Vegan Sun closed down last November.
This was partly because it wasn't an appropriate vehicle for abolition, as it grew out of a social group, continuing much of that momentum.
However this year a group 'purpose built' for abolition will replace it: Free At Last.
As such, this will be the last post on this blog. Most of the posts here, however, have been transferred to the Free At Last blog and will continue from there.
If you'd like to keep up, join us there, or catch us at our new Twitter address, @fal_freeatlast.
Summary
Veganism is the theory and practice of avoiding animal use. Things that fall outside it - such as vegetarianism, regulation of animal use and single issue campaigns - aren't compatible with it, since they don't oppose animal use in general. In other words, supporting them while claiming to be vegan misuses the term "vegan."
People that do this are personal vegans: they apply veganism to their individual lives, but beyond that have moved from the intent and definitions of The Vegan Society. In many cases this is due to the influence of Peter Singer's utilitarian philosophy and the large animal groups that have adopted his ideas.
Abolition is simply an extension of veganism. An abolitionist is a vegan, and being vegan is a requirement of being an abolitionist. Abolition extends veganism, though, by asking followers to avoid discrimination and violence, and suggesting that people who aren't yet vegan, but take other animals seriously, should become vegan immediately, or if they don't - which abolition doesn't endorse - at least do so as quickly as possible.
Veganism is both the theory and practice of avoiding the use of animals (for food, clothes or other purposes).
In 1951, Leslie Cross, the then Vice President of The Vegan Society, emphasized that veganism was both theory and practice: "Where every other movement deals with a segment — and therefore deals directly with practices rather than with principles — veganism is itself a principle, from which certain practices logically flow."
The theory? That animals are harmed by use and have a desire - like us - to live and be free.
Definitions
The term vegan didn't enter the public arena until November 1944, when The Vegan Society in England was formed, although people that ate vegan diets and were concerned about animal use existed before that, even in Australia.
Although the Society initially framed veganism in terms of diet, its purpose was clear from the start: to abolish... dependance on animals, with its inevitable cruelty and slaughter.
In November 1950, though, at a Special General Meeting, the Society brought together their purpose and practice to an extent in the following definition of veganism: the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.
While this makes clear people should live without exploiting animals, it doesn't overtly say that this is what vegans do. You could infer from this that a vegan is someone who believes that humans should live without exploiting animals, but don't necessarily do this.
The work of The Vegan Society, however, made it obvious that they considered a vegan someone who does actually live without exploiting animals as far as possible, although, again, the definition didn't address whether shortcomings were acceptable in day-to-day living.
Thirty-five years after forming, in November 1979, the Society removed this ambiguity - if only in definition - and integrated both theoretical and practical aspects in their Memorandum of Association:
"veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practicable— all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
Exploitation
Both this and the earlier 1950 definition refer to the idea of exploitation.
In The New Constitution, an article that appeared in the Spring 1951 edition of The Vegan Society's magazine, The Vegan, Vice President Leslie Cross clarified that what exploitation meant was the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and all other uses.
That is, exploitation didn't refer to a particularly extreme use of animals, but use of animals in general, in the same way that a miner might say, "We want to fully exploit those resources."
Despite this broad opposition to use, though, many people think that veganism is compatible with practices such as vegetarianism, efforts to improve regulation of animal use, and single issue campaigns that focus on one use of animals.
Most people can clearly recognise a difference between vegetarianism and veganism - that is, vegetarianism is not veganism. Yet they can't understand why this and aims to improve animal use contradict veganism, rather than go hand in hand with it.
This can be teased out more clearly by asking, Does an aim to regulate animal use - or vegetarianism - avoid animal use? Clearly vegetarianism and aims to regulate animal use are an engagement with that use, so can hardly be classed as avoiding it.
Leslie Cross affirms this in The New Constitution:
(T)he Society has clearly come out on the side of the liberators; it is not so much welfare that we seek, as freedom. Our aim is not to make the present relationship between man and animal (which if honestly viewed is mostly one of master and slave) more tolerable, but to abolish it and replace it by something more worthy of man's high estate.
