5000 year old tribe still on a vegan diet

[Gliondrach]

Can you please provide more information about Azerbaijans of the Caucasus? Because Azerbaijan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/aj.html)is a muslim country and I haven't heard about them being vegans, or even vegetarians.

Azerbaijan is a moslem state but there is a large Armenian Christian enclave there. The country used to be a centre of Zoroastrianism and there might be some old pagans in outlying areas. There are still pagans in Iran - even after the Islamic revolution there. Perhaps some of these Azeri pagans or the Christians are vegetarians.

[rianaelf]

The best part is they're 5000 years old. That's proof positive that vegans live longer. I'd love to see omnivores try to argue against THAT one.

hahaha, lol, yeah, 5000 years <giggles> i didn't know vegans could live THAT long!!! ;)

[eve]

Can you please provide more information about Azerbaijans of the Caucasus? Because Azerbaijan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/aj.html)is a muslim country and I haven't heard about them being vegans, or even vegetarians.
Azerbaijan hss one of the most corrupt governments around, and the population in general is brought up that way. Somehow I can't imagine their being veg*an

[cedarblue]

i'm a bit late here but that is a wonderful article to read.

[lilmisatyr]

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_269.html

That is the Aryan info....Hitlers propaganda is widely believed but Aryan has nothing to do with hair or eye color.

[IndigoSea]

Let's move!

[Ava Odoéména]

Hello, German vegan here...

I was irritated when I saw the link in a German blog, already expecting utter nonsense and this irritation was further intensified when I read the article, which is saturated with rather bizarre associations of "pure" "Aryan" "high cheek bones". You know, all that racist bullshit. I think the story is interesting from a view of probably a desperately unsuccessful journalist sucking this story out of his fingers. Now its pretty irrelevant what sort of cultural fantasies these group of ethic people entertain about where they come from, but to write a story about them without DNA proof is boring at best.

India, being an incredibly ethnocentrist / racist society itself, obsessed with skin color, would of course find people of "fair complexion" interesting the same way people in the West with similar notions of seeking to project a superior race at least into someone else. The motive of the Indian reader I imagine to be something of "feeding" on the "superiority" of these "pure Aryans" a superiority he himself perhaps does not feel he has, for whatever reasons. A reader of the West would more likely enjoy the "allowance" of letting racist superiorist fantasies flow freely into this limited context of these "pure Aryans" "somewhere far away in India".

How these self-esteem lacking fantasies are driven is exposed even more clearly in another article I found about these mountain villagers:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041107/spectrum/main1.htm
Here, the absurdity is topped by inventing German women who seek to breed with Brogpa men in order to have "racially pure children". Note there are no German men seeking to breed wih Brogpa women, I wonder why? Could it be a dose of Indian sexism where quality focus is "of course" focused on men? We will never know.

Now, the fantasies such myths initiate naturally resonate differently in the group which produces them. Here, in this forum, what was admired is a life "close to nature" free of "B12 tablets" they are "beautiful people" (How could you judge based on few photograph models. While Claudia Schiffer is beautiful, trust me, we have some pretty ugly Germans...) and "one with nature". And of course, based on one unsupported claim that this ethic group is vegan, we now have "proof" (!) that vegan societies have existed for at least 5000 years.

However, these people are not vegan by the plain fact that they are wearing wool clothes, now and traditionally, where there is wool there is meat, or at the very minimum, milk. And even if these people do not drink milk, their source of B12 is likely bacteriologically contaminated small intestines, a sideeffect of "living close to nature". As you either do or should know, bacteria in the small intestine where nutrients are absorbed is not exactly a good thing to happen, and B12 producing bacteria in the lower intestine can't be absorbed because that section doesn't absorb nutrients.

What irritated me as a German vegan about the whole story, was that the link was posted into a blog by the blog administrator without elaborating the things I was going into here. And naturally one poster just had to associate veganism with fascism because speciesists seem to have this built in reflex of having to obsessively seek ways to discredit veganism in order for the next chunk of corpse to slide down the throat without interference of conscience....

