A Sewing Machine, Murder, and the Absence of Regret
October 3, 2015 12:59 AM Subscribe
Why Has India's 'Beef' Lynching Sparked No Remorse? Ravish Kumar writes for NDTV about the killing of Mohammad Akhlaq: We are not understanding what is happening around us. We are not being able to make others understand. The sparks have been spread across our villages. Young men with their half-baked sense of history want me to pose with them for selfies, but are not willing to even consider my appeal that they give up their violent ideals.
If the results prove that it was not beef, will they bring back my dead father?
Scroll.in writes about how the police response of testing the meat is tacitly siding with the mob.
Sonia Faleiro writes a powerful piece in the NYTimes about India, free speech, and the BJP as India moves from a secular state to a Hindu nation: The attacks in India should not be seen as a problem limited to secular writers or liberal thinkers. They should be recognized as an attack on the heart of what constitutes a democracy — and that concerns everyone who values the idea of India as it was conceived and as it is beloved, rather than an India imagined through the eyes of religious zealots. Indians must protest these attacks and demand accountability from people in power. We must call for all voices to be protected, before we lose our own.
If the results prove that it was not beef, will they bring back my dead father?
Scroll.in writes about how the police response of testing the meat is tacitly siding with the mob.
Sonia Faleiro writes a powerful piece in the NYTimes about India, free speech, and the BJP as India moves from a secular state to a Hindu nation: The attacks in India should not be seen as a problem limited to secular writers or liberal thinkers. They should be recognized as an attack on the heart of what constitutes a democracy — and that concerns everyone who values the idea of India as it was conceived and as it is beloved, rather than an India imagined through the eyes of religious zealots. Indians must protest these attacks and demand accountability from people in power. We must call for all voices to be protected, before we lose our own.
I used to board with an Italian lady during my sophomore year of engineering, back in the Bangalore of the previous century. Veal would be delivered by a man on a bicycle to her home. You could buy beef deep in the heart of the Muslim areas. But this was not possible at all in the bigger cities with less Christian populations, like New Delhi. Rumour had it that beef was shadily delivered to homes of expats and diplomats in the embassy zone.
posted by infini at 3:40 AM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 3:40 AM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Let's avoid the standard general "religion sucks" argument / derail please.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:28 AM on October 3, 2015
posted by taz (staff) at 5:28 AM on October 3, 2015
The beef ban isn't just a Hindu-versus-Muslim thing, it's a case of caste discrimination too.
Scroll.in: Beef ban is an attempt to impose upper-caste culture on other Hindus
posted by Small Dollar at 7:22 AM on October 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
Scroll.in: Beef ban is an attempt to impose upper-caste culture on other Hindus
posted by Small Dollar at 7:22 AM on October 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
I have a belief that human life, that human suffering matters. There is no science that proves this is correct. I have no proof that I feel or that anyone else feels. I start from knowing that I feel, and that others look like me, are made like me, and I read and understand science from there, science made by people who, on faith, believe humans around them can feel and matter and design their science from there.
All people have faith beliefs. Harm reduction means that who do not rush to drastic measures to deal with harmful behavior, you try to understand, you seek peaceful solutions. You are patient and gentle doing what needs to be done to address why the harmful behavior is happening with care for those being harmed and even those doing harm.
But I don't think you need a religion to think slaughtering animals is harmful. Neither do I think creating laws protecting animals to be something that necessitates violence on humans that eat meat unless you believe laws are a form of violence (which I can see an argument for, again a reminder that total non-violence is not currently possible without destroying a huge quantity of life on earth that lives because of their violence, and that some forms of violence can in fact keep other forms in check).
Mobs are terrifying. I imagine that mobs are a similar force to what happens within the cells of the mind when a human is stirred to violent action. It can take a lot of energy to bring a person the strength to stand against harmful humans knowing it may hurt them or that they may retaliate and serious harm may come to those involved. I try to understand, with compassion, those forces within that stir harmful action in the name of justice--
I one truly believe's that animals lives matter, this rage makes sense. I understand rage at injustice and that it may blind our better parts from leading our behavior. Let those of us not blinded by rage, take the time to understand what is happening here without rushing to judgment of those who lost control or who are caught up in thought patterns that are not making sense, but that might serve some things that are good, making it difficult to challenge the harmful parts. If you can value preserving the welfare of ones self and ones enemy at the same time if possible, you will find better solutions.
If beings were preying on humans as a delicacy would you not feel that violence was justified? I like to say I value peace but if I learned that some one I know had eaten my fellow humans I could see myself experiences a rage that could make it very difficult to maintain commitment to preserving human life. If people believe animals suffering matters as much as human- then their rage makes sense, and their feeling that those who practice this cruelty are monsters and should be treated so, also makes sense.
I have a priority in place for the peaceful, the innocent, and the vulnerable. Cows who eat only grass which does not express itself in a way we understand to be conscious, by some ethics, could be considered more moral than humans who slaughter cows, ignoring their suffering even though they express it in a way similar to humans.
I will say I have mercy for any being who in starvation slaughters another sentient being for food, even mercy for those who turn to cannibalism in a terrible situation. I'm not going to say it's "right", just that I understand starvation hunger changes the ability to think about what's right and changes the course one might take when serving the ideals of compassion. I also have mercy for humans who look at how cruel humans are to their fellow beings and feel enraged... can not comprehend why even secular people do not see our treatment of our fellow beings as a genuine issue regardless of any "faith beliefs" or would frame it as simply an issue of religion.
Honestly the idea that humans have an emotional self at all that is different than matter and energy itself is a faith belief. The idea that there is magically a sensing self within our physical body that is different than the functions of matter and energy outside our bodies is not necessarily something an alien species could come here and determine through observation. If what they say was simply patterned functions of atoms doing exactly what atoms do in pattern the same as the sun has patterned rhythms within it.
Many beings will turn to darker deeds in times of needs and many among us carry the weight of dark deeds that have kept us alive. Their instincts and behavior... let us not meet them with judgment (whether those killing animals or those killing humans) but seeking to understand.
The underclass was asked to carry the dark deeds that kept others above the suffering. It is our great duty to carry those injured by the deeds their ancestors have done for humanity, the children and grandchildren of those who fought wars, slaughtered animals... what dark urges left their mark upon us. And if we still need those with this urges among us, let us not use them as scapegoats when things go wrong.
And when wielding the urges and behaviors and ideologies of being willing to kill, harm, injure, and cause suffering for the good of others-- things will always go wrong.
Because these things are wrong no matter how called for they may be. The wrongness never changes they just sometimes become the lesser of worse wrongs.
posted by xarnop at 8:45 AM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
All people have faith beliefs. Harm reduction means that who do not rush to drastic measures to deal with harmful behavior, you try to understand, you seek peaceful solutions. You are patient and gentle doing what needs to be done to address why the harmful behavior is happening with care for those being harmed and even those doing harm.
But I don't think you need a religion to think slaughtering animals is harmful. Neither do I think creating laws protecting animals to be something that necessitates violence on humans that eat meat unless you believe laws are a form of violence (which I can see an argument for, again a reminder that total non-violence is not currently possible without destroying a huge quantity of life on earth that lives because of their violence, and that some forms of violence can in fact keep other forms in check).
Mobs are terrifying. I imagine that mobs are a similar force to what happens within the cells of the mind when a human is stirred to violent action. It can take a lot of energy to bring a person the strength to stand against harmful humans knowing it may hurt them or that they may retaliate and serious harm may come to those involved. I try to understand, with compassion, those forces within that stir harmful action in the name of justice--
I one truly believe's that animals lives matter, this rage makes sense. I understand rage at injustice and that it may blind our better parts from leading our behavior. Let those of us not blinded by rage, take the time to understand what is happening here without rushing to judgment of those who lost control or who are caught up in thought patterns that are not making sense, but that might serve some things that are good, making it difficult to challenge the harmful parts. If you can value preserving the welfare of ones self and ones enemy at the same time if possible, you will find better solutions.
If beings were preying on humans as a delicacy would you not feel that violence was justified? I like to say I value peace but if I learned that some one I know had eaten my fellow humans I could see myself experiences a rage that could make it very difficult to maintain commitment to preserving human life. If people believe animals suffering matters as much as human- then their rage makes sense, and their feeling that those who practice this cruelty are monsters and should be treated so, also makes sense.
I have a priority in place for the peaceful, the innocent, and the vulnerable. Cows who eat only grass which does not express itself in a way we understand to be conscious, by some ethics, could be considered more moral than humans who slaughter cows, ignoring their suffering even though they express it in a way similar to humans.
