The personal is...

political. You can get a feel for the history of that statement here.

Below is a quote that is related to that interesting and brief saying. It references a core component of psychodynamic psychotherapy (other psychotherapeutic approaches utilize this process of making the mysterious become known too). But...it isn't written by a psychotherapist.

Psychotherapy is usually thought of as a very personal sort of endeavor...and yet...another way to think about it is that since it deals with feelings/emotions/perceptions...each of those aspects of a living being can also be considered to be political since they are influenced (almost totally) by our perspectives and our perspectives are profoundly intertwined with...you guessed it... the political elements of our living situation.

"When some experience causes us to question our firmest beliefs about the world, there is a domino-like effect which can change our entire perspective both on who and what we are....Such chains of questioning, such probing of our assumptions, are elementary examples of a process Paulo Freire calls conscientization. Critical theorists often name the state of mind that is nurtured by this process "critical consciousness". Critical consciousness is the mental habit of asking ourselves what assumptions are guiding our actions; why we believe what we believe; who gains and who loses from the assumptions we endorse; whether things might be otherwise, and possibly better; and how we might effect change if we think it desirable."          p. 122-123 Finding Freedom in the Classroom: A Practical Introduction to Critical Theory, Patricia Hinchey, 1998.

Psychotherapy often focuses on discovering assumptions about the world and about ourselves and their origins because, in the illumination of those dearly held beliefs, differing courses of action, different experiences as well as viewpoints about ourselves and others automatically present themselves. Often the motivations that resulted in the creation of those beliefs also become visible.

It is when we are young that we are most trusting and accepting and least possessive of experience, hence we're most open to receiving assumptions and viewpoints as well as being least able to critically evaluate or consider them. We take what we're given...whether we ever choose to evaluate those beliefs and/or assumptions and/or perspectives predicated on the questions noted in the quote...that's a different thing. Generally that can only occur after we've lived long enough to acquire a fund of experience and knowledge that allows us a foundation from which to engage in competent questioning.

Doing this kind of questioning can be upsetting and threatening hence, many choose to not follow this path. Moreover, many who opt to not do this get riled up if someone else does some questioning...even though they aren't the ones doing it.

When I was a quite young child I was (like many/most children) a big question asker. My parents were strongly invested in their religion and I asked many questions about their beliefs, about god and the bible. They were kind enough to try to answer them but I soon was asking about things beyond their knowing so they would invite various church people to Sunday dinner with the hopes that these folks could answer my questions. I remember ploughing through several of these deacons and preachers until finally one, in their apparent frustration with my questions, said something that has stuck with me. He said...and I'm paraphrasing here..."you don't think about this or question it...you just believe it". That resonated with me because I could see he was on the edge of anger and because what he said felt like a truth. The sort of religion they participated in wasn't one that took too kindly to questions beyond a certain point.

I was reminded of that situation some years later when I was in basic training. A fellow trainee had done something that upset the drill sergeant and he asked (screamed at) this fellow why he had done the upsetting thing and the trainee responded with "I thought...." and the sergeant almost levitated while screaming "don't think...just do what you're told". My parents religion and basic training were similar in many ways...thinking and/or questioning past certain points wasn't welcome and would evoke anger in many situations.

I have neglected to become super proficient at not questioning things...I often haven't questioned when I should have but I never did quite achieve comfort with just believing things without questioning or thinking about them. I used to long for that though...questioning/thinking is often sort of a pain in the ass...life seems lots less stressful if "you just believe it". Or so it has seemed to me at times.

That interest in questioning and thinking was part of what drew me toward the practice of psychotherapy. Various schools of thought there encourage questioning damn near everything...which was right up my alley. You can see why the quote I inserted above was appealing to me. Most psychotherapists have a very different notion of "normal" than the average person. It is refreshing to see notions that fit well into certain psychotherapeutic approaches presented as simply a way of approaching the living of life. Critical theory is snazzy stuff.

Think about all the things your culture presents to you as "normal"...that aren't to be thought about or questioned...but just done. Think about all the times some sort of authority demands that you not question but just follow instructions. Sometimes "normal" things are valid...like don't walk in front of speeding automobiles...but way too many "normal" things are just stuff somebody made up that maybe benefited them or their group and instead of owning up to that it was for their benefit they presented it as "normal" and not to be questioned. One clue about the origin of something indicating whether it is made up stuff or not is whether people get all riled up over the questioning of it...especially when there is no harm apparent in that questioning.

Again...you can question walking in front of speeding cars all day...and that doesn't change the fact that you'll probably get badly hurt if you do it...but questioning whether it's ok for a man to wear a skirt...hey...what's the harm? But...I can assure you that some people will get riled up over the skirt thing...which suggests that it's just made up stuff. 

I have to admit, I sort of get a hoot out of engaging with someone and asking questions about something or other that they present as "the way it is" and observing when they start getting nervous about the questions. That usually means we're getting to that point where the preacher sort of told me to shut up and just "believe". I don't always question like that...but sometimes I do. It's sort of spooky...really...how many of us have those "just believe it" elements in our worldview and usually we don't realize it. (I think that "not realizing" stuff is one way that invisibling manifests itself).

I've noticed, over the years, that the way many/most who don't want to pursue the questions deal with my inquisitiveness is by sticking me into a category where they can discount my questions. They assign me to some grouping that facilitates their being able to ignore or minimize my thinking or questioning. I think maybe that's partially what drives marginalization . If they can tag me as "weird" or "strange" or or or then I can more easily be ignored...and by association so can my questions.

If you choose to question  "firmest beliefs"...be ready to be considered as "peculiar" by those who aren't into asking questions...and be ready to feel uncomfortable. Both because questioning strong beliefs can be disturbing all by itself (because of what you might discover) and...your fellow cultural participants will often reward your questioning by rejecting and/or marginalizing you. It can be rather daunting. Interesting...but daunting.

I suspect that many/most of you who operate out of an ethical vegan framework have encountered this sort of reaction. Whether you asked questions about the "normalcy" of oppressing animals out loud...or whether simply your way of living implied such questioning, I would bet that many of you have been consigned (whether overtly or covertly) to the realm of the "strange" or the "weird" by those who were made uncomfortable by your veganism.

It is sort of instructive to think about marginalizing humans because of their way of being or living. How often does that happen, not because there's anything harmful about their way of living or being, but because it implies a questioning of that which culture said was "normal"? I have to admit that often when I run into the justification for some way of living/being that includes "because it's normal", I think of the drill sergeant with the red face and the twisted and screaming mouth.

Ever hear the phrase "think outside of the box"? That's actually just a variation of saying "question what's normal". What's interesting is that many who use the box phrase don't realize that they're advocating something that, should it actually happen, would probably make them uncomfortable. If you actually do get outside that "box"...don't be surprised if the drill sergeant (whether it's your own internalized drill sergeant or one from the outside) shows up.
   

Lived experience

is one thing...information about or second-hand knowledge about an experience are different things.

I happen to be biologically sexed (this references my external genitalia and other physical attributes...biological sex is not the same thing as gender which refers to the way a culture views biological sex) as male. I have many decades of living as a male, many instances of other humans interacting with me predicated on my being male. I have stored up lots and lots of memories and experiences of the reactions of other humans toward me and included in their behaviors involving me were, almost always, factors influenced by my biological sexual identity.

Since I have much experience living as a male...does that mean I know what it is like for all males in my culture? Nope. Although I might have some good guesses as to what an experience might be like for a male based on such living...those guesses would be based on my unique history and situation and culture and and and. Once I start generalizing from my particulars...the potential for error proliferates. But...my generalizing is likely to be less error prone than generalizations coming from someone who does not have the lived experience of being a male...presuming our general knowledge bases are similar. They might even know facts that I do not...but they cannot know about that experience of being male without being male.