A word on B12. I notice over and over again that some people idolize nature, or rather their fantasy of what nature constitutes, and go on to confuse natural with good. In their use of language, they begin substituting "good" with "natural" and this eventually is fatal for vegans who suffer from this sort of neo-animism. Because suddenly a substance fermented in a manner very similar to bakers yeast, nothing else is B12, becomes _unnatural_ because, well because it didn't grow on some darn tree. However, given that B12 is always a product of bacteriological fermentation, it's completely irrelevant for its quality whether it was made inside a cows stomach or a fermentation kettle. Fermented B12, thus B12 which was derived in perfectly ethical manner from bacteria, rather than shooting a cow/pig/sheep in the head, suddenly becomes evil.

The irony of this, is that the information about the presumed unnaturalness of fermented B12 is spread on a network of computers made from plastic and driven with petrol-energy.

B12 isn't evil of course, what makes it "awkward" for some people is that it must be integrated into the vegan diet in pure form, it's an essential nutrient which if you wanted to source it "naturally", would imply that you had to eat your own feces. Feces are a rich source of bioactive B12, or dirty water, however while these sources are "natural" they are neither _good_ nor _healthy_. The B12 discussion therefore, is mainly a psychological one. As most discussions are...

[Korn]

Nobody on this site has said that a 'pure' race is better than an 'unpure' race, that high cheek bones are any better than other cheek bones, or that it matters wether this tribe is Aryan or non-Aryan, or that Aryan in any ways should represent anything superior to non-Arian.

Neither have anyone said that B12 cultivated/fermented in a kettle has a lower quality than B12 made inside a cow's stomach.


Many people think that if all nutrients can be obtained directly from plants, they conisder the vegan diet a natural choice for humans, but if not - if we need animal products or fermentation for B12 - they think we're 'meant to' eat animal products. We have several threads discussing this topic, for example: "B12 - how natural is the vegan diet?". (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3763)

If you look around in the B12-forums, Ava, you'll see that your statement about eating your own faeces is wrong - please continue the B12 disuccsion over there if you'd like to.

Back to the 'racism bullshit'... I think nobody in here cares if they are ancestors of some Aryan tribe, if they are of a 'pure' race or where in their face their cheekbones happen to be.

The title of the thread is about a group of people living on a vegan diet, and not claiming that these people are not using eg. wool.

You seem to have generated a lot of irritiation out of.... nothing, and mixing in your opinions about ugly Germans, Claudia Schiffer etc. has IMO no relevance to this article.

This site is as non-racist as it gets.

[Russ]

pwned.

[Korn]

Not pwned, but encouraged to take a reality check. :)

For example, to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters. There has been made studies on the relationship between bioavailable B12 and passive B12 analogues, and 95% of the B12 in faeces were B12 analogues.

The statement about having to eat your own faeces to source B12 "naturally", is normally also posted exclusively by trolls/meat eaters, and is wrong.

Re. that Himalayan tribe and how vegan they are - I may check it out one day myself, and I'm totally prepared to learn that some journalist has twaeked or distorted the facts - they often do. Why misinterpret a line from the original article ('One of the women photographed at Dah could have easily been mistaken for a German tourist') as if the writer of the article is having any interest in / preferences towards people looking like German tourists, or that mentioning that someone was blonde and had high cheekbones or 'unmistakable German features' as something positive?

Since we know that the vegan diet both is healthy and that some of the pioneers of western veganism lived long and healthy lives, we already know what we need to know. I don't subscribe to the 'it's only possible if someone has done it before'-party, and don't mind being a pioneer. It doesn't matter if these people were Aryans or vegans for me personally, but if the article is right, people who think we should eat and do what humans did thousands of years ago may be interested.

We know that the human ancestors both ate insects and snails - they also ate each other now and then, and were herbivores at some point. We also know that meat eaters and anti-vegan trolls who put emphasis on what our ancestors did suddenly lose the interest in that subject the moment they are presented with those facts anyway - all of a sudden they won't let the diet of people who lived thousands or millions of years ago have any relevance when deciding what they'll have for dinner... :)

[Ava Odoéména]

Nobody on this site has said that a 'pure' race is better than an 'unpure' race, that high cheek bones are any better than other cheek bones, or that it matters wether this tribe is Aryan or non-Aryan, or that Aryan in any ways should represent anything superior to non-Arian.

I didn't claim that... My post is pretty clear on the dynamics I was addressing, it wasn't necessary for you to suggest things that I didn't say or imply.


Neither have anyone said that B12 cultivated/fermented in a kettle has a lower quality than B12 made inside a cow's stomach.

