120 replies to this topic

[paulraphael]

As for the criticism of the criticism, I believe it to be likewise disingenuous. To accept Bourdain at face value is to willingly ignore Bourdain’s glaring contradictions. To say “if you haven't read the essays in question, you don't know what those opinions are” is to say that Bourdain has never voiced these opinions previously, which is entirely bogus.

No, it's entirely reasonable, since many of the opinions are revisions of ones expressed in his most popular writings. I would assume that anyone bent toward dismissals of Bourdain will not have followed his every interview and essay and tv appearance. If your ideas about Bourdain come from Kitchen Confidential and The Nasty Bits (as mine have), you'll find different ideas here. Which isn't to suggest you'll like them, just that you don't yet know what they are.

To suggest you can’t criticize Bourdain for these well known opinions is akin to saying someone cannot criticize Obama (or Palin) because they have not read The Audacity of Hope (or whatever the fuck the name of her book is) ...

Straw man argument. Criticize Bourdain all you want. Just don't criticize a book you haven't read.

[paulraphael]

Bourdain’s principle is based entirely off of an ethnocentric viewpoint that suggests that non-Westerners are fully incapable of understanding vegetarianism regardless of whether a tradition of vegetarianism exists in their country or not. It’s a viewpoint that relies entirely on a Western thinking bias.

I think you're just mischaracterizing his position. Bourdain attacks ideologies that present themselves as morally superior, but which don't acknowledge the enormous degree of privilege (mostly economic) that makes them possible.

He may invite misunderstanding, to a degree, by using the blanket term "vegetarians" ... when what he really means is vegetarians who bring their ideas stubbornly and self-righteously into contexts that are inappropriate.

Yes, there are many vegetarian cultures in the world, and many in which meat is optional. There are others where meat (or fish, or dairy, or whatever) is a matter of survival ... and to refuse it based on ideas you brought with you from the Land of Opportunity or the hippy commune, is just plain arrogant.

I'm pretty sure Bourdain has travelled enough to not be constrained by simplistic ethnocentric ideas. And I seriously doubt he cares a bit if you abstain from Burgers while in Northern California.

Edited by paulraphael, 30 July 2010 - 01:33 PM.

[Florida]

As for the criticism of the criticism, I believe it to be likewise disingenuous. To accept Bourdain at face value is to willingly ignore Bourdain’s glaring contradictions. To say “if you haven't read the essays in question, you don't know what those opinions are” is to say that Bourdain has never voiced these opinions previously, which is entirely bogus.

No, it's entirely reasonable, since many of the opinions are revisions of ones expressed in his most popular writings. I would assume that anyone bent toward dismissals of Bourdain will not have followed his every interview and essay and tv appearance. If your ideas about Bourdain come from Kitchen Confidential and The Nasty Bits (as mine have), you'll find different ideas here. Which isn't to suggest you'll like them, just that you don't yet know what they are.

To suggest you can’t criticize Bourdain for these well known opinions is akin to saying someone cannot criticize Obama (or Palin) because they have not read The Audacity of Hope (or whatever the fuck the name of her book is) ...

Straw man argument. Criticize Bourdain all you want. Just don't criticize a book you haven't read.

Straw man? Not quite. Again, there is context which I'm simply not willing to ignore.
Medium Raw is practically an autobiography. The man is the book. They are unseperable. We're not talking about Gone Bamboo in which Bourdain is just the author where I'm shitting on the book simply because I don't like Bourdain. And we're not talking about a biography where the Bourdain's life is chronicaled through the eyes of person other than Bourdain. Medium Raw is Bourdain. It's about Bourdain and by Bourdain.

[Florida]

Bourdain’s principle is based entirely off of an ethnocentric viewpoint that suggests that non-Westerners are fully incapable of understanding vegetarianism regardless of whether a tradition of vegetarianism exists in their country or not. It’s a viewpoint that relies entirely on a Western thinking bias.

