Disqus - Latest Comments for SarahLynne

Re: Stealing Sexy Calendars isn’t Jesus, and it isn’t Radical.

SarahLynne — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:15:33 -0000

I was responding to Sarah's claim that it wasn't "Jesus." It sounds like you don't think we should emulate Jesus in this area. Personally I am on the fence. We need to balance fears of being misunderstood and ineffective with a willingness to do something. I personally have done very little because I haven't come up with or found an action I think would be effective and clear without any cons. I have often wondered if it is more my ego and fear that hold me back, so I've decided to be less exacting and did participate in one last year.

With this action, I have found a lot of opportunities to talk about the issues with how women are represented in the media. Sometimes with people who hadn't thought about it at all. In that sense it was effective even though it didn't stop or target directly the producer. If we would take the opportunity to discuss these issues rather than harp on how stupid the action is there might be some good that comes from it. Obviously I'm not saying we should ignore the problems, just that we can acknowledge them without totally distracting from the issue of objectification of women and education about the issues it raises.

If people see it as being about immodesty or body shaming than let's say, "yes I can see that, but this is the real issue..." People I've talked to personally have been responsive to that (people who I know are opposed to women's liberation haven't been, but that's to be expected and I'm not interested in letting them control the message). Just claiming that it is sending that message reinforces the misunderstanding. It was easy for me to see what they meant because I'm familiar with the issue, if its not easy for other people then let's acknowledge the problem and then help them understand. That will reveal what is simply pigheadedness and what is true misunderstanding.

Re: Stealing Sexy Calendars isn’t Jesus, and it isn’t Radical.

SarahLynne — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:18:15 -0000

One more thing... Regarding effectiveness. I don't think any if Jesus' actions were "effective," either, but they sent a message and were prophetic. Doing symbolic, prophetic actions is a very Jesus-y thing to do.

Re: Stealing Sexy Calendars isn’t Jesus, and it isn’t Radical.

SarahLynne — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:15:30 -0000

To be clear, I personally wouldn't have done an action stealing from a sole proprietor. I do not think I would've expected the workers to lose bonuses. If I did somehow anticipate that it would've been another strike against it. Other than that I think it was a great action and message.

Re: Stealing Sexy Calendars isn’t Jesus, and it isn’t Radical.

SarahLynne — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:13:42 -0000

I disagree with your analysis of the blame. It puts the blame on the people purchasing these calendars. The signs speak very directly to that. You interpreted it as putting the blame on the models. I highly doubt the people who did this believed the models were to blame. I personally wouldn't interpret it that way, but that is the problem with any action. Sending a clear message is always a challenge.

Your analogy with evangelicals putting up signs with a very different message mean nothing to me. I would disagree with their message (which does seem to put more blame on someone for being immodest), but not necessarily with the method.

Regarding the target. I don't know if the people knew it was run by a woman or that it was a sole proprietor. I hope they would change their mind and found a new target if they were aware of the latter, but I don't think you need to guard every woman's source of income simply because she is female regardless of how she earns it. It is a confusion of feminism to think it is simply about safeguarding every female or that no female could be hurting its causes.

Regarding the workers. I absolutely agree the harm done to the workers sucks. It is a complication with many actions. I was involved in one last spring where we stopped trucks involved in frac sand distribution. The drivers were incensed because they are paid by the truck load rather than by the hour. I hate that they lost income, but I still think the action was worth doing. Of course that was played up by the media around how insensitive we are, etc. I imagine the workers at the sit-ins in the south were put in a crummy position too, possibly lost wages.

Re: Calendar Grrlz

SarahLynne — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:05:22 -0000

Amen! Couldn't say it better.

Re: Is it Bad to be a Rad Dad?

SarahLynne — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:40:46 -0000

Absolutely! I'm all about the indoctrination in the young years. That doesn't mean I'll push my beliefs down my kids throat when they move more into the critical thinking stages of development, but it seems to me that very little kids imitate and are looking for a worldview, boundaries, and just a basic understanding of what it means to be a little human being. It makes no sense to leave someone in that stage with no answers or guidance, and it makes even less sense to neglect to impart to them our own sense of values and beliefs.