Two things to consider...all males differ from one another in greater or lesser degrees and each male has a specific set of unique life and cultural experiences that have served to influence them...and those differ from person to person hence generalizing always risks greater or lesser error.

I have never lived being identified as a female...but...I'm identified as a member of the human species and human females are identified as members of that same species so I can make good guesses as to what an experience might be like for a female since we're both human, right?

Nope. Even though I share categorization as human (I'm pretending here that "human" is a designation that has some sort of meaning that's significant...I'm not sure that's quite accurate like we pretend it does) the difference in the way others behave toward us based on our sex means many/most (if not all) situations will involve different factors because of the significance associated with our designated sexual identity. No doubt...there probably are similarities...but the differences, whether blatant or subtle, are significant and influential. I can make guesses, sure, but they will be guesses that almost invariably include error...whether small or great. And...most importantly...I would likely be unaware of those errors because my comprehension and understanding would be filtered by my being male.

I do not know what it is like to experience life as a female. Does that mean I can't know? Well, in significant ways, yes it does. That doesn't mean I can't study and learn and acquire information about the lived experiences of females but...having information about is different than having lived those experiences.That's something you can't get around...as far as I know.

I might could achieve a distorted and warped and rather inauthentic version of such experiences if I lived as a female. By that I mean if I dressed and acted like and presented myself to other humans as if I were a female. But...that would be problematic because I would still be a male and that would profoundly influence my experience (it would be problematic for other reasons too...obviously) because I wouldn't be a female...I would be a male pretending to be a female....which is not the same. I would not have the experience of being responded to as a female from birth...that would not be available to me.

None of the images I've used in this post are "perfect" in terms of what I'm grappling with here...but each provides a varying take on something similar. I'm uncertain whether Dr. Einstein actually made the statement in that first graphic...but...it does express something that's important to keep in mind.

It's also important to keep in mind that information about...oh say baking a cake or any other area of doing or engaging in tasks...is not the same thing as experiencing something. Knowing the steps to follow in making a skydive is not the same thing as having the experience of doing a skydive. And...the experience of learning how to do a skydive and the doing of a skydive would be different for a female (because of her unique history and learnings) than for a male. There would be similarities, of course, but there would also be differences. Differences would also arise based on other socially emphasized aspects of identity too...such as age or race or ableness.

The "me" that I experience as me is profoundly and completely affected by my sex and my race and my physical ableness and my age and my class and my education, etc. Primarily not because those aspects of me are necessarily "real" or that big of a deal by themselves but...because in U.S. American culture those factors strongly influence how others react to me and behave towards me and how I'm taught to think about myself and those who are not me.

And those factors are often...probably more often than not...hidden to me in terms of how their influence determines what I experience and how I interpret that experience. They point me toward paying attention to certain things and also toward ignoring other things and thereby steer my knowledge acquisition and awareness.

The skydive example is illustrative of the point of this post. A human can learn all the things they need to learn to be able to successfully skydive...they can learn from books and/or other humans...they can practice or watch videos over and over. But...until they actually skydive...they will not...nor can they...know what the experience of skydiving is like. You can't substitute learning or practice or imagining or thinking about for the actual experience of a skydive.

I can never know what it is like to have the lived experiences that someone has if they are biologically sexed as female. I can never know what it is like to have the lived experiences of someone who has never been able to hear. I can never know what it is like to have the lived experiences of someone who is identified as Native American. And on and on and on. I can learn about those experienced lives from those who have lived them...but I cannot know in the way that each who live those lives knows. And...if I try to learn about that experience of being female without listening...and listening for a long time and very carefully...to those who live as females...then I'll learn erroneous and misleading things.

So what?

Consider opinion polls. Here in the U.S. opinion polls have become quite popular in the public media. They can be useful (maybe) but they can be profoundly misleading and are often used in ways that are much more misleading than they are illuminating. Think about this...if say the question asked in a poll is about going to war? Take a look here and you'll see the "opinion" results of just such a poll. But...notice...the poll results lump all sexes and all races and all ages and and and...all together. We can't tell from what is presented to us what the opinion of folks are depending on whether their lived experiences are those of a black female, a white male, a gay female, or or or.

Here's a link to an NPR interview of a reporter who notes that 70% of African Americans opposed the Iraq invasion before it began...but...you would not know that just by looking at that poll I linked to in the previous paragraph.

Lived experience profoundly influences our comprehensions. The lived experience of those in charge of every major social institution here in U.S. America is that of a white male. Think of it...Education, Government, Corporations, Media, Medicine, and so on...all of the societal configurations of power and influence are "led" by humans who have only the lived experience of being a white male.  This source estimates that as being only about 36% of the U.S. population (and that includes children...so it's even less for adults).

If we take the 36% value as semi-accurate (remember that includes white male children, so it is inflated) then I'll make it 30% to sort of take out the children...it would actually be even less than 30%...but even then...that means that 70% of the U.S. population's lived experiences are only vaguely (if at all) known to those who "lead" our major societal institutions. Consider...those who are sexed as female are the numerical majority in the U.S. And...the major social institutions that are lead by females is exactly zero. That's so bizarre that it would be laughable if it weren't tragic and sad and ignorant making.

I'm really really old to be just now fully appreciating this. If you're younger than me...and I'm pretty sure you are...don't stay ignorant and oblivious about this as long as I have. I wish I had read something like this 50 years ago but...maybe I did and just ignored it. Do better than me. Please. Remember...knowing about something is not the same thing as having a lived experience of something.

Whenever you encounter someone coming from a "knowing about" position trying to override or obviate or dispute someone coming from a having lived experience of something....be very very dubious. No one is perfect and having a lived experience of something doesn't include achieving perfection of knowing...but...the odds are strongly in favor of the one with a lived experience accessing awarenesses that the one without the lived experience simply cannot.

To presume that those without the lived experience of something can speak for or can "know" about that lived experience more truly or accurately than those who went through it is....well...silly. But...our culture really works hard at trying to convince us to lend more credence to those with power over something instead of those with the lived experience of that something. 

Imagine folks who read books about skydiving (but haven't skydived) trying to tell folks who have skydived what skydiving feels like. It's sort of pitiful when you think about it. No wonder we have so much trouble figuring things out.  
   

 

Unanticipated consequences...

can be surprising.

Consider the phrases "unanticipated consequences" or "unintended consequences" while thinking about that notion of not knowing what you don't know. There's a big difference between thinking about or considering an ideology versus actually making shifts in your ideology...because when you make such changes...things that were hidden can come into awareness and/or what might be in your awareness will begin (slowly or suddenly) to be perceived and experienced differently. Those sorts of changes can often be surprising or shocking or disorienting. Aph Ko and Syl Ko, on their excellent blog Aphro-ism, write about these phenomena here.

For instance, grappling with decreasing my oblivion regarding how we human Earthlings behave toward our sister/brother Earthlings resulted in my pretty much avoiding any movies that include humans riding or "using" horses...which encompasses a lot of 'western' movies (ignoring the ubiquitous lies and distortions about Native Americans that often permeate 'western' movies). I find it too unpleasant and painful to watch such abuse and so mostly I don't. I certainly didn't expect that maintaining an ethical vegan viewpoint would interrupt the viewing of 'western' movies...but there ya go.

Speaking of unanticipated consequences...I started reading a book titled Blowback by Christopher Simpson but found it to be disturbing enough that I decided to stop reading it. It's about how the U.S. decided, immediately following WWII, to enlist thousands of Nazi war criminals in their efforts to "resist" Soviet Russia...and in the process to exempt mass murderers from any punishment. It's equivalent to a group of men being afraid of women so they decide to hire Ted Bundy to advise them on how to resist women...and to absolve him of any criminal charges as a payoff for helping. Or...it's much akin to our government's justification of torture as a way of "obtaining information". In each case...we opt for excusing despicable behaviors because "we're really scared". Jeez.