I think you're just mischaracterizing his position. Bourdain attacks ideologies that present themselves as morally superior, but which don't acknowledge the enormous degree of privilege (mostly economic) that makes them possible.

He may invite misunderstanding, to a degree, by using the blanket term "vegetarians" ... when what he really means is vegetarians who bring their ideas stubbornly and self-righteously into contexts that are inappropriate.

Yes, there are many vegetarian cultures in the world, and many in which meat is optional. There are others where meat (or fish, or dairy, or whatever) is a matter of survival ... and to refuse it based on ideas you brought with you from the Land of Opportunity or the hippy commune, is just plain arrogant.

I'm pretty sure Bourdain has travelled enough to not be constrained by simplistic ethnocentric ideas. And I seriously doubt he cares a bit if you abstain from Burgers while in Northern California.

This would have been a well thought out argument. But this isn’t the argument TB makes in the book. No where near it. In all actuality I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly extrapolate this relatively well thought out, though poorly presented, position from what is actually printed in the book. Though it is a bit unclear exactly how vegetarianism comes from a position of priviledge, given that meat is truly the food of the weathly.

As for stubborn and self-righteous, I’d say those are two apt descriptions of Bourdain himself. The vast majority of vegetarians never make their vegetarianism known, never mind publish it in a book. Are there stubborn and self-righteous vegetarians out there? Sure, but to stereotype all because of the actions of a few is incredibly ignorant.

[Jenni]

As I mentioned up thread, my main gripe with him in regards to vegetarianism is his inconsistency. He seems to indicate that he wouldn't mind if a vegetarian turned down meat because they were hindu, that would be ok, but not for any other reason. If religious belief is enough for him, why not non-religious (but equally important to the person's life) belief? I don't get it.

[slkinsey]

As far as I can tell, Bourdain's disdain for vegetarianism is probably rooted in the fact that (non-vegetarian) restaurants hate having to cater to them.

Probably related to this is the fact that the majority of Western vegetarians (most of whom are found in the UK and USA) are vegetarians primarily for health or ethical reasons, and this rather than the goal of deliciousness is the fundamental principle that drives their cooking. The result is that Western vegetarian cooking as a generality is not very tasty or interesting compared to Western omnivorous cooking. In contrast, vegetarian cuisines that are grounded in religion tend to be delicious because the goal of the cooks is not, e.g., to "have a high fiber, low fat diet that provides sufficient protein and vitamins" or to "avoid the subjugation of our animal friends" but rather simply to pursue deliciousness within the culinary playing field defined by the religion (or economic circumstances). This is why dishes created in vegetarian cultures, most of which are non-Western and are almost always mediated in their dietary practices by religion, or vegetarian dishes created in omnivorous cultures due to scarcity or economics tend to be far more delicious than vegetarian dishes prepared by health- or ethics-minded Western vegetarians: the primary culinary goal of the formers is deliciousness and the primary goal of the latter is not. Generally speaking, of course.

[eldereno]

Can say that this is a good listen on an audible device. Bourdain as narrator is great. Very entertaining.

[IndyRob]

As I mentioned up thread, my main gripe with him in regards to vegetarianism is his inconsistency. He seems to indicate that he wouldn't mind if a vegetarian turned down meat because they were hindu, that would be ok, but not for any other reason. If religious belief is enough for him, why not non-religious (but equally important to the person's life) belief? I don't get it.

I'll take a stab at this. If one believes that God does not want us to eat meat, then Anthony Bourdain will respect that belief (but not to the point of his own adherence). However, if one believes that no one should eat meat based on their own thought processes, then that claim is possibly sanctimonious and is open to peer challenge.

[Jenni]

Probably related to this is the fact that the majority of Western vegetarians (most of whom are found in the UK and USA) are vegetarians primarily for health or ethical reasons, and this rather than the goal of deliciousness is the fundamental principle that drives their cooking.

