A recent article in The Daily World suggested that we “learn flexibility with meat eating.”  The scenario posited was this: imagine you have decided to go vegetarian, have tossed out all meat, poultry and fish, and stocked up on plant foods. Then you are invited out to a romantic steak dinner. Do you throw your ethics out the window or decline the invitation?  According to proponents of flexitarianism, you can hold on to you ethics and your steak by being flexitarian.  For anyone who is an omnivore, this might seem reasonable.  But the real kicker for vegans who care about animals is this: Bruce Friederich, Vice President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is right there saying:

“If people influenced by health consequently cut back on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals. If two people cut their meat in half, it helps as much as one person going completely vegetarian.”*

Suddenly, Flexitarianism now has the PeTA stamp of approval, so it must be ethical, right?  First of all, vegetarianism does not improve the situation for animals; in fact, it may exacerbate things. How many newborn chicks die for the eggs, and how many babies (calves) die for the milk, cheese and yogurt that a vegetarian consumes?  Then there is the horrific life of a dairy animal, which includes rape, long hours of standing, mastitis, and hugely enlarged udders which become encrusted with sores.  If you have ever seen a video of those newborn calves taken from their mothers, you are not likely to ever forget it. And then there is the ultimate trip to the abattoir for the calf and mother alike, of course. Telling the public that going vegetarian or flexitarian helps animals sends a very muddled message.

This seems to be a new position for PeTA, whose director of research said in a Newsweek article circa 2009:

“Given the environmental, cruelty and health impact of a meat-based diet, going vegan is best, going vegetarian is good, and being a flexitarian is like smoking two packs of cigarettes instead of ten, beating one pig down the slaughter ramp instead of two, and pouring a pint of gasoline down a drain instead of pouring down a gallon.”**

Mark Bittman, noted author of Food Matters suggests much the same. After all, it is just too hard to go vegan, right? Usually those making that statement have never even tried; they are looking for an easy way out. But it is no easy way for the animals that must endure horrendous lives of illness, discomfort, pain, and misery. It does not help those that must suffer the terror and callous treatment at the end of the line at the slaughterhouse. And the truth is, there are thousands upon thousands of vegans who beg to differ: we find it extremely easy to be vegan. For most of us, one bit of information about the lives of animals, one video of the slaughterhouse, and we were done. It was easy, because every time we think of animal products, we see those images and we refuse to budge. We will NOT participate.

Earlier this year, Wayne Pacelle offered the following:

“It doesn’t take an all-or-nothing approach to make a major impact, and giving customers more meat-free meal choices will improve health, reduce the impact of global warming, and help animals,” Pacelle said.***

Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, is not known for taking all-or-nothing approaches to protecting animals. HSUS has owned stock in some of the worst animal exploitative industries, allowing them to profit from the consumption and slaughter of animals. This fact alone weakens any moral stance Mr. Pacelle could take.  Coupled with the fact that many if not most HSUS members consume animal products themselves, this appears to be one very flexible animal protection organization: for some of the animals, some of the time. While Mr. Pacelle is himself a vegan, he must as CEO of a large animal welfare organization protect the donations which come is to the tune of millions of dollars per year.

Standing in opposition to child abuse, human trafficking, rape, incest and domestic violence somehow does not make a person fanatical. Standing in opposition to abject cruelty and torture of animals does. Call me fanatical, but all this talk of flexibility and flexitarianism offends me, coming from supposed animal rights folks. Sounds like a lack of spine to me.

*“Learning flexibility with meat eating,” Daily World, July 14, 2010

**”Part-time Vegetarians”, Newsweek, September 29, 2008, by Karen Springen

***“Compass Launches Landmark ‘Flexitarian’ Initiative”, HSUS website

When I first learned that the products of the dairy industry resulted in endless suffering and animal death, I went from vegetarian to vegan and began to learn all that I could about what was happening to animals. I began listening to podcasts all day long as I worked and I learned a lot during that time. I listened to Colleen Patrick Goudreau of Compassionate Cooks, Dino Sarma of