But the unanticipated consequence that hit me recently was both surprising and sad making. One of my (formerly) favorite movies of all time, Judgement At Nuremberg, which stars Spencer Tracey and Burt Lancaster suddenly looked completely different to me. I ran across it recently and started to watch it and I realized that I was feeling disgust as I watched.

I've always enjoyed Mr. Spencer and Mr. Lancaster as actors and this movie had it all...high minded moralizing...punishing bad guys...consideration of different viewpoints and so on. The movie is shot in black and white (which I often enjoy) and, aside from the somewhat irritating Richard Widmark, cast with some other excellent actors. The story is sort of based on a trial soon after WWII wherein various Hitler era judges were held to account for their participation in some of the awfulness of that time. It was released in 1961.

So the movie is all about awful stuff that was "legal". It's about showing how terrible these judges were for going along with the harming of humans because they happened to belong to particular groups...not because of anything they had done...but just because of being identified with a group. There are a few complexities thrown in (fear of the Russians) and such and some interesting attention paid to many German citizen's protestations of innocence because they "didn't know" what was going on...and so forth. I had liked this movie for years and it was one of my favorites. Well...no more.

Here's the problem...the movie is set in 1947 or 1948...it's all about these nasty disgusting Germans who treated people awful because the Germans (most of them anyway) had decided that people in certain groups were not ok. The movie centers on the terrific and freedom loving U.S. Americans who are all concerned with "liberty and justice" and taking these miscreants to task. And it's all sort of true...about the trials occurring...but the concern with "liberty and justice" by U.S. Americans...well that's simply not true. Here you might want to refer back to the paragraph above re the Blowback book.

Yes we did some trials and we punished some people...but in 1947 back here in good old U.S. America we white people were treating some of our citizens horribly (including murder by lynching) just because they belonged to certain groups. In fact, this crap was still going on in 1961 when this movie was made.

One victim was portrayed by Montgomery Clift playing the role of someone who had been forcibly sterilized and much was made of his anguish...all the while back here in the U.S. such forcible sterilizations continued until 1981. Or maybe for longer.

Another case, referencing illegal liaisons between Jewish identified people and non-Jewish identified citizens, was presented by the actress Judy Garland....and...back here in the U.S. "inter-racial" marriages were illegal in various states up until 1967. Emmett Till, a 14 year old African American was murdered in 1955, supposedly for whistling at a white woman and his murderers were freed by our "legal" system. And yet...this movie is asking us to be outraged over the awfulness of the German prohibitions against the behavior of Jewish identified peoples.

Watching the movie this time around was simply repugnant to me. The hypocrisy was of such a magnitude that I couldn't bear it. I had to stop watching. It was white people fantasy at full tilt. The hideous disconnect from reality was too much. Good grief, in 1961 in many areas of the U.S., people were legally prevented from attending school together or eating in the same restaurants or watching movies together...simply because of their belonging to differently identified groups. But we're holding trials for German judges and imprisoning them and even executing some of them...for behaviors similar to those we (white people) in the U.S. were engaging in at the same time?

The movie was highly regarded and and nominated for and received numerous awards. The wikipedia entry tells us that several of the 'big-name' actors worked for a fraction of their usual salary because they felt the movie was socially important. One way to think about the movie is that it was identifying injustices perpetrated by some German judges...and by Germany the nation. But...those doing the pointing at Germany apparently didn't know what they didn't know about their own nation's behaviors. Decrying the behavior of others while being oblivious to your own actions is problematic. If the makers of the movie had prefaced it with some statement indicating their awareness of the awfulness in their own country and judicial system...that would have been refreshing. As it is though...it's just sort of embarrassing and also insulting, especially toward members of targeted groups here in the U.S..

While this trial of German judges was occurring and even while this movie was being made...the U.S. Public Health Service was lying to hundreds of African-American men about providing them with health care...all the while the health service knew these men had syphilis and did not tell them what disease they had and did not provide them with drugs which would have stopped the disease because...they wanted to know the effects of the disease as it progressed.

And...we're trying and imprisoning and executing German people for what they did? Of course what they did was inexcusable...but to have the nerve to hold them to account and totally ignore what we were doing? We're in never never land here. Hypocrisy seems like a concept that's too small to characterize our oblivious and other-directed moralizing.

What are we? Who are we? By we I mean primarily white U.S. American people because that group (mostly white men) controls...and has always controlled...government and business and education and the military and the police and the media and and...ever since this nation started. We present ourselves one way...but if our behavior is examined...a whole different picture emerges. Struggling to step away from being centered in, excuse the awkward phrase, "U.S. American white man's dominant worldview" is...hell, I don't know...I don't have words for what it is. Whatever it is, it isn't fun...that's for sure.

I'm fearful too, as these shiftings happen, that I'm unable to clearly communicate about them. Good grief...they aren't at all clear to me and trying to write about them while in the midst of experiencing them...means I probably end up spouting gibberish. Maybe that's part of what Aphro-ism's posting about confusion was pointing out.

I really liked that movie. I feel sad about that liking going away...and I feel duped and angry about being duped...but I also participated in the duping by not breaking through my obliviousness. Chagrin is a good descriptor for some of my feelings.

Abagond writes semi-humorously about Apple-pie America but I can't read his writing about this without thinking that humorous and horrid begin with the same letter and so does hurt and it all makes my head hurt...and the rest of me too.

Being oblivious is not a desirable way to blunder through life because that makes it too easy to inadvertently harm others and one's self, for that matter. However...decreasing obliviousness is a change and sometimes change means loss. So...goodbye to my liking for this movie...that doesn't mean I can't watch it and learn from it...but that liking (based on obliviousness) is no more.

I don't know

that I don't know what I don't know. Or, I'm ignorant about those things that I'm ignorant about being ignorant about. It's a big and positive step, I think, to get rid of that first I don't know or that first I'm ignorant about. If I can move from there to a stance of knowing that I don't know what I don't know...that's a seriously big improvement, right?

I wrote something like that in a previous post. When I ran across a statement akin to that it sort of threw me. Maybe it created some discombobulation for you too. I found a graphic that sort of suggests something about what that could mean.

Right down at the bottom of the graphic, where the 01 is located, is where sentences like I don't know that I don't know what I don't know would be located. It would be in this area that things that we think we know but what we know is inaccurate or incomplete would sit too...because we would not know that we didn't know because we thought we knew. Whew.

Don't be mislead by the linear like configuration depicted in the graphic because, depending on the topic or subject, we're all mostly all over the place and the places we're at, in terms of learning, change all the time. No graphic that's a still snapshot is going to do anything but provide sort of a vague approximation of our knowing/learning. It's vital, I think, for us to understand that "knowing" is always tentative, uncertain, incomplete. What we know is pretty much always open to revision or being added to (hopefully in terms of becoming more accurate).

That 01 level is intriguing because I wonder if that isn't the place where culture can have a seriously potent effect on us...with ease. That's where it could have the biggest influence with the least amount of effort...or so it seems to me. I suspect that it is there that invisibling or oblivion often happens. There's where we could easily be flimflammed with nonsense and lulled into believing that new knowing wasn't needed and/or possible.  

If we can exist in a state wherein we accept, and are conscious of, that we don't know what we don't know...and be open to new (or more accurate) facts or theories or insights...that's a good thing. Sometimes it's uncomfortable and sometimes it's disconcerting but a good thing nevertheless.

One of the authors I've referenced recently, Robin DiAnglo, uses the word humility when she writes about that openness to new learning. The wikipedia entry I linked with humility describes it as being the opposite of narcissism. Hmmm.

But...if we operate by engaging life as if we know...and that there is nothing new to know...oops...we're in deep trouble. The saying that twenty years of experience isn't the same thing as living the same year over twenty times is one that I've always liked...because it means you have to keep on accepting that you don't know what you don't know.

