Meat at the camp?

von Preparation group - 12.07.2002 16:09

Food is important - that's for sure! The rest is controversial: is food political, that is a phenomenon of social relevance, or is food a private, merely individual affair? Or is this the wrong question, because food is both? And if this is the case, which relation do the political and the private bear to one another? It should be clear, that these questions are difficult and complex. Therefore fast and clear answers should be ruled out! And still: In one respect it is necessary that the preparation group of the 5th antiracist bordercamp declares itself, because after all there are big changes on the way concerning food: for the first time there are going to be meals with meat and not only vegan food.

If one likes it or not, this change is a political issue. No matter how the individual camp-activists handle the consumption of meat (respectively vegetarianism or veganism) - it is no coincidence that the food has been vegan on the previous camps. This is by no means the expression of the fact that a vast majority of the campers would exclusively favour vegan food, or at least principially reject the consumption of meat. No, the fact, that the food has so far been vegan is rather an expression of a certain balance of power, as it was set up in the course of the 90-ies within leftradical and autonomous networks, that is within networks - and this should be kept in mind - which have a white-german majority.
We now want to briefly outline how and why this balance of power came up, in order to have a basis to justify why this year's border-camp does no longer fit into the aforementioned balance of power.

We think, that the following anti-meat-arguments are the ones which are most commonly held in autonomous and leftracial networks in Germany:

1. The agroindustrially conducted meat-production is in many respects destroying the environment, i.a. by destroying the (rain-) forest and valuable areas of arable land in favour of pasture land.
2. In order to produce meat the animals have to be fed, that is raised on forage cereal. This works globally only because a multitude of so-called poor countries produce forage cereal and export it to the so-called rich meat-countries; with the result that these areas of arable land are then lacking for the direct production of food. Or put differently: meat-production is one of the most important causes for the (socially produced) hunger in the world!
3. The capitalist-patriarchal societies of the so-called West have been destructive in the past as well as the presence: Whenever their interests are affected, they have never stopped at death, destruction and submission, no matter if these concerned human beings, nature or animals. It is against this background that the (mainly agroindustrially conducted) killing of animals gains a very specific meaning in western(!) societies. It is not only the mere expression of a destructive way of social living, but also its continuation.
4. In Germany (and also in other places of the west) it is a cultural practice to eat a lot and especially fat meat, which not least expresses, cultivates and produces a affluence-chauvinistic feeling of repletion, complacency and belonging. In the 80ies and 90ies this was personnified by Helmut Kohl, who was the german chancellor at that time. Looking at it from this perspective developping a different, that is a meat-free food-culture has to be understood as a sub-cultural symbolically highly charged declaration of war against the cultural mainstream in Germany.
5. Animals have feelings and are sensitive creatures - with a right of existence of their own, similar (!) to human beings. Therefore - at least according to this principle - to kill them is ethically illegitimate. This argument circulates in different gradings, i.a. depending (!) on the repective kind of animal: Some argue for example that fish or snails were largely not sensitive to pain - different from for example pigs- why it would be legitimate to kill and eat the first, but not the latter. From time to time these differentiations are also applied to the keeping and the killing-methods. If for example pigs were kept in a way which fits them (whatever that's supposed to mean…) as well as killed directly and quickly, even moderate consumption of pork woud be legitimate.
6. Animals have exactly (!) the same right of existence and to be unscathed like humans. Therefore in ethical regard it is principally, that is without any exemption, illegitimate to kill animals or to exploit their labour. Concretely: From this percpective the consumption respective the use of animal products is strictly to be rejected, be it food like meat, milk, bee-honey etc. or be it 'raw material' such as leather, gelantine made of bones, wool of animals etc. Animals should rather be treated with extensive respect: zoos, animal-circusses or horseback-riding, as well as violence, the deprivation of personal liberty (aquariums, bird-cages…) or similar practices all these are ruled out - like they are when human beings are concerned!

These are the anti-meat-arguments which are most commonly voiced as political (!)views. It should be clear, that each of these arguments comes in 1000 shades and variants, and also, that none of these arguments has ever been unchallenged. Because in the past 10 years there has never been a time when there was something like a vegetarian or vegan consensus within leftradical networks. Instead there have alsways been 3 big camps (along with subdivisions): A narrow majority lives vegetarian (that is without meat, but with dairy products), a strong minority continues to eat meat and only a particular minority lives strictly vegan and is in addition organized in political active vegan networks. Until today the strenght of the different camps varies until today according to region, town, age, sub-scene etc.. But it's for sure that the left-racial vegan-groups never came to more than 10-15% of the whole scene. Therefore it is even more astonishing that still today most people's kitchen cook vegan. In order to understand this one has to make oneself aware of a complex overlapping of several developments.