Still, many people object. They may accept that vegetarianism or regulation of animal use doesn't avoid use, so isn't vegan, but also say that it still makes sense to hold two different positions, one against animal use, and one for improving it.
Two Track Activism
They maintain that not only can you hold a vegan position on one hand, then bracket that in other contexts without any conflict, but that advocacy along both lines - two track activism - moves society more quickly and effectively towards veganism.
But if you apply this view in relation to food, it falls into stark relief. That is, if people say that they avoid eating animal products as vegans, but bracket that when out with others and eat flesh, eggs or milk, the whole idea of them being vegan becomes absurd.
Then anyone who sometimes ate flesh, eggs or milk could call themselves vegan, as they have done in surveys.
When you consider the issue in this segregated way, it clashes with the whole concept of veganism, which objects to animal use as a general principle, in the same way that we object to torturing humans on general principle, rather than accepting their torture in some cases.
Those people who practice veganism in their personal lives, but continue to advocate for vegetarianism, better welfare and single issue campaigns, haven't fully embraced the idea of veganism.
Personal Vegans
These people could be called personal vegans, a term Dan Cudahy uses in his article, Single Issue Campaigns, Speciesism, and Compartmentalization. However Dan uses it differently, suggesting that veganism can be a purely personal affair.
As the definitions in this article describe, though, veganism can't be purely personal, since it objects to animal use on a general level, not simply on a personal level.
Use of the term personal vegan here means vegan purely as an individual, not fully vegan. That is, advocating for nonvegan goals in the public sphere such as regulation of animal use or vegetarianism.
Dan's article suggests that abolition, as Gary Francione applied the term, is the public and political face of veganism - however veganism is a public statement and already encompasses aspects of abolition.
It's just that this public face has been misunderstood, 'mashed' and incorporated by a movement geared towards utililty, rather than the the rights veganism is founded on.
Veganism & Abolition
Veganism predates abolition, and the work that Gary Francione has done on abolition is a logical extension of it - clarifying, making things explicit, extending, and promoting it, while the mainstream animal movement has distorted it to suit their own guiding principles of utility - a concept distinct from veganism.
There are, however, a couple of differences between the idea of abolition, as developed by Gary Francione, and veganism: his Six Principles of the Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights are explicit in asking people to avoid: 1) discrimination 2) violence.
Also, given the availability of a range of food, abolition maintains that once people accept the use of animals as wrong, they should immediately become vegan, and that it's neither necessary or desirable to spend time in a transition period, let alone a lengthy one.
The majority of Maya Angelou's poem, Caged Bird, follows, contrasting the experiences of a free and caged bird, and the caged bird's longing for freedom.
If you aren't vegan, becoming one allows you to object to the imprisonment and use of all animals.
A free bird leaps
on the back of the wind
and floats downstream
till the current ends
and dips his wing
in the orange sun rays
and dares to claim the sky.
But a bird that stalks
down his narrow cage
can seldom see through
his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and
his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom.
The free bird thinks of another breeze
and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees...
Maya Angelou with poet and writer Langston Hughes in the late 1950s
Marguerite Annie Johnson, better known as Maya Angelou, died in May this year at 86 years of age. She was an American writer, poet, actress, dancer, singer, director and producer.
As a young adult, she tried a number of jobs including fry cook, prostitute, nightclub performer, cast member in Porgy and Bess, Christian conference coordinator, and journalist in Egypt and Ghana at the time of decolonization.
Despite taking part in the civil rights movement, her involvement didn't later extend to veganism. This is an example of the 'moral schizophrenia' encouraged by society, that Gary Francione has written about.
From 1982 she was a Professor in American Studies at Wake Forest University in North Carolina.
Once again, I start my day, sit at my desk, and, before I even get to take the first sip of my tulsi tea, I read, in response to my claim that we need to encourage people to understand that veganism is the only rational response to the moral status of animals: I would love …
A long but fascinating article that traces the author's path from an interest in other animals, to the proto-veganism that's common today, through to her relief at finally recognising the public face of veganism.
Most people would likely say that the thrust of the animal movement today - that is, setting aside actions of some groups like the Animal Liberation Front, Justice Department and Animal Rights Militia - is nonviolent.