Re: Animal Liberation: The Missing Piece

SarahLynne — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:07:58 -0000

Thanks Andy. There is a lot more I would be interested in chatting about, but websites are far from my favorite forum. Maybe another time we will get a chance to chat in person. In the meanwhile I'm thankful for the some of the info you and Nekeisha have sent my way : )

Re: Animal Liberation: The Missing Piece

SarahLynne — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:50:07 -0000

Andy, I am not sure if you thought I already knew that B12 could be found in soil, but I didn't. I wasn't trying to be argumentative when I asked if you and Nekeisha supplement. I was asking you an honest question with the assumption that you have probably had a lot of conversations like these and thought about those things.

It would be dishonest for me to say that I wasn't asking this question on some level in "the service of meat-eating," but on another level (and I hope a larger one, but maybe I don't know myself well enough) I am really trying to explore what is healthy. I think anyone who knows me could attest that I spend a lot of time thinking about my diet in terms of both health and morality. I haven't come to the conclusions that you and Nekeisha have, but I respect both of you and I know that I could probably learn more. I am sorry if I came off as accusative at some point, because that really wasn't intended.

That said, I had no idea B12 could be obtainable by humans from soul. I knew there was something about feces that if we ate a little of that we could obtain it, but I was under the impression that only ruminants were capable of absorbing B12 from soil. It looks like (as I have tried reading some other articles on it that I found online) that we may be able to get it from healthy soil (which soil in the US isn't sufficient in without fertilizers... but apparently farmers add cobalt to their soils or salt licks to help their ruminants get enough B12?). Again, this was interesting and something I didn't know. Next time I would appreciate if you just told me about this and pointed me to some sources if you had them.

I felt a little put off by the way you assumed that I am simply trying to be accusative or obstinate in my meat eating. It took me a while to acknowledge global warming and evolution too (and feminism... I remember chatting about that in forums in the past : ), but I eventually came to see the error in my thinking. Getting anecdotal evidence as if something is obvious or being disparaged isn't really helpful in converting me though.

Re: Animal Liberation: The Missing Piece

SarahLynne — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:17:29 -0000

That would be an option if it is true that we can get B12 from spirulina or yeast...

but everything I have read, including this article from UK's Vegan Society

http://www.vegansociety.com...

says that B12 is only available in animal products and fortified foods/supplements. B12 in plant sources is apparently not able to be used by humans.

"Others have proposed specific foods, including spirulina, nori, tempeh, and barley grass, as suitable non-animal sources of B12. Such claims have not stood the test of time." -from Vegan Society

I have also read that the B12 in nonanimal food sources might contain an analogue that makes it harder for humans to absorb B12.

Re: the Iconocast: Shannon Kearns (episode 41)

SarahLynne — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:36:07 -0000

I definitely think that connections between our bodies and how we think, feel, act, desire, and express ourselves are a fluid thing. I don't see anything Shay said as arguing that there are not more than two genders or against very much of what one might have from a queer perspective.

I do see a tension with how we view ourselves and our bodies and how connected that may be. For example, this raises the question if there is something innate about ourselves being male, or female or otherwise that is connected physical sex (not necessarily what our physical body looks like, but what we feel it ought to look like in some cases). This wasn't brought up in our conversation, but there are so many different parts of our biology that are connected with our sex, that there could even be biological explanations to why some people feel that they are in the "wrong" body. That isn't to say that there wouldn't be cultural factors as well, in fact it isn't to make any strong claims at all. I am personally still very fuzzy on the "hows or whys" and have no idea what the experience feels like to make any informed claims. Except maybe to say that we can't divorce our souls from our bodies. Regardless of whether you are a lesbian, gay, queer, trans, or just a particularly masculine female, or a feminine male, or you feel "sexless" or whatever... who we are has connecting points with our body. In some ways our body influences who we are and in someone ways who we are causes us to manipulate our bodies. Even if this is mostly cultural, there are still certain biological aspects. While I respect the people who choose to push the gender envelope with seemingly no care about any biological determinism I do not think the ideal is a world of ever fluctuating androgynous beings, nor do I think there should be any shame for those who enjoy and conform to sex-gender-norms if it brings them contentment. I don't think our goal should be to divorce the soul from the body is what I am saying in summation.

With that in mind, I do think the trans* experience can be confusing to those of us who have been challenging sex/gender assumptions in other ways. For example, when my friend started transitioning I was in the middle of dealing with claiming my femaleness. I grew up feeling uncomfortable as a female. I got along with guys more often. I looked up to men primarily and in many ways my personality isn't feminine (ex: I was called a "femi-nazi" in middle school simply because I had a strong personality. I wasn't a feminist at all at the time). I remember imagining myself as a published author using a male-pseudonom just because it felt "better" than using my own name. I went a different direction though. It wasn't that I didn't feel like a female, it was that I was ashamed of being female and at the same time embarrassed that I wasn't "female enough." This lead me to a process that began with challenging the ideas that females needed to be a certain way and ended with me embracing and rejoicing in the ways I am female and feminine at times (to basically say... This is who I am, it includes a vagina and that is a good thing).

