3 ms·

Popular culture likes to praise Native Americans for using every part of the animals they killed, but it simultaneously vilifies the modern food processing that

Popular culture likes to praise Native Americans for using every part of the animals they killed, but it simultaneously vilifies the modern food processing that does the same, e.g. deriding hotdogs for being made out of pig anuses. It's a strange incongruity. Not letting an animal go to waste after you've killed it is good, I firmly believe that. Why should it be framed as a bad thing in modern contexts, while it's widely acknowledged as good in the context of another culture a century or so ago? Incidentally, "regular gelatin" is still made out of animal feet/etc unless you go out of your way to get vegetable gelatin. So this is another way our society still makes use of the full animal but without really appreciating it.

syntheweave 4y ago
The incongruity expresses certain power relationships. If you only eat the "best parts" of the animal, you must have a high status. Poor people must be practical in all respects, if they want to survive, but people who wish to signal will waste. Simultaneously, pointing to the practices of natives is used in support of a different kind of power relationship narrative: the old regime(colonizers, imperalists, racists) versus the new(liberalized, diverse, equal). The actual goal is not to say "and therefore we should be more like the natives" or enact genuine policy supportive of the ideals, but to say "and therefore we(the new kid political organization) are so good because THEY(the old regime) are so bad." It's a way of deflection towards a scapegoat. Thus you will frequently find examples of black-hearted activist types that copy-paste their ideology from some authentic source, but then reject it in their personal lives and mold the policy to be ineffectual. Because deep down, they see it as kayfabe to gain power. If they actually want to reach an elected office, prominent cultural role or significant appointment they have to knowingly compromise on the authentic and please existing stakeholders. Many would actually do the things they talk about(whether or not it's a good idea) except that the systemic forces are too strong most of the time; to get along with their political betters they have to live more like them, vote more like them, and so on.
summermooney 4y ago
There are many incongruities in how we consider the Native American tribes beyond food. We treat them as monolithic, put upon people, wholly innocent, noble savages. Then you have tribes like the Comanche, engaging in actions that might well make a chattel slaver blush. It’s all sentiment, posturing, and signaling and little consideration for the realities of the bygone times.

syntheweave 4y ago

The incongruity expresses certain power relationships. If you only eat the "best parts" of the animal, you must have a high status. Poor people must be practical in all respects, if they want to survive, but people who wish to signal will waste. Simultaneously, pointing to the practices of natives is used in support of a different kind of power relationship narrative: the old regime(colonizers, imperalists, racists) versus the new(liberalized, diverse, equal). The actual goal is not to say "and therefore we should be more like the natives" or enact genuine policy supportive of the ideals, but to say "and therefore we(the new kid political organization) are so good because THEY(the old regime) are so bad." It's a way of deflection towards a scapegoat. Thus you will frequently find examples of black-hearted activist types that copy-paste their ideology from some authentic source, but then reject it in their personal lives and mold the policy to be ineffectual. Because deep down, they see it as kayfabe to gain power. If they actually want to reach an elected office, prominent cultural role or significant appointment they have to knowingly compromise on the authentic and please existing stakeholders. Many would actually do the things they talk about(whether or not it's a good idea) except that the systemic forces are too strong most of the time; to get along with their political betters they have to live more like them, vote more like them, and so on.

summermooney 4y ago

There are many incongruities in how we consider the Native American tribes beyond food. We treat them as monolithic, put upon people, wholly innocent, noble savages. Then you have tribes like the Comanche, engaging in actions that might well make a chattel slaver blush. It’s all sentiment, posturing, and signaling and little consideration for the realities of the bygone times.