I will say I have mercy for any being who in starvation slaughters another sentient being for food, even mercy for those who turn to cannibalism in a terrible situation. I'm not going to say it's "right", just that I understand starvation hunger changes the ability to think about what's right and changes the course one might take when serving the ideals of compassion. I also have mercy for humans who look at how cruel humans are to their fellow beings and feel enraged... can not comprehend why even secular people do not see our treatment of our fellow beings as a genuine issue regardless of any "faith beliefs" or would frame it as simply an issue of religion.
Honestly the idea that humans have an emotional self at all that is different than matter and energy itself is a faith belief. The idea that there is magically a sensing self within our physical body that is different than the functions of matter and energy outside our bodies is not necessarily something an alien species could come here and determine through observation. If what they say was simply patterned functions of atoms doing exactly what atoms do in pattern the same as the sun has patterned rhythms within it.
Many beings will turn to darker deeds in times of needs and many among us carry the weight of dark deeds that have kept us alive. Their instincts and behavior... let us not meet them with judgment (whether those killing animals or those killing humans) but seeking to understand.
The underclass was asked to carry the dark deeds that kept others above the suffering. It is our great duty to carry those injured by the deeds their ancestors have done for humanity, the children and grandchildren of those who fought wars, slaughtered animals... what dark urges left their mark upon us. And if we still need those with this urges among us, let us not use them as scapegoats when things go wrong.
And when wielding the urges and behaviors and ideologies of being willing to kill, harm, injure, and cause suffering for the good of others-- things will always go wrong.
Because these things are wrong no matter how called for they may be. The wrongness never changes they just sometimes become the lesser of worse wrongs.
posted by xarnop at 8:45 AM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not about beef, it's about bigotry. Plain and simple.
Will anyone in India ever dare to kill a beef-eating Hindu?
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:25 AM on October 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Will anyone in India ever dare to kill a beef-eating Hindu?
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:25 AM on October 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
I one truly believe's that animals lives matter, this rage makes sense.
This murderous mob doesn't believe that animal lives matter (surely human beings are animals too, eh?), instead they believe one particular species matters. This isn't a mob of violent vegetarians (which seemingly you sympathize with if it were, seriously? seriously?), but of murderous religious zealots.
posted by el io at 10:24 AM on October 3, 2015 [16 favorites]
This murderous mob doesn't believe that animal lives matter (surely human beings are animals too, eh?), instead they believe one particular species matters. This isn't a mob of violent vegetarians (which seemingly you sympathize with if it were, seriously? seriously?), but of murderous religious zealots.
posted by el io at 10:24 AM on October 3, 2015 [16 favorites]
It's not the case that objections to cow slaughter in India centre on respect for sentient beings generally: no one is proposing that it be illegal to kill chickens, fish or even goats and there is no state in India that mandates vegetarianism. The explicit claim is that cow slaughter is offensive to the sentiments of Hindus and should be illegal for that reason; the only states that have legislated on this issue have legislated against beef and only beef. It's disingenuous to claim that this isn't about the special symbolic value of cows to Hindus and closer to a blasphemy law than an animal welfare law.
posted by Aravis76 at 10:31 AM on October 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 10:31 AM on October 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
Why in this internet age of enlightenment with world wide connectedness are so many communities becoming increasingly dogmatic and radicalized? Are the Hindus secretly competing with ISIS for a secret extremism award? Is the american religious right in the running? Would any of these groups be embarrassed if we started an anti-nobel-prized award for the best contribution to the fall of civilization? I bet some would proudly show up to the awards show.
posted by sammyo at 10:49 AM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 10:49 AM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes I agree that the appeal to emotion that is claimed is not sincere when examined. Like that killing abortion clinic employees has nothing to do with respect for life. I guess what I mean in terms of understanding the enemy, is that appeals to emotions that do make sense get applied to justify bigotry.
Also my attempts to create understanding are also in juxtopisition to my desire to smash bigots. Which itself should be examined and not acted on without thinking. So I may have come on too strong on the "understand the enemy" since that I was addressing the violence in myself I feel toward people who would slaughter humans for reasons that do not hold up to logical or ethical reason.
posted by xarnop at 11:07 AM on October 3, 2015
Also my attempts to create understanding are also in juxtopisition to my desire to smash bigots. Which itself should be examined and not acted on without thinking. So I may have come on too strong on the "understand the enemy" since that I was addressing the violence in myself I feel toward people who would slaughter humans for reasons that do not hold up to logical or ethical reason.
posted by xarnop at 11:07 AM on October 3, 2015
No interesting a starting an argument or having a dialog but I'd certainly nominate folks here for a radical vegetarian blog post award.... ;-)
posted by sammyo at 11:16 AM on October 3, 2015
posted by sammyo at 11:16 AM on October 3, 2015
Like the Westboro Baptist Church I suspect an element of that mob was opportunistic faithful, I just bet there were a few folks in the crowd that for totally non-religious reasons hated or envied the victim or planed to take advantage of the situation.
posted by sammyo at 11:21 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 11:21 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I remember reading, although I can't find an online source, that some of the murders of Muslims during the 1989 Bihar riots were definitely opportunistic; people used the excuse to kill neighbours with whom they had land disputes. But some of the violence is just incomprehensible in its brutality (I'm thinking especially of incidents involving children during the Bihar riots and also Gujarat, as well the violence of this particular murder). I think that some horrible sadistic impulses to violence just exists in people and takes its excuse when some identifiable Other can be found.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:36 AM on October 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 11:36 AM on October 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Just to say, I am not a vegetarian in fact. Just sympathetic to the idea it may in fact be a superior position morally. However, situationaly harmful in that it may cause death for populations or individuals experiencing difficulties that require meat eating to sustain life or health which means rigidly enforcing it is as harmful to human life as is enforcing forced birth in the name of "life" despite the suffering that will result. Not to mention, that any crime will be subject to biases and to punishments being applied selectively to people already othered when the crimes of the self/family/and identified community will be understood/forgiven or handled peacefully. Trust me, I do not want harms for meat eaters, I hope for peaceful transition to a more peaceful way of life that preserves beasts and predators like myself, redeems us of our dependence on causing harms to live, while slowly reducing or ending the cycles of violence between earth beings.
Then again, sometimes I think my bias that predators should be protected along with the innocents they prey on is just another aspect of my beastliness.
However-- I would fight someone who tried to kill my cat for food, so I am trying to understand that some people might identify cows as mattering in a similar way to humans and if so I'm not sure that is morally wrong any more than me defending my cat even though I ultimately value human life over cat life and cats kill a lot of creatures so I don't know there would be logic or moral consistency in my position. Beliefs even of secular people can be very faith based so I'm trying to understand that there may be validity there and I don't want to erase someone believing certain things about consciousness simply because their faith is involved in it.
But maybe I should have just gone with the simple grar reaction which is often the appropriate reaction to these things.
In some ways I thought it would be relevant in the same way that some people think that 9/11 was something the US earned and I think it's worth teasing that idea out and challenging it.
I have just found that in knowing a lot of horrifying abusive people I have spent a lot of time trying to understand what is driving that, trying to have compassion for those who don't appear to have compassion, for where the violence is coming from especially when many types of violence do seem to have correlations with health and familial factors, poverty and adversity and history of trauma (and others DON'T seem to). And then when I find myself spending all this time and effort on cruel people I wonder if my willingness to have compassion for people doing these things is just another force that helps sustain abuse and cruelty. But when I deal with these things by embracing the rage I feel I find it hard to think strait or think of peaceful solutions. Which is the right thing to do? Then I come back to remembering absolute pacifism can bring it's own support for harmful behavior so maybe I should be more enraged...and I am sucked back in the vortex of existential crisis between the dark and the light and whether the goal is balance between the two or to fully embrace the light which I prefer.
The idea of humans taking the life of another human for the sake of a non-human species presents a LOT of moral issues and I was trying to take them out and beanplate but of course Occam's razor could lead us to simply see this as simple bigotry and that's really all that needs saying and I agree that is a completely correct assessment.
But we are on metafilter... and there were beans....
posted by xarnop at 11:56 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Then again, sometimes I think my bias that predators should be protected along with the innocents they prey on is just another aspect of my beastliness.