But is it? When groups cooperate with animal industries to change the way animals are used, they nevertheless cooperate with industries they know will inflict a huge scale of violence on animals.
Certainly a level of violence far greater than any of the groups they might consider violent.
While they may not agree with the violence of the industries, rather than directly objecting to them, they work with them to refine that violence, ideally to reduce the level involved (though whether the end result succeeds or not is another matter).
The pro-animal groups may even explicitly endorse the violence with 'humane' use labels, but any effort to refine the violence necessarily involves some level of support, rather than clear rejection.
So is the animal movement today generally as nonviolent as it's commonly thought of, or is it disguised in a cloak of nonviolence?
Let's finally get globalization to work for people and begin - perhaps with anti-sweatshop campaigns - to organize for a global minimum wage.
On a related note, the following petition asks the Australian government to enforce legislation making financial transactions involving slavery illegal.
Of course it completely misses the largest, most widespread, yet ignored form of slavery that exists: animal use.
Even so, aiming to stop companies profiting from human slavery would make it simple for consumers to stop supporting it financially, and send a message to companies that they're unlikely to find a market for slave goods in Australia:
This will be the first of a series of articles taken from the early issues of The Vegan News and The Vegan, both magazines of The Vegan Society, the first vegan society in the world, who fostered the term vegan.
The society initially called their magazine The Vegan News, which became The Vegan on the fifth issue.
The articles will show some of the original thinking behind the society, the problems they faced, and their determination to proceed with a concept not only foreign to the culture of their day, but born during a time of war.
This article is made up of excerpts from the first issue of The Vegan News, released in November 1944. The title of this post is not one that appears in the magazine.
Highlights have been added - they don't appear in the original. The terms relating to "man" are understood as conventions of the time to refer to "humanity."
The recent articles and letters in "The Vegetarian Messenger" on the question of the use of dairy produce have revealed very strong evidence to show that the production of these foods involves much cruel exploitation and slaughter of highly sentient life. The excuse that it is not necessary to kill in order to obtain dairy produce is untenable for those with a knowledge of livestock farming methods and of the competition which even humanitarian farmers must face if they are to remain in business.
For years many of us accepted, as lacto-vegetarians, that the flesh-food industry and the dairy produce industry were related, and that in some ways they subsidised one another. We accepted, therefore, that the case on ethical grounds for the disuse of these foods was exceptionally strong, and we hoped that sooner or later a crisis in our conscience would set us free.
That freedom has now come to us. Having followed a diet free from all animal food for periods varying from a few weeks in some cases, to many years in others, we believe our ideas and experiences are sufficiently mature to be recorded. The unquestionable cruelty associated with the production of dairy produce has made it clear that lacto-vegetarianism is but a half-way house between flesh-eating and a truly humane, civilised diet, and we think, therefore, that during our life on earth we should try to evolve sufficiently to make the 'full journey'.
We can see quite plainly that our present civilisation is built on the exploitation of animals, just as past civilisations were built on the exploitation of slaves, and we believe the spiritual destiny of man is such that in time he will view with abhorrence the idea that men once fed on the products of animals' bodies. Even though the scientific evidence may be lacking, we shrewdly suspect that the great impediment to man's moral development may be that he is a parasite of lower forms of animal life. Investigation into the non-material (vibrational) properties of foods has yet barely begun, and it is not likely that the usual materialistic methods of research will be able to help much with it. But is it not possible that as a result of eliminating all animal vibrations from our diet we may discover the way not only to really healthy cell construction but also to a degree of intuition and psychic awareness unknown at present?
A common criticism is that the time is not yet ripe for our reform. Can time ever be ripe for any reform unless it is ripened by human determination? Did Wilberforce wait for the 'ripening' of time before he commenced his fight against slavery? Did Edwin Chadwick, Lord Shaftesbury, and Charles Kingsley wait for such a non-existent moment before trying to convince the great dead weight of public opinion that clean water and bathrooms would be an improvement? If they had declared their intention to poison everybody the opposition they met could hardly have been greater. There is an obvious danger in leaving the fulfilment of our ideals to posterity, for posterity may not have our ideals. Evolution can be retrogressive as well as progressive, indeed there seems always to be a strong gravitation the wrong way unless existing standards are guarded and new visions honoured. For this reason we have formed our Group, the first of its kind, we believe, in this or any other country...
