Intersectionality of Ancestral Diet/Hunter-Gatherer Lifeway?

Piggy backing off the previous post regarding the necessity of animal products - I am personally of the belief that high-quality–preferably wild–animal products are part of the optimal human diet for the vast majority of people, given that, as far as I understand, our species evolved as hunter-gatherers and relied on animal protein, fat, collagen, etc. as important sources of nutrient density.

I’m also someone of mostly European descent & pale skin…along with the vast majority of the thought-leaders kicking this worldview in the western world (Chris Kresser, Rob Wolff, Paul Saladino, Paul Chek and the list goes on and on and on).

Many of my friends of color (most of whom are in their 20s and 30s) who are generally into the principles of rewilding, unplugging from the matrix, living off-grid etc. reject the “paleo” worldview and are building community around the vegan lifestyle. There is a strong sentiment that for indigenous peoples, those of African descent and others to truly gain their sovereignty, it involves going vegan.

I’m finding it challenging to bridge this divide, as it feels extremely patronizing for me to harp on the trope that “this is what all our ancestors ate…er…based on the findings of western anthropology and evolutionary biology…just take my word for it…I read some Weston A. Price!”…so I’m generally not super vocal about my perspective on diet within that part of the tapestry of community. Partly, as I said, to avoid being patronizing, and partly because it sincerely doesn’t feel like there’s much space for bringing this perspective into a culture that’s placing veganism as one of its central tenets.

I’m wondering if anyone here has any insights on this, and how the rewilding movement can be more intersectional in this regard. I do feel that finding some common ground here to be of great significance as we look to create stronger coalitions toward greater societal rewilding going forward. Gratitude.

I recently published a rewilding AnPrim anti-hunting anthropology book on this subject. EcoPatriarchy: The Origins & Nature of Hunting. It challenges many pre-history and diet mythologies propagandize by mainstream culture

1 Like

Hey. There is really no point arguing. As far as I can tell, veganism is a religion, and the kind where its members thumb their noses at everybody else as morally wrong.

Cheers, from a happy omnivore


Intriguing. I’m definitely open to that perspective. What does your diet generally consist of as a vegan primitivist? Most notably, what does one eat in the winter time in the northern hemisphere? Sincerely curious. Gratitude for your contributions.

I can dig it. I’m not really focused on arguing. I’m really more focused on finding common ground that humans of all stripes can organize around so we can move forward more cohesively with the overall rewilding process. I don’t particularly have a strong attachment to any one way of eating, but I also don’t want myself or my community to be eating in a way that’s not in line with biology/healthy epigenetic expression if I can help it.

If there is a common ground, I haven’t seen it.
There has been no tribe found anywhere that was vegetarian.
Our brains need nutrients that are only found in meat.
And veganism can get in the way of regenerating soils. I have seen a real life example at Dancing Rabbit in Missouri. Most of the land is as degraded as it was when bought decades ago. The founders were vegans and would not allow herbivores on.

Cheers! – Return your pee to the soil now!


This is not really the case, as I recently found from this site I came across,

I would say rewilding and coming to a sustainable way of living apart from civilization, which is desirable in this world which civilization is destructive toward, is actually truly compatible with vegan living. I don’t mean the continued support of agriculture for vegetable produce, but using marketed animal products is much worse, with animal agriculture being very destructive to the natural world and the global climate, and its use of a lot more resources. I know there are many things that can be foraged for use as food, and there can be some things grown for food, and for materials, that are compatible where they grow.

It is better, for using less resources, not affecting the environments so much, contributing to climate change, having more food available and needed nutrition for efficiently, less left hungry, and better for health, not using animals for what we have from them. There isn’t justice in using them still. This isn’t a religious position, it just is the way it is, a good choice for how to live. The thinking that animal products are needed for brain development is not based on good science, most studying ancient anthropology do not think meat from animals was such a big constituent of people’s food then.

They are ag people. I meant original tribesmen. There are ag peoples who have minor access to animal protein. They would eat more if they could.

I am old enough to remember the rhapsodies about the Hunza. Then those stories faded.