If, like me, you came to ethical veganism as an adult after having not been living as one...then you have had the experience of realizing that what you thought you knew was inaccurate...and...there was much that you didn't know. I didn't know what I didn't know...but...I thought I knew. I was in error. For me...that apprehending of my error and ignorance was seriously disconcerting...it frightened me. Because...it clearly exposed to me that I was quite capable of stumbling along through life thinking I was behaving ok...when I wasn't. I was harming others, all the while, thinking I was living an ok life. That's scary.

It's tempting...when a big new learning like that happens...to grab onto to it and think "whew, now I've got it figured out". When...once all the dust settles...what a new learning like that should signal to us is that there may be other things that we think we know that we don't or other things that we don't know that we don't know. Why should there be just one? What if there are others? How can we know? How do we go about discovering or realizing that?

One thing that has occurred to me about doing that (not that I really know or anything) is maybe, if I sort of consider what's going on around me, I can get some clues about finding areas where I don't know what I don't know.

The analogy that pops up for me is maybe if I think about living my life as sort of like driving a car...I'm going along thinking I'm driving ok and steering with what I think is some skill and care but...I look in the rear-view mirror and see behind me the bodies of beings I've hit with my car and mail boxes I've knocked over...oops...time to reconsider my notion that I'm driving competently or carefully.

What if I consider my society or culture or nation as if it were a car I was riding in as it was going down the road and I look behind it and see many injured and harmed victims...maybe that's a clue that some/many/most of the things that society/culture told me back there at that 01 level of learning were erroneous...or maybe it neglected to tell me something I needed to know to live in a way that does the least harm.

Would that be a way to maybe realize that there were some things I didn't know that I didn't know (or that my culture/society/nation had mislead me about) and maybe to point me toward areas that I could do some more learning about?  I wonder.   



.

"I would have lived...

my life differently." This sentence, which was written in a post titled White Happened to You over on Dr. David Shih's blog, stunned me when I read it.

It echoed with me because it perfectly expressed a dismal and uncomfortable truth that's stung me at various points in my life but never so pervasively and wholly as it has since I was lucky enough to become a little less oblivious and began stumbling along the path of veganism.

Culture is a word often used to reference ways of living and understanding and comprehending...pretty much everything. What's often left out of thinking about or writing or speaking about culture is that it also teaches us obliviousness. In addition to identifying how to do things and understand things, culture also quietly and stealthily teaches us what to not know or comprehend or be aware of. This aspect of 'culture' doesn't get much thought and yet...in ways large and small...a case could be made that this strategic and purposive hiding of knowings and comprehensions is just as significant and influential (maybe even more so) than the acquisition of knowledge and understandings that happens to us with a culture.

We are taught what to know...but also what not to know. The sentence that began this post was voiced by a woman who had been guided into becoming aware of some of the knowings that her culture had hidden from her...and...as a result she realized that she would have made different choices and done her life differently had those things not been hidden from her.

I think (tentatively) that maybe those several years ago when I experienced my vegan 'transversion' (or whatever word fits better) was the first time it came home to me how much I had been carefully taught to be oblivious. It both shocked and scared me. Shocked at the awfulness I had participated in for years because of this important obliviousness and scared because I couldn't help wondering what else didn't I know that I didn't know I didn't know. (I realize this sentence looks strange to you...it really does make sense and if you don't get it...keep struggling with it)

When I was an adolescent the books of J.D. Salinger were extremely popular with a segment of young humans. I too was smitten with his writing (he's a white man who's whitely oblivious in many ways...so there are many limitations in his perspective). He did express some things though that possess truth that endures.

One thing I remember vividly that he wrote that has stuck with me for over 50 years...it came from a book of his titled Franny and Zooey. I don't have a copy of the book right now so I found the sentence online but there's no page reference...my apologies. The meaning of the sentence has stayed with me all these years and it's still with me. He wrote:

I don't think it would have all got me down quite so much if just once in a while- just once in a while- there was at least some polite little perfunctory implication that knowledge should lead to wisdom, and that if it doesn't, it's just a disgusting waste of time.

Wisdom is defined in this dictonary entry as "the ability to discern what is true, right or lasting; insight". I would add that I include being able to comprehend what is fair and compassionate in my private notion of the meaning of wisdom.

I appreciate encountering that which seems like wisdom to me. I linked to Dr. Shih's blog at the beginning of this post. I only recently found it and I'm sharing it here as an offering to you. I've found a number of thoughts/insights there that are worthy of being tagged as "wisdom".

He writes about "race" but he's actually writing about things in addition to "race"...he's writing about oppression and oblivion and the harms we do while believing ourselves to be innocent. His writings are worthy of being read and re-read and re-read once again.

Little LuLu was

a character in a series of comic books that I sometimes read when I was a child. When I was thinking about this post I realized that, in some ways, she was a feminist. While Little LuLu was a girl, she did many things that weren't "girlish" and that probably had more impact on me than I realized.

There were a number of "boy" characters in the comics but Little LuLu was the main character and generally occupied the "leadership" role.

That's interesting to think about. But...I'm writing about her not because of that but because I used to do something with her name that would often provide me with great fun and delight...and...it would upset my mother...invariably.

For some reason, I discovered that I could say her name, Little LuLu, over and over and over...out loud...and after some number of repetitions the meaning attached to that combination of sounds that is her name would disappear and I would be left with simply the movements of my tongue and lips and the breathing in and out involved in making those sounds.

And it was delightful. I loved it and would start laughing and laughing. It was almost delirious making in the strange sense of freedom and joy that it would bring me. My mother, who was a fairly conventional (not always, but mostly) white woman would become upset if she heard me doing this and scold me and tell me to stop. Being "silly" wasn't particularly well thought of by her. I learned to do this in places and at times that she couldn't observe me. Sometimes I would do it quietly as I was falling asleep and I would drift off with a big smile on my face. (note: this phenomenon may have been similar to some forms of meditation)

Weird, right? Maybe so...but...consider this. By repetition of that name, Little LuLu, maybe I was interrupting something that I didn't have a name for then...something that is profoundly important and meaningful. If this were a class here is where I would ask the students to speculate about what was happening when this little boy said Little LuLu over and over until joy overtook him and he started giggling.

Probably many would suggest the boy needed treatment of some sort.

But...what if...by those repetitions...I was unknowingly demolishing a social construction? What if that was happening...and...that demolishing produced a sense of freedom? What if that repetition freed those particular lip and tongue and breath movements and subsequent sounds from any human imposed meanings and that freeing brought with it a sense of joy? Social constructions can be useful and they can also be inaccurate and they can also be confining and they can also be confusing and and and.

Language is a social construction. By that I mean it is simply a bunch of sounds in various combinations that everyone who employs that language agrees upon attaching some particular meaning to some particular combinations of sounds.

One of the things that we are often closer to as children, that we often forget as adults, is that language like all other social constructions, is just crap that humans make up. And...by itself...without that agreement...it is just a bunch of sounds made by lips and tongues and breathing. It's the agreed upon meaning that counts...not the sounds. And...the meaning is arbitrary...it's an agreed upon fantasy that everyone attaches to particular sounds.

An aside...the word barbarian apparently came from early Greek sources and it meant babbling because people who used a different language made sounds that had no meaning for folks who spoke Greek. Notice how the agreed upon fantasy for the word barbarian has changed over time.

Additionally, as you have each learned through living your life, many have fantasies attached to a word that vary somewhat from the fantasy you might have. That's when we hear phrases like: "that's not what I mean by that word" or some such thing.

What other things are just made up? Or...if you prefer a more important sounding phrase...what other things are social constructions? What other things have no more "real" meaning than does Little LuLu?