OUR RELATIONS WITH THE LACTO-VEGETARIANS
The object of our Group is to state a case for a reform that we think is moral, safe and logical. In doing so we shall, of course, say strongly why we condemn the use of dairy produce and eggs. In return we shall expect to be criticised. It will be no concern of ours if we fail to convert others, but we do think it should concern them if, deep in their hearts, they know we are right... To resign oneself to lacto-vegetarianism as a satisfactory solution to the diet problem is to accept a sequence of horrible farmyard and slaughter-house incidents as part of an inevitable Divine Plan. Need it be added that it would imply too accepting the spectacle of a grown man attached to the udder of a cow as a dignified and rational intention on the part of Nature!
Without making any claims to self-righteousness, we feel in a strong position to criticise lacto-vegetarianism, because the worst we can say will be but a repetition of criticism we have already levelled against ourselves. Therefore we shall express the Truth as we see it and feel it, and though our friends the lacto-vegetarians may reject our ideas if they wish, we hope they will not reject us for stating them.
CONCERNING OURSELVES
So far as we are aware, every Member of our Group has discarded the use of dairy produce for humanitarian reasons. We are not by any means ignorant of orthodox dietetic theories, and in exercising our moral conviction we find we must refute some of these theories. We do so without fear because we feel that a moral philosophy combined with a dash of common sense is a more rational guide than theories hatched in vivisection laboratories. We will not accept that adequate nutrition need violate conscience... Humbly, your Secretary [Donald Watson] is able to state that he can now cycle 230 miles in a day, whereas years ago when he stoked himself with milk and eggs he was ready for Bed and Breakfast after doing half that distance. He can also dig his allotments for ten hours a day without feeling any different next morning, but we must be careful in making claims lest the world hears of us and expects to meet eight foot rosy cheeked muscular monsters who are immune to all ills of the flesh. We may be sure that should anything so much as a pimple ever appear to marr the beauty of our physical form, it will be entirely due in the eyes of the world to our own silly fault for not eating 'proper food'. Against such a pimple the great plagues of diseases now ravaging nearly all members of civilised society (who live on 'proper food') will pass unnoticed...
You likely know about human brothels, but might be surprised to find out about brothels using other animals, and that sex between these animals and humans is legal in a number of countries.
Sexual attraction of humans to other animals is called zoophilia.
If you type "zoosex" into an internet search engine, you'll find many sites devoted to the topic. A limited sample of videos on those sites featured seemingly willing animals (within the given context).
Putting aside the issue of porn itself, given that women may be overtly abused in it, however, it follows that the same thing happens with nonhuman animals.
According to a Wikipedia article on the topic, 'zoosex' is currently legal in Brazil, Cambodia, Finland, the Phillippines, Romania, Russia, Thailand and various states in North America.
It's also legal in Denmark, Belgium and Sweden, although Sweden's looking at changing the law.
Some bans have only come into force in the last few years: Norway in 2008, for instance, and Germany in 2012.
Maybe you believe Germans were too focused on work to have much time for zoosex, but the ban was brought on "after a sharp rise in incidents of bestiality along with websites promoting it."
Interestingly, the law there disallowed "actions alien to the species," which some people have realised works against the existence of things like zoos, circuses, and genetic modification of animals.
However, given that's the case, couldn't it also be set against the use of animals for food, entertainment and so on?
Regardless of this wording in Germany, isn't the sexual manipulation of animals for breeding, such as with dairy cows, a direct contravention of laws against zoosex in countries like Australia?
Just as the use of animals for food is exempt from anti-cruelty laws, though, Wikipedia tells us that "Sexual handling of an animal for the purposes of veterinary practice, or animal husbandry (breeding), is normally exempted where such laws [against zoophilia] exist."
So while Australia apparently finds zoosex repulsive, we don't have an issue inserting semen 'guns' into cows and arms up their backsides to help position the semen, and generally forcing other animals to overbreed.
Something that if humans forced other humans to do would be a heinous crime - not even taking into account the liberty we take from other animals, commonly depriving them in horror-like prison scenarios, and routinely removing parts of their bodies without anaesthesia.