I didn't claim that either... *I* said that there is no difference in quality.


Many people think that if all nutrients can be obtained directly from plants, they conisder the vegan diet a natural choice for humans, but if not - if we need animal products or fermentation for B12 - they think we're 'meant to' eat animal products.

Well exactly a point around delusional thinking around B12 was what I was addressing , but since you're in defense mode, and I guess I as "the stranger" presumably the threat/meat troll, it's likely you fail to see the context.


Back to the 'racism bullshit'... I think nobody in here cares if they are ancestors of some Aryan tribe, if they are of a 'pure' race or where in their face their cheekbones happen to be.


I disagree. I believe the "melting adoration" and overall lack of suspicion speaks volumes at least to the point that the "Aryan" factor played part of the fascination. I'm married to an African, so I _live_ within the racism of "non-racists" be they vegan or not.


The title of the thread is about a group of people living on a vegan diet, and not claiming that these people are not using eg. wool.

My post was a general reply on information absorbed *in* the thread here and elsewhere - what *the title* of the thread says seemed pretty irrelvant to me when I was writing it.


You seem to have generated a lot of irritiation out of.... nothing, and mixing in your opinions about ugly Germans, Claudia Schiffer etc. has IMO no relevance to this article.

I find it honoralbe that you seek to defend "your group", at the same time I note that you avoid or deny any of my actual arguments with distortionist tactics.


This site is as non-racist as it gets.

Uncritical obsession and adoration (even within a hipocritical pretense of "only focusing on the vegan aspect") about a concept containing racial superiority and racial purety is as non-non racist as it gets.

Sometimes it is not exposing what is said, but what isn't said.

[John]

I'm somewhat skeptical of this article too. But that's no reason to get all bent out of shape.

[Ava Odoéména]

Not pwned, but encouraged to take a reality check. :)

What makes you so absolutely certain it is me who needs a reality check? Let's see:


For example, to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters.

Well they are right. Rabbits use it, as do Gorillas whereby rabbits sprodce a "special feces" apart from digested plant matter.


There has been made studies on the relationship between bioavailable B12 and passive B12 analogues, and 95% of the B12 in faeces were B12 analogues.

This is correct too, yet the presence of analogues does not mean the present bioactive B12 can't be detected nor absorbed while the analogues can't be rejected.


The statement about having to eat your own faeces to source B12 "naturally", is normally also posted exclusively by trolls/meat eaters, and is wrong.

This is false on two levels. First of all it suggests that I claimed that the only way to get B12 naturally is to eat feces, this wrong because I totally reject the notion of naturality as perpetuated by neo-animistic esoterics. Secondly, I reject the notion that you seek to suggest in a defamatory manner that I'm a meat eater troll, an accusation which any Goolge search on my posting name which happens to be my actual name will quickly evaporate.


Re. that Himalayan tribe and how vegan they are - I may check it out one day myself, and I'm totally prepared to learn that some journalist has twaeked or distorted the facts - they often do. Why misinterpret a line from the original article ('One of the women photographed at Dah could have easily been mistaken for a German tourist') as if the writer of the article is having any interest in / preferences towards people looking like German tourists, or that mentioning that someone was blonde and had high cheekbones or 'unmistakable German features' as something positive?

Because obviously, the jounalist was toying with fascist ideology, as did the other one in the link I supplied. German->Aryan->Hitler->pure race->superiority. It's all in there, undeniably.


Since we know that the vegan diet both is healthy and that some of the pioneers of western veganism lived long and healthy lives, we already know what we need to know. I don't subscribe to the 'it's only possible if someone has done it before'-party, and don't mind being a pioneer. It doesn't matter if these people were Aryans or vegans for me personally, but if the article is right, people who think we should eat and do what humans did thousands of years ago may be interested.

I think it would both be catastrophic politically and scientifically if that article was used as a support for veganism. Veganism doesn't require these sort of "supports", as ethics is all that is required. There is absolutely no evidence that this ethnic group is a) vegan (even in restricted, dietary sense), that they have been existing for any time longer than say 100 years. The fact that many healthy vegans exist NOW in the West is a much more profound evidence that the vegan diet can be adequate, anyone rejecting that *actual* evidence has no interest in honest debate.

The article is catastrophic politically if presented in a vegan context *because* Hitler was toying with fantasies of "purety" and "vegetarianism" and why anyone would allow vegan ethics to be discredited by associating it with fascist idiology is beyond me really.


