Aliza, Being vegan encompasses a whole lifestyle; what you refer to as "eating vegan" simply means that you follow a plant-based diet. I have been vegan long enough to know that every little bit helps; I would never discourage someone who is taking steps towards veganism. But just as you are not a vegetarian if you eat fish, you are not a vegan if you wear leather. If identifying yourself as vegan is that important to you, do it! The animals will thank you.
Aliza, your post is really well-written. There is something wrong with the SuperVegan guy. Go back and take a look at how he attacked Jonathan Safran Foer and his "Eating Animals" book because Safran Foer described himself as vegetarian not vegan. You'd think Safran Foer owned a factory farm the way SuperVegan attacked him. Sadly, for some vegans, their need to feel superior to others takes precedence over the animals. They've lost sight of what's really important.
SuperVegan's credibility in the vegan community is diminishing by the day because he can't control his urge to lash out at others; he thinks everyone's out to get him. Why on earth would someone who ostensibly cares about animals wind up attacking people who have made the serious commitment to give up eating animal products? As to the specifics, the main entry for Veganism on Wikipedia refers to both "ethical vegans" who go beyond food to clothing and other products, and "dietary vegans." People can come from on high and tell you that you're not vegan but that's just their opinion. They want to be rewarded for taking the step beyond food by being the only ones who get to wear that badge.
That said, I started off by eliminating all animal products from my diet and eventually, after a number of months had passed, came to see it as about more than just food. I eventually felt funny about wearing leather shoes, even old ones, so I replaced them with vegan ones. But I haven't replaced my wool suit since I rarely have a need to wear it, and if there was an occasion that called for a suit, I would probably wear it again. (I wrote about my deliberations on my blog.) I guess my point is, ignore the naysayers. Almost everyone will consider you vegan if you've eliminated animal products from your diet. If you decide to do more one day, great. I posed some questions to SuperVegan on Twitter to see whether he himself was really vegan, as did some other followers, and he refused to answer them, I'm guessing because he was afraid his answers would call into question whether he himself was indeed vegan according to the standards of others.
If everyone did what you are doing think of the difference it would make. It would be a new world. So don't let someone with serious issues of their own question your effort. The Vegan Society definition that SuperVegan cites says that animals should not be exploited for any purpose. SuperVegan is exploiting animals by using them to feel superior to people who don't live up to his standards, even at the risk of discouraging people who are making an effort to avoid animal products, which could very well -- and may have already -- lead to a net loss for the animals. Because of this, in my opinion, at least going by the definition he cites, SuperVegan is not a vegan at all and should refrain from calling himself vegan going forward.
The definition of vegan definitely includes animals products in all forms. No wool, leather, silk. No animal ingredients or animal testing in our body care/household cleaning products. Avoiding all animal use as much as we possibly can (in this very non-vegan world it is impossible to be 100% cruelty free but we can try our best and avoid *actively* and *directly* supporting those who harm and kill animals) is the goal of veganism.
The definition of vegan you were given is the most accurate one, from the man who coined the term: "veganism"denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
If you eat vegan food but do not avoid funding animal skins or animal by-products/testing, then you are most accurately a strict vegetarian. Some use the term "dietary vegan" but even that is not quite right, IMO, as vegan very definitely encompasses more than just food. It's a social justice movement, not a simple diet. There is nothing wrong with being a strict vegetarian, it's just not the same thing as living a vegan lifestyle and being, philosophically, a vegan.
And I agree with Abby. I absolutely think the more folks to do avoid cruelty and to limit their use of animals is fantastic. I just also think that veganism has to be seen as more than just our food - there's such a huge focus on the diet part from the media. There is all this talk about vegan diets for human health, for the environment.
The animals get lost in all that. It shouldn't be about US, it's about THEM. It's such an important act, this boycotting of all things exploitive. It's valuable and a major shift in how humans interact with the other than human animals we share this world with. It's this really important, passionate movement. To water it down to just what we eat, ignoring all the other myriad ways animals are turned into non-entities and commodified, seems really not great to me. Vegan is so much more than food. Vegan food is great, veganism is world altering.