However-- I would fight someone who tried to kill my cat for food, so I am trying to understand that some people might identify cows as mattering in a similar way to humans and if so I'm not sure that is morally wrong any more than me defending my cat even though I ultimately value human life over cat life and cats kill a lot of creatures so I don't know there would be logic or moral consistency in my position. Beliefs even of secular people can be very faith based so I'm trying to understand that there may be validity there and I don't want to erase someone believing certain things about consciousness simply because their faith is involved in it.
But maybe I should have just gone with the simple grar reaction which is often the appropriate reaction to these things.
In some ways I thought it would be relevant in the same way that some people think that 9/11 was something the US earned and I think it's worth teasing that idea out and challenging it.
I have just found that in knowing a lot of horrifying abusive people I have spent a lot of time trying to understand what is driving that, trying to have compassion for those who don't appear to have compassion, for where the violence is coming from especially when many types of violence do seem to have correlations with health and familial factors, poverty and adversity and history of trauma (and others DON'T seem to). And then when I find myself spending all this time and effort on cruel people I wonder if my willingness to have compassion for people doing these things is just another force that helps sustain abuse and cruelty. But when I deal with these things by embracing the rage I feel I find it hard to think strait or think of peaceful solutions. Which is the right thing to do? Then I come back to remembering absolute pacifism can bring it's own support for harmful behavior so maybe I should be more enraged...and I am sucked back in the vortex of existential crisis between the dark and the light and whether the goal is balance between the two or to fully embrace the light which I prefer.
The idea of humans taking the life of another human for the sake of a non-human species presents a LOT of moral issues and I was trying to take them out and beanplate but of course Occam's razor could lead us to simply see this as simple bigotry and that's really all that needs saying and I agree that is a completely correct assessment.
But we are on metafilter... and there were beans....
posted by xarnop at 11:56 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think the fact that the issue is cows in this case is a distraction from the larger Hindu-Muslim tension at stake in this violence: exactly same kind of fury could be unleashed by the (rumoured) desecration of a temple or an idol, for example, where no animal welfare question is at stake. I don't believe animal suffering is even the ostensible issue - it's blasphemy.
posted by Aravis76 at 12:04 PM on October 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 12:04 PM on October 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
I am friends with a few Hindus on Facebook and my feed is full of this stuff. Lots of justifications and apologies for the killers. I'm amazed that American educated, seemingly intelligent people can feel that way but I guess it's not that different from the apologists for George Zimmerman in the US.
posted by miyabo at 5:05 PM on October 3, 2015
posted by miyabo at 5:05 PM on October 3, 2015
Let's not forget that these events have coincided quite closely in time with the Feast of the Sacrifice (Eid al-Adha), a Muslim holiday where a cow is traditionally sacrificed. I definitely see where Islamophobia would be involved here.
posted by oceanjesse at 5:59 PM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 5:59 PM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Guardian has a good summary about the current religious and cultural tensions in Dadri.
posted by frumiousb at 6:27 PM on October 3, 2015
posted by frumiousb at 6:27 PM on October 3, 2015
"There exists no politician in India daring enough to attempt to explain to the masses that cows can be eaten."
-- Indira Gandhi
Is there a politician anywhere daring enough to attempt to explain to the masses that religious or philosophical notions are not worth someone's life?
posted by bryon at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2015
-- Indira Gandhi
Is there a politician anywhere daring enough to attempt to explain to the masses that religious or philosophical notions are not worth someone's life?
posted by bryon at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2015
I simultaneously get why the focus should be on bigotry but, like the abortion issue, I actually find killing sad, not for religious reasons (or at least as an agnostic I remain ambivalent about anything beyond this realm) but because I think it's possible to have a more encompassing view of the value of life than just already born humans and nothing else mattering. And I wonder if some of the excusing actually DOES come from genuine feelings of care, combined with the miraculous ability to see the harms caused by the behavior but not the reasons for the behavior of people deemed "other".
I mean, I am someone who has cried cutting up carrots. When I feel the most enraged at sexual abusers and sadistic beastly humans, some dark part of me spits at myself "how do you think the little piggy felt before he died? Do you think he screamed? You're angry at torture? Will you face your own deeds?" I'm still thinking it's sad that we can't even put the idea that other living things matter on the table without everyone saying it's not even possible that some people actually think other forms of sentience than just human might deserve moral or even legal protection and that's in here somewhere.
Granted that caring is inconsistent, and does NOT justify these horrors and atrocities on humans, but I'm not sure that means it isn't real. I love my son more than other children.. that is inconsistent but doesn't mean the love isn't real. Some people who formed an appreciation of cows might not value other animals as well but that doesn't mean they don't genuinely value cows. And they might selectively be more angry at people deemed other who are convenient scapegoats but that doesn't mean they aren't choosing things they really do care about to be angry about and fuel the anger.
I just still can't get behind the idea that life itself being worthy of protection being simply a "philosophical talking point". Love is deeper than that even for non-religious people. If you tell me that my son's value is just a philosophical notion and that me defending him is therefore not worth someone's life, I would think that was nuts. If someone thinks a cows suffering matters, then it's not just a religious talking point, isn't it at least possible that all suffering (including the atrocities committed to humans which I think carry a greater weight) but that all of them could be considered moral issues and not just "religious issues" that therefore can be discarded due to their "religious" nature? The idea that human life is precious is not proven by science, it's a faith belief. That doesn't mean it can't make it's way to laws or to the common consciousness about morality.
Freedom of a humans right to eat meat means removal of another freedom to live their very life. I think some of the conversation in India about the desire to increase vegetarianism IS actual about the harms of killing. I don't know that ignoring how that may be influencing people in India's perception of this is entirely correct either.
posted by xarnop at 8:18 PM on October 3, 2015
I mean, I am someone who has cried cutting up carrots. When I feel the most enraged at sexual abusers and sadistic beastly humans, some dark part of me spits at myself "how do you think the little piggy felt before he died? Do you think he screamed? You're angry at torture? Will you face your own deeds?" I'm still thinking it's sad that we can't even put the idea that other living things matter on the table without everyone saying it's not even possible that some people actually think other forms of sentience than just human might deserve moral or even legal protection and that's in here somewhere.
Granted that caring is inconsistent, and does NOT justify these horrors and atrocities on humans, but I'm not sure that means it isn't real. I love my son more than other children.. that is inconsistent but doesn't mean the love isn't real. Some people who formed an appreciation of cows might not value other animals as well but that doesn't mean they don't genuinely value cows. And they might selectively be more angry at people deemed other who are convenient scapegoats but that doesn't mean they aren't choosing things they really do care about to be angry about and fuel the anger.
I just still can't get behind the idea that life itself being worthy of protection being simply a "philosophical talking point". Love is deeper than that even for non-religious people. If you tell me that my son's value is just a philosophical notion and that me defending him is therefore not worth someone's life, I would think that was nuts. If someone thinks a cows suffering matters, then it's not just a religious talking point, isn't it at least possible that all suffering (including the atrocities committed to humans which I think carry a greater weight) but that all of them could be considered moral issues and not just "religious issues" that therefore can be discarded due to their "religious" nature? The idea that human life is precious is not proven by science, it's a faith belief. That doesn't mean it can't make it's way to laws or to the common consciousness about morality.
Freedom of a humans right to eat meat means removal of another freedom to live their very life. I think some of the conversation in India about the desire to increase vegetarianism IS actual about the harms of killing. I don't know that ignoring how that may be influencing people in India's perception of this is entirely correct either.
posted by xarnop at 8:18 PM on October 3, 2015
Is there a politician anywhere daring enough to attempt to explain to the masses that religious or philosophical notions are not worth someone's life?
It's tribalism all the way down.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:53 PM on October 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's tribalism all the way down.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:53 PM on October 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
xarnop, to a degree I admire your love for every form of life. But only to a degree.
When I feel the most enraged at sexual abusers and sadistic beastly humans, some dark part of me spits at myself "how do you think the little piggy felt before he died? Do you think he screamed? You're angry at torture? Will you face your own deeds?"
I place the welfare of human beings -- especially those who have been victimized by other human beings -- well over any lingering concerns about my bacon. This is anthropocentric, but I submit this is reasonable, and you also do later.
If you tell me that my son's value is just a philosophical notion and that me defending him is therefore not worth someone's life, I would think that was nuts.
This is a thing I would never say. I do not consider human life a philosophical abstraction. If your son’s life were endangered, I would expect you, or anyone else nearby, to come to his aid -- even if that meant harming or killing another human. Innocent human lives must be protected. This was a foundational reason for the growth of civilization.