We know that the human ancestors both ate insects and snails - they also ate each other now and then, and were herbivores at some point. We also know that meat eaters and anti-vegan trolls who put emphasis on what our ancestors did suddenly loose the interest in that subject the moment they are presented with those facts anywa - all of a sudden they won't let the diet of people who lived thousands or millions of years ago have any relevance when deciding what they'll have for dinner... :)

I have honestly no idea what you're saying here. It's completely irrelevant what our ancestors ate, fact is that since humans can sustain themselves perfectly on a vegan diet, this creates the ethical imperative to accept the vegan diet as the only ethical alternative.

[Ava Odoéména]

I'm somewhat skeptical of this article too. But that's no reason to get all bent out of shape.

I don't see how a passionate debate equals "getting bent out of shape". Don't worry, over time, you'll adapt to my style.

[John]

It's OK. You can get bent out of shape/passionate. However, I think the accusatory tone may keep some people from seeing your point. But you can do as you please.

[Korn]

For example, to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters.

Well they are right. Rabbits use it, as do Gorillas whereby rabbits sprodce a "special feces" apart from digested plant matter.
We know that some animals eat their faeces, but that's a different story. What you bring up, is a statement saying that faeces are a rich source of bioactive B12, while there are studies showing that most of the B12 in faeces is not bioactive. Maybe they need the B12 analogues, and maybe they eat their faeces for other reasons, bit the tribe discussed here does not, and seem to be both healthy and have long lives.




There has been made studies on the relationship between bioavailable B12 and passive B12 analogues, and 95% of the B12 in faeces were B12 analogues.

This is correct too, yet the presence of analogues does not mean the present bioactive B12 can't be detected nor absorbed while the analogues can't be rejected. Sure. But that's a totally different discussion; it suggests that even if something contains a mix of bioactive B12 and passive B12 analogues, the B12 analogues inside that mixture doesn't really represent a problem in this context. And if passive B12 analogues in a mixture doesn't represent a problem when consuming something with bioavailable B12 in, a major question needs to be raised regarding those who say that B12 analogues in plants are so troublesome, because they prevent the bioavialable, active B12 to be absorbed. If B12 analogues together with active B12 - even in a 95:5 ratio, doesn't represent a problem, where does that leave the people who ignore all B12 found in plants because of the problems represented by the B12 analogues?

It's all about amounts, and about what we know as opposed to what we assume. A study showing the levels of B12 in animals after having eaten their faeces would make this discussion a lot more interesting - especially if the B12 levels in animals would be the topic of the thread.

Please compare your two statements (my underlining):

First of all it suggests that I claimed that the only way to get B12 naturally is to eat feces, this wrong because I totally reject the notion of naturality as perpetuated by neo-animistic esoterics. B12 is
an essential nutrient which if you wanted to source it "naturally", would imply that you had to eat your own feces. You seem to make a point of the difference between natural and "natural".

Instead of adding to the confusion, let me rather ask you if you think the tribe discussed in this thread can get useful B12 from sources like plants or drinking water? If not, where do you think they get their B12 from? If they don't get the amount of B12 we think they need, could it be that they need less B12 than we assume?

Do you think the only way to get useful B12 is if humans decide to cultivate B12 by conscious use of fermentation?


Secondly, I reject the notion that you seek to suggest in a defamatory manner that I'm a meat eater troll, an accusation which any Goolge search on my posting name which happens to be my actual name will quickly evaporate. I wrote that "to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters", which is correct, but according to your self, you haven't "claimed that the only way to get B12 naturally is to eat feces" - so this would apply to you, as you wrote "natural", and not natural... I also wrote that "to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters" is also correct, but in your last post you confirm that 95% of the B12 in faeces were B12 analogues is correct, so this doesn't apply to you either. The way you write (in this and that other thread) is very similar to how trolls and meat eaters write - but I'm not afraid of trolls, and I'm glad if you can contribute to the B12 discussion in a positive way.