Then, as the coup de grace, after varying degrees of suffering and stripping them of their dignity, we take their lives.
We can do all this to natives of the planet and still maybe get away with calling it 'humane.'
Veganism provides the world a powerful technology of freedom, that gives us a way to reject this sexual abuse, this abuse of living beings, the abuse of their bodies, of minds, of life itself.
This is a guest post by David Nibert, Professor of Sociology at Wittenberg University, USA, and author of Animal Oppression and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism and Global Conflict
The 2013 BBC documentary Can Eating Insects Save the World? suggests that the answer to the problem of future global hunger and malnutrition is increasing the consumption of insects as food.
This proposed strategy is ethically and socially unsound.
There is no question that the future will be fraught with food shortages.
Today, while a billion people around the world suffer from chronic hunger, 70 percent of all of the world’s agricultural land is used to generate animal products for people in wealthy countries (who often die prematurely from heart disease, stroke and various forms of cancer caused by consuming sizeable amounts of animal products). Dwindling vital resources such as fresh water, precious topsoil and fossil fuel, all essential for supporting a growing world population projected to reach ten billion by 2060, are being massively squandered in the creation of animal products.
These dire circumstances are exacerbated by climate change. Global warming already is producing violent storms, floods, severe droughts, wildfires and record temperatures, all of which reduce harvests and make future food shortages all but certain. What is more, raising animals for food generates as much as 51 percent of human-generated greenhouse gases. Despite such revelations, agribusiness and the retail food industry are striving to double the consumption of animal products globally by mid-century. Billions more animals are being raised on factory farms, polluting streams and rivers beyond recovery while also increasing the probability of the outbreak of a deadly influenza pandemic.
The logical response is a movement calling for the transition to a global plant-based diet. Unfortunately, the film Can Eating Insects Save the World? promotes the continuation, if not the expansion, of the practice of treating living organisms as food – just different living organisms. Instead of cultivating a global respect for all beings, the most probable outcome of such a strategy is that the more affluent will continue to usurp the earth’s resources for the continuation of their socially-engineered diet of products derived from cows, pigs, sheep, goats and other oppressed animals, while growing numbers of people, living in or near poverty, will be encouraged to eat insects. And even if the affluent did in fact begin to accept the idea of treating insects as food, the question of whether these inhabitants of the earth are sentient and can suffer is widely debated. Moreover, consumption of insects may well contribute to human disease as many will contribute to human health problems, such as high cholesterol.
A global transition to a plant-based diet would create the possibility of producing nutritious food for all as the human population grows. And, to get people around the world to stop eating animals, all living beings must be respected. Similar to the “solution” of ending the oppression of other animals by purchasing local products derived from animals, increasing human consumption of insects will further impede the development of a more just and peaceful world.
In this revealing, though curious, article, pig farmer, Bob Comis, declares, "Truly, I cannot think of one sound ethical argument in favor of slaughtering animals for their meat."
He expands: "The simplest way to put it is that slaughtering animals for their meat is a socially-permissible ethical transgression. Societal permission does not make it ethical, it just makes it acceptable."
Yet the curious part is that Bob continues to eat animal products. He explains his deeply conflicted actions by saying, "What I do is wrong, in spite of its acceptance by nearly 95 percent of the American population. I know it in my bones -- even if I cannot yet act on it."
Of course Bob can act on it, just like anyone else, by becoming vegan.
He even seems to recognize that milk and eggs are just as bad, if not worse, than killing animals directly for their flesh, since in an interview he did around a month earlier for Modern Farmer, he talked about a possible future vegan world.
He likely knows that calves are removed from their mothers so we can get milk; that male chicks are killed by gassing, suffocation or grinding alive because they're of no use to the egg industry; that hens and cows commonly have various 'procedures', such a debeaking, performed on them, often without anaesthesia; that the calves taken from their mothers are destined either to become milk cows themselves or to be killed for flesh at some point on the line; that both cows and hens are killed for flesh in the end anyway, once their production of milk and eggs falls.