Imagine then how uncomfortable I was when my friend told me that she was actually female. At this point I was busy telling everyone that there was no such thing as female APART from your body... i.e. no matter how masculine I seem at times I am still female because I have a vagina. I don't think that way anymore, but it still influences my thinking. It was confusing then to be told that inspite of my friend's body she was actually female. At the time I thought she should just be "redefining" what it means to be a guy. Clearly though this didn't meet her needs and I have been trying to understand all this more since then.

I am not sure If I am addressing anything pertinent to what you brought up Jonas, but I would be interested in mentioning one other thing that might be helpful in our quest for understanding.

After the interview I talked to Shay a little more about my relationship with my friend, and someone else also brought up some of the ways they have fluctuated in their gender and sexual identity. Shay brought up that even for him (and I may be interpreting this wrong, so I hope Shay will read and correct me if I am wrong), his understanding of his own masculinity and what it means for him to be male has shifted. He shared that in the beginning of transitioning he was very interested in presenting as masculine as possible and even started looking into the military and other typically masculine things. After a while, and more importantly after he didn't have to worry about being "misread" as female, he hasn't felt as concerned about being entirely masculine in his mannerisms and interests. Now he knows that people perceive him as being a gay man at times, but this doesn't bother him. For him it seems that while being bodily male was paramount for his ability to be comfortable with himself, it is not the end to his exploration of his own sex and gender identity. It seemed to me that he recognized still dealing with shifts in identity that he couldn't deal with until he was able to be perceived as basically male.

Re: Animal Liberation: The Missing Piece

SarahLynne — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:35:11 -0000

I appreciate your information about the Vegetarian Myth, especially because I was looking that the "vegetarianmyth.com" which is an anti-Vegetarian Myth site that sadly had very little information and vegetarianmythmyth looks much more interesting.

I would only say though that my post only mentions the Vegetarian Myth, and most of my ideas are not directly from that book. Though Keith and I may think similarly in some areas I recognized that she was clearly making emotional arguments, some of which are obviously ridiculous. Though I didn't think everything Primal mentioned was that crazy and was aware that Primal was not exaggerating.

I would be interested if you have any responses to the other things I brought up though, besides the mention of the Vegetarian Myth (which I would like to point out was brought up in conjunction with the fact that I was bringing up information I found on a site that is opposed to the Vegetarian Myth... note that I wasn't saying "I read this book and it said this and that." I was saying that after reading the book I was looking at a site that was against it which acknowledged the need for supplements if you are vegan.

And though my concern my be unfounded (I did read one vegan site that argues that B12 naturally grows in our mouth... it seems to be a very fringe belief among the different articles I looked for on B12 from a vegetarian/vegan perspective) I can't help, but feel concerned when the potential effects of B12 deficiency (which do also come up in meat eaters, possibly due to some kind of leaky gut or celiacs which compromises their ability to absorb it) are so often treated with drugs (depression, anxiety, potential long term affects like dementia) instead of addressing possibly B12 deficiencies (or even asking if that is possible). I want to be clear that I am not saying this is an epidemic among vegans (it is my understanding that most vegans supplement, and I know a lot of our cereals are supplemented), all I am bringing up is that while I would supplement if needed (if my digestion was compromised due to long term grain eating or milk drinking if I am sensitive to those things), but I would rather get my nutrients from nonindustrial, natural sources if at all possible and I have a hard time believing that it would be morally wrong to do so.

I understand that B12 may be found in plant sources (since it is originally from bacteria), but this is controversial enough that supplementing seems to be the safe choice to many vegans.

Nekeisha do you and Andy take supplements for this? Do you feel like there is widespread enough sources of plant-based B12 that this concern would be unfounded... would people probably have access to this in diverse regions "post-civ" if we ever to live in such a place?

This is only one of the many concerns I brought up in my original post, but I feel like it is an important one.

Re: Animal Liberation: The Missing Piece

SarahLynne — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:18:04 -0000

Of course, but domination due to killing an animal for food and domination in the form of domestication are not the same. Killing animals may also result in an openness to other forms of denomination, but it isn't domestication which seems to be the primary concern of a lot of primitivists (I'm speaking from observation not personal belief on this point).