Melissa, your writing is beautiful and eloquent. And I agree with you, but with a but. And I didn't have this "but" in my viewpoint until the comments by SuperVegan that formed the basis for Aliza's post.
While I do believe that being "vegan" ultimately means more than just food, I also feel there is harm in denying someone who has made the not-easy-in-our-society commitment to avoid eating all animal products. I think we need to think twice about criticizing these people for saying they are vegan. (Not that you are criticizing; I mean others.) Mostly I feel this way because I think that anyone who has made that commitment will eventually, in their own time, start to feel that it also makes sense to avoid purchasing other types of animal products.
SuperVegan's initial tweet was a hostile, irresponsible attack out of left field. It did not come in response to anyone else's comments but was apropos of nothing. Forgetting the fact that his suggestion to use the term "flexitegan" is neither useful nor clever, any doubt as to whether it was intended as a random act of hostility was quickly answered in the affirmative when some of his ELEVEN THOUSAND followers dared to suggest that since they don't eat any animal products they are vegan. SuperVegan proceeded to attack these people in the nastiest manner possible. It was truly bizarre.
I'm not claiming you are wrong in what you say above, but I think the harm of alienating any "strict vegetarians" or others considering veganism (by any definition) far outweighs the need to protect and defend a term. At some point -- and again, I'm not saying you reached that point -- it becomes exclusionary and counterproductive.
What good does it do if we make our point to those we feel aren't truly vegan about what we believe veganism really entails if this only leads them to drop or lessen their commitment and results in more animal suffering and deaths? In that case, it doesn't seem like a conversation much worth having, especially when it's started by someone who for reasons known only to him has decided to attack a fair portion of the 11,000 followers he worked so hard to obtain.
That is the situation Aliza encountered and I have to say, while part of me agrees with your comments, another part of me wants to side with her in this one.
Aliza,
ReplyDeleteBeing vegan encompasses a whole lifestyle; what you refer to as "eating vegan" simply means that you follow a plant-based diet. I have been vegan long enough to know that every little bit helps; I would never discourage someone who is taking steps towards veganism. But just as you are not a vegetarian if you eat fish, you are not a vegan if you wear leather. If identifying yourself as vegan is that important to you, do it! The animals will thank you.
Aliza, your post is really well-written. There is something wrong with the SuperVegan guy. Go back and take a look at how he attacked Jonathan Safran Foer and his "Eating Animals" book because Safran Foer described himself as vegetarian not vegan. You'd think Safran Foer owned a factory farm the way SuperVegan attacked him. Sadly, for some vegans, their need to feel superior to others takes precedence over the animals. They've lost sight of what's really important.
ReplyDeleteSuperVegan's credibility in the vegan community is diminishing by the day because he can't control his urge to lash out at others; he thinks everyone's out to get him. Why on earth would someone who ostensibly cares about animals wind up attacking people who have made the serious commitment to give up eating animal products? As to the specifics, the main entry for Veganism on Wikipedia refers to both "ethical vegans" who go beyond food to clothing and other products, and "dietary vegans." People can come from on high and tell you that you're not vegan but that's just their opinion. They want to be rewarded for taking the step beyond food by being the only ones who get to wear that badge.
That said, I started off by eliminating all animal products from my diet and eventually, after a number of months had passed, came to see it as about more than just food. I eventually felt funny about wearing leather shoes, even old ones, so I replaced them with vegan ones. But I haven't replaced my wool suit since I rarely have a need to wear it, and if there was an occasion that called for a suit, I would probably wear it again. (I wrote about my deliberations on my blog.) I guess my point is, ignore the naysayers. Almost everyone will consider you vegan if you've eliminated animal products from your diet. If you decide to do more one day, great. I posed some questions to SuperVegan on Twitter to see whether he himself was really vegan, as did some other followers, and he refused to answer them, I'm guessing because he was afraid his answers would call into question whether he himself was indeed vegan according to the standards of others.