In Modern Farmer, Bob says, "In a way, livestock farmers lie to their animals. We’re kind to them and take good care of them for months, even years. They grow comfortable with our presence, and even begin to like us. But in the end, we take advantage of the animals, using their trust to dupe them into being led to their own deaths."
He asks readers, "How can you justify taking a life for gustatory pleasure?" But the implicit answer - "I can't" - comes across as a shallow form of pleading, since Bob has no immediate plan to change himself, and by extension, passes on his indulgence to readers.
In Modern Farmer, he justifies his actions in the following way: "By raising animals the way I do, I offer a way out of the industrial farming system, which is worse by orders of magnitude than the way I farm, and should be abandoned immediately. That’s how I rationalize my farming. I know that on the macro level, my small farm does not change much. But on the micro level, I do make a difference in the lives – and deaths – of individual pigs."
While Bob recognizes the problems of the "industrial farming system" and says it "should be abandoned immediately," he doesn't carry this same sense of urgency over to his own farming, even though he admits that, "what I am doing, what we are doing, is wrong, even terribly so."
Yet the same justification for his own farming could be translated to one for becoming vegan: "By no longer continuing to raise animals, I offer a way out of not only the industrial farming system, but all farming of animals, which should be abandoned immediately (even though i'm aware that it won't). I no longer need to rationalize my farming - I know that on the macro level, my switch does not change much. But on the micro level, I do make a difference: my experience as a one time animal farmer is a strong message to others that you really don't need to harm, kill or otherwise use animals to live. In the words of Anne Frank:
How lovely to think that no one need wait a moment, we can start now, start slowly changing the world! How lovely that everyone, great and small, can make their contribution toward introducing justice straightaway."
This article is adapted from notes created by the Boston Vegan Association in February 2011. You can see them by clicking on this link.
This may be due to a misunderstanding of why we ought to be vegan in the first place.
Many of these vegans, when asked why they think it's OK not to care about TAI, claim that not consuming TAI has a negligible effect on the economics of the animal industry.
Interestingly, they happen to be right - at least at this stage.
Therefore, the argument goes, there is no *reason* to be strict in this way.
Someone might say: “Why make veganism less accessible and put yourself out when you aren’t actually making a difference to the lives of animals?”
This line of thinking actually gives these vegans reason to consume, or at least promote the consumption of, these trace ingredients in order to make veganism more accessible.
Here is a brief, formal rundown of the argument some vegans make against avoiding TAI:
1) The use of animals is wrong, therefore we should reduce animal suffering and reduce our support of the animal industry as much as is possible.
2) Consuming or not consuming trace animal ingredients has no measurable effect on the welfare of animals or the animal industry.
3) Consuming or not consuming trace animal ingredients does not reduce animal suffering or hurt the animal industry.
4) Therefore, it is permissible to consume some trace animal ingredients.
5) Boycotting trace animal ingredients makes veganism less accessible.
6) Veganism should be as accessible as possible while being guided by 1.
7) Therefore, we should consume some trace animal ingredients or promote the consumption of them.
On this view, not eating TAI goes beyond the moral requirements of veganism and is, from this perspective, extreme.
Since avoiding TAIs goes beyond the moral requirements of veganism, then one might be lead to conclude that vegans who *do* avoid TAIs are doing so for other reasons, be they personal purity, self-righteousness etc.
The problem with this argument is that 1) shouldn't be the guiding principle behind veganism.
1) should look more like: "The use of animals is wrong, therefore we should not participate in the practice when we don't have to."
What does non-participation look like? It means not being a part of the practice so far as you can. It means not supporting, promoting or partaking in the process. This rules out cheating, wearing animal products (even if you got them for free), being a freegan and consuming trace ingredients.
I don’t actually think the principle, as stated, is a controversial one. In our day-to-day lives, we regularly think of moral issues in this way.
Usually, when we believe a practice is wrong, we boycott that practice completely, not partake in it here and there at our leisure whenever doing so is in our interest or when it has beneficial consequences for some.
For some reason, the more “utilitarian” principle that some vegans use to argue against avoiding TAI is rarely used in the human case.
Obviously, there needs to be an argument for why using animals is wrong, but, presumably, since most of us are vegan, we already believe this.