Veganism does not use fewer resources, but ships grain and soya over long distances, and depends on chemical ag. As for brains, we developed the frontal part fairly recently, and hunting has been documented as far back as 3-400,000 ya. Via spears. There’s always rocks… :slight_smile:

Manure is good for the soil; it was the bison who built up the prairies…

As far as I am concerned, the good-for-the-environment diet is local. Shipping carrots from Illinois to Kentucky, shipping peanuts from NM to South Carolina… ain’t globalism grand?

1 Like

Agreed on pretty much every point there.

The main concept that could potentially change my outlook on this is if our views on human evolution get completely rocked by more findings re: high-powered civilizations existing tens of thousands of years prior to what the current paradigm holds (i.e. Graham Hancock et al. and the pyramids possibly being 35,000+ years old, etc.) Barring some major paradigm shifts there, it’s hard for me to see how animal products are not part of the natural human diet.

“This isn’t a religious position, it just is the way it is, a good choice for how to live.”

Phrased like that, it sounds quite religious to me, actually.

Yup. Been omnivores just like our cousins the chimps and the bonobos.

Tell about Graham Hancock?

@Frankprimalanswers and @VeganPrimitivist: This forum is not the place for you. The discussion of veganism as “natural” and meat-eating as patriarchal is absurd, and will not be allowed on the forum anymore. Go find another place to missionize your philosophy based on pseudo science. Self-select yourselves out of this forum.

@renaissance There is a huge movement in indigenous communities in the US around “Ancestral Foods.”

One example:

Thanks for that link. I’m definitely going to check out their podcast. (I just recently caught up on all of yours, actually…waiting for the next one!)

I’m aware of the fact that, generally, native communities here are not being sucked into this vegan-flat-earther paradigm, but from my experience, there is a huge movement of people of color, especially people of African descent, in the urban areas being sucked into this paradigm. There is a huge embrace of the works of Dr. Sebi, frutarianism, etc. in many young communities of color that are waking up from the control systems and looking to move towards sovereignty and wildness. I’ve found there to be a distinct clash of cultures when I attempt to introduce the ideas of eating along the lines of a “paleo” template (i.e. incorporating animal products).

That’s not to say that there isn’t a huge vegan movement among people of European descent, as well, but I’m just noting that it seems to be a central tenet to the conscious young urban black community, and as someone who is committed to being intersectional and non-patronizing, I’m finding this a challenging divide to harmonize/navigate.

Does this resonate with you at all?

1 Like

That is clearly shifting the goalposts, amounting to strawman argument, as the tribe I linked to information on, and rewilding away from civilization for sustainable living independently from it that I speak for does not depend on ships or anything not local. But I clearly will not discuss it more.

Anything based on patriarchy is doomed, along with agriculture and civilization. And there is no pseudoscience that was shown here. I have plenty of information available showing what is certain, but it is just dismissed when it is kept away to not look at.

I have changed so much in the direction of rewilding, and much of the development in that was inspired by what I learned here.

The censorship of a whole group of rewilders, over insistence of what is the appropriate approach to rewilding, that excludes theirs, is uncalled for. Certainly if there is something demonstrably healthy and can be shown to be a good approach to sustainability in living, in rewilding without dependence on civilization, it is not appropriate for communication of it to be excluded, and those for that to be silenced from mentioning it. Excluding speech of what others believe or practice is characteristic of overbearing authority in civilization, it is not at all for anarchist living, which works more for rewilding away from being with civilization depending on it.

If some are excluded as rewilders, others will be.

I still wanted, as a rewilder, to come to the Rewilding Conference. But with it excluding people, based on their approach, it is questionable. Should some rewilders really be turned away?

Peter tends to be a bit heavy handed. Don’t take it personally.
Yes, I did shift the goal posts, because veganism does not have an argument, IMO. Where do you get B12 in Ladakh, the corner Walgreens?

Silly stuff. Yeah, insane, I am with Peter on that one.
But I am not for censorship. Maybe you should create a new post, titled Veganism: all for it, gather here, and see if anyone shows up. Then the rest of us can ignore you.