It can be frightening and confusing to realize that...way more of the "world" (by the word "world" here I mean human society and our conceptualizations) that we humans pretend is a certain way...is just stuff we make up...it can also be quite liberating to realize this. But...quite often achieving liberation involves discomfort and apprehension. I'll write more about how Little LuLu relates to veganism in a later post...disconnecting Little LuLu from agreed upon meaning also relates to many other "isms" of oppression...but...that's for later.

I still don't get it.

In a previous post I wrote about objecting to unnecessarily inserting race into advocacy against animal cruelty...and about resistance to that objection. Another bit of writing provided information about coded language. Familiarity with those two posts provides context for what's written here. If you haven't read them you will need to do so before proceeding. Please read them in order, first read "I don't get it" and then this post titled  "Here are two videos".

A month or two after that first disagreement, some new member to the group stuck up, on the vegan group's facebook page, a link to a thug kitchen video with the note that she found it to be "funny". It was up for several hours (before I saw it) with no "likes" or comments by anyone. When I realized what the link led to, I messaged the member and told her that some PsOC (persons of color) find this stuff offensive and would she please consider removing the posting...I also provided a link to an essay by a vegan chef (who is a person of color) detailing his reasons for finding the thug kitchen presentations unacceptable. No accusing or remonstrating...just a request that she consider removing it.

She did remove the link but...she also withdrew from membership on the vegan group's facebook page. I had, at the same time I messaged the posting member, also advised the founding members what I had done...and then...the "fun" started.

I thought about writing a long and elaborate and detailed recounting of all the back and forth that went on but...that's a pain in the ass to do and would likely also be tedious to try to read. This thing will be long enough as it is. I will use one founding members reaction to serve as a summation of what transpired.

I'll call her founder A...she responded within a few hours and wrote that unless something was "blatantly racist" it should be allowed to be posted as long as it advocated for the animals. She also wrote: "I joined xxx to help animals. I love all beings...ALL...black/red/white/spotted/striped/human/animal. But there are NOT millions of black people killed everyday. There are MILLIONS of animals killed EVERYDAY. That is what our focus must be. We are not the xxx xxxx Human Rights Team."    (I put in the xxx to omit the name of the vegan group, the rest is as written by her)


Note...for those of you who might want to educate yourselves...go read this enlightening bit of writing about "purple people" (she said spotted/striped instead of purple...but it's the same notion) meme. You might also note the oblivious contradiction between saying it was acceptable to post racist content as long as it wasn't "blatant" and simultaneously voicing "love" for "all beings". She also presumes that avoiding offensive and/or racist words, actions or images when advocating for veganism is the same as being a "human rights team". 

She also noted that an "influential" person had been upset and quit the group because of my objection. A bit later Founder A wrote that she had contacted and apologized to the posting person and that she (the posting person) was incensed that someone had approached her about something "petty".

I gotta tell ya...when I saw what Founder A wrote and when I saw that the posting person thought it was "petty" to avoid offense to marginalized groups of people I felt like the toxicity of the obliviousness and insensitivity that the founding members and posting person were defending was more than I wanted to associate with.

Silences can, and do, imply complicity...and I watched and waited and waited...and none of the other members objected to what founder A had written. That pretty much did it for me.

The others on the founding committee failed to challenge the ugly obliviousness and racist stance shown by her statement. They agreed (as implied by their silence) that concern with racist and/or offensiveness to marginalized humans was "petty"...well...unless it was "blatant", I guess. I felt my continued association with that committee would taint me with the ugliness I perceived in their position. I do plenty of lousy crap all by myself...enough so that I really don't need or want to be grouped with a bunch of white people who think avoiding offensiveness is "petty" or that racist and hurtful stuff is acceptable unless it is "blatant". 

****As an aside...my ability to opt out of association with the committee/group is an aspect of one of the "benefits" of white privilege. One of the things that white people can do...if they choose to...is to get away from unpleasant race related situations. PsOC have to live in a society dominated and controlled by white people...they can't withdraw or choose to stay away from it in any practical sense because it's everywhere and omnipresent for them. I have/had the option to quit fooling with the group as can people of color...but...they can't quit living in the society that is U.S. America. (short of moving to another country but the problem with that is the fact that racist ideology has infected most humans societies to some extent or other)

This fact of being able to exercise a version of white privilege bothers me and I'm contemplating what to do about this...I have some ideas but they're still forming. This is an all round sucky situation and one that will (I hope) eventually result in some new advocacy avenues. Maybe another group? I don't know right now.

Given the distress and dismay all this has produced in me leaves me profoundly appreciative of the incredible strength and resilience that exists in the spirits of those who have to deal with being targeted by this awfulness constantly. I question my capability to deal with what PsOC here in U.S. America have to deal with on a daily basis. I can't wrap my mind or my feelings around all that. I am in awe of such capacity for coping. We white people rarely comprehend that this country has millions of amazing and astonishing humans living here. I am deeply impressed and humbled by their ability to go about leading their lives without screaming or weeping 24/7. I really have no words for expressing my feelings about this. *** (the *** denotes the beginning and ending of the aside)

It seemed obvious to me that I had stirred up, in these ostensibly "good" white "progressive" people, dynamics that were rallying to defend their "goodness" instead of consideration of the unacknowledged and denied (but readily apparent) racist meanings of thug kitchen and/or the feelings of those who might be offended. I'm not suggesting that these founding members are "bad" people but...their denial and unacknowledged ignorance meant offensive and/or hurtful content on the vegan group facebook page not only would be allowed...it would be defended. That's simply not acceptable to me, I can, and must, do better than that and if they choose not to...well...I really did not want to be complicit in their doings.

This quote from a book about the meaning of whiteness seems to summarize aspects of the reaction I had stirred up.

"While it is certainly ubiquitous, white superiority is also unnamed and denied by most whites. We whites who see ourselves as "against racism" often base our identities in a denial of the racially based privileges we hold. We more often opt to protect what we perceive as our moral reputations, rather than recognize or change our participation. This is why pointing out white advantage will often trigger patterns of confusion, defensiveness, and righteous indignation....." (DiAngelo, 2012, p. 200-201)

After all the responses from the committee members were made, the upshot was that the four of them (all white people) had decided that thug kitchen, albeit 'controversial', wasn't offensive and I was being too "emotional" about race and race issues.

This is equivalent to four men deciding that something that a man did wasn't sexist...even though a woman targeted by his behavior had complained that it was offensive and sexist to her. Victims can say what hurts or is damaging or is offensive, not perpetrators. Perpetrators can agree that something is hurtful or affirm that they wanted to cause harm...but they can't say something did not hurt...because they were not the victim.They may plead ignorance...and that might even be true...but then their task is to remediate their ignorance...not to try to silence the victim or deny the pain of the victim.

Multiple essays can be found online, written by people of color, decrying the ugly and racist implications and content of thug kitchen (go watch the videos and read the previous post) but these four white people believed they had the standing to judge whether this was offensive and/or racist. White people can (maybe) affirm something as being racist...but we pretty much have no business trying to say something isn't racist when there are voices from the targeted group saying something is wrong or bad or painful or offensive. It is not the intent that counts...it is the impact.

We might fantasize about whether something was offensive or not but...we (white people) are not persons of color. We have not lived in a racist society, we don't have years and decades and centuries of being smacked with offenses and put-downs and demeanings and racist ugliness and violence and enslavement. Unless you belong to a minoritized and targeted group (one with little or no social power) then you can, at most, only fantasize about what that experience is like. You really can have no lived experience of that.

It was extremely disappointing to me that none...absolutely none...of the comments among the group members indicated any consideration or concern that PsOC that belonged to the group might have been offended or had their feelings hurt by the thug kitchen posting. It seemed to never enter their mind that one of their responsibilities was to endeavor to ensure that no group members are subjected to such postings. My presumption is that if a group member who was a  POC had dared to complain about the post...based on their reaction to my objection...they apparently would have told the POC that the post was not offensive or that they were being "emotional" or "too sensitive".    