If we think of other actions that are wrong, this principle seems to fit nicely as a baseline condition for taking those wrongs seriously. For example, if I think randomly breaking people’s arms is wrong, then I don’t participate in the practice. I don’t break people’s arms myself, and if I found out that, let’s say, that my shirt was made in a factory where they routinely break worker’s arms, I wouldn’t purchase the same shirt again.
This a general feature of what it means to take wrongdoing seriously. At the very least, even if we don’t do anything else, we shouldn’t engage in the wrong practice, so long as we can reasonably avoid it.
If we think of veganism as based on a principle of non-participation, rather than one of minimizing harm, then the position of some vegans who deny that they have to avoid TAI breaks down.
So, if we believe that the principle of non-participation is the one that grounds veganism, it doesn’t look extreme to avoid using animal products whenever we can.
In fact, avoiding all animal products is actually a *more* accessible way for people to approach veganism, but it gives them very clear and consistent guidelines: don’t use animals when you don’t have to.
The alternative way to look at veganism is confusing, because it actually does, at times, advocate the consumption of animal products.
This view of veganism helps us avoid a lot of pitfalls that the utilitarian principle handles poorly.
It also helps us answer why vegans don’t cheat.
If the principle governing our actions is one of non-participation, then we don’t cheat because cheating constitutes participation. The principle of harm minimization or economic boycotting isn’t always able to give this answer.
The principle of non-participation:
• answers questions regarding freeganism.
• answers questions about wearing used leather and wool.
• answers questions about avoiding non-vegan restaurants.
Final Thoughts
The abolitionist principle sheds some light on what kind of movement we’re trying to create. Veganism is a boycott. But, it’s not an economic boycott and it’s not, as a boycott, meant to lead to the abolition of animal use.
Veganism, is a boycott, yes, and one that may have an economic impact, but one that is chiefly meant to create a certain kind of moral consciousness about our obligations to animals.
Veganism takes the idea that animals matter seriously. It’s not, itself, meant to destroy the animal industry. There is much more work besides being vegan that needs to be done for that to happen
This is why the BVA focuses so heavily on vegan education, because we have as our goal helping to be at least a small part of bringing about this moral consciousness.
Life is full of shades of grey. Nonetheless, some things are black and white. A while ago a friend of mine directed me to a speech by Tim Minchin. Specifically this section: Most of society's arguments...
Hosting was Ellen Degeneres, someone famously associated with the word vegan.
It's great that people in the public eye raise the topic of veganism, since obviously they have the potential to reach a lot of people. But when the message gets distorted, they pass on the wrong message, one that may even trivialize what it means to be vegan.
Ellen is what could be described as a 'celebrity vegan': a popular figure who bends what veganism is about, likely influenced by the behaviour promoted as acceptable by large animal groups.
As such, the choices celebrities make may be heavily weighted by those who have their ears. Also, of course, not all celebrities behave the same.
Further, distorting veganism isn't something only celebrities do, but they're widely visible, and seemingly eager to present their personal take on veganism without reference to what it really means (again, possibly due to thinking promoted by large animal groups).
The philosophy behind it isn't about personal preference to be adjusted at whim, but a form of sober social protest that says, "it's wrong to subjugate other animals to our ends, just as it's wrong to subjugate other humans for the same reasons."
In any case, Ellen has previously demonstrated her hazy relationship with veganism, when, according this article, she signed with Cover Girl, known to test on animals, and then began to eat eggs.
Aside from the issue of Cover Girl conducting animal tests, the products themselves may contain animal ingredients.
Ellen further demonstrated her fickle relationship with veganism as host for the Academy Awards, when she ordered a variety of pizzas, some with cheese, and likely also with parts of animals, since Brad Pitt asked for some pizza with pepperoni.
This is something that, as mentioned earlier, trivializes veganism, as something that you can be flexible about, and don't need to take that seriously.
Being in Hollywood, with her star power, Ellen could probably just as easily have ordered vegan pizzas, complete with vegan cheese. Or if for some reason that wasn't possible, she could have ordered some other vegan food.