In this post I was simply adding my thoughts and processing the information I had. The concern that hunting could ultimately lead to other forms of domination seems to be a valid concern to me.

Personally, I don't know if I really believes all forms of anything like control and domination are wrong. I don't know if all kinds of death or killing are wrong either, but I don't know where I would draw the line so I'll continue to be in thought and conversation about it.

On a slightly different topic, you bring up that foraging isn't like hunting because we don't destroy the entire source. I wasn't trying to say in my post above that foraging and hunting are the same, I was only pointing out the hunting isn't domestication any more than foraging is (i.e. neither of them are domestication), but since you choose to delineate them based on the criteria that foraging doesn't destroy the entire source (whereas hunting does), I am curious... Is picking annuals akin to hunting then? Or is destroying a perennial plant for whatever reason (maybe the raspberries are just taking over way too much : ) akin to hunting? Is the question of whether we are destroying the whole source of something's life a criteria for whether something is wrong or not or does the difference between plants and animals make this question unimportant when thinking about how we deal with plants?

I am assuming there of course that you wouldn't advocate harming an animal even if it didn't destroy its whole life.

(I hope you don't take any of this as disrespectful questioning... I am an enneagram 5 so these kinds of questions really do loom in my mind)

Re: Looking Backwards: The Green Revolution and Green Anarchism

SarahLynne — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:44:15 -0000

I think that was an insightful comment Nekeisha and I think it speaks, in some ways, more to our current context than what I am about to bring up. I can't help but wonder though what our orientation towards death should be. There is obviously a deep sense of loss, and if the death is violent and senseless, (regardless of what kind of life it was) it is clearly aborrible. If it is do to neglect of basic needs I would also think of it as a tragedy, but should we consider it a tragedy when some dies or is unable to have the same abilities as everyone else due to natural causes or unavoidable accidents? We would all certainly feel loss, but should we do everything we can, at the expense of life in general to try and remedy the disability or illness for every person? I personally do not advocate indiscriminately getting rid of all technologies as soon as possible. For the sake of all of those who struggle with illness and disability or intimately know someone who does, if we need to lessen use of technology it should happen in less life or death areas. At the same time though, I can't help but wonder if our sense of morality and value connected with whether or not someone dies or unable to do certain things without technological or human assistance seems problematic when we consider the ability for the whole planet and all of life to flourish. For example, I (a few months back) watched a TEDtalk where a scientist argues that death is simply a disease that needs to be cured and anyone who would interfere with the technology he is trying to design would be interfering with people's basic right to live. (http://www.ted.com/talks/au...
This seems to be logical if we believe that we would use or have available whatever kind of technology exists that can heal, saves someone's life, or allows the person to live more freely and independently (meaning without human care, but with technological aid or course).

I struggle with this because I haven't been able to understand what the Christ-centered way of looking at this is. If I didn't believe in God or in following Jesus I would probably think that it is difficult to come to terms with death, but we all should and just accept the reality that everyone alive right now and using technology is doing so because we are basically selfish and it is the nature of all individual life to try and survive however it can... or something like this (I haven't thought it through b/c I DO believe in God and following Jesus, and don't care all that much for that kind of thought experiment: )

It seems like the bible talks about resurrection, and unless one wants to think of this in less literal way (that this simply means our life, in death, will continue to allow for the production of more life... which would mean that we should consider death much less tragic) it seems like that would mean at some point all that is dead will live again (maybe with some exceptions, maybe not) and we will somehow be able to live without death at all.

If that is true, it seems that it could promote the same kind of attitude that pie in the sky thinking does... we can try to live as long as we want now (because we don't like dying, and it isn't good), but that ultimately the consequences of our actions will be rectified in the resurrection and creation of a magical earth that can support all life without death.

This doesn't even bring in the struggle I have with whether I should consider humanity, towards people who are naturally, or through an accident the risk of which is inherent in living (this is ambiguous I know, but would be tedious to work out) unable to do certain things, obligated to create and allow the use of whatever technology to help them be independent. Is not doing that really oppressive, or is it simply accepting reality? Does that mean that we are treating people like this as less valuable or inferior? (I would say yes if we our ourselves using technology for other reasons, but I'm not so sure if we are concluding that industrial technology is unsupportable and detrimental to all life).