If someone thinks a cows suffering matters, then it's not just a religious talking point, isn't it at least possible that all suffering (including the atrocities committed to humans which I think carry a greater weight) but that all of them could be considered moral issues and not just "religious issues" that therefore can be discarded due to their "religious" nature?
I agree fully that atrocities committed against humans carry a greater moral weight than suffering inflicted upon other living beings. That’s our mutual anthropocentrism. Where I disagree is that the suffering of a lesser creature, whether animal or plant, justifies murder.
In my view, cows are nice-enough creatures, but dogs and cats are really my favorites. If I knew that someone had ruthlessly killed a dog or cat, I would be beside myself with rage. But I would not have legal or moral sanction to kill the person who had done that. The recourse is in the law. Any other course leads to injustice, to mob rule, to vengeance, and to a doom-spiral of successive murders.
The idea that human life is precious is not proven by science, it's a faith belief. That doesn't mean it can't make it's way to laws or to the common consciousness about morality.
“That life is worth living is the most necessary of assumptions, and were it not assumed, the most impossible of conclusions.” -- George Santayana
That human life is precious is seen in our laws prohibiting and punishing murder and assault. That people (including me) care about lives other than human is evidenced in the laws we have made against their mistreatment. I oppose small animals being brutalized (and that often leads the sadist to later turn to brutalizing other humans). I want feed animals to be treated well from birth to death. I believe that how we treat animals is a sign of whether our culture is progressing or regressing.
Another sign is whether the law is upheld or if bands of raging marauders can wreak bloody murder on anyone they choose. So, kill a cow, kill a man? That’s equivalent and the mob’s religious beliefs must be respected?
No. I will not respect that.
posted by bryon at 10:07 PM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
When I feel the most enraged at sexual abusers and sadistic beastly humans, some dark part of me spits at myself "how do you think the little piggy felt before he died? Do you think he screamed? You're angry at torture? Will you face your own deeds?"
I place the welfare of human beings -- especially those who have been victimized by other human beings -- well over any lingering concerns about my bacon. This is anthropocentric, but I submit this is reasonable, and you also do later.
If you tell me that my son's value is just a philosophical notion and that me defending him is therefore not worth someone's life, I would think that was nuts.
This is a thing I would never say. I do not consider human life a philosophical abstraction. If your son’s life were endangered, I would expect you, or anyone else nearby, to come to his aid -- even if that meant harming or killing another human. Innocent human lives must be protected. This was a foundational reason for the growth of civilization.
If someone thinks a cows suffering matters, then it's not just a religious talking point, isn't it at least possible that all suffering (including the atrocities committed to humans which I think carry a greater weight) but that all of them could be considered moral issues and not just "religious issues" that therefore can be discarded due to their "religious" nature?
I agree fully that atrocities committed against humans carry a greater moral weight than suffering inflicted upon other living beings. That’s our mutual anthropocentrism. Where I disagree is that the suffering of a lesser creature, whether animal or plant, justifies murder.
In my view, cows are nice-enough creatures, but dogs and cats are really my favorites. If I knew that someone had ruthlessly killed a dog or cat, I would be beside myself with rage. But I would not have legal or moral sanction to kill the person who had done that. The recourse is in the law. Any other course leads to injustice, to mob rule, to vengeance, and to a doom-spiral of successive murders.
The idea that human life is precious is not proven by science, it's a faith belief. That doesn't mean it can't make it's way to laws or to the common consciousness about morality.
“That life is worth living is the most necessary of assumptions, and were it not assumed, the most impossible of conclusions.” -- George Santayana
That human life is precious is seen in our laws prohibiting and punishing murder and assault. That people (including me) care about lives other than human is evidenced in the laws we have made against their mistreatment. I oppose small animals being brutalized (and that often leads the sadist to later turn to brutalizing other humans). I want feed animals to be treated well from birth to death. I believe that how we treat animals is a sign of whether our culture is progressing or regressing.
Another sign is whether the law is upheld or if bands of raging marauders can wreak bloody murder on anyone they choose. So, kill a cow, kill a man? That’s equivalent and the mob’s religious beliefs must be respected?
No. I will not respect that.
posted by bryon at 10:07 PM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
xarnop: You seem to be taking a somewhat odd position. That is understanding the rage of the people, trying to turn it into a debate/discussion about the ethics/morality of killing animals... When you yourself are not a vegetarian.
I humbly suggest becoming a vegetarian before using such rhetoric.
Oh yeah, and then, when you are a vegetarian, please do not use such rhetoric.
Vegetarians that wish to place the value of an animal above the value of a human being do not advance the cause - at all.
I say all these things as a vegetarian (who generally does not tell people I'm a vegetarian; if they are breaking bread with me they'll know because I'll ask the server if xyz has meat in it, if we are having a discussion where it is pertinent I may tell them, but otherwise, not at all).
posted by el io at 10:22 PM on October 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
I humbly suggest becoming a vegetarian before using such rhetoric.
Oh yeah, and then, when you are a vegetarian, please do not use such rhetoric.
Vegetarians that wish to place the value of an animal above the value of a human being do not advance the cause - at all.
I say all these things as a vegetarian (who generally does not tell people I'm a vegetarian; if they are breaking bread with me they'll know because I'll ask the server if xyz has meat in it, if we are having a discussion where it is pertinent I may tell them, but otherwise, not at all).
posted by el io at 10:22 PM on October 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
There may, in theory, be a country of passionate vegetarians somewhere, who are so committed to the principle of non-violence that they are prepared to beat a man to death with a brick because of their sheer disinterested love of animals and their rage at animal suffering. I'm pretty sure India is not that country. These people never seem even remotely tempted to attack the thousands and thousands of Hindus up and down the country who eat chicken and fish and mutton (in the sense of goat) every day of their lives. Even buffalo is all right in some places.
This isn't because they think that cows are somehow more sentient and capable of suffering than other animals or even because of a strong emotional connection to particular cows that are treated as pets. It's because Krishna was a cowherd and the Mahabharata forbids cow slaughter and Shiva's mount, Nandi, is a bull as well as a deity in his own right and because ghee and milk are central to many Vedic rights. I'm not a Hindu now, but even I feel a trangressive alarm at the idea of eating beef which has nothing to do with my feelings about cows - I would feel the same about entering a temple with my shoes on or stamping on a holy book or any number of things that it would upset my grandmother, a practising Hindu, to see me do. It's disrespectful to do these things, and I understand why people feel angry at seeing them done, but that anger is purely religiously-motivated. And when that anger is mingled with a long-standing tradition of anti-Muslim violence and scapegoating of Muslims, violence is what you get: the strength of the religious anger becomes an excuse to express the same old communal hatred. The best analogy I can think of is to medieval Christian communities going mad and attacking local Jews on the basis of a rumour of Host desecration. I sympathise with any Catholic who is horrified and upset to learn of the Host being desecrated in some way but I don't think that tells us anything important about the anti-Jewish violence in medieval Europe, or makes it more comprehensible. The issue there was anti-semitism and the emotion about the Host was only an excuse to express that same old hatred. I think that's what's going on here.
posted by Aravis76 at 12:42 AM on October 4, 2015 [10 favorites]
This isn't because they think that cows are somehow more sentient and capable of suffering than other animals or even because of a strong emotional connection to particular cows that are treated as pets. It's because Krishna was a cowherd and the Mahabharata forbids cow slaughter and Shiva's mount, Nandi, is a bull as well as a deity in his own right and because ghee and milk are central to many Vedic rights. I'm not a Hindu now, but even I feel a trangressive alarm at the idea of eating beef which has nothing to do with my feelings about cows - I would feel the same about entering a temple with my shoes on or stamping on a holy book or any number of things that it would upset my grandmother, a practising Hindu, to see me do. It's disrespectful to do these things, and I understand why people feel angry at seeing them done, but that anger is purely religiously-motivated. And when that anger is mingled with a long-standing tradition of anti-Muslim violence and scapegoating of Muslims, violence is what you get: the strength of the religious anger becomes an excuse to express the same old communal hatred. The best analogy I can think of is to medieval Christian communities going mad and attacking local Jews on the basis of a rumour of Host desecration. I sympathise with any Catholic who is horrified and upset to learn of the Host being desecrated in some way but I don't think that tells us anything important about the anti-Jewish violence in medieval Europe, or makes it more comprehensible. The issue there was anti-semitism and the emotion about the Host was only an excuse to express that same old hatred. I think that's what's going on here.
posted by Aravis76 at 12:42 AM on October 4, 2015 [10 favorites]
What Aravis said, plus a soupcon of politics and provocation - the howling mob has ever been one of the tools
this is not new or unusual and happens every so often - the Mumbai riots? Delhi after Indira Gandhi's assassination? Ayodhya? Babri Masjid? Gujurat?
