"Hate the Rich" and other self-indulgences

Recently a user posted a copy of Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's March 20, 2007 Counterpunch article "Hate the Rich" on the PERC forums. I would not have thought twice about it except it has also started to appear as graffiti around Ottawa. Fine, so I read it.

And now I want to talk about it because it is highly symptomatic and representative of an impulse that is apparently highly appealing to a particular despairing subculture within the progressive movement, a subculture that is highly destructive to the progressive movement as a whole.

My most damning criticism is that Dunbar offers no reason to hate the rich, no logic as to how this will help the struggle for global justice. Her position seems to be that in reality 'we' hate them anyway, so we should be open about it and go ahead and do it.

Why would I put energy into something that does not contrbute to the cause? Why would I engage in an impulse just because I have the impulse? I am human, of course I feel, at various times, rage, anger, hate, and a broad range of other emotions. I also have impulses to (over)indulge in chocolate, alcohol, acts of violence, sloth, acquisition of consumer goods, etc. So what?

Many would argue that a major reason we are in the mess we are in is the common belief that our every impulse deserves to be acted out, be it for sex, money, a new car, or what have you.

I am not so impressed with myself that I think that just because I have an impulse it should be acted out. In fact, on the whole both the world and my own life are better for the fact that I find the majority of my impulses and inclinations to be trivial and/or destructive and hence to be dismissed.

Dunbar states that "organized hatred is the element missing in all that we do", as if "the" should be emphasized. I would argue i) it is far from the only thing missing, asuming we are referring to things that are necessary or useful, ii) hatred is not missing, it is just not as universal as Dunbar would like, iii) the fact that something is missing is not de facto justification for it's inclusion.

My own observation is that while some of the hate/violence advocates within the movement are thoughtful, intelligent people, the majority are merely self-indulgent. Their motivations are complex and mixed, and the relative importance vary from individual to individual, but in general they are not rooted in any sort of analysis or politic of substance.

One major source of an impulse to hate and violence is despair. As we feel increasingly helpless we tend to feel greater anger and hate. Granted anger and acting it out can feel empowering. If we are feeling irrelevant or ignored an act of violence says "you cannot ignore me, I am someone."

Defiance is empowering. This is true on both the personal and political level, the more so as we feel our politic personally. However, defiance does not have to be violent or motivated by hatred. The angry person screams and attacks, someone who feels in control calmly goes about acheiving their ends.

Associated with that is the gendered assumption that violence is power. The impulse to lash out as a form of problem solving is all too evident in the levels of domestic violence in our society. Unfortunately it is not only males who engage in domestic violence, but it is disproportionately males. Unfortunately the synonymizing of power and violence is all too commmon, even among nonviolence advocates.

There is also an arrogance in the unstated assumption that "we" would be any better than they were our roles to be reversed. In a few cases this has been true, but by and large the new power holders turn out to be as bad or worse than those they replace.

It may be that it is assumed by Dunbar that 'hatred' would contribute a greater commitment and passion to the struggle for social justice. If so, I wish she had been more explicit and spelled out why and how. Perhaps the underlying assumption is that hate would be a sign that social justice is taken personally and not merely as an abstraction. This is actually an interesting point and one I will pick up on in a future blog.

Many have argued that hatred and violence have not only not contributed to the movement, they have been destructive. This would be my perspective and one I will spell out in greater detail in another follow up piece.

My second major criticism of Dunbar is that she is parochial. Her perspective is exclusively confined to indstrialized North America, or perhaps the industrialized west. I would possibly be more sympathetic to her piece if she were addressing the people of Darfur or the world's true poor, but she is not.

She asks "who are the rich?" and cannot understand why so many in our society collude with them in sustaining this corrupt and oppressive system. Her parochial position means that "the rich" are 'the other'. If we take a more global and historical perspective our collective cooperation is not so mysterious.

My own take home income for this year has been about $600/month. By the standards of my society I am poor, even desperately poor. Yet I eat well, sleep in a warm dry bed, with sheets, blankets and pillows that are clean, possess more books than many villages in much of the world, and here I am working on a computer. As Dunbar is a professor and author I assume her luxuries are many times greater than my own.