Anyway... I do not say this to be conclusive. I understand that, though I know many people who are saved and supported by technology, who I really would not like to die, that I only, personal, would be affected by this in having some really painful teeth and being pretty much unable to see (root canals and I can't see much at all without my glasses). I understand that I can't fully understand what we would be giving up and what I would be asking certain people to "come to terms" with. For those reasons it is still an open question for me, but I think it should be a question we all struggle with. And I think we could probably all become more comfortable with certain risks that may be involved with lessening on reliance of technology as well as more comfortable with illness and death. I just don't know how comfortable and in what circumstance we should try and experiment with our comfort level.

Re: The Other Story: De-bunking the Welfare Lie

SarahLynne — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:59:33 -0000

I would agree that those of us receiving benefits are apart of a broken system based on "stolen" (using the term loosely) goods. I do not think this means that those of us on the lower end of society who are dehumanized and alienated by this very system are wrong for accepting the money offered to us. There is nothing particularly encouraging (besides it being helpful and something I can sometimes use to help others... illegally: ) about getting it and I don't think of it as something I get by "God's grace." I think the fact that the best way to take care of myself and (in the future) my family may require government handouts is sad. It shouldn't require that and we should all be careful to expose how dehumanizing this system is and to proclaim the need for ALL Christians to start taking care of each other. Any welfare system is a symptom of the failure of the church. It does have the possibility of making the state look "good" somehow, but the people receiving benefits usually feel good about the state when we are receive them. The process sucks way too much for that and I feel like Autumn was exposing this in her article. At the most it is those in power who can feel good about themselves for supporting welfare and they will feel good about themselves whether or not I accept it unless we are able to do more around not accepting the welfare that would actually expose how and why we are so ungrateful for their "generosity." (the patron-client relationship in charity is a problem among Christians as well though and is one of the reasons I ended up walking away from a scholarship and seminary, so this isn't just a problem with the state and welfare. It is a risk whenever we receive charity).

What concerns me about this dialogue is the way it seems to be blaming the victim. The people receiving state-sponsored benefits are the victims (using the term loosely b/c I don't think we should have a victim mentality) in this situation and we are victims whether or not we accept these benefits, it will just be in different ways. I don't think Jesus preached clean hands/purity messages to the poor, which is what it sounds like to me when we argue that the poor shouldn't take money to feed themselves and their children or accept healthcare so they or their children don't suffer just so they don't take something tainted by empire. We are all tainted by empire, we are in this situation largely because of its evils, and we aren't going to be healed by its methods. Those of us who accept benefits know that, but what is wrong with this picture is the how the wealthy and the state view us and use us. We can fight that in different ways, but I don't think telling people that they should refuse state handouts, b/c they are somehow dirty (or not good anarchists) for taking it does that. I do think people can choose not to take any state support and resist this in a very poignant and prophetic way. I know someone who does, but this person doesn't have kids and often receives hospitality from me (and I at times from him) and he doesn't shame me for taking food stamps (or refuse my food b/c it was bought with them:). I don't think Jesus would ever choose to approach this by shaming the poor who are receiving the scraps from the wealthy's tables (and when he did something like this he was corrected;)

Also, I realize that I am wealthy compared to many other people in the world, but my refusing handouts would do nothing to expose or help that situation and that is the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ways I am living on stolen resources (and I don't mean stolen from the rich!)... as Zach already said above.

That being said, I am totally open to the idea of doing actions and movements around the idea of refusing welfare. That would be liberative. We would need to come together (including Christians who are in a position where they don't need any welfare and wouldn't qualify) and take care of each other and we would need to make room to invite people to get out of the situation where they use welfare. There are ways collectives and anarchists do this and they are important efforts. We should keep doing them and try to invite more and more people into them because welfare should not exist and people shouldn't be in the position to accept benefits. Saying that doesn't shame those who take it though... it opens up more heavenly opportunities.

Re: The Other Story: De-bunking the Welfare Lie

SarahLynne — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:23:17 -0000

Hey Zach,

So far I pretty much agree with what your saying, but I was curious about how the Semon on the Mount endorses indirect participation? I'm asking this without going and looking myself as I am curious about your thoughts.

Re: Animal Liberation: The Missing Piece

SarahLynne — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:29:22 -0000

I am glad that you acknowledge that in some cases hunting may have been necessary. I think it was probably more often an important piece of nutrition (though not always primary). It seems like you are saying that animal products are not an important piece of nutrition now because there is a more ethical way to get all our needs met without animal products. In that sense your argument is on some level about veganism and omnivorism.