Hmm, I would disagree with this. I think there's a misconception that if it doesn't have meat in it, or if it's healthy, then it must taste awful. This is such a close-minded view, it's actually a real shame. There are plenty of vegetarians for whom good tasting food is very important, and they are not interested in eating salad and wheat grass juice at every meal. Luckily, there is an enormous range of different dishes to choose from if you are veggie. I cook mostly Indian food, but there are plenty of other cultures that have delicious dishes that have meat-free dishes, or dishes that can very easily be made meat free. And I am pretty sure I remember reading that Keith Floyd (famous for being rather derisive towards vegetarians) ate a lot of vegetarian food in India and admitted that actually, it was pretty damn tasty and he was starting to feel a little less contemptuous towards those who don't eat meat!

As I mentioned up thread, my main gripe with him in regards to vegetarianism is his inconsistency. He seems to indicate that he wouldn't mind if a vegetarian turned down meat because they were hindu, that would be ok, but not for any other reason. If religious belief is enough for him, why not non-religious (but equally important to the person's life) belief? I don't get it.

I'll take a stab at this. If one believes that God does not want us to eat meat, then Anthony Bourdain will respect that belief (but not to the point of his own adherence). However, if one believes that no one should eat meat based on their own thought processes, then that claim is possibly sanctimonious and is open to peer challenge.

Well to me, this is nonsense. Is Bourdain very religious himself? If so, I guess it would make sense that he thinks that religious belief is more important than non-religious belief. However, personally I think it's important to note that there are many people in this world who don't believe in god, or who's beliefs about god don't fit any particular religion perfectly. A lot of people lean more towards a particular philosophy rather than a religion, or even a mixture of philosophy. (Incidentally, Buddhism is technically more of a philosophy than a religion, because contrary to popular belief, the Buddha was and is not a god. However, some lay buddhists do worship him almost as if he was a god, including asking for favours, etc) Are the views of every non religious person in the world completely meaningless? Also, many Hindus do eat meat, and plenty of Buddhists do too. So vegetarianism doesn't necessarily belong to a certain religious tradition. I think that Jainism may well be the only religion where everyone is definitely vegetarian. In addition, there are vegetarians in most religions - Christian, Muslim, Sikh, etc. Some of these people are vegetarian because they believe that their particular religion suggests that vegetarianism is a good thing. The wide variety of different people who are vegetarian suggests that there is a certain philosophical sense to it that often (though not always) goes beyond religion or culture.

I'm not saying that everyone should be vegetarian. I may be veggie myself, but quite frankly I couldn't care what other people do! As far as I'm concerned, it's up to each person individually to decide what they put in their body, and I wouldn't dream of forcing another person to follow my beliefs. What annoys me is that way that some people find it acceptable to deride and criticise what I put in my body. Often these people say that they hate vegetarianism because of all those "militant" vegetarians. But they are doing exactly the same thing in the name of meat-eating! Oh well, rant over.

[paulraphael]

This is why dishes created in vegetarian cultures, most of which are non-Western and are almost always mediated in their dietary practices by religion, or vegetarian dishes created in omnivorous cultures due to scarcity or economics tend to be far more delicious than vegetarian dishes prepared by health- or ethics-minded Western vegetarians: the primary culinary goal of the formers is deliciousness and the primary goal of the latter is not. Generally speaking, of course.

I'm not sure if it's because of goals. But I think vegetarian cultures like the Hindus have many centuries of experience on their side. They've figured out the delicousness part and have encoded it into a deep tradition. And a living tradition ... it continues to be passed down to new generations of home cooks year after year.

Vegetarians in this country more often inherit ideas from short-lived trends, from cook book authors who are forever in search of a new hook, or from opportunistic packaged food manufacturers (veggie bacon! Tofurkey!)