We are the rich. If we do not control, or even particularly influence the system that creates this situation, we nonetheless benefit greatly from it. Even the table scraps from this gluttony are so extravagent that the majority of us in the industrialized world live lives of privilege inconceivable to the majority of the worlds peoples, both past and present.

Why do we collude? Well, what would happen to all of or luxuries if there were to be global justice, equity, and sustainability? Resources necessary for our ipods and brand name clothing might be wasted on water, food and shelter for people who need them. Rather than hummers and mega-malls we might build health clinics and village markets.

Personally I might be able to maintain something approximating my current standard of living, but the majority of the population in the west could not. It is not, as Dunbar suggests, that everyone is hoping to someday become one of the truely rich, although that is certainly part it. It is that we are already the rich, and don't want to lose that.

In this regard I find Dunbar's whole position to be rather adolescent. Not merely self-indulgent, but arrogant and self-rightous. Why take responsibility for your own actions when you can blame your parents? Why worry about the homeless when you can feel aggrieved at having only a asmall apartment. Not that there are not needy people in the west, but they are not the audience Dunbar is addressing.

As such "hating the rich" becomes a very handy, if not necessary distraction from the reality of what is at stake, what is needed, and who is to blame. How much easier to rant and even act against a tiny group of the super powerful rather than take responsibility for ones own participation in the system, how much easier than to accept ones moral obligation to the truely oppressed.

Yes, fight for equity, social justice and sustainability. Yes, take action against the system that creates and maintains the inequities in all it's manifestations. Yes, devote yourself with passion and all your energies to what is right. And no, do not waste a single breath on self-indulgences like "hating the rich."

Vimy Ridge and other lessons

This Easter Canadians are being subjected to a barrage of media about The Battle of Vimy Ridge
as it is the 90th anniversary of that battle. Piece after piece extols the heroism and patriotism, (usually treating them as synonyms, which they are not) of those who fought and died. Over and over journalists reiterate how we must never forget what these men fought and died for.

Ok, I agree, except they never talk about what they fought and died for. I guess it is taken as a given that we all know, and further I guess we are to assume that "our boys" always fight for truth, beauty, freedom, etc.

So what were they fighting for?

The causes of World War I are complex are largely related to the economic, political, and military ambitions of the Great Powers of the day. In a nutshell the 'haves' wanted more, most specifically to be the indisputed great power of their age. In this context a great deal of sabre rattling and brinkmanship set the stage for something, anything, to set things off.

The immediate cause was the Austro-Hungarian reaction to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. Ferdinand was killed by an assassin and Astro-Hungary responded with an ultimatum demanding all sorts of actions unrelated to the assassination itself and grossly interfering with Serbian sovereignty. Serbia agreed to almost all of the demands except one, but that wasn't enough for Austro-Hungary and the war was on.

So what is the lesson of WW I that we must never forget? Let's see ... how about: Great powers should not unreasonably shove around tiny states making all sorts of unreasonable demands in reaction to terrorist attacks because it can lead to wide spread, pointless wars with great suffering for millions of people.

Yes, that's a good lesson. We should remember that because, unlikely though it may seem today, it could happen someday. Yes, I know it sounds improbable, but I believe it really could happen that a great power could react to a terrorist attack with gross arrogance leading to an invasion, and then a long and pointless war.

"What experience and history teach is this-that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it." Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

The Boomerang

Darn, once more I let 2 weeks slip by without posting, what happened? I have to echo Denise's most recent blog post that not only has it been quite busy, but somewhere along there trying to do the 100 km diet just became more or less normal

OK, I have encountered another obstacle to the local eating which I think of as the boomerang. My reference earlier to gourmet mustards is a classic example. In that case the mustard seeds are Canadian, probably prairie grown. These are shipped to Europe, processed into mustard, and then shipped back. As a result the total distance is huge relative to even prairie produced mustard.