If everyone did what you are doing think of the difference it would make. It would be a new world. So don't let someone with serious issues of their own question your effort. The Vegan Society definition that SuperVegan cites says that animals should not be exploited for any purpose. SuperVegan is exploiting animals by using them to feel superior to people who don't live up to his standards, even at the risk of discouraging people who are making an effort to avoid animal products, which could very well -- and may have already -- lead to a net loss for the animals. Because of this, in my opinion, at least going by the definition he cites, SuperVegan is not a vegan at all and should refrain from calling himself vegan going forward.
The definition of vegan definitely includes animals products in all forms. No wool, leather, silk. No animal ingredients or animal testing in our body care/household cleaning products. Avoiding all animal use as much as we possibly can (in this very non-vegan world it is impossible to be 100% cruelty free but we can try our best and avoid *actively* and *directly* supporting those who harm and kill animals) is the goal of veganism.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of vegan you were given is the most accurate one, from the man who coined the term: "veganism"denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
If you eat vegan food but do not avoid funding animal skins or animal by-products/testing, then you are most accurately a strict vegetarian. Some use the term "dietary vegan" but even that is not quite right, IMO, as vegan very definitely encompasses more than just food. It's a social justice movement, not a simple diet. There is nothing wrong with being a strict vegetarian, it's just not the same thing as living a vegan lifestyle and being, philosophically, a vegan.
And I agree with Abby. I absolutely think the more folks to do avoid cruelty and to limit their use of animals is fantastic. I just also think that veganism has to be seen as more than just our food - there's such a huge focus on the diet part from the media. There is all this talk about vegan diets for human health, for the environment.
DeleteThe animals get lost in all that. It shouldn't be about US, it's about THEM. It's such an important act, this boycotting of all things exploitive. It's valuable and a major shift in how humans interact with the other than human animals we share this world with. It's this really important, passionate movement. To water it down to just what we eat, ignoring all the other myriad ways animals are turned into non-entities and commodified, seems really not great to me. Vegan is so much more than food. Vegan food is great, veganism is world altering.
Melissa, your writing is beautiful and eloquent. And I agree with you, but with a but. And I didn't have this "but" in my viewpoint until the comments by SuperVegan that formed the basis for Aliza's post.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe that being "vegan" ultimately means more than just food, I also feel there is harm in denying someone who has made the not-easy-in-our-society commitment to avoid eating all animal products. I think we need to think twice about criticizing these people for saying they are vegan. (Not that you are criticizing; I mean others.) Mostly I feel this way because I think that anyone who has made that commitment will eventually, in their own time, start to feel that it also makes sense to avoid purchasing other types of animal products.
SuperVegan's initial tweet was a hostile, irresponsible attack out of left field. It did not come in response to anyone else's comments but was apropos of nothing. Forgetting the fact that his suggestion to use the term "flexitegan" is neither useful nor clever, any doubt as to whether it was intended as a random act of hostility was quickly answered in the affirmative when some of his ELEVEN THOUSAND followers dared to suggest that since they don't eat any animal products they are vegan. SuperVegan proceeded to attack these people in the nastiest manner possible. It was truly bizarre.
I'm not claiming you are wrong in what you say above, but I think the harm of alienating any "strict vegetarians" or others considering veganism (by any definition) far outweighs the need to protect and defend a term. At some point -- and again, I'm not saying you reached that point -- it becomes exclusionary and counterproductive.
What good does it do if we make our point to those we feel aren't truly vegan about what we believe veganism really entails if this only leads them to drop or lessen their commitment and results in more animal suffering and deaths? In that case, it doesn't seem like a conversation much worth having, especially when it's started by someone who for reasons known only to him has decided to attack a fair portion of the 11,000 followers he worked so hard to obtain.
That is the situation Aliza encountered and I have to say, while part of me agrees with your comments, another part of me wants to side with her in this one.