The decision by these four white vegan group founders, that thug kitchen is not offensive, is an example of both white privilege and of white obliviousness and exemplifies, in microcosm, what passes for "normal" in this culture of white supremacy. And...these four are the "good guys"...they don't wear pointy hats or white robes. (but founder A...and the others by their silence...maintain that anything "up to blatant racism" is acceptable...dear god)

As I write this I find I'm wanting to scream. The disconnect from reality is dismaying and toxic. We white people are in deep deep doo-doo and subsequently so are those groups over which we dominate. Those of us who are white vegans are often as warped and ignorant about ourselves and our culture and our oblivious participation in and supporting of oppression as anyone else. Even though you might think that we would know better since we are theoretically trying to help victims of oppression. Shame on all of us who opt for the false comfort of oblivion.

After a lot of thought, I advised the founders that probably I wanted to exit the committee but...before I did I asked that a mutually agreeable statement about why I was leaving be put together and shared with the general membership. I was (and still am) concerned about group members who happen to be PsOC not being aware of the attitude of the founders toward possibly offensive postings. I was pretty sure they wouldn't go for that (even though they would have a hand in the writing of this statement) because their "white goodness" might look a little hollow if all this were brought out into the open.

My wavering about remaining associated with the committee was all they needed...I was advised that they were sorry I felt the way I did but any statement might cause "turmoil" and was a no go and...just to make sure I didn't bother anyone they not only removed me from the committee...they tossed me out of the group altogether and banned me from the facebook page.

Some words from a song I like characterizes this strange situation too well...'kind of funny and kind of sad'. I suspect not many humans have had the experience of being ejected from an organization they helped start...especially for objecting to oppression in a group supposedly devoted to resisting oppression. There are strange and bizarre winds blowing all through this.

I started writing this series of posts as an attempt to share my experiences with some white people who started a local vegan group to support other vegans and to advocate for the sister/brother Earthlings who aren't human animals. As I got into writing about it I realized I had some vague and unformed notion of laying it all out in a somewhat neat and tidy package and saying "see, this is what happened and this is what it all meant". But it really isn't that way (fact, nothing much that involves living beings can be put into neat and tidy packages) and I found the very act of writing about this whole situation resulted in me seeing and thinking about things that hadn't occurred to me previously.

Which means I can, and will, write more about this in the future. It's too rich and condensed and full of not immediately apparent meanings to leave it as is. There is still much for me to learn.

But...this is enough for now. I want to extend my deep gratitude to the friends I have who also happen to be identified as people of color. Their willingness to dialogue with me about this slow motion debacle as it unfolded was helpful beyond words. I feel incredibly honored that they were willing to trust me enough to speak openly and honestly with me. I treasure that trust and their kindness and their acceptance immensely. I am humbled to have the gift of their friendship. I also want to thank other friends, who are identified as white, who were able to go beyond their cultural conditioning and be supportive and helpful and understanding. That too was and is so very valuable.

I spent many hours bending the ears of these terrific people because I knew there was much I didn't comprehend and/or was oblivious to and their patient listening and feedback and reactions were absolutely crucial in helping me stumble through all this. If I've failed to express how disorienting and mind-boggling this has been, and continues to be, it's because I'm a lousy writer. I promise you that it was and is all those things and more.

I'm also grateful that so many rich sources of easily accessed writings and videos are available via the internet. I've linked to many of them and the one thing they do is, for those who can access them, remove any/all excuses for remaining oblivious and/or ignorant. Their richness and the opportunity they offer for consciousness expanding are amazing.

I am infected by unwanted and undesired racial biases. My culture gifted me with them. I detest them and am repulsed by them...but that doesn't make them disappear nor does it make them lack influence. It's my job to clarify them and to struggle against them.

Speaking out against what I saw as harmful and hurtful postings in this vegan group resulting my being banished. That's not an unusual outcome to challenging such harms. Everything that's gone on has been an opportunity for me to learn more about myself, about other white people, about unrecognized and/or unacknowledged insult and injury to people of color and about the power of 500 years of white denial. I console myself with the fact that I'm the one who was the recipient of rejection and disbelief instead of some person of color who happened to see that ugly posting. I belong to the group (white people) who perpetrate and maintain this awfulness and it is appropriate that I catch some heat about interrupting it instead of an innocent person being victimized.

I've no doubt that I've made errors and offenses in the writing of this. I would welcome assistance in my journey of learning if anyone noticing any of these would choose to point them out and push me to fight through my sometimes infuriating and irritating (to me and probably others too) obliviousness. But, if you don't want to put up with an ignorant white guy, I don't blame you.

Here are two videos

that were created by a young woman using the excellent name Sensei Aishitemasu. I'm not sure whether it is a pseudonym or not, either way I really like the name.

I found her when I was tasking myself with one of the things many scholars and writers suggest for those who want to expand their consciousness. They recommend becoming familiar with the viewpoints of people of color because...exposing yourself to perspectives and observations from those who don't have white skin is one of the absolutely necessary things that must be done in order to de-center oneself from a white perspective of the behaviors and thinking associated with human societies and cultures.

It's very easy to be seduced into thinking you're learning "just the facts" or watching the "news" or gathering information about world events and believing that what you see/hear/read is some sort of "objective" and accurate presentation of "facts" when...in actuality...what you're getting...at least here in U.S.America is information, almost exclusively, from white people operating off of a white perspective. The media is (networks, newspapers, magazines, cable channels, etc) run by and dominated by white people. Actually not so much white people as white men...the perspective of white women is almost nonexistent. It's really much worse than you might think...for instance...even BET (Black Entertainment Television) is a subsidiary of a white man controlled corporation.

It is white men who select and shape the information that is served up as the "news", that's who determines what is presented and how it is presented. And if you think that perspective doesn't influence what you're presented with and how it is presented...well...that's sort of sad.

In this quest to be exposed to other perspectives and learn about different ways of seeing things I found her Youtube channel and started watching many of her videos. I'm going to share two of them in this post because...while she is not a vegan...she does address some of the issues that plague vegan advocacy. Her first video is...warning...a rant with strong language. She is quite emotional at times in expressing herself. The video is about the thug kitchen phenomenon, which I wrote about in a post back in December. It's a little more than 12 minutes and is very sad and full of pain and anger and is also very enlightening.

She mentioned in the video that she might make a follow-up that was less of a rant and worked toward being more detailed in the explication of what is meant by coded language. This is what she does in this second video. It is an excellent visual essay that includes information about implicit bias and unconscious stereotyping. This video is a bit longer, about 18 minutes, but it is very informative and offers a nifty summation of how offensive and repugnant racial messages are placed in a sneaky package and presented as if they are not what they are.

If you choose to go to her Youtube channel, you'll find many other incredibly informative and enjoyable videos that she has created and...many times she includes links under the videos that will take you to further information about the topics she addresses in her presentations. I'm deeply thankful that I found her. She's become one of my go to resources for my efforts to "de-center" my old white man perspective.

For instance, she did a video wherein she addressed privilege, which can be a slippery and upsetting thing to try to come to grips with. Another video I found to be very powerful was one in which she talks about being white and racism. If you choose to watch these be aware that you might find that they make you uncomfortable. If you're a white person...unless you're a hell of a lot more enlightened than I am...they should make you uncomfortable.

Think of it this way...U.S. America has inflicted harm and destruction and "discomfort" on people of color and on women for centuries. Do you really think, if you're skin is white and/or if you're male, that you're going to be able to resist that stuff and work at opting out of participating in that crap without experiencing some upset and discomfort? For way too long, "discomfort" has been felt by the victims of patriarchal white supremacy...it's time to put the "discomfort" where it belongs...with the perpetrators...not the victims. And that means, if you belong to the perpetrator group(s)...doing some hard to take learning and comprehension.