The wounds of the Partition have never been healed, and the persistent splinter is the embedded prejudices of the caste system.
posted by infini at 1:08 AM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
this is not new or unusual and happens every so often - the Mumbai riots? Delhi after Indira Gandhi's assassination? Ayodhya? Babri Masjid? Gujurat?
The wounds of the Partition have never been healed, and the persistent splinter is the embedded prejudices of the caste system.
posted by infini at 1:08 AM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
There may, in theory, be a country of passionate vegetarians somewhere, who are so committed to the principle of non-violence that they are prepared to beat a man to death with a brick because of their sheer disinterested love of animals and their rage at animal suffering. I'm pretty sure India is not that country.
I'm not clear whether this contradicts what you're saying, but one of the reporters in the BBC podcast I linked to above interviewed a meat-eating Punjabi resident in Ahmedabad who lives in a top-floor flat "in a complex known to be vegetarian" who says that he has received death threats and threats that his daughters will be raped because his family refuses to stop cooking non-vegetarian Punjabi dishes for themselves, despite the fact that they do things like transport their kitchen waste a kilometer away from where they live to dispose of it out of consideration for their neighbors. The reporter says the man showed her "thirty-five letters, many postmarked, some with condoms taped to them."
That bit follows a segment about Jains seeking to enforce veganism elsewhere in Gujarat so I'm not clear whether this situation described in Ahmedabad is going back to describing Hindu-Muslim tensions or portraying a more general tension between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
posted by XMLicious at 1:50 AM on October 4, 2015
To vegetarian Indians, not eating meat isn't a lifestyle choice but a system of beliefs which are related to "pollution" - thus the strong responses may make more sense if seen in the same context as if one of your apartment block neighbours insisted on shitting in shared public spaces or urinating into the water supply.
My grandmother saw nothing wrong in being friendly with our Muslim neighbours yet refusing to touch any food or drink in their house or even in ours, if it was sent over. Back when she was living with us for a while, mum had separated all the cooking utensils in the kitchen and put them away. Again, this would be similar to the concept of a kosher kitchen.
Because in the Indian context, its the non Hindus who have traditionally eaten a wider variety of non vegetarian food, the conflation of muslim/dirty/meat eater is an unfortunate outcome.
Some links of interest.
History of word vegetarian
Monday, 30 April 2012 at 11:12 am
Food fascism: The vegetarian hypocrisy in India
This month a group of Dalit (or Untouchables, as they were formerly labelled) students organised a Beef Festival in Osmania University of Hyderabad. It was the festival to assert their culinary rights in public and make a political statement of dietary habits of Dalits and Muslims – by cooking and eating beef Biryani on campus.
About 2000 students participated and although it started out well, the festival was disrupted and students were attacked by right-wing Hindu fascists. The Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) released a statement describing how Meena Kandasamy, a writer and poet who participated in the festival, was singled out and threatened with gang rape and acid attacks.
This festival is very significant as some Dalit students have organised themselves to fight against food-fascism, campaigning against the very centre of Brahmanical Hinduism that connects caste with food. Culinary politics and contact with animals play a huge role in establishing purity-pollution rules to discriminate people in the caste system.
Have Brahmans always been beef-hating vegetarians? The answer is a resounding no.
[If you read no other, then read this one]
Many status differences in Indian society are expressed in terms of ritual purity and pollution. Notions of purity and pollution are extremely complex and vary greatly among different castes, religious groups, and regions. However, broadly speaking, high status is associated with purity and low status with pollution.
[...]
Through the caste system also comes the idea of purity and pollution dealing with such essentials of life such as food.
.....rules about purity and pollution have been modified in some ways over the past thousands of years, the basic logic is still very much in place in traditional Hindu culture. Even now Hindus will not be found using a spoon or a plate already used by somebody of a lower caste. It is common to go to a tea shop in India and find different cups for those of different castes. Some are even careful enough to never let their lips touch a glass, since it is likely to have been polluted by the use of a lower caste. From the way an Indian eats and from what he eats, you can not only determine his religion, his caste or community, but also his background – which part of the country he comes from, his level of education and the economic class he belongs to (Rajesh Sharma). There are so many rules regulating the common practice of pure and impure that it is important to see what a Hindu does not eat as well as what he does eat, with whom he eats as well as with whom he does not eat. Food restrictions and habits are highly developed and indicate caste affiliation. Ingredients vary from caste to caste in their cooking, and the concept of purity remains fundamental to Hindu cooking.
In India an unwritten code of conduct traditionally covers the preparation of food and the rituals accompanying its consumption (Rajesh Sharma). These rituals are passed down from word of mouth from each generation to the next, for cooking and eating are the “nodal” points of basic daily rituals and practices. It is important that strict rules are followed in order to keep the maximum purity. The idea of keeping all pollutants away can be seen by the location of the kitchen in Indian houses. The kitchen is normally a separate room located at a slight distance from the main house in which shoes or any other leather items were not allowed near this space. Anything that was potentially a pollutant is to be kept away. Even low caste people were to be kept away from a higher castes food for the low caste member would pollute the food by his/her touch. Only a Brahmins cooking was acceptable to all, high and low castes. A woman is seen as pollutant and contagious of pollution during her period. During a woman’s period she would be banned from cooking or serving food because her impurity is very contagious during that time of the month. It’s not only what one did to keep the impurities away, but also what they eat to keep a pure diet. The greatest sign of purity within India is vegetarianism, and the higher the caste the purer it would have been. A Brahman, of the highest caste, had to protect his purity at all times and does not eat meat.
Google Book excerpt on ritual hierarchy
So then, we have a status symbolic issue embroiled in this kerfuffle...
posted by infini at 2:20 AM on October 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
My grandmother saw nothing wrong in being friendly with our Muslim neighbours yet refusing to touch any food or drink in their house or even in ours, if it was sent over. Back when she was living with us for a while, mum had separated all the cooking utensils in the kitchen and put them away. Again, this would be similar to the concept of a kosher kitchen.
Because in the Indian context, its the non Hindus who have traditionally eaten a wider variety of non vegetarian food, the conflation of muslim/dirty/meat eater is an unfortunate outcome.
Some links of interest.
History of word vegetarian
Monday, 30 April 2012 at 11:12 am
Food fascism: The vegetarian hypocrisy in India
This month a group of Dalit (or Untouchables, as they were formerly labelled) students organised a Beef Festival in Osmania University of Hyderabad. It was the festival to assert their culinary rights in public and make a political statement of dietary habits of Dalits and Muslims – by cooking and eating beef Biryani on campus.
About 2000 students participated and although it started out well, the festival was disrupted and students were attacked by right-wing Hindu fascists. The Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) released a statement describing how Meena Kandasamy, a writer and poet who participated in the festival, was singled out and threatened with gang rape and acid attacks.
This festival is very significant as some Dalit students have organised themselves to fight against food-fascism, campaigning against the very centre of Brahmanical Hinduism that connects caste with food. Culinary politics and contact with animals play a huge role in establishing purity-pollution rules to discriminate people in the caste system.
Have Brahmans always been beef-hating vegetarians? The answer is a resounding no.
[If you read no other, then read this one]
Many status differences in Indian society are expressed in terms of ritual purity and pollution. Notions of purity and pollution are extremely complex and vary greatly among different castes, religious groups, and regions. However, broadly speaking, high status is associated with purity and low status with pollution.
[...]
Through the caste system also comes the idea of purity and pollution dealing with such essentials of life such as food.
.....rules about purity and pollution have been modified in some ways over the past thousands of years, the basic logic is still very much in place in traditional Hindu culture. Even now Hindus will not be found using a spoon or a plate already used by somebody of a lower caste. It is common to go to a tea shop in India and find different cups for those of different castes. Some are even careful enough to never let their lips touch a glass, since it is likely to have been polluted by the use of a lower caste. From the way an Indian eats and from what he eats, you can not only determine his religion, his caste or community, but also his background – which part of the country he comes from, his level of education and the economic class he belongs to (Rajesh Sharma). There are so many rules regulating the common practice of pure and impure that it is important to see what a Hindu does not eat as well as what he does eat, with whom he eats as well as with whom he does not eat. Food restrictions and habits are highly developed and indicate caste affiliation. Ingredients vary from caste to caste in their cooking, and the concept of purity remains fundamental to Hindu cooking.