[paulraphael]

Bourdain’s principle is based entirely off of an ethnocentric viewpoint that suggests that non-Westerners are fully incapable of understanding vegetarianism regardless of whether a tradition of vegetarianism exists in their country or not. It’s a viewpoint that relies entirely on a Western thinking bias.

I think you're just mischaracterizing his position. Bourdain attacks ideologies that present themselves as morally superior, but which don't acknowledge the enormous degree of privilege (mostly economic) that makes them possible.

He may invite misunderstanding, to a degree, by using the blanket term "vegetarians" ... when what he really means is vegetarians who bring their ideas stubbornly and self-righteously into contexts that are inappropriate.

Yes, there are many vegetarian cultures in the world, and many in which meat is optional. There are others where meat (or fish, or dairy, or whatever) is a matter of survival ... and to refuse it based on ideas you brought with you from the Land of Opportunity or the hippy commune, is just plain arrogant.

I'm pretty sure Bourdain has travelled enough to not be constrained by simplistic ethnocentric ideas. And I seriously doubt he cares a bit if you abstain from Burgers while in Northern California.

This would have been a well thought out argument. But this isn’t the argument TB makes in the book. No where near it. In all actuality I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly extrapolate this relatively well thought out, though poorly presented, position from what is actually printed in the book. Though it is a bit unclear exactly how vegetarianism comes from a position of priviledge, given that meat is truly the food of the weathly.

"I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler in comfortable shoes waving away hospitality—the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience—of, say, a Vietnamese pho vendor (or an Italian mother-in-law, for that matter) fills me with sputtering indignation."

"I guess I understand if your desire for a clean conscience and cleaner colon overrules any natural lust for bacon. But taking your belief system on the road—or to other people's houses—makes me angry. I feel too lucky—now more than ever—too accutely aware what an incredible, unexpected privilege it is to travel this world and enjoy the kindness of strangers to ever, ever be able to understand how one could do anything other than say yes, yes, yes."

[slkinsey]

Probably related to this is the fact that the majority of Western vegetarians (most of whom are found in the UK and USA) are vegetarians primarily for health or ethical reasons, and this rather than the goal of deliciousness is the fundamental principle that drives their cooking.

Hmm, I would disagree with this. I think there's a misconception that if it doesn't have meat in it, or if it's healthy, then it must taste awful. This is such a close-minded view, it's actually a real shame.

Jenni, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that it must taste awful. We have evidence from traditional vegetarian cuisines that it can taste delicious. But the fact is that Western vegetarian cooking very frequently does taste awful. And I would suggest that a primary reason Western vegetarian cooking frequently is not delicious is because the deliciousness of the food is not the primary objective of the cooks. Look at Indian vegetarian food for example. Often among the things that helps Indian vegetarian to taste so delicious is the liberal use of fat. Well, for a health-minded vegetarian, this simply will not do.

There are more or less two different kinds of vegetarians in the world: (1) obligatory vegetarians, who observe a vegetarian or mostly vegetarian diet due either to religion or poverty/scarcity; and (2) voluntary vegetarians who observe a vegetarian diet for some other reason. There are some noteworthy things about this second group: First is that almost all of them live either in the UK or the USA. Second is that, when asked to give the reasons why they were vegetarians, the vast majority give "health" as the reason, followed by (believe it or not!) "not sure" and with "ethical reasons" at a distant third. "I love vegetables" or "I don't like meat" are not even on the radar.

These two fundamentally different reasons for having a vegetarian diet produce two fundamentally different approaches to cooking. For the obligatory vegetarian, the issue is simple: These are the foods I am able to eat, now go forth and make it delicious. There is really no complex calculus that has to be performed. If simmering those beans in 2 cups of ghee for 5 hours makes them delicious, then that is what is going to happen. Deliciousness is the objective. For the voluntary vegetarian, what comes first has to be the reasons. Most voluntary vegetarians are first concerned with satisfying whatever their goal of being vegetarian is, and deliciousness has to come second. This isn't going to change with respect to Western vegetarian cooking unless the reasons for being a vegetarian somehow change.

