welcome to the abolition of speciesism group!

check what I believe is the 'hot issue of the week' after IVU's posting 'Vegetarian equals vegan' at http://VeganAdverb.blogspot.com

One of the most valuable decision I took in my whole life! Thanks to this guy that introduce me to the environnmental harm of a meat-based diet and furthermore to the question of speciesim that helped me to shift of paradigm and accept the non-human kingdom in the moral community. Everyone deserve equal consideration according to their abilities to suffer, experience pleasure and having an interrest in living!

hi pablo...god bless you

The difference between vegetarianism and veganism in english is less problematic because veganism refer to the activist aspect of your choices of consumption, but in french végétalisme refers only to the diet itself and evacuate the philosophy. So in french I say I'm vegan just like in english to make clear I'm an animal right activist.

I think it's pretty obvious the difference between both, I don't understand why there is such an issue out of something that is very clear to me. Vegetarianism doesn't mean that we take out of our life other animal products than those in our diet.

Thank you, Pablo.  The corruption of the word "vegan" is one of my biggest concerns right now.  We are only communicating when we agree on the definition of the words being used. 

There are people who make a career of manipulating language.  Words like "natural" are used to make people think the product they are buying is organic, but it means nothing.  "new and improved" makes no sense, but it gets consumers to buy the product. "natural flavors" and "artifical flavors" is where they hide the ingredients they don't want you to know about.  Watch the Daily Show with John Stewart when he runs a series of video clips of politicians and pundits using the day's buzz word.  Watch Sarah Palin say nothing of substance, and even lie, but get applause, by golly.

Definitions are very important. 

I think that the reason "vegan" is loosing its definition is a combination of sloppy communication, misguided inclusion, and desire to belong.  Even well-meaning vegans will sometimes communicate poorly; nothing you can do about that.  Worse, is the ones who should know better, but want people to be drawn to "veganism" by unnecesarily trying to make it look easy and make the public feel like they are doing a good thing.  Now that it has been made popular by celebrities and fun advertising there are people who want to call themselves vegan, but do not care as much about being vegan, so they re-define the word so the word fits them instead of actually becoming vegan.  Within that group are the ones who want to bastardize the word by coming up with words that use "vegan" without being vegan like "dietary vegan" (that is just a pure vegetarian), "ethical vegan" [uh, what other kind is there?  That term validates other interpretations.  A vegan does everything possible to eliminate all forms of animal exploitation from their lives.  How is that not ethical?], "vegan for health" (impossible), "environmental vegan" (again, impossible).  

There is only one definition of veganism.  You are either vegan or you are not.  Before I was vegan the last things I had to eliminate were some egg ingredients, a few dairy items, and some household products.  Despite being very close to being vegan I did not feel that I needed to come up with a new word for myself.  I told people I was very vegetarian, and I called myself and "ethical vegetarian" even though I now know there is no such thing.

When we corrupt the word "vegan" we move far, far away from veganism.  It is no longer about other animals at all.

Welcome aboard, and thank you so much for your message, Lisa!

 

I agree to the reasons you gave for "veganism" losing its definition, but I'd add a few (I don't know to what extent, but I'm sure they exist!) intentional reasons as well! Who benefits from "veganism" loosing its sense from "not using animals" to "not eating animals"... and then who knows what else it will become to mean!

 

Also, allow me to disagree with you regarding "unnecesarily trying to make it (veganism) look easy". If it's not easy is because people make it make it look difficult! he he

Why wouldn't it be easy? Because people are too addicted to animal products/services, or perhaps people are too afraid of the myth that "they would be lacking some substances only found in animals", or perhaps they are too convinced "humans have god's will to use animals" or something of the sort.

 

The more veganism is forced to mean anything less than not using animals the more I tend to say "I don't use animals" instead of "I'm a vegan".

 

Regards!

Thanks so much, and I'm terribly sorry for not having replied yet, Jean-Sébastien!

 

That's the point! We who more or less activist tend to know our definitions... but somehow people in the press, and people who write campaigns for large animal corporations don't seem to know the difference between one thing and another!

 

Regards!

Pablo, thank you for adding to the list. :)  You are right, there could be even more.

When I said "unnecesarily trying to make it (veganism) look easy".  I was trying to say that it really is easy, so why do we have to make it "look easy", but your point about people making it look difficult is good.  Veganism is easy for those of us in more metropolitan areas.  I can imagine it really would be less "easy" for people in remote towns. 