In India an unwritten code of conduct traditionally covers the preparation of food and the rituals accompanying its consumption (Rajesh Sharma). These rituals are passed down from word of mouth from each generation to the next, for cooking and eating are the “nodal” points of basic daily rituals and practices. It is important that strict rules are followed in order to keep the maximum purity. The idea of keeping all pollutants away can be seen by the location of the kitchen in Indian houses. The kitchen is normally a separate room located at a slight distance from the main house in which shoes or any other leather items were not allowed near this space. Anything that was potentially a pollutant is to be kept away. Even low caste people were to be kept away from a higher castes food for the low caste member would pollute the food by his/her touch. Only a Brahmins cooking was acceptable to all, high and low castes. A woman is seen as pollutant and contagious of pollution during her period. During a woman’s period she would be banned from cooking or serving food because her impurity is very contagious during that time of the month. It’s not only what one did to keep the impurities away, but also what they eat to keep a pure diet. The greatest sign of purity within India is vegetarianism, and the higher the caste the purer it would have been. A Brahman, of the highest caste, had to protect his purity at all times and does not eat meat.
Google Book excerpt on ritual hierarchy
So then, we have a status symbolic issue embroiled in this kerfuffle...
posted by infini at 2:20 AM on October 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm surprised to learn of non-vegetarianism itself as being a reason for attack in some places, but I suppose it makes sense. I still think beef is different, because not eating beef is a strong marker of Hindu identity in a way that not eating meat isn't (unlike in the case of Jains). But I don't think this affects my larger point, which is the same as infini's: anger about meat / beef is not about animal welfare standards or animal rights but about ritual purity and sacredness. So the analogy to the desecration of the Host in Christianity still holds, I think, and the link between stories of desecration and scapegoating of the other.
posted by Aravis76 at 3:23 AM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Aravis76 at 3:23 AM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
"I humbly suggest becoming a vegetarian before using such rhetoric.
Oh yeah, and then, when you are a vegetarian, please do not use such rhetoric.
Vegetarians that wish to place the value of an animal above the value of a human being do not advance the cause - at all."
I was a vegetarian for many years before health went out and I had a doctor and an ayurvedic practitioner (who usually recommends vegetarianism or minimal meat consumption) recommend it might not be working for health. I cried cutting up the chicken meat. It was an agonizing decision but my health did improve with more meat in my diet, and the burden for my family when I was sick was great.
Having done a lot of yoga and Ayurveda I too cringe at the idea of meat eating and cows in particular who are believed by some to be gentle creatures who eat bad karma for others. So I couldn't help but wonder if that wasn't part of it.
When I see something I think is an injustice done and feel anger-- my ability to reason, to check for bias and faulty thinking is lessoned- so I guess I just mean, I wonder if the anger rising form things that do make sense to the heart, but then takes the form of bias, hypocrisy and unchallenged wrong thinking in order to take it out on the wrong people and then becomes an outlet for wrath and hate within the human condition that should never see the light of day.
I am appreciating others comments a great deal and I think those pointing out that this is really about hate and bigotry are in the right. I hope anyone who had similar ideas to me because they did not understand the cultural issues involved will also find these comments valuable.
posted by xarnop at 6:59 AM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh yeah, and then, when you are a vegetarian, please do not use such rhetoric.
Vegetarians that wish to place the value of an animal above the value of a human being do not advance the cause - at all."
I was a vegetarian for many years before health went out and I had a doctor and an ayurvedic practitioner (who usually recommends vegetarianism or minimal meat consumption) recommend it might not be working for health. I cried cutting up the chicken meat. It was an agonizing decision but my health did improve with more meat in my diet, and the burden for my family when I was sick was great.
Having done a lot of yoga and Ayurveda I too cringe at the idea of meat eating and cows in particular who are believed by some to be gentle creatures who eat bad karma for others. So I couldn't help but wonder if that wasn't part of it.
When I see something I think is an injustice done and feel anger-- my ability to reason, to check for bias and faulty thinking is lessoned- so I guess I just mean, I wonder if the anger rising form things that do make sense to the heart, but then takes the form of bias, hypocrisy and unchallenged wrong thinking in order to take it out on the wrong people and then becomes an outlet for wrath and hate within the human condition that should never see the light of day.
I am appreciating others comments a great deal and I think those pointing out that this is really about hate and bigotry are in the right. I hope anyone who had similar ideas to me because they did not understand the cultural issues involved will also find these comments valuable.
posted by xarnop at 6:59 AM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also the toll on workers who kill animals and the PTSD, addiction, and domestic violence associated with are actually found to be true for our workers here. And what we are learning about with epigenetics is that it at least possible for experiences to impact personality and behavior of offspring and grandchildren. The idea of avoiding the sick, those associated with hazardous conditions- actually makes sense. IT IS CRUEL, especially since those damaged by hard, dangerous, and psychologically harmful work are often doing things that lift everyone else up, but it makes sense.
It's a lot harder to erase a harmful ideology if you focus on denying there is any truth in it at all. I think the idea of conflating this hate crime that has very little to do with vegetarianism, and the meat bans and jainist vegetarians all into one thing is confusing me. Instead of saying vegetarianism, the idea of the sacred itself, and the beliefs around it are all false and silly-- it would be better to examine what does and doesn't make sense in the beliefs while also (as many are rightfully doing here) standing up to the hypocrisy, bigotry, hate, and bullshit that comes with people blindly following rules without connecting them to actual human or even animal welfare. NO ONE SHOULD EVER DO THIS. If god/gods are telling us to do these harmful things and not to listen to our hearts and reason than they can shove it. More likely, these are human errors.
As an agnostic I think spirits could exist too.
If they exist and have a hand in these harms I will be dealing with them and their misdeeds as well, I ain't afraid of no spirits, if they tortured me their hellfire will be misspent on those who seek to use the power the heart. (If not I will have a LOT of fun in my imagination pretending...) ;) The religious and non-religious alike all have a duty to stand up against harmful ideologies whether you think they came from a god or not. For the religious this is scary in a particular due to the damage a spiritual being could do to your soul.
But if the spirits actually exist then the spirit within each of us may be a stronger force than we realize-no god may wrongfully contain a spirit for acting on love-if they try then let us not stop fighting to make it such that Love rules among beings. None of us should worship a deities that codifies violence and hate and injustice to our fellow beings without a known situation of threat making it the only possible way to prevent a worse fate for those involved.
Religious beliefs hold great power because of this fear they instil, but also because they may actual have contained teachings that promote good for social cohesion at times and places, but the people often didn't know why. Let the religious and non-religious alike stand against this fear that doing what's right if it is against a religious code will bring suffering and pain. It's instilled because through our history we do not understand why things happen, our instincts tell us to trust these patterns and teachings, we associate them with survival. To challenge them we need to get at why they are so powerful, if there is some good within we might want to preserve, to dismantle what is harmful if it is promoting suffering rather than health and well being.
posted by xarnop at 7:56 AM on October 4, 2015
It's a lot harder to erase a harmful ideology if you focus on denying there is any truth in it at all. I think the idea of conflating this hate crime that has very little to do with vegetarianism, and the meat bans and jainist vegetarians all into one thing is confusing me. Instead of saying vegetarianism, the idea of the sacred itself, and the beliefs around it are all false and silly-- it would be better to examine what does and doesn't make sense in the beliefs while also (as many are rightfully doing here) standing up to the hypocrisy, bigotry, hate, and bullshit that comes with people blindly following rules without connecting them to actual human or even animal welfare. NO ONE SHOULD EVER DO THIS. If god/gods are telling us to do these harmful things and not to listen to our hearts and reason than they can shove it. More likely, these are human errors.
As an agnostic I think spirits could exist too.
If they exist and have a hand in these harms I will be dealing with them and their misdeeds as well, I ain't afraid of no spirits, if they tortured me their hellfire will be misspent on those who seek to use the power the heart. (If not I will have a LOT of fun in my imagination pretending...) ;) The religious and non-religious alike all have a duty to stand up against harmful ideologies whether you think they came from a god or not. For the religious this is scary in a particular due to the damage a spiritual being could do to your soul.
But if the spirits actually exist then the spirit within each of us may be a stronger force than we realize-no god may wrongfully contain a spirit for acting on love-if they try then let us not stop fighting to make it such that Love rules among beings. None of us should worship a deities that codifies violence and hate and injustice to our fellow beings without a known situation of threat making it the only possible way to prevent a worse fate for those involved.