It also seems like you are also discussing whether hunting could be liberatory at all, and whether it was ever a really healthy (in the holistic sense) part of human history, or just a dangerous necessity (dangerous in the sense that it flirts with domination which could lead to more domination)... with your conclusion being the latter.

I state all that above because I am hoping I understand your position and would happily be corrected if I don't.

There are a couple of things your argument hinges on then... The idea that animal products are not an essential piece of a totally healthy human diet, the idea that we can ethically meet our needs right now without eating animals (nonhuman or human), and that the act of hunting is in no way libertatory for those seeking to disengage from "civilized" forms of eating.

Concerning the first aspect, after reading the Vegatarian Myth I read the articles on Veratarianmyth.com (sadly there aren't many completed yet) and it seemed to be still an open question whether most people could naturally, eating locally available foods, be vegan (the writers of these articles often encouraged taking supplements... particularly with B12). I'm sure you have lots of sources around this and I haven't read widely so I'll leave this an open question. I do want to acknowledge my own (certainly under informed, because I have been reading sources that were already similar to my perspective) bias that we should be eating the kinds of foods we evolved eating (which would include meat) and not eating very many grains that became widespread with the development of agriculture (note that my husband can't eat wheat healthfully, and I have found that wheat is less than ideal for me as well so that has certainly bolstered my bias).

That leads to the second aspect... can we ethically meet our needs without eating animals? Well I guess it depends on your idea of what is more or less ethical as well as were you live, but in Minnesota I don't think I could grow all of my own food, or source all of it from local ethical organic vegan farms. Our growing season would make this challenging even if there were lots of vegan farms to source from. That's not taking into account the idea that some may want to engage in a totally uncivilized approach at times and ideally all the time... which would in Minnesota have to include hunting. If you think it is more ethical to to abstain from any kind of direct, or once removed killing of non-human animals than it is to abstain from industrialized forms of agriculture (aka eating wild deer is worse than eating corn) then veganism makes sense for now... but if we ever get to the point where industry and large scale agriculture don't exist would that be possible in Minnesota (or places with winter).

Which leads to the last question, is hunting liberatory at all (from a primitivist perspective)? This is an interesting speculative question... I was a little confused about how you approached this. At one point it seemed like you were trying to approach this from the perspective of a primitivist, but then in a latter post you argued that it is wrong-headed to pursue a pre-civ (or post civ?) lifestyle at all. The latter seems to be a different kind of discussion so I let that stand for now. Looking at this from a primitivist perspective though, I would say that any move that is less engaged with civilization would be helpful for disengaging and exploring that it would be like to de-civilize (which would be liberatory). So even if I think (which I don't know that I do) that even gardening is less than ideal (it's domesticated) I would still find it challenging and preferable to shopping at a grocery store. Hunting would be even moreso than gardening... especially if it included a long trip in the wilderness. Foraging (for meat or plants) would also be preferable, but since hunting would ultimately be necessary post-civ (in Minnesota), gaining that skill would be beneficial. This isn't even to address whether hunting would be a tragic necessity or a beautiful part of a natural lifeway.

In the end though that seems even more speculative than the primitivist vision. The whole question of whether we could even survive without eating hunted meat in many places seems to be a tentative no. The question of whether right now it is more ethical to eat wild deer or a diet that would have to be supplemented by agricultural foods comes with complicated answers (which depend on each person's values, but from a primitivist perspective would probably clearly fall to eating wild deer). The question of whether when we did or (hopefully will) have to eat meat (in Minnesota at least) it is a tragic necessity or a part of a beautiful natural life way? Until/unless God actually changes all of nature to truly allow for a killing-less "kin"dom in all the world, I find this question impractical... If you believe that will happen than I will concede that when it does I will happily stop considering animals (and I include humans in that... though in rare and probably nonviolent hypotheticals) a viable source of food. But until that happens, from a anti-civ perspective (since I don't think I'm quite "primitivist") eating animals seems to be apart of the world God created and something that I ... if living in an ideal state, would do.

Re: Animal Liberation: The Missing Piece

SarahLynne — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:21:20 -0000

I'm not sure how up-to-date I am on my information, so feel free to correct me. Some food for thought that came to mind when reading Nekeisha's article is, in a very generalized sense, cultures who economy depended on animal husbandry tended to be more heirarchical than pre-agricultural horticultural societies. When I read about this is college is was argued that this was because men were generally in control of the economies at this point, where-as women had a primary role in gardening. I could see how it could be argued that the nature of the work, of controlling another animal, could also lead to an openness to be more dominating in other areas

It does seem appropriate to point out that hunting is not domesticating any more than foraging is, which I think was part of Andy's point.