I guess the other part of Bourdain's rant is that if you're a voluntary vegetarian, than you can voluntarily decide to not be such a hard ass about it sometimes (especially if you're not among the tiny percent that does it for ethical reasons that are actually lived up to in all facets of life). If you're a voluntary vegetarian but you wear a leather belt or eat cheese, you can suck it up and have some pho in oxtail broth if it's offered to you. Just the same way I have sucked it up and choked down eggplant to be polite.

[Dakki]

Respecting other people's religious views is a big part of modern Western cultural heritage, no doubt because we spent a few hundred years killing each other en masse over such vitally important matters as the nature of the Trinity and the doctrine of transubstantiation, not to mention what language the Mass should be conducted in. Secular views do not get the same free pass.

(Yeah there are a few people who still take exception at the practice of religious freedom but those guys are outliers).

That said, I think Bourdain is being an ass on this particular topic. If someone refuses a slice of my cheesecake because ZOMG DAIRY my reaction is "heh, more for me" not "HOW DARE THIS HOLIER THAN THOU SON OF A BACHELOR". Catching an earful about the oppression of our dumb chumbs would be another matter entirely but it hasn't actually happened since my peer group went past the college years.

[Florida]

"I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler in comfortable shoes waving away hospitality—the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience—of, say, a Vietnamese pho vendor (or an Italian mother-in-law, for that matter) fills me with sputtering indignation."

"I guess I understand if your desire for a clean conscience and cleaner colon overrules any natural lust for bacon. But taking your belief system on the road—or to other people's houses—makes me angry. I feel too lucky—now more than ever—too accutely aware what an incredible, unexpected privilege it is to travel this world and enjoy the kindness of strangers to ever, ever be able to understand how one could do anything other than say yes, yes, yes."

1) Again, who is to say only vegetarian travelers should be held to this standard? Not to mention if someone was a vegetarian why would they purchase a bowl of pho (with meat) in the first place? Despite the hospitality of the Vietnamese people, from my perspective a "pho vendor" is still in the occupation of selling pho, not giving it away. How is the failure to purchase something a legitimate reason for having such a hatred towards vegetarians? It’s not. It’s just a shitty excuse.

2) I guess I have to respect an argument where Bourdain subtly calls vegetarian travelers fags. Because after all, the only thing worse than a vegetarian is a homo, right?

3) “But taking your belief system on the road—or to other people's houses—makes me angry.” To state the obvious, but isn’t this exactly what Bourdain does? Hell, he flies all over the globe to babble about his belief system, videotapes it, broadcasts it to half the world, blogs about, writes books about it, and, well, literally takes it on the road. Of course, I have to invite Bourdain into my home (turn on the TV, purchase a book, etc.), and, yes, that is true. But it is just as true that a vegetarian traveler would have to purchase a bowl of pho and I am extremely doubtful there are vegetarians in this world who have paid their way to go to visit Vietnam just to spend their time there lecturing the local pho vendors on the benefits of vegetarianism.

[Paul Kierstead]

1) Again, who is to say only vegetarian travelers should be held to this standard?

Who says they are the only ones? Whether or not he holds other groups to this standard is not stated, and wouldn't determine whether his view on vegetarians is valid or not in any case. This line of argument is just a form of logical fallacy.

2) I guess I have to respect an argument where Bourdain subtly calls vegetarian travelers fags.

What??? That must be subtle indeed! But even if that was there (and it would take some leap of faith to see it), it *still* wouldn't invalidate his argument. He could be a Nazi serial killer pedophile and it would have no bearing on his argument about vegetarianism. If you want to say bourdain sucks (or is that a homophobe term?), go ahead, but it doesn't make his arguments wrong.

Edited by Paul Kierstead, 02 August 2010 - 09:53 AM.