1. Because they see it as a political issue, the question of food is a central matter of concern for all vegan-networks. Therefore many vegans have gone into the people's kitchen-business in the course of the 90ies - with the simple consequence that they can largely decide what's served and what not. Whether one sees this as a politics of power or the other way around: as a charming move -. it should be mentioned that there have at no point been serious attempts by the meat-camp to set up particular meat-people's kitchens…
2. There also have been groups cooking in people's kitchen who decided in favour of vegan cooking with the maxime of the smallest common denominator: everybody can eat vegan food, therefore nobody is excluded! This thought has become more and more central in the past years.
3. Many left vegetarians welcome vegan food, not only because it tastes well, but also because it helps them to calm their bad conscience a little bit. Because after all most of them live with an unresolved conflict: De facto milk- and meat production are connected: while the female animals produce milk, the male animals (except for the breedings bulls etc.) are killed and processed to meat. This could only be prevented were all male animals allowed to live a happy life in special animal farms until they die of natural causes - a solution which under capitalist conditions is doomed to failure not least because of economical reasons. This means:Who consumes dairy products de facto accepts that there is meat-production, even when they actually reject the killing and eating of animals. And because this circle can be only solved by the vegan solution many vegetarians have always accepted the vegan people's kichen-hegemony.
4. Since many disputes and debates right around veganism have been extremely nerve-wracking and even escalating, many participants have at some point lost interest to carry on being worn out by this question. Especially the supporters of the meat-faction have given in latest 1997/98 - and instead casually-provocatively persued their own 'my-palate-belongs-to-me-credo': "I eat meat whenever I want to, be it at home or in the snack bar, be it camp-time or not." This (anti-vegan) offensive was made easier by the fact that various trends of the vegan camp increasingly ended up on the political srapheap and hereby discredited respectively weakened the whole vegan-scene. Here we are not referring to the fiercely disputed militant attacks on ecological butchers u.ä. but to the fact that certain (initially left-radical) vegan-groups stood more and more up for reactionary ideologies about life and naturalness like for example the disapproval of abortion and contraception or the discrimination of lesbians and gays.
5. What's left to say is pragmatic: From a financial and organisational viewpoint (key word: refrigerators) cooking meat is a lot more costly than the vegan cooking. That has always been clear to everybody, even to deeply-rooted meat-eaters.

We now want to take stock: That most people's kitchen serve vegan food (and that there was therefore no other food on the previous border camps) is at the final count an expression of a truce in the undogmatic Radical left - a truce which has become evident (in the 90ies of the past century) as a result of the sketched arguments, dynamics and politics of power.

This should be enough for an introduction. We now want to explain, why on this year's border-camp there is not exclusively vegan food going to be served, but there's also going to be served meat three times.
The starting point of this decision was a double premise: 1. As has been touched upon several times, the aforementioned truce is a decision, which took place within the german white dominated scene - what becomes also clear by the fact that many of the arguments against meat are stemming from a specific western-european point of view (what does not mean that similar arguments could not be met outside Western Europe). 2. A truce is a decision which is commonly only valid for those, who directly or indirectly negotioated it (and be it only by taking it on and keeping it up as the following generation.
If one applies these two premises on the Jena bordercamp, it becomes clear, why it is politically (!) consistent to terminate the truce which has so far been valid on the bordercamp concerning meat: This year's camp will be staffed differently than the former camps: For the first time self-organized refugees (and migrants) will join in in large numbers, that is people who have for the most part not participated in the decision-making-process from which this truce, that is the vegan.eating-culture came out (what becomes obvious by the fact that already some of the refugess from the preparation group have articulated their lack of understanding on this matter). This leads to the result that it would be political ghost-driving to simply continue to cook vegan. Because de facto this would mean to impose the will of one part of the bordercamp-community on another part.
More precisely: We don't want to spred the rumor that (leftradical) refugees and migrants would prefer meat or eat more of it than white germans (with a leftracial background). Such an assertion would be wrong in both directions, as well as it would be complete nonsense to serve meat simply because some refugees and migrants demand this. No, our argument is different, it is - in the best sense of the word - a formal one: When new alliances are set up this means saying-good-bye to established self-evident truths. Instead what is in demand is the willingness to open up space for debate, that is to question and also let oneself be questioned - and to argue if necessary. And to do all this with the perspective to try to find a common ground, be it a tense compromise or something completely new.
Looking at it from this angle the 'kitchen-question' is a good example for what this year's call means when talking of trans-identitarian organization: Because trans-identiarian organization means that groups and people come together with the aim to find a common language, that is to develop common perspectives and practices. But this can only work when the own positions are really the issue, when there is the interest to start from scratch, that is to question what has become familiar. Applied to the kitchen this means: Concerning meat this year's preparation group has not found a common ground yet. Therefore we found a compromise regarding this the only adequate solution. Conretely: Meat will be cooked three times, in separate pots. It has not been decided yet what kind of meat, but it is already clear, that this also is a question that might call for a compromise. We want to add that the already mentioned argument according to which vegan food has de facto the 'lowest threshold' and does therefore not exclude anybody, did not convince us as an alternative form of compromise. Because this argument (which is a quite sympathetic one!) is already a part of the so-called truce, that is can only be understood by referring to it and is therefore worn out. .

We are aware of the fact that many will find this an unreasonable demand (already it was referred to as backlash…), but we think, that there is no other solution. Reality is complex, therefore our answers have to be so as well! So much from our side, the rest has to be arranged by the (political) debate, maybe by reverting to this statement…