Re: The Other Story: De-bunking the Welfare Lie

SarahLynne — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:27:16 -0000

Totally agree with you... and it reminds me that I have to call again to figure out if I am getting any health benefits. My experience: I've had to make a dozen or so phone calls (on hold every time) and twice now they have forgot to look at my application or forward it on to the next department. I have also had to call because they've forgotten to send me information about my denial or acceptance.

Re: Christianity is Empire, part 3 (Christian supremacy)

SarahLynne — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:16:46 -0000

I would agree with this... I think the judgement language is more like "you'll reap what you sow" rather than God dishing out a punishment to people who don't assent to the right beliefs.

Re: Christianity is Empire, part 1

SarahLynne — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:32:38 -0000

I totally agree. Sorry for my misunderstanding. Besides that I think the issue is just about how we define Christianity. I think I agree with the way you are talking about it above.

Re: Christianity is Empire, part 2 (subjugating creation)

SarahLynne — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:09:12 -0000

Maybe you could look into information on the life (including health) of the Dakota people, in relation to sustenance practices. You could look further back the the 18th and 19th centuries as well and research on the life and health of hunter gatherers and horticulturalists (that is small scale farming as opposed to agriculture). I don't think it is a simple as "civilization is better, agriculture is better." Though I also wouldn't argue for a return to some mythic past. (I address this in my article on primitivism). Jared Diamond briefly address the lack of clarity about agriculture as measurably better practice in Guns Germs and Steel.

More than that though, I think we need to be careful in general about claiming that this way is simply superior, especially when it is a part of the ideology that motivated us to take land from other peoples. Agriculture promotes increasing populations, which then causes us to need more land, which means we have to get more land. High infant mortality rates is definitely something that bothers me... on the other hand maybe our tendency to want to have several children checked for that, now left unchecked.

Re: Christianity is Empire, part 2 (subjugating creation)

SarahLynne — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:43:34 -0000

I'm not really sure how this responds to what I posted before (I feel like we are on a new topic?) but to respond to this...

If you are referring to my article, I will only respond for myself.

I definitely wasn't referring to going back and making the same mistakes over again, though I do feel confident that we can't just keep all the so-called "developments" we have and expect them to suddenly be good and holy because we are nicer people.

I don't think we could simply go back (what would we go back to? I don't think we can recall a time when we were homogeneous!), but that doesn't mean we can't question and reject developments (in terms of technology and ways that we have painfully done sinful things) and paths that have been unhealthy and oppressive, and it shouldn't be surprising this "new birth" would be confused as going back into our mother's womb ; )

I feel like our further development (spiritually, and in terms of what our culture and group psychology is like) will look uncomfortably like becoming children again. I don't think that means that we will make the same mistakes over, but hopefully that we have learned from what we have lived through and won't make those mistakes again. (That involves accepting consequences and criticisms and trying to dispossess ourselves from the feelings of entitlement that we've learned).

This also reminds me of how I remember (and maybe this isn't true about Mormans, but it is something I engaged at one time) Mormons believing that we HAD to sin in the Garden. That we should celebrate that sin. That isn't my faith, but I understood why they made that argument, and I feel like it is the easiest argument to make when we think of our own redemption and realize we can't unlive our past. We can't go back, but we also shouldn't pretend that it was good or that we have to keep reproducing what we've started. That is what interests me about pre-agricultural cultures. It isn't that I think they are perfect and ideal, or that I think we had to do the terrible things that we have done in the past, but that we can learn from even the things we've rejected and maybe not keep reproducing the same things, making the same mistakes, or continue rejecting things that were actually good and healthy.

I like Diamond's Gun Germs and Steel. I don't think recognizing the way Christianity has been tied (possibly inextricably) with oppression means that we are saying that white Christians are just inherently oppressive and brown native peoples are nice and perfect (that's a kind of superficial mythic generalization that is entirely based in fantasy)... even raising that question entirely misses the point. I'm not interested in judging Waz and her people. I'm not one of her people, and my tradition and the people I identify with subjugated hers. We happened, because of environmental factors that were tied to ideological factors, to kill and oppress them. I don't want to be forever tied to that identity, but sadly I agree that Christians don't seem that interested in really dealing with their own history on the terms of what IS for them, where they are, as opposed to what has happened somewhere else or what maybe could've been. A lot of times we hide behind our faith to keep us from dealing with it as well... and sadly I see a lot of these comments as hiding behind either faith, or any kind of superficial generalization that we could pull from what she said to make it easy to dismiss.