Religious beliefs hold great power because of this fear they instil, but also because they may actual have contained teachings that promote good for social cohesion at times and places, but the people often didn't know why. Let the religious and non-religious alike stand against this fear that doing what's right if it is against a religious code will bring suffering and pain. It's instilled because through our history we do not understand why things happen, our instincts tell us to trust these patterns and teachings, we associate them with survival. To challenge them we need to get at why they are so powerful, if there is some good within we might want to preserve, to dismantle what is harmful if it is promoting suffering rather than health and well being.
posted by xarnop at 7:56 AM on October 4, 2015
I don't think that those of us critical of communal violence, and communally-motivated legislation, need to deny that there is some value in the religious ideas that the legislation is designed to protect. I think Hindu reverence for life in its interconnectedness is valuable, that Hindu ritual and practice are culturally important and the meaning they have for many people is well worth respecting. The reason why I object to the state legislating such respect, and imposing criminal penalties on those who fail to comply, is that I don't think that's a proper use of state power in a secular liberal democracy (which India, thankfully, is supposed to be). It's not because I think the religious tradition has no value but because I think the coercive power of the state shouldn't be used simply to defend every valuable tradition. You have to be able to justify your legislation, in a plural and multicultural society, by reference to goals other than "because my religion / group / tradition says so". A ban on cow slaughter, that doesn't apply to other animals doesn't meet this test; it's obviously purely religiously motivated. I would feel differently about animal welfare legislation that imposed burdens on every community in India for the sake of a general principle of preserving life and protecting animal welfare. But I dislike legislation that is just a proxy for targeting religious minorities and that's what the cow slaughter bans seem to be to me.
posted by Aravis76 at 9:54 AM on October 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 9:54 AM on October 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
Religious minorities, and class (caste) minorities as well. As others above have pointed out, this anti-beef fervor has also targeted low-caste Hindus. People speak of threats of horrific violence and gang rape, directed at those Hindus from "lower" castes who traditionally do eat beef. The frequency with which rape threats come up suggests a gendered angle to me as well.
And this is clearly not about animal welfare, not in the eyes of those in the grips of this violent extremism. If you read the linked article in the FPP, the scholarly articles quoted here in the comments, or the first-hand perspectives offered here by those whose lives have given them experience with this (to me entirely foreign) set of cultural dynamics, you can see that beef eating is simply a convenient casus belli used here to justify ethnic and religious violence.
The story here is that both Islamophobia and the caste system are alive and well in modern, democratic, ostensibly-secular India—the India which is becoming a global powerhouse and yet is still very poorly understood by those of us here in the West—and they are being used (it is unclear by whom) to incite horrific lynchings, murders, and rapes. Also, the excuses for this violence are increasingly becoming enshrined in Indian law, and in any case the perpetrators seem immune to any kind of sanction either informal (shunning) or formal (prosecution by law enforcement).
Why this is happening is largely unclear to me (except inasmuch as the potential for violent bigotry is an everpresent cancer in all human societies) but there seem to be some people in the community here who are close enough to the issue to be able to shed some light on the underlying and unspoken dynamics in play here. In any case, animal welfare is clearly not even the ostensible issue, not a part of the equation in the minds of those engaged in this. Trying to make this about Western ideas of Hindu respect for the interconnectedness of life comes off, to me, as more of a misunderstanding based on a set of prejudices which idealize a form of Hinduism which probably never existed and which would likely be unrecognizable to practitioners of the real thing.
I don't know much about Hinduism, but I do know that our ideas of it here in America often have more to do with what New-Age hippies and celebrities in the 60s and 70s wanted it to be rather than with what Hinduism actually is. Untangling that probably warrants a post of its own, but I'm not the person to make it. (I'd love to read one though, if it were done well.)
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:36 AM on October 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
And this is clearly not about animal welfare, not in the eyes of those in the grips of this violent extremism. If you read the linked article in the FPP, the scholarly articles quoted here in the comments, or the first-hand perspectives offered here by those whose lives have given them experience with this (to me entirely foreign) set of cultural dynamics, you can see that beef eating is simply a convenient casus belli used here to justify ethnic and religious violence.
The story here is that both Islamophobia and the caste system are alive and well in modern, democratic, ostensibly-secular India—the India which is becoming a global powerhouse and yet is still very poorly understood by those of us here in the West—and they are being used (it is unclear by whom) to incite horrific lynchings, murders, and rapes. Also, the excuses for this violence are increasingly becoming enshrined in Indian law, and in any case the perpetrators seem immune to any kind of sanction either informal (shunning) or formal (prosecution by law enforcement).
Why this is happening is largely unclear to me (except inasmuch as the potential for violent bigotry is an everpresent cancer in all human societies) but there seem to be some people in the community here who are close enough to the issue to be able to shed some light on the underlying and unspoken dynamics in play here. In any case, animal welfare is clearly not even the ostensible issue, not a part of the equation in the minds of those engaged in this. Trying to make this about Western ideas of Hindu respect for the interconnectedness of life comes off, to me, as more of a misunderstanding based on a set of prejudices which idealize a form of Hinduism which probably never existed and which would likely be unrecognizable to practitioners of the real thing.
I don't know much about Hinduism, but I do know that our ideas of it here in America often have more to do with what New-Age hippies and celebrities in the 60s and 70s wanted it to be rather than with what Hinduism actually is. Untangling that probably warrants a post of its own, but I'm not the person to make it. (I'd love to read one though, if it were done well.)
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:36 AM on October 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
from "lower" castes who traditionally do eat beef.
Reverse. Not eating beef is hindu vs other religions, not eating meat is a status symbol and class marker around purity of the food.
posted by infini at 10:39 AM on October 4, 2015
Reverse. Not eating beef is hindu vs other religions, not eating meat is a status symbol and class marker around purity of the food.
posted by infini at 10:39 AM on October 4, 2015
I don't know much about Hinduism, but I do know that our ideas of it here in America often have more to do with what New-Age hippies and celebrities in the 60s and 70s wanted it to be rather than with what Hinduism actually is. Untangling that probably warrants a post of its own, but I'm not the person to make it. (I'd love to read one though, if it were done well.)
You may enjoy this book. The Hindus by Wendy Doniger
posted by infini at 10:41 AM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
You may enjoy this book. The Hindus by Wendy Doniger
posted by infini at 10:41 AM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
What Aravis76 has also tried to communicate is the deep rooted conditioning around beef eating. I threw up the first time.
posted by infini at 10:43 AM on October 4, 2015
posted by infini at 10:43 AM on October 4, 2015
infini, I'm confused. Didn't your own comment above indicate that some of this violence is directed by vegetarian, upper-caste Hindus toward beef-eating, lower-caste Hindus? The stuff about Dalits staging an on-campus protest by cooking beef biryani and then being subject to threats of gang rape and acid attack?
Or would you argue that in that case any kind of meat-cooking could have been used as a fig leaf for offending the fragile "sentiments" of the vegetarian Brahmans, who would then have used it as an excuse to threaten atrocities against those uppity Dalits so as to frighten them into keeping their heads down and staying in their "proper place"?
This shit is complex, my understanding is extremely limited, and I apologize for any missteps as I attempt to understand what is going on here. In any case, it seems clear to me that animal welfare is not what this is about, on any level. People aren't standing up for the cows, they are defending their "right" not to have their "sentiments" offended, that is to say they're saying "everyone, even those who don't share our beliefs or traditions, must live according to a strict interpretation of those beliefs and traditions or else be raped, maimed, and/or beaten to death in broad daylight."
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:59 AM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Or would you argue that in that case any kind of meat-cooking could have been used as a fig leaf for offending the fragile "sentiments" of the vegetarian Brahmans, who would then have used it as an excuse to threaten atrocities against those uppity Dalits so as to frighten them into keeping their heads down and staying in their "proper place"?
This shit is complex, my understanding is extremely limited, and I apologize for any missteps as I attempt to understand what is going on here. In any case, it seems clear to me that animal welfare is not what this is about, on any level. People aren't standing up for the cows, they are defending their "right" not to have their "sentiments" offended, that is to say they're saying "everyone, even those who don't share our beliefs or traditions, must live according to a strict interpretation of those beliefs and traditions or else be raped, maimed, and/or beaten to death in broad daylight."