There's a tremendous opportunity that the internet makes available and accessible...that is to easily delve into and learn from the perspectives of people of color and/or from the perspectives of females. In that process, hopefully, someone (me) can recover, somewhat, from the smog (as I saw it very eloquently expressed) of patriarchal white supremacy. Deconstructing aspects of my socially imposed and constructed 'identity' and perspective(s) is a requirement for opting out of being oblivious.

To not make that effort is, to me, just unconscionable. If I'm going to advocate against oppression...and I want to do just that...if I'm going to advocate for my sister/brother Earthlings and If I'm going to advocate on behalf of oppressed groups of humans...it's incumbent on me to do that responsibly and with precision and sensitivity and in the doing of that to endeavor to not recreate or reproduce oppression. I must...absolutely...educate myself. I will make errors anyway...but...that's ok...you can't learn anything new without messing up at times. The important thing is to learn from the error and work to not repeat it.

I don't get it.

When we attempt to resist or object to the oppression of a particular group sometimes we can inadvertently support or encourage the oppression or degrading of other often oppressed groups. This should never be done unless there is some bizarre and unusual circumstance that seems to call for such activity. Even then…anyone opposing harm to others simply because they are involuntary members of a targeted and minoritized group should absolutely ensure there is no other way to achieve their goal. Because...there usually is. 

A few months ago I was in the middle of a situation that potentially promoted just this sort of an instance of oblivious harming.

Last year I helped start a local group of vegans in central Oklahoma as a way of enhancing advocacy for animals as well as a support group for vegan types. Living and advocating for veganism can be an isolating experience and support and encouragement for such stuff can be really welcome and helpful.

The group flourished, they even visited Heartland Rabbit Rescue as a way of supporting local efforts to provide refuge for some of the victims of human oppression. You can read about one such visit in this previous post. A facebook page for the group was created where members could post things having to do with veganism and such and semi-regular meetings and activities took place. As a founding member I did various things with the group including acting as one of the administrators of the facebook page.

One day I saw that a member (another one of the founders) had shared a graphic detailing some purported neglect and cruelty that had occurred at a municipal shelter in a small town in southeastern Oklahoma. Several people there were calling for the firing of the animal control officer because of this badness and they had apparently created a graphic that detailed the cruelty, named the supposed offender and also they had included a photograph of this man.

Obviously no animal should be neglected and/or abused or treated cruelly by an animal control officer...but...it struck me as a little unusual to include a photograph of the individual...especially since the man was African American.

I couldn't remember seeing a photo of an individual (who wasn't a celebrity or who hadn't posted the photo themselves) used in quite that way before and I was bothered by the fact that using the photo meant that his race was specified when...his race wasn't relevant to objecting to cruelty. If the graphic had simply described the man the written description would not have included racial identification...but...the photo meant race and racial stereotyping and all that involved came into play in what was an attempt to publicize and object to what some were saying was a case of neglect/cruelty.

I messaged the person who posted the graphic and asked her to consider removing the photograph...because of the probability that identifying the race of the purported offender ran the risk of playing into the negative stereotyping of African Americans that has been a central feature of U.S.American culture since the 1600s. Knowing the race of the individual involved had nothing to do with protesting against the incident and it was easily possible to advocate for the victim(s) without bringing this information into consideration.

I really didn't think much about it to tell you the truth...it seemed fairly clear cut to me.

Well...not so fast. The person who posted the graphic sort of dug in her heels and...after some exchanges...absolutely refused to remove the graphic in question. I became disturbed enough (and sort of desperate to tell you the truth) that I posed a request to her to remove it as a personal favor to me at least until we could have a meeting of the founding committee where this issue could be discussed and hashed out face to face. She refused and went so far as to accuse me of trying to protect an animal harmer and, apparently because I had sent her some information about historical and current negative stereotyping of African Americans, of being patronizing toward her.

I gotta tell ya the truth I was truly and well flummoxed....very stunned and perturbed. My view was that objecting to the cruelty was something that should be done...but bringing the race of the individual supposedly involved (the other thing is that no one here had any first hand knowledge of this incident...all this brouhaha was relying on some unknown individuals down in this little town...it could have all been unfounded as far as anyone here knew) simply was unnecessary and well...to my mind... wrong. It risked evoking negative feelings and activating negative stereotypes toward/about a member of a minoritized group that has endured centuries of oppression and harm and denigration at the hands of white "freedom loving" U.S. Americans and I could see no good reason for it.

Using the photograph was not relevant to the objecting to the instance of harm so why use it? I was also a little suspicious of the motives of the creators of the graphic since it originated from an area of Oklahoma known as "little dixie"...that area is so named partially because of the problematic racial attitudes that have long existed there but, in truth, those deplorable attitudes have existed historically not only in that part of the state.

Her stance was that she was "colorblind"...(hereafter I will use "color-oblivious") and treated everyone the same no matter their skin color and she would have done the same thing if it was a white person involved.

I was sort of shocked at that idea (I was rather unfamiliar with the term "colorblind") because while it might look sensible on a superficial level...if you think about it a little it is the same as saying that you'll be "age-oblivious" or "sex-oblivious" or "ability-oblivious" in terms of how you treat someone or deal with someone. I apologize for use of the term "blind". Oblivious is a more accurate word to use instead of referencing some lack of physical capability. Unfortunately "colorblind" is apparently a very common term.

You can't just say I'll ignore everything and make the rules the same for everybody no matter what their particular circumstances or history or capabilities or experience is. Life isn't that way except in some abstract and disconnected imaginary universe. It's poor and faulty thinking to operate off of such unrealistic abstractions. This graphic illustrates clearly that, depending on each individual's circumstances, different treatment is needed to ensure that everyone is dealt with fairly. I've written elsewhere about these ideas.

If the graphic doesn't make clear the error in thinking "equal" is the same as fair...think about something that's impacting every child in this country that attends public school. Some time ago the amazing effort called "standardized testing" was implemented under the guise of the theory that it was somehow "fair" to subject all children from a state to the same set of tests.

Hey...everybody is tested with the same questions...great...right? Wrong...it's wrong because all schools are not equal. Some districts have much more money and resources than others...much better and newer textbooks, more experienced and skilled teachers, better science laboratory facilities and on and on and on. It's also wrong because you're also presuming all children have much the same family and socioeconomic environmental support and circumstances. If you want to give standardized tests without ensuring standardized education as well as standardized external situations for the children...you're simply confusing equality (same tests) with justice or fairness.

The person welded to the notion of "color-obliviousness" refused to remove the post...so...I took it down and told her what I had done and would discuss it at the next meeting and if the consensus was that I was in error...then the post could be reinstated. I was looking forward to hashing this out in person with her...and with the group...because you well know how hard it is to have some sort of dialogue...especially one where there is disagreement...via electronic venues.

The next committee meeting occurred and she did not attend. I was all prepared with handouts and arguments and and and...wouldn't you know it...she didn't show up. The attending members listened to my viewpoint but...I could see by the rather strange glaze in their eyes that they really didn't "get" what I was saying. Which was disheartening since, not only did it seem readily apparent to me, I had also explained this situation to several people that I knew and each of them quickly saw what I was driving at. The people on the committee did not seem to do so although they didn't object to my objecting and removing the post. Just FYI, everyone on the committee has white skin...as I do...there was no committee input by anyone from another racial group.

Advocating for our sister/brother Earthlings can be done without purposely or inadvertently engaging in oppressive or denigrating or harmful behaviors toward groups of humans that have been historically (and currently) oppressed. It's just not necessary and...if you're genuinely opposed to oppression...you don't do it...or even get close to it.

If you don't want to advocate for oppressed humans...fine...most vegans don't because that's not where their passion is. But, if you can't figure out how to champion non-harm to non-humans without promoting injury or degradation toward oppressed groups of humans, maybe you should be living vegan...and not advocating.

Some vegans seem to be unaware of the fact that a white supremacist or a Nazi (pretty much the same thing) or a misogynist  could also be vegan. Being vegan is not some sort of blanket get out of jail free card that means someone is not a bullying a**hole that you wouldn't want to be near or share a home, community or society with. It only means they are trying to avoid harming Earthlings who are not human.

Sometimes vegans (and I admit to having occasionally flirted with such self elevation) seem to become so impressed with their, admittedly admirable, choice to refrain from harm to unhuman Earthlings that they start thinking that they have some universal and permanent exemption from behaving poorly. I'm not at great risk of such self-aggrandizement because my wife graciously often points out when I'm being a jerk. Just because you advocate for a great cause doesn't mean you can't cause unnecessary harm to others.

Some groups who advocate...PETA comes to mind...have a long and (to me) depressing history of being really cavalier and unthinking regarding recreating oppressions in their ostensible quest to advocate for animals. They (trigger warning...the links go to offensive photos) use racist and sexist memes often in their advocacy and I find that sort of stuff to be deplorable and self-defeating. No vegan needs to be complicit in supporting the culture of oppression if they can avoid it.

My stance is that if you can't advocate for a harmed group without offending or harming other traditionally harmed groups...then maybe you don't need to be advocating.

You should stay 40 miles away from anything that even hints at the reproducing of oppression. We live in a culture (western European) that has hundreds of years of history of routinely setting up situations where harmed groups have tried to resist harm to themselves by inflicting injury on other historically harmed groups...when...it's not necessary. 

Maybe you should go somewhere and do some hard thinking about what your motives are because something is seriously whacked in your thinking, to me anyway, if you're asking for compassion for one group while engaging in gratuitous and/or unnecessary harm or negative stereotyping toward another oppressed group. That's incomprehensible. It's ugly and unnecessary and simply doesn't need to be done.

I'm beginning to think that this sort of bizarre scrabbling between harmed groups is one of the main obstacles to getting onto a path toward a way of living where fairness for everyone is the standard.

The further away from this incident that I get...in terms of time...the more it dismays me that the committee members...including the posting person...were/are seemingly oblivious to this. It's so similar to trying to educate a non-vegan about veganism who doesn't "get it" that it is uncanny.

This situation left me in one of those really uncomfortable places where something seems glaringly obvious to me...and yet this something seems to be invisible to some...or am I missing something? Feel free to chime in here.

The graphic in question stayed off of the facebook page...but...I had one member of the committee furious at me and another three members looking at me as if I had grown a 2nd head. Jeez. Another post will be necessary to delineate subsequent developments...because it got weirder...and not in a fun way.

Please be aware that I'm writing only about myself and the few members of the founding committee. Nothing negative is implied about the group itself or the purposes of the group. Advocacy for our sister/brother Earthlings is a good thing...even if the humans involved might have differing perceptions and/or viewpoints. It's all a learning process...or at least it can be. 

Precise and concise...

This graphic condenses pretty much everything necessary to "get it" regarding the vegan philosophy and ethos. My thanks to the creator of this graphic summary.

This leaves little wiggle room...but where the wiggling will commence will likely be regarding the "nobody else" phrase. I suspect right there is where objections in the form of "but they're just animals, they aren't people" will be inserted. Or...if you're dealing with (usually a white male) a desensitized and violence loving human who has more issues than you probably want to deal with...they might say they don't care about others suffering and dying or maybe even that they like causing others to suffer and die.

The first group of objectors might be worth engaging in dialogue...that second group of objectors might be more than you want to take on.

If you're fired up enough to deal with that second group...be prepared for what might be a lengthy and difficult and scary task because you're not only going to be struggling with the "othering" of Earthlings who aren't considered to be members of the human species...you're also going to be facing a serious deficiencies and/or derangements in the areas of compassion and empathy. 

Do yourself a favor

and go read this. If you're vegan you probably have struggled with just the same sorts of language difficulties that So I'm Thinking of Going Vegan addresses in her delightful post. (Thank you HGV)

Not only is the phenomenon she struggles with in her writing one that repeatedly causes difficulty for vegans...it also contributes to problematical issues for all manner of folks who are attempting to address socially constructed identities and ways of conceptualizing relationships and interactions that eschew oppression and oppressive hierarchies and binary categorizings and on and on.

When we we try to deconstruct or opt out of oppressive thinking and doing and speaking it just may be that our difficulties in doing such are compounded by the fact that we are using a language...English (not that other languages don't have some of the same issues going on...they do)...which was pretty much constructed and created and enforced by guess who? White penis bearing folks who were interested in maintaining and enforcing a white centered patriarchal worldview wherein white men (and their "civilizations") were situated as the end all and be all of how it should be. One where humans (especially white possessors of penises) were the superior beings and all life was somehow subordinate to this ultimate manifestation of a living being. Jeez.

Audre Lorde exquisitely observed that we cannot dismantle the master's house using the master's tools.

I would urge anyone interested in learning more about these kinds of problems to consult Dr. Julia Penelope's book: Speaking Freely: Unlearning the Lies of the Father's Tongues.

There you can learn more about some of the confusings inherent in trying to move beyond thinking and speaking in oppressive terms or language using a language that was designed and created by oppressors. English was, according to Dr. Penelope, constructed to be sexist and racist (and many other structurings of oppression are built into its use and rules) and...by extension we can infer that it was also constructed to be supportive of speciesism.

So...next time you are...as I do all the time...fumbling around with how to refer to beings, without being demeaning and/or patronizing, who aren't you and also don't wear tennis shoes or drive cars or speak human languages...maybe part of the problem isn't just your deficiencies in conceptualizing and expressing yourself...it may be that the language tools you are using (English) are not well designed for the task because the jerks who created the tools were wanting to support and maintain oppression and weren't interested too much in genuine equality and respect and freedom.

Think of how often "man" or "mankind" is used as reference to all humans...neatly centering penis folks as the norm and relegating all other manifestations and configurations to "other". Gimme a break...does such goofiness suggest a major overevaluation of themselves by men or what?

I remember clearly the furor that erupted when feminist thinking and critiquing had become influential enough to bring heat to bear on the common practice of using the pronoun "he", as used in writing and speaking, as meaning to refer to both females and males. Why not use "she" to refer to everyone? Well...that wasn't what the good old boys wanted who set up the language and rules for usage. They were out to dominate...not share equally.

Rules of usage, available vocabulary and common usage practices can all serve to support and exemplify and maintain hierarchies and oppressive thinking. And...make no mistake...when these everyday demeanings are pointed out there are many people (mostly white men) who get upset about them and object to anyone protesting them. The upset is part of how the demeanings retain their power and stay in place.

So, give yourself a break...it may not all be that you're drenched in oppressive thinking...it also may be that you're trying to use the masters tools do dismantle his edifices of oppression. Disclaimer...I'm a white male so who knows what kind of inadvertent and overlooked oppressions I stuck into the blog post. For every one that slipped in...piss on me...I am working hard on this.

Once again

the eloquent and perceptive pattrice jones has written a piece that must be read by all of us who support and advocate for veganism.

She writes:

Do be the person you were when you let yourself learn things you didn’t want to know about animal abuse. That same courage and willingness to confront discomfort will carry you through and inspire you to learn what you need to learn about racism

However difficult and upsetting it was for you to learn about what we human animals do to our sister/brother Earthlings...diving into learning about the active and ongoing ugliness of white U.S. American racism is just as disconcerting or maybe even more so. But...you can do it. It's painful, it's scary and heart and mind boggling. However, if you're committed to opting out of the oppressions that are presented as "normal"...then it must be done.

If you don't want to do that work...then she tells you what you need to do. Read her post. Please. (Thanks to So I'm Thinking of Going Vegan for linking to her blog too)