The saddest thing is, I often feel like we've made a lot of mistakes, in a sense, because we were young and stupid and didn't know what we were doing (if we are going to speak in a developmental sense about our culture). I'm not sure if the question is "why did people succumb under oppression" (which I feel like is behind Diamonds analysis of a lot of the "failures" of human societies), but why did they become oppressors? Why did we oppress? I think it is part not really understanding what we are doing and part being of seeking security in power (whether in oppressed people become oppresser to gain security, or just in a general need to maintain power), but learning from that experience involves recognizing the things we did in ignorance and insecurity (and naming it is wrong and unhealthy) and learning to have security outside that doesn't rely on defensive-justifying or aggressive measures.

Re: Christianity is Empire, part 1

SarahLynne — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:40:23 -0000

The Dakota were not, and never had a philosophy of nonviolence... but they did have other beliefs that I think Waz tends to think would preclude them from pursuing empire. What if's in this area may not be all that helpful though... I don't really feel like the potential for a group to commit wrong has anything to do with wrongs that I am benefitting form, or the reality that Christianity and myself has evolved and been formed in a colonialist, imperial context (my identity being more closely aligned to the perpetrators of crimes).

Re: Christianity is Empire, part 1

SarahLynne — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:22:37 -0000

why MUST that point be made Leo? No one ever argued that Empire is always Christian.

So I agree. But I don't see how that is relevant. It doesn't mean that Christianity isn't oppressive, just that Christianity isn't the only oppressive thing out there.

I'm sure Waz could talk about ways the Dakota individuals and even the Dakota as a whole may have done less than perfect, nice things... but considering our relationship with her people I don't that that is really anything I need to hear about. And it also doesn't mean that the Dakota way of doing things isn't relatively healthier. She really wasn't talking about anyone else, and she never said that Christians have the corner on oppression.

(a brief side note)

Now, I wonder if your "stones" statement isn't a reference to scripture? Anyhow, it brought to mind that passage for me. Which lead me to a few thoughts.

1- casting stones is about responding to sinful acts in a punishment oriented way. Something Waz never did, so stones weren't ever really cast on her end of things (in fact, I felt like she was incredibly merciful and hospitable to not demand any of what we consider private property, and she seemed to have a perspective that wants everyone to experience freedom).
2- Though I feel like there could be more graciousness in the world, I don't think that is something for oppressors and perpetrators of crimes to demand. So while I may be tempted to demand graciousness because lots of people are sinful (and I'm happy to believe that God's mercy is wide : ) that isn't anything I'm entitled to or should ever act like I'm entitled to. To me, pointing fingers at how other people do bad things feels like trying to evade consequences... especially when those people were not brought up or deemed perfect and pure at any point.

Re: Christianity is Empire, part 2 (subjugating creation)

SarahLynne — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:10:25 -0000

I agree that exploitation occurs outside of Christianity, but that doesn't mean the Empire and Christianity aren't bound up into each to other, which is the point Waz was making. Christianity evolved as an imperial power, so that is definitely apart of what has become our Christian identity. Most Christians I know hold to the interpretations she gave, but try to pass them off as benign beliefs now. Most Christians I know don't spend very much time considering how the interpretations they have may be a result of imperial perspectives. Even the Christians that do try to be conscious of those things (including myself) often cling to Christianity and Christian tradition and history to an extent that I wonder if we aren't saving a lot of dirty bath water for the sake of the baby : )

I am concerned when our impulse towards Waz is to defend our Christianity. What is there to defend? She brought up interpretations that I don't cling to. She doesn't make any claims to the mystic aspects of my faith, like my own personal relationship with the Creator, with Jesus, or how I've been guided by the Spirit and (in our brief conversation) she didn't make any claims against what I feel called to pursue as a follower of Jesus.

On the contrary, though it is uncomfortable to dig into and question and have challenged the tradition that shaped much of who I am, it is important if I want divest myself of imperial Christianity and learn to live in a just, loving, and gracious relationship with the rest of creation (a righteous relationship), which is what I think following Jesus and living into the anti-kingdom of God is all about.