[slkinsey]

I wonder if people here are overlooking the fact that ranting about vegetarians has long been entrenched as part of Bourdain's schtick (along with a host of other things). Might it just be possible that he does it because he's expected to do it? Because this is one of the things about Bourdain that makes a certain segment of his admirers think "fuckin-A yea, man! what an outlaw this Bourdain guy is! just like me"?

I'm reminded about the way Gordon Ramsey became such a horrible parody of himself in his various television shows where it became clear that he knew he was expected to yell abuse at people and would contrive reasons to do so.

[paulraphael]

I wonder if people here are overlooking the fact that ranting about vegetarians has long been entrenched as part of Bourdain's schtick (along with a host of other things). Might it just be possible that he does it because he's expected to do it?

I doubt it. In the new book the vegetarian rant is part of a chapter in which he revisits old ideas. Mostly to modify or retract. But he says the vegetarian issue still raises his ire.

[paulraphael]

2) I guess I have to respect an argument where Bourdain subtly calls vegetarian travelers fags. Because after all, the only thing worse than a vegetarian is a homo, right?

Ok, maybe you could quote the passage in question. At first I was wondering if we'd read the same book; now I'm wondering if we live on the same planet.

[Florida]

2) I guess I have to respect an argument where Bourdain subtly calls vegetarian travelers fags. Because after all, the only thing worse than a vegetarian is a homo, right?

Ok, maybe you could quote the passage in question. At first I was wondering if we'd read the same book; now I'm wondering if we live on the same planet.

You've already quoted it:
"I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler in comfortable shoes waving away hospitality—the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience—of, say, a Vietnamese pho vendor (or an Italian mother-in-law, for that matter) fills me with sputtering indignation."

The term "in comfortable shoes" is slang for lesbian. http://www.urbandict...mfortable shoes

[Florida]

1) Again, who is to say only vegetarian travelers should be held to this standard?

Who says they are the only ones? Whether or not he holds other groups to this standard is not stated, and wouldn't determine whether his view on vegetarians is valid or not in any case. This line of argument is just a form of logical fallacy.

2) I guess I have to respect an argument where Bourdain subtly calls vegetarian travelers fags.

What??? That must be subtle indeed! But even if that was there (and it would take some leap of faith to see it), it *still* wouldn't invalidate his argument. He could be a Nazi serial killer pedophile and it would have no bearing on his argument about vegetarianism. If you want to say bourdain sucks (or is that a homophobe term?), go ahead, but it doesn't make his arguments wrong.

1)It’s not a logical fallacy. If everyone in a certain population acts in a certain way, why would it be expected that a subset of that population should act in a different way. Look at it this way: If everyone here in the USA stops for a red traffic light, why would there be an expectation that women who travel to Canada no longer stop at red traffic lights. If the majority of the population of the USA would refuse an offering of any food while visiting a third world country, why are only vegetarians being singled out for an activity that the majority of Westerners, whether vegetarian or not, would also engage in.

Suppose I was in France. I am walking down the street and someone walks up to me and offers me some chevre. I would refuse it, as I do believe most people would do. Now this chevre might have been “the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience,” but I still believe this act is the norm of our society.

My point is that Bourdain can’t single out vegetarians for acting in the same manner as everyone else. BTW, if your really want a logically fallay, try Bourdain's. His would be considered a converse accident. http://philosophy.la...c/converse.html

2) No, it just makes him ignorant. I’m unsure why the homosexual reference was necessary.

[Dakki]

The term "in comfortable shoes" is slang for lesbian. http://www.urbandict...mfortable shoes

I didn't know that!

Does Mr. Bourdain?

[paulraphael]

Oh, good god. It's also a symbol of economic privilege.
Which interpretation makes more sense in this context?

Edited by paulraphael, 02 August 2010 - 11:53 AM.

[jesteinf]

2) I guess I have to respect an argument where Bourdain subtly calls vegetarian travelers fags. Because after all, the only thing worse than a vegetarian is a homo, right?