One very prominent "vegan" tells people that if he is at a party he does not make a fuss about foods that might contain very small amounts of ingredients taken from animals.

I think that he has lost the opportunity to show people how easy it is to be happy at a party without compromising.  He has lost the opportunity to show people that even if there is nothing suitable for a vegan to eat at the party he can go without eating for a few hours because that is much easier than what will happen to the animals who are exploited.  That goes a long way toward communicating about speciesism.  Personally, I try to avoid parties that would have animal products, and I require family members to have only vegan food when we are there, but when I do find myself in a situation without vegan food I will go hungry and tell them why.

He has also lost the opportunity to tell people that "being polite" to a person is not more important than sparing the life and liberty of another animal who is not there to protest.

Thank you, also, for "I do not use animals".  I guess if I cannot fight the loss of the definition I have to surrender to it and use my own words.  "I do not use animals" is good for a couple of reasons.  1: it does not leave them to define "vegan" to suit themselves, but 2: it opens the conversation.  If they ask, "oh, so you are vegan?" I could say, "Well, that depends on whether you know what veganism is..." and then I can talk about what it means to not use animals.  As we know, most people cannot conceive of living without using animals, so we will have to explain.  As I said, great conversation starter.

I don't know know how metropolitan my small-country-metropolitan-area-city could be when compared to U.S. terms!! But I can tell you my small country prides itself on being "the country with the highest per-capita meat eating percentage"! That's just an example of how speciesist our "gaucho" local culture is! he he

(I have a collection of speciesist pictures: http://flickr.com/photos/stopespecismo/show )

I remember once I was living in an even less metropolitan area, but I managed to find soy flour so I made soyburgers and soyballs! ;-D

You're right, we don't have to make it seem easy because it is easy! It just requires the suitable mind state or "click".

I guess that "vegan" (I don't think he's actually a vegan, not even in any of the flexitarian meanings the word is getting recently!) "father of the animal "father of the animal (double quotation)"""rights""" movement not only lost a great opportunity, but he did that on purpose to defend his utilitarian view that: 1) principles don't exist (quoting Ingrid Newkirk's "screw the principle"), 2) there's no principle towards using animals because "it's ok to be a conscientious omnivore, 3) "anyway, nonhuman animals don't have an interest in continued existence", and 4) table manners are more important than nonhuman animals' interests.

That's right, and believe me telling people "Because I don't use animals can give you awesome opportunities for further talking about the issue". I feel when you tell them "I'm a vegan", people tend to react in a less interested way, something like revolving their eyes and saying "Ahhhh... Ohhh kay". Besides the disadvantage of having to explain what veganism (still underlined in red here) is, It also has the disadvantage of labelling oneself, making people one's "of a different, perhaps superior kind", etc. 

Yes, even when living in a place where it is a little less easy than some other places (I am very fortunate to live in an area with quite a lot of vegan conveniences and community support systems), it is always easier than dying.  When I was learning how to be vegan I asked myself to make a sheet of pros and cons in consuming somethng taken from animals.  The cons column always contained the exploitation and eventual death of other animals, so they always won the debate.  There is no way that any cost or benefit to me could justify the cost to them. 

To be fair, my resolve probably set more deeply because of the support in my area.  Unlearning speciesism can be a challenge.  I am so glad that there are so many great products, restaurants, and community (local and online) support systems to help pre-vegans (by the real definition) learn how to stop using animals. 

There are a few good "buddy system" programs.  A group in my area has just started one.  They get interested pre-vegans to sign up for it when they are tabling at festivals, and then pair them up with a vegan in the area so the pre-vegan can have a buddy to call for help.  Buddies might help with advice or even go shopping with a pre-vegan to help them learn.

The program is only as strong as the buddy.  The group would have to carefully select real vegans so that the pre-vegan is being taught properly.

Thanks for your post, Lisa!

I loved the whole idea of "buddy systems" (LOL it resembles its commercial gym homophone!! he he he)

Perhaps I'm very much into the cultural aspect of not using animals and its activist version of struggling against activist and passive speciecism! he he

But this is a brilliant idea. I'm thinking of something of the sort for pre-vegans in my community!

Kind regards!

Wonderful! 

What a great plan to start 2011 with.

Thank you for your support and participation, guys!

 

Cheers and season regards for all!

 

Let's have a great activist new year!

 

For abolition of slavery!

This is my latest essay, "Why we use animals?". Note that I translated it using Google Chrome, then corrected a few things (sorry for my laziness! ;-D)

http://veganadverb.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-we-use-animals.html