There are other traps. Assume that you love soba noodles as I do. Looking around you discover Sobaya brand soba noodles are made in Cowansville PQ (near Sherbrooke). Assuming they use local grain, which I still have to check, that is about 250 km. Not exactly 100 Km, but a huge difference from some of the other producers in Vancouver, California and Japan.

So far so good, except .... while some distributers of Sobaya ship through Montreal, others go through Toronto. If you are buying noodles that have gone through Toronto the total travel is more like 1200 km, not 250; ouch. The good news for soba lovers is that the Bank St Herb and Spice orders through Montreal, so you can feel relatively vistuous eating those.

Which is why it is not enough to know where something is processed or grown, you have to figure out both of those AND how it is distributed. Which is enough to make you throw up your hands and give up. Wait, there is hope.

First, I and others are slowly researching this. If enough of us collaborate on figuring out the food system and where you can get the best alternative we will soon have a wikipedia or local food sources. This will mean you can identify your best choices, and like any brand preferences, once you know what you want it is easy to remember.

Second, as more people try to eat locally we create a market for services like Small Potatos Urban Delivery (SPUD) . They are a service where you order on-line and it is delivered to your door. In the radio clip I heard the founder noted that every truckful that goes out for delivery replaces an entire supper market's parking lot full of cars. That's a lot of carbon saved right there, but there's more.

SPUD is organic (yeah), they pay producers fair price, and they source as much of their food as possible locally. They do the work od identifying the sources, you just order what you want.

So far SPUD is only to be found in Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary, and I understand there is a new satore in Seattle, so no Ottawa deliveries yet. However, if there are enough of us committed to low carbon, earth friendly diets it will not be long before SPUD or something like it sets up shop in Ottawa.

Don't wait though, start trying a no Carb(on) Diet now,at least as far as is reasonable for you. Let's let them know that there is a market here and the sooner they set up shop here the better.

Am I going to continue my 100 km conversion? Of course, it is normal now. It will be a while before I have used up all my old rice and flour etc, but I am well on my way to scoring 90/100 for the carbon impact of my diet.

Just happy to see me?

Glahh, nothing for ten days .... been kind of busy, but there is a backlog of things to talk about and I'll only manage a couple of them today.

First comment is about ... fruit. This is the one that comes up very often when I talk to people about the 100 km Diet. Variations of "I could not live without bananas" or "It would be so unhealthy without fresh fruit" or some such. Three observations:

One, if you begin by focusing on what you are missing you are dead, no matter what the endeavour. For example, imagine you have just met the perfect partner for you, I mean "The One", the mythic ideal.

Got that? OK then. Now start thinking about everything you will lose. The relationship will take time. You will not be able to date anyone else. If you move in together you will lose some of your privacy, etc. Even if the person is perfect the simple act of focusing on what you lose will make it seem like hell.

Any and every choice we make closes the door on all the options we didn't choose. Choosing the 100 Km Diet means 'losing' some things, and gaining others.

Second, the 100 Km Diet does not mean no fruit, it means a more limited selection. Apples, pears, even peaches from the Kitchener area if you are willing to stretch the 100 Km a bit. As well there are other sources of vitamin C and the other nutritional benefits of fruit.

Third, most of the fruit we eat tastes like plastic compared to the fruit you get in the place of origin. Anyone who has traveled in the tropics knows that the things we get called mangos and bananas are an abomination compared to what is available there. The reason of course is that the stuff we get has been bred to be durable for shipping. Durable does not equal soft, juicy, rich.

In the same vein if you eat local fresh fruit you will find it more tasty than the imported plastic. Have you ever had a farm fresh Crenshaw melon? or local peach pie? Heaven I tell you, absolute heaven. For all of the apples, melons etc there are dozens of varieties that give you a tremendous range of choice of taste.

Granted I know of no local source for Mitzu apples, but I don't know that they could not grow here. As more people buy local we should be able to support a much broader array or fresh and preserved fruit options, but it won't happen until we make an effort to support the farmers trying to do it.

Now it is true that the local stuff is more seasonal, but I don't know why we could not can and preserve local fruit for winter. Certainly I have frozen local pears in my freezer, and while they may not count as fresh fruit they are fantastic in baked goods and various dishes; pear kugel, trust me!