Ok, maybe you could quote the passage in question. At first I was wondering if we'd read the same book; now I'm wondering if we live on the same planet.

You've already quoted it:
"I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler in comfortable shoes waving away hospitality—the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience—of, say, a Vietnamese pho vendor (or an Italian mother-in-law, for that matter) fills me with sputtering indignation."

The term "in comfortable shoes" is slang for lesbian. http://www.urbandict...mfortable shoes

Wow, I think you just won eGullet. That is some solid crazy right there.

[Dignan]

The phrase was created by Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam to refer to lesbians. I suspect Tony would be less oblique if he were calling out such an easy target as those who are better off financially that the reader is.

[prasantrin]

The phrase was created by Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam to refer to lesbians. I suspect Tony would be less oblique if he were calling out such an easy target as those who are better off financially that the reader is.

forgive me, I am not usually so obtuse, but I don't understand what you're saying. I understand that individual words, but I'm having trouble parsing the sentence. Are you agreeing with Florida, or disagreeing?

FWIW, I don't believe for a minute that Bourdain was referring to lesbians/gays when he spoke of those who wear "comfortable shoes", and I think it's a stretch to assert so. I think he was referring to the Birkenstock-wearing granola do-gooder crowd. Actually, ditch the Birkenstocks (as they are made of leather) and add Chaco sandals or similar. (Not a dis, by the way, as I own a pair of Chaco sandals.)

[Dakki]

"I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler in comfortable shoes waving away hospitality—the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience—of, say, a Vietnamese pho vendor (or an Italian mother-in-law, for that matter) fills me with sputtering indignation."

Hypothesis A:

"I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler who is lesbian waving away hospitality—the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience—of, say, a Vietnamese pho vendor (or an Italian mother-in-law, for that matter) fills me with sputtering indignation."

Hypothesis B:

"I don't care what you do in your home, but the idea of a vegetarian traveler who is overprivileged waving away hospitality—the distillation of a lifetime of training and experience—of, say, a Vietnamese pho vendor (or an Italian mother-in-law, for that matter) fills me with sputtering indignation."

Sorry guys I just don't see A. And I don't even like Bourdain.

Edited to bold.

Edited by Dakki, 02 August 2010 - 06:23 PM.

[Jenni]

Ignoring the crazy talk about Bourdain calling vegetarians lesbian/ gay (I'm pretty sure he was referring to the non-leather shoe brigade! It's fine - I'll acknowledge that there is not a great range of styles in non-leather shoes, at least not in my price range!)...

I think this is one of those arguments where it's hard to get to some kind of agreement. People get very highly strung and defensive, and both meat eaters and veggies/vegans engage in some pretty childish name-calling and preaching. I just want to reiterate that I have nothing against meat eaters and I'm not here to argue that everyone should be vegetarian. I just want to say that I think that meat eaters sometimes say pretty dumb and nasty things about vegetarians that are just as ridiculous as a militant vegan giving someone a sermon for eating bacon and eggs.

I still reject the claim that vegetarians in the west don't make or eat good food (although it must be said that I myself don't cook very much western food anyway), but I think this is a case of misperception, and also of course it will differ depending on who you know. I obviously know a lot of vegetarians with very good taste! Also, I think perhaps there may be some mixing up with vegetarians and vegans. In my experience, sometimes vegans get a bit carried away with the weird soy meat and dairy analogues, and sometimes (not always) they can be a bit heavy on the "health" factor. Also, there is a whole other deal with raw foodists and fruititarians, and sometimes all of these different dietary choices get lumped together under the category "vegetarian" (which is not always true anyway - I believe some raw foodists are into raw meat!) This is misleading, as there are plenty of people who eat really delicious food sans meat (and sometimes dairy and eggs) but without being into any kind of "health craze". You can deep-fry, douse with butter/cream/etc. (ok, not if your vegan), roast in plenty of fat, fill with sugar, shower with seasonings and so on and so forth, and still be vegetarian!

