Category: compassion/non-violence

I’ve been a vegan for a little over 13 years now and I have assiduously avoided the Animal Rights (or “AR”) movement. However, when I found out about a free class on Animal Rights philosophy (through the Boston Vegan Association), I thought it was about time that I learned a little about the ideological cousin of Veganism.

I entitled this post “Animal Right” because in the end, I learned that Animal Rights is really about one “right” which is the right to not be property. This is a basic right that is of primary necessity in order for any being to have any other rights (for example, if you were property of another being, then you could not really have a right to property of your own, because your owner could always confiscate it; likewise, you could not have a right to physical safety because your owner would be able to hit or kill you if it suited him/her) – this is because in our legal system, property ownership is paramount.

During the course of my readings, I was surprised to learn that there are several different competing ideologies: Continue reading “Animal Right”

It’s been a while since I posted here due to a very busy few months and because I got locked out of my account (they had to reset everything). I plan to keep writing at least monthly in this blog. FYI, I wrote this post nearly 1 month back for the Boston Vegan Association forum.

Note: I don’t personally have a problem with elitism in the abstract and, in some ways, I am happily elitist, but I do, however, have a big problem with the negatively weighted claim that vegans are, by virtue of making a serious and difficult commitment to nonviolence, “elitist” & thus this post.

———————————————————

In my opinion, one of the most damaging arguments against veganism is the charge of elitism. This is a common, vehement and sticky accusation.

QUOTE:
e·lit·ism [i-lee-tiz-uhm, ey-lee-]
noun (c/o dictionary.com)
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

In at least one sense, this charge is clearly fallacious: people who believe that humans “rule” over most/all non-human animals and can use them as property and/or take pride in that state of affairs are elitist. Continue reading “Combatting Elitism (vis-à-vis veganism)”

FYI, I recently did extensive rewriting of last year’s animal testing post.

Also, there is some interesting discussion in the blogosphere about intersectionality (which is the crossover inter-relationship of seemingly disparate single-focus issues): feminism and animal rights (a first step), young folks and intersectionality and others (check the Vegans of Color, The Vegan Ideal and B*tch Blogs for more).

In other news, there is a growing division in the animal rights movement between Animal Welfare reform activists and Abolitionists; Pattrice Jones wrote an interesting article about this: Strategic Analysis of Animal Welfare Legislation (a guide for the perplexed) which addresses the California 2008 Proposition 2 measure controversy (which seems like a step in the right direction in terms of Animal Welfare, but is weak with loopholes, see the exceptions section of the document).

If you don’t already know about Abolitionist Animal Rights theory, it boils down to the idea that non-human animals are currently considered property (or resources) and that no meaninful protections can be enacted while they’re allowed to be property (which essentially makes them “things”) because property ownership interests will always triumph over the interests of the property itself.  The legal and cultural property status of non-human animals is akin to the institution of human slavery (when it was legal). Abolitionists seek to abolish the property status of any and all animals and enact a basic right to life (that is, the right not to be killed (or otherwise treated solely) as a resource).

OK, I’m lately hearing about the Beef Protests in Korea amid concerns about the safety of imported beef from the USA and I keep thinking good for them.

I never understood why the whole “mad cow scare” was so unmanageble. This so-called disease results directly from factory farming unnatural practices whereby they feed cows rendered animal parts (such as sheep and even sometimes other cows). Cows are herbivores – they graze on grass in the wild.

Some idiot came up with the idea of saving money by feeding them waste products (and extra protein/fat) and then it backfires and the industry just shrugs and says rhetorically, “what can we do?” –Um, you could let the cows eat grass and stop feeding them unnatural crap. Duh.

And people scared of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (the human form of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy aka “Mad Cow Disease”) could just, I dunno, stop eating beef, or at least stop eating factory-farmed beef.

The whole agribusiness factory farming thing is so messed up (with all the hormones, animal cruelty, pollution and hazardous working conditions) it infuriates me, especially when they get government subsidies (via the Farm Bill).