In August 2011, Ellen introduced a section on her site called Going Vegan With Ellen. Maybe after the criticism of her association with Cover Girl, and then of eating eggs, she felt veganism was no longer an appropriate label, so changed the name of this section to ellen's healthy living.
While of course health is an important element for anyone, this is indicative of not only her watering down of veganism, but that of major groups in the animal movement.
This is underlined when you look at the "famous vegans" she lists on her site, some of whom, like Bill Clinton and Alanis Morrisette, aren't actually vegan.
To be clear, this is not a criticism of Ellen as a human being. It's a criticism of how she's misrepresented veganism, something that has been an at times vociferous symptom of the animal movement in the last 35+ years.
If she feels uncomfortable with aspects of veganism, it's better that she does what she has done to an extent: distances herself from it - as some others want to do - and talk about things like healthy living and vegan food, rather than represent veganism or incorrectly identify others as vegan.
Veganism is a a serious movement, concerned with freeing billions of animals from human bondage. How seriously do we take it when we dilute it to the 'lifestyle' or 'option' it's commonly presented as?
Note: We don't endorse most of the links. Please see our Disclaimer.
You may have heard of sloppy joes, in their traditional form, a tomato flavoured 'mince' served on a round bun.
People have shown that, as with most other things, there's no problem making vegan versions of sloppy joes (which is not to say we endorse links on that site to groups that aren't really vegan eg 'Vegan' Outreach).
But here's another take: sloppy jelly (or jelly clumps if you prefer). This is great to have on a hot day, can replace a drink, and being based on fruit juice, gets away from the white sugar laden, possibly artificially coloured empty calories of that vegan wobbler you might be able to get a pack for at the supermarket.
It's also very easy to make. You can prepare a batch in the evening, and stick it in the fridge at night so that it's ready the next day. Unless of course it's freezing where you live, in which case you can cover it after cooling and leave it out to slop up.
How so?
This jelly features agar agar, which you can buy from health food stores, but also find, possibly cheaper, at asian shops.
Agar will set at room temperature - isn't that wonderful? Although as this recipe uses less than the 'standard' amount of agar, it forms a sloppy, soft bunch of clumps and liquid - hence the name.
Asian jellies tend to be quite firm, and just like Western jellies have a refined sugar hit, although may be more subtle about it.
But not so with sloppy jelly, the hero of the new jelly movement!
Ok, without further hyperbole, this is how you make it:
Sloppy Jelly - one litre's worth
500 mls fruit juice that's not made from concentrate
500 mls water
1 teaspoon agar agar
Put the water and agar in a pot, and stir through the agar so that it's well mixed before turning on the heat. (If you turn on the heat straight away, you run a slight risk of getting some small lumps.) Then bring the water to boil, stirring every so often, especially when it's close to boiling.
Once you have a bubbling cauldron, take it off the heat, and do a good job stirring the fruit juice through. After that, pour it into molds and leave it until it cools down.
When it's cooled, place it in the fridge. Alternatively, leave it out to set, especially if you live in arctic conditions.
If you're taking the fridge route, leave it there for a few hours then slurp away!
Tips
Berri's Australian Grown juices are a good choice for juices that aren't made from concentrate, as they're relatively fresh, sometimes on special, and come in good combinations of flavours eg pear, apple and passionfruit. If you want to make your own juice, though, power to you.
The amount of agar you use makes a big difference to the texture of the jelly. If you have a measuring teaspoon, that's probably right on the money. But with a regular teaspoon, it may be safer to go more for a heaped teaspoon rather than level, as if you use more agar, your jelly will be a bit firmer, but if you use less, you'll get a slightly thicker liquid - hardly worth getting out of bed for.
This jelly isn't that sweet, but of course if you really want a sweet fix, replace some or all of the water with juice. The recipe works fine if you boil the juice.
Molds could be glass jars you've saved. As this jelly doesn't set firm, there's no problem getting it out. Even a fimer jelly would be ok, as long as it isn't 'vulcanized', as discussed below.
Should you want to commit sacrilege by making a firmer jelly, just add another teaspoon of agar. If you want to make still firmer jelly - defeating the entire purpose of sloppy jelly - just double the amount of agar again to 4 teaspoons. Welcome to 'vulcanized' jelly ; )