Another thing I wanted to mention is that as people hear that I am trying this the suggestions and help is trickling in. Thanks to Kristina who brought to my attention that there is a local brewery that makes organic beer! and it is available on tap in several local bars. Check out: http://www.beaus.ca/ if one obstacle is where to hang with friends.

Thanks to Connie for "BTW - barley is one of my fave rice alternatives" as well as an example of just how far our food can travel (and hence how carbon expensive it is), "my French friend (who lives near Dijon) says that for many years, all Dijon mustard has been made from Canadian mustard - but is shipped to Dijon for processing to justify the place brand. (The French farmers
refused to grow it anymore - given its weedy (invasive) tendencies!)"


So Yikes, that means it's double the carbon cost of a real import ... scary!

Chillin at 90

Saturday night I had a couple of pieces of toast and Sunday was my first full day of normal eating. As I started eating what was a fairly typical meal for me I was rather taken aback to realize that with the exception of a tablespoon of mustard all of it either was or could be local, easily.

Hastily I ran through all of my standard meals that I tend to make for myself and thought about the ingredients. Without exception they were easy to make using local products with the exception of 1 to 4 tablespoons of various spices or falvourings.

What about some of my more special meals? How about a nice Indian dinner? Dahl? use local lentils. Aloo Gosht? easy. Rice? use soft wheat, the nutty flavour will go very nicely. Nann, piece of nann. Curried eggplant, spiced potatos, spinach ... hundreds of possible dishes, and with the exception of a few teaspoons of spices, all easy to get locally.

Chinese? Garlic and blackbean eggplant? spicey salty tofu? spring noodles? la jiao? easy easy easy.

My Haitian Goat Curry (vegan version)? which I have like what? twice a year? substitute pears and peaches from Kitchener for the mango and other fruit, used powdered coconut milk, and the carbon cost is like 20% of the typical North American meal.

Japanese, Chinese, Latin American, African ... most of the cuisines I have grown to love are all still perfectly possible with a few substitutions here and there.

In fact, even allowing for the spices and special flavourings, if I make sure the source of the substance of the meal, the actual vegies, grains, etc are local, I can bring my diets carbon cost down to something like 6% or 7% of the avg North American's - EVEN if I include some olives, mirin, figs, curry, etc.

So what was I so worked up about these past few weeks?

I guess two things. First, it is too easy to get focused on a few things like bananas and chocolate that are banished forever and see the whole diet as being one of deprivation and loss. This is totally the wrong mind set, but reinforced when everyone you talk to is saying "My God, what will you eat?"

Second, in looking at my own kitchen I was overwhelmed by the bulk of things like the vinegars, curries and sauces. What I was ignoring was the fact that these turn over very slowly. A tiny jar of mole lasts me months. In that same time huge amounts of vegies and grains flow through my kitchen.

eg Sugar is heavy, and I use it for baking bread ... a Tblsp per loaf, and I can use honey instead. Also one tsp salt. The rest of the loaf can all be local ... it is the flour that is the real weight of the bread.

The weight, and hence the carbon cost, is in the vegies and grains. If I get them locally the remaining 5% of every meal is fairly trivial.

So it turns out that my diet does NOT need to change much at all, My habits do ... everything must be prepared at home from ingredients produced locally, but the difference this is going to make in what I actually eat is minimal. Wow - epiphany!

So I give me an 'A' for a diet that will be over 90% local at a carbon cost of about 7% of the North American avg, and go right on enjoying a diet that is more varied, interesting, and nutritious than that North American average. Nothing to be afraid of at all ....

Happy Valentines Day

OK, no chocolate for Valentine's Day, or anything else as this flu persists (or returns). In fact again nothing at all since Monday, sigh.

Stumbling around in a fever there was not a lot of energy to devote to researching for this either, so instead I will share a modified version of what I already posted in a comment on an earlier post.

Rice. Definitely a problem if it is a significant part of your diet and appreciate Asian cuisine (as I do). I know rice it is a major crop in Louisiana but that's probably about as close as it gets.