It’s almost enough to make you go vegetarian. 😉

In the USA, money runs the gears. From the industrial era to the information era, it’s all about having things (buying them) and there’s many, many years of psychological studies behind the advertising industries to make sure we keep doing what they want us to do – spending. We have extensive debt-management systems in place (in addition to regular loans from banks, we have credit cards everywhere and sometimes you can even get loans when you can’t possibly pay them back [sub-prime mortgage crisis]) to make sure the money keeps flowing, even when you don’t have any to spend.

Although corporations don’t actually run our government, they have very close ties to people in power (look at VP Dick Cheney’s ties to Halliburton, or the many department heads who oversee corporations that they used to serve on the board of), in addition to quite powerful lobbies that manage to help block many unfavorable laws and pass favorable ones.

You aren’t powerless, however, because as long as you’re making money (or acquiring it somehow), you get to choose how to spend it. And whether you think about it or not, those spending choices do make a difference. Want the cheapest, toxic chemical cleaner (bleach)? Ccongratulations, you are helping to pollute. Want the latest fragile plastic toys imported from China? You are contributing to poor labor conditions, at the cost of local American jobs and as a bonus the child you give it to might get lead poisoning. Want cheap hamburgers that come from giant factory farms? Mad cow disease is just the start of problems there (check out Fast Food Nation). You may not agree with my morals, but surely you have some morals of your own. Don’t you care about what the companies you buy things from are doing to the world? Don’t you care about the chemicals and other materials that go into your clothes, your nice things and most importantly the food you eat?

This is not to say that you should boycott everything and hoard your money, nor that you should sacrifice every creature comfort. On the contrary, I think it’s sometimes worth spending more to get something that you can appreciate for itself and stand fully behind the processing and company that made it. It’s worth investigating and making decisions that are good for your long-term view, rather than just getting whatever is most convenient at the moment. Good things are often worth a little more effort. Make your money count and purchase goods and services that you can feel good about. In other words, put your ethics into practice financially.

“You must spend the change you wish to see in the world.” — LuQ/Gandhi

Of course I support my vegetarian brethren in their dietary and compassionate endeavors, but I sometimes get sick of seeing pictures and viewpoints of a very limited veg demographic. VegNews is a magazine I really like, but the pictures remind me of an L.L. Bean catalog – mildly-liberal white middle-class people in lots of khaki or neat denim and the occasional t-shirt. Where are the people of color? Where are the articles with perspectives from non-white ethnicities or countries? I realize it’s a vegan-focused magazine and most Indians are addicted to dairy, but roughly 50% of the population of India is [lacto-ovo] vegetarian and to me that’s phenomenal. I can hardly believe that VegNews doesn’t have articles or features with/about Indians/India all the time (I’ve never seen one yet).

Perhaps more surprising (given the high visibility within vegan restaurants and “scenes” in USA) is the complete lack of subculture representation. Maybe I have a skewed perspective, living near Allston, MA, but tons of the vegans I’ve met or seen are punk rock or emo or indie (even a few goths) and I don’t recall ever seeing even a tattoo or piercing in VegNews (nor in most vegetarian catalogs). It almost feels like they’re saying, yes, we care about animals, but we’re totally normal in every other regard, so come on mainstream, accept us. Whereas, they should be saying, we have broad compassion and welcome vegetarians of all stripes, mainstream should follow our example.

A recent issue of VegNews (April 2008) made a valiant effort to showcase some diversity, featuring a person of color on the cover and an article called “Privilege or Necessity?” dealing with the class issue (and argument that being vegan is too expensive for some), which was incidentally very good. That article featured another picture of people of color, but aside from that, the magazine still feels very white and privileged overall (making this feel like a one-off, rather than a new direction), but at least there’s an inkling of diversity (even an article by someone queer). Still, I’d love to see a broader perspective in general and even some articles addressing how vegetarianism fits into other cultures or movements (feminism, environmentalism, etc.) or even how it could or should fit in. Continue reading “news to veg: compassion is not one-sided”