Because obviously, the jounalist was toying with fascist ideology, as did the other one in the link I supplied. German->Aryan->Hitler->pure race->superiority. It's all in there, undeniably. No. If a fascist for some reason is interested in carrots, and I also state that I'm interested in carrots, I'm not toying with fascist ideology. I'm not even interested in the race aspect of that Brokpa tribe, and think nobody here is. One can talk about a tribe that apparently is living on a vegan diet, and which maybe happens to have some relationship to a topic nazis are interested (probably against the tribe's own knowledge) - without in any ways sharing any of the viewpoints these nazis represent. You wrote "the article, which is saturated with rather bizarre associations of "pure" "Aryan" "high cheek bones". You know, all that racist bullshit", but the journalist you referred to wasn't at all toying with fascist ideology. One doesn't become a racist or fascist by using the word 'race' or 'German'.


I think it would both be catastrophic politically and scientifically if that article was used as a support for veganism.
We agree that we don't need that kind of support, but if these people live on a vegan diet, which they do according to the writer, the article may be interesting for people who claim that no tribes are living on a vegan diet, or people who claim that they won't become vegans because no tribes are vegan. IMO, there's no political or scientific catastrophy in sight.


The article is catastrophic politically if presented in a vegan context *because* Hitler was toying with fantasies of "purety" and "vegetarianism" and why anyone would allow vegan ethics to be discredited by associating it with fascist idiology is beyond me really. First of all, we'd ban people for posting fascist/nazi ideology on this site, and again: you totally miss the point. The point isn't how 'pure' or how 'aryan' these people are. We can't avoid talking about someone because someone else, whom we disagree with, may have been talking about something involving some of the same people. Look beneath the surface.

Apparently Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, but if he would have been, that wouldn't suggest a reason not be a vegetarian or talk about vegetarianism. I'm toying as little with fascist ideology when I write about this tribe as I would be toying with nazism by using the word 'German'. The article would has been just as interesting (or un-interesting) if it would have been about the discovery a secret, plant-eating ancient chinese tribe trombone-players living in the outskrits of Freiburg.



I totally reject the notion of naturality as perpetuated by neo-animistic esoterics

Please explain... (here (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=232702#post232702), for example?)... Thanks!

[rianaelf]

eek :confused:

[absentmindedfan]

Well since people have finished throwing their toys out the pram I'd like to say that whatever the intention of the article, and frankly who cares, the fact that this society exists is fabulous. I will be using it in my visualisations as a place to escape to when omni-world gets too much :)

I will also be using it as a big factual stick to hit ignorant omnis with :D

[Russ]

I much prefer to hit omnis with a big literal stick.

[IndigoSea]

Honestly I don't see how acknowledging racial differences = racism. I simply thought it was a beautiful view of a culturally and racially unique tribe of people.
Why does everyone have to trip themselves up over race all the time? sigh.

[rianaelf]

yeah, totally <nod nod>
by the way, i love ur avvy :)

[Apple_Blossem]

I notice that many of my friends will verbally attack people who even mention race or who even find differences between each race interesting to discuss. To me, race is as general as hair color -- and it seems like we cannot distinguish between a blonde and a brunette without the world crying foul :P

There are other funny areas of conversation where people take offense and verbally attack others in the US, too:
In Canada, I can say, "he's from mexico..." just I could say "You're from Ireland."

As soon as I returned to the US, I had to remember how people become so upset if you say, "Are you from Mexico?" or "Are you mexican?" But can say, "Are you German?" :P

[kriz]

That's so true, apple blossom.

[rianaelf]

yeah, cos its like types of cats or dogs or somethink.
you cant deny your white or black or chinese or whatever but why does it ever have to be an issue?

[mango]

"I totally reject the notion of naturality as perpetuated by neo-animistic esoterics"

I've heard this one before, mate. You're making a big jump by assuming that anyone who uses the word 'natural' is a 'neo-animistic esoteric' (a phrase which I presume has been invented as a strawman position). What do you mean by esoteric? Something you don't understand? Aren't you being esoteric by throwing this jargon around when very few people will understand it to cover the weakness of your own position?

Why does the concept 'nature' have to involve 'animism'? (Don't forget that 'animism' is used by people representing the global economic system as a racist term to describe the 'religious' belief systems of people outside the global economic system, and can be translated fairly accurately as "don't know, don't care").

I believe that the human posture of rational domination over nature, both inner and outer, has been shown both theoretically and practically to have failed catastrophically. Maybe 'natural' is not an absolute but it can certainly have a relative meaning. Are you perhaps stuck in the old-leftist idea that human progress equates with technological elaboration?