My issue with Bourdain isn't that he doesn't agree with vegetarianism - he's welcome to his opinion as far as I'm concerned. It's just that I raised my eyebrows when I saw the whole "it's ok if it's for religion" thing. I couldn't quite believe that someone in this modern age in which we live would actually make such a statement. As I said before, nowadays there are plenty of people who don't believe in god, or have beliefs that don't fit in any one religious or philosophical tradition, and these people are more than capable of holding powerful personal beliefs and well thought out moral codes. To say that their beliefs are not as important or valid as certain religious beliefs is to dismiss them as meaningless.

[Paul Kierstead]

As I said before, nowadays there are plenty of people who don't believe in god, or have beliefs that don't fit in any one religious or philosophical tradition, and these people are more than capable of holding powerful personal beliefs and well thought out moral codes. To say that their beliefs are not as important or valid as certain religious beliefs is to dismiss them as meaningless.

I think you are looking at it backwards. I have no idea what Bourdain thinks, but my impulse feelings on this follows his (about the religion aspect I mean). For me, someone who has a belief in the basis of religion I just kind of write off; It doesn't at all bother me that it is utterly irrational, it is religion after all; if it was rational, it would be science (obviously not strictly true, just going emotionally here). I consider someone who follows religion to have allowed someone else to make their choices for them. I "respect" that in that I accept that some people surrender the choices. If I have a problem with the principle, I'd take it up with the one who made the principle (god, head of church, whoever) not the follower. But when a person decides on their own to choose something, I hold them responsible. They frustrate me much more, because it seems the have the facility to choose, but just choose poorly (obviously strictly IMO). They get me wound up way more because I don't dismiss their belief as religious malarkey. This is particularly true if they are dogmatic about it; for example, vegetarian for health, but will eat meat under absolutely no circumstances (perhaps short of starvation). Now they've gone off and taken a sensible guideline (less meat, though to the point of none) and made it into dogma, which clearly a bit of meat a couple of times a year is largely harmless, health wise. So, if that person offered insult that way (eg auntie may's special tuna casserole ...), they really piss me off since, IMO, they should know better. The religious person just makes me feel, oh, they're religious, and I don't expect much.

Edited by Paul Kierstead, 03 August 2010 - 10:11 AM.

[paulraphael]

My issue with Bourdain isn't that he doesn't agree with vegetarianism - he's welcome to his opinion as far as I'm concerned. It's just that I raised my eyebrows when I saw the whole "it's ok if it's for religion" thing. I couldn't quite believe that someone in this modern age in which we live would actually make such a statement.

I agree with this completely. I find it troubling when religious beliefs are somehow privileged over other types of beliefs. My personal bias is in the opposite direction: a belief based on evidence and reason should trump one based on inherited ideas and denial of reason. I have much more respect, say, for someone who refuses to eat meat because they've struggled with ethical ideas than for someone who refuses on the basis of scripture.

However, I understand (unhappily) that beliefs of the inherited / unquestionable variety tend to more deeply seated and stubborn than ones based on reasoning. An ethical vegetarian can likely weigh competing ethical concerns better than a vegetarian whose afraid of hellfire.

Butting heads with someone's religious practice is generally a recipe for trouble. Making a hippy eat Pho? He'll get over it, however comfortable his shoes.

On your point about the quality of Western vegetarian food ... yeah, great examples exists. But in my experience they're not especially common. Meanwhile even run of the mill Indian vegetarian food tends to be delicious in comparison.

Edited by paulraphael, 03 August 2010 - 10:51 AM.

[Florida]

Butting heads with someone's religious practice is generally a recipe for trouble. Making a hippy eat Pho? He'll get over it, however comfortable his shoes.

Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do? He'll get over it. What the hell does that mean?