One partial solution is that when prepared in the same way (boil etc) soft wheat grain works in a lot of situations where you would eat rice. No, it doesn't taste exactly the same, but surprisingly close to brown rice or wehani (compared to what you'd expect).

The same is true for a lot of whole grains, ie they can be substituted into pilafs, casseroles, stuffed tomatoes and what have you. The faux rice does have flavour and does not offer the same blank canvas that white rice does, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

I haven't tried this for sushi yet, but now I think I will. The question is what grain has the right stickiness? Don't know yet, but when I figure it out you can bet it will feature at a potluck.

As for flours, I have not come close to exhausting my current stocks so it has not been a priority yet, but:

"Mountain Path" is 35 miles (50 km? ) south of Ottawa and they are i) organic, and ii) use local as much as possible. http://www.mountainpath.com . They offer grains, flours, and a variety of other products, some local and some not. I have just requested their e-catalogue and I will report on what else they offer when I get it.

Thier site includes a "store locator", but it does not seem to be working. You used to be able to get their flour at the Wheat Berry and probably still can, and other health food stores as well I assume.

Warts, Imperfections and All

Well, I managed almost 3 full days without eating anything that was outside of the 100 km range!! The bad news is that it was because I had flu and actually I ate nothing at all in that period, so that's not really much of an achievement 8-(.

OK, imperfection ... in trying to maximize the portion of my diet that is grown within 100 km of my home I am trying just that, to maximize rather than make it 100%, at least for the forseeable future.

In the first place 100% may well be impossible, if not profoundly unhealthy. For example, while La Soyarie is a local tofu producer I have yet to confirm that their source of soy beans is local. Assuming that they are, do I also insist that their precipitating salts used in production are also produced locally? and if they are not do I exclude this from my diet?

For me the answer is "no", the tofu would still be 99%+ local and hence meet the criteria for me. So I will never be 100%, but I am going to do my best.

How am I approaching this? Well, for a start I have NOT tossed out 2/3rds of my kitchen and started fresh ... that would sort of defeat the whole "not waste resources" aspect of the exercise.

1) I am not purchasing any new fruit or veg that do not meet the 100 km criteria, or close to it. At the moment the best I have managed for apples are from about 130 Km, but close enough. I am also not buying any prepared foods for myself (bye bye lunch time samosas, damn).

2) As I go along I note what I use to cook with and classify things as "gone forever", "need" or "other".

For the "need" group I am trying to find local sources and am in the process of creating a resource base to share that information with people who would like to try to get more of their diet locally.

For the "gone forever" group the name pretty much says it all. I might have some chocolate at Christmas and olives on my birthday, but for the most part this group is banished.

For the "other" group I am also seeking local suppliers, but if they cannot be found I will have to do some serious thinking. There are some things I am hanging on to regardless, like coffee.

Some things I may continue to consume if enough of my diet is under 100 km and the product in question is of minimal weight. For eg raisens from southern Ontario may stay as I do not consume that many and St Catherines is not that far. Dates and figs however, are heavier and travel a lot farther. Almonds? I do not eat that many, but most come from California. Can I find a closer source? Georgia?

Speaking of which, I am NOT just going with "buy Canadian". The fact is that Florida is closer than Kenora, and that is still in Ontario. As such BC apples would have a much greater carbon cost than Florida oranges.

There are still a lot of issues to work out, such as dried fruit. If it is dried using generated heat then it may not have much less carbon cost than if it was shipped fresh. And what about my frozen garden veggies? and my canned eggplants and peppers? Did I use more energy freezing and canning than if I simply ate fresh shipped from Florida or Louisiana? I am working on answering these questions.

At the end of the day what I am looking for is a diet that is healthy, varied, interesting, and has as low a carbon cost as I can manage. I will be sharing what I learn so that others who would like to reduce their environmental footprint are able to do it with rather less effort than I am currently putting into it.

But I am also not going to give up simply because I cannot reach 100%, 90% or some other arbitrary figure. If I can significantly bring down my dietary cost by 80%, 60% or even only 40% it is still a significant improvement, and I hope some of you will try to do the same.

Until next time ...