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:59 AM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
" But I dislike legislation that is just a proxy for targeting religious minorities and that's what the cow slaughter bans seem to be to me."
I completely support you and agree with what you're saying.
I literally shared my thoughts here that they can be broken down, as I wonder if others are failing to rise up against this injustice because they have similar or other misunderstandings and I hope people take away your points as the heart of this issue. I am seeing a parallel here where I wonder if like the dangerous extremist anti-abortionists garner supports from people who genuinely DO care about embryos who simply are not thinking straight-- bringing to light this hypocrisy and what this is really about- the bigotry and hate-- I hope will bring the truth out.
posted by xarnop at 11:05 AM on October 4, 2015
I completely support you and agree with what you're saying.
I literally shared my thoughts here that they can be broken down, as I wonder if others are failing to rise up against this injustice because they have similar or other misunderstandings and I hope people take away your points as the heart of this issue. I am seeing a parallel here where I wonder if like the dangerous extremist anti-abortionists garner supports from people who genuinely DO care about embryos who simply are not thinking straight-- bringing to light this hypocrisy and what this is really about- the bigotry and hate-- I hope will bring the truth out.
posted by xarnop at 11:05 AM on October 4, 2015
infini, I'm confused. Didn't your own comment above indicate that some of this violence is directed by vegetarian, upper-caste Hindus toward beef-eating, lower-caste Hindus?
Absolutely. It might have been your word choice and framing that seemed to convey the reverse to me. On re-reading I can see what you meant to say. Let's chalk it up to 'confused' ;p
posted by infini at 11:29 AM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Absolutely. It might have been your word choice and framing that seemed to convey the reverse to me. On re-reading I can see what you meant to say. Let's chalk it up to 'confused' ;p
posted by infini at 11:29 AM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
I also realize now that I (someone with no first-hand experience of Hinduism) was in part lecturing Aravis76 (whose comments here I really appreciate and who apparently grew up in a Hindu family) about what is and is not "real Hinduism." I would like to explicitly apologize for that; I was not reading things as closely as I should have been, and my behavior was rather gauche. Totally my bad.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:41 AM on October 4, 2015
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 11:41 AM on October 4, 2015
I should say that I'm something of an outsider to real Hindu practice myself, these days; my sister is a believing adult Hindu whereas I'm not and the influence of Hinduism on me is mostly from observing her and others in my family and impressions from my childhood. But in any case I don't know if "real Hinduism" is a thing, given the huge variety of traditions and disagreements within Hinduism, and I think the point that we shouldn't think of it as a monolith is a good one. My sister's Hindu vegetarianism is, in her mind, strongly driven by an ethical commitment to non-violence and I don't think she's a minority. My point is only that the aggression and fury generates by this question in India isn't mainly about that ethical aspect of Hinduism but about other aspects to do with the sense of sacrilege. I don't want to suggest that the ethical aspect doesn't exist.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:59 AM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Aravis76 at 11:59 AM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
I have a question that I haven't seen addressed so far: who or what is behind these beef lynchings? And why? I get the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that these murders (and the laws about beef slaughter) are a fairly recent trend—a new manifestation of an old hatred. Usually when these rashes of xenophobic violence appear in a society, someone (or a group of someones) is inciting the violence, stirring the pot to try and inflame some latent streak of fear and hatred in the population, whipping the people up into a mob to be used for some purpose. Who is inciting this violence, and why? From what direction does this red wind blow?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:35 PM on October 4, 2015
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:35 PM on October 4, 2015
As far as I can tell, the current flareups have something to do with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist BJP party. I don't really know much more about this subject.
posted by Small Dollar at 3:05 PM on October 4, 2015
posted by Small Dollar at 3:05 PM on October 4, 2015
So the backstory is that the ruling party in India are a bunch of right-wing Hindu-supremacist fascists (complete with indoctrination camps where poor and disadvantaged Hindus are given food, education, and a heaping helping of ideology) who are riding high on the back of the nation's strong economic growth? That they've managed to hitch xenophobic violence and financial success together into a populist juggernaut? That the current prime minister, whose party was elected with over 80% of the vote, has a history of sanctioning genocidal massacres against Muslims and would like to see a return to the bad old days when the caste system was overt and enshrined in law? The same Prime Minister who was speaking to cheering crowds in Silicon Valley just last week, urging Indian programmers to "come home" and put their skills at the services of the ascendant Indian economy?
That's much more interesting, and alarming, than I had imagined. Wow.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:25 PM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's much more interesting, and alarming, than I had imagined. Wow.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:25 PM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think Modi himself and the BJP in central government have been careful, since winning the election, to avoid saying anything much about Hindu nationalism and communalism. The election was won because the ruling Congress party had been through a series of corruption scandals and because they are perceived as essentially a dynastic party with no plan for governance. Modi won on the promise of delivering transparent government and economic growth and has deliberately distanced himself from the Hindu nationalist agenda; so far, we haven't seen any policies from the central government that are full-on fascist, that I'm aware of. There are some worrying signs in relation to academia and education, but that's all I know about.
But the BJP at state level - and, more so, an affiliated group, the RSS - has been doing these Hindu nationalist things for years. It's the RSS which runs youth camps and proposes things like making religious conversions illegal - the BJP in its current incarnation tends to be mostly silent about these things, although they and associated state parties are responsible for things like the modern resurgence of bans on cow slaughter. My main worry is that the RSS have been emboldened by the BJP win at central government level. I would hesitate to describe the BJP itself as outright fascist (though elements of their ideology leans that way); they've won elections before and been in government and democracy in India has survived. And of course, the constitution and the Supreme Court do provide a relatively solid bulwark against full-blown fascism. The RSS, on the other hand, is a more extreme organisation and I would be comfortable calling their ideology quasi-fascist; but the exact connection between RSS and BJP is murky, nowadays, since the BJP seem to be trying to distance themselves from their historical RSS origins (although Modi has been an RSS member all his career, so there you go).
The larger point, though, is that you don't need the BJP to be in government for appalling religious riots and violence to break out in India: these things predate Partition and, since the horrors of Partition itself, they seem to happen once a decade or so. Similarly, cow slaughter bans were initially introduced by Congress in the 1950s when the BJP didn't even exist and the RSS was still a banned body. Communal politics in India is much older than the BJP and can manifest in violence apart from them. But the RSS and its associated political parties, including the BJP, certainly fan the flames.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:20 PM on October 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
But the BJP at state level - and, more so, an affiliated group, the RSS - has been doing these Hindu nationalist things for years. It's the RSS which runs youth camps and proposes things like making religious conversions illegal - the BJP in its current incarnation tends to be mostly silent about these things, although they and associated state parties are responsible for things like the modern resurgence of bans on cow slaughter. My main worry is that the RSS have been emboldened by the BJP win at central government level. I would hesitate to describe the BJP itself as outright fascist (though elements of their ideology leans that way); they've won elections before and been in government and democracy in India has survived. And of course, the constitution and the Supreme Court do provide a relatively solid bulwark against full-blown fascism. The RSS, on the other hand, is a more extreme organisation and I would be comfortable calling their ideology quasi-fascist; but the exact connection between RSS and BJP is murky, nowadays, since the BJP seem to be trying to distance themselves from their historical RSS origins (although Modi has been an RSS member all his career, so there you go).
The larger point, though, is that you don't need the BJP to be in government for appalling religious riots and violence to break out in India: these things predate Partition and, since the horrors of Partition itself, they seem to happen once a decade or so. Similarly, cow slaughter bans were initially introduced by Congress in the 1950s when the BJP didn't even exist and the RSS was still a banned body. Communal politics in India is much older than the BJP and can manifest in violence apart from them. But the RSS and its associated political parties, including the BJP, certainly fan the flames.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:20 PM on October 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
For decades, Indian lawmakers have loved to conjecture on the presence of a "hidden hand" stirring the pot, so much so that its a rather cliched joke these days.
posted by infini at 1:26 AM on October 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 1:26 AM on October 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older It was me. I let the dogs out. | Swiss suffragettes were still fighting for the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Released a little more than a month ago, a special episode concerning the recent banning of beef to various degrees, and elevated strictures of existing bans in many areas (including banning both the eating or possession of beef in Maharashtra) and consequent tensions. In the second part, discussion of the Jain holy city of Palitana which has banned all "meat, fish, and dairy products, and also related jobs or work, such as fishing and penning 'food animals'." as Wikipedia^ puts it. Trigger warning: threats of sexual violence.
posted by XMLicious at 2:46 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]