her reasoning were valid it would still be irrelevant some of the advertisements promoting bacon promoting beef promoting milk some of them are kind of sexist some of them kind of offend even my feminist sensibilities but you know what some of the advertisements for alcohol are kind of sexist some of the advertisements for cigarettes are kind of sexist if i told you i've never smoked a cigarette in my life and i'm never going to then you asked me why i said you know what it is you know what is i'm just so furious that they have these photographs of sexy scantily clad women the problem is that cigarette advertising is just so oppressive to women it's just so sexually exploitative that i can't get behind smoking seriously you you should say to me well wait a minute if i can show you a brand of cigarettes that's 100 produced and marketed by feminist lesbians would you smoke them and if we had the whole marketing industry the whole cigarette industry taken over by feminist lesbians who agree with you ideologically and who would never have a woman in a bikini advertising cigarettes that way for these kinds of people then then you wouldn't have any problem with becoming a nicotine addict yourself even if cigarette advertising is sexist or is racist or is in some 21st century sense of the term oppressive even if the history of the tobacco industry is uniquely and powerfully linked to colonialism and slavery even if all that's true this discussion has to begin and end with me having the honesty to say that is irrelevant to my decision my decision to refuse to smoke cigarettes and it's actually irrelevant to the political discussion about what our policy on nicotine and tobacco should be in this same way no matter how racist no matter how sexist the production of meat may be or the marketing of meat maybe the reality is if you show me a piece of pork that was produced by indigenous people in papua new guinea who have never had any contact with european colonialism who are not in any way white supremacists and let's say for the sake of argument they're not sexist either even if this comes out of the supposed utopia of papua new guinea i won't eat it and i'm not gonna lie to you and i'm not gonna lie to myself about the reasons why in politics you don't get to choose whether you are going to win or whether you are going to lose you get to choose the rules that you are going to follow when you play the game i'm vegan but i am not going to be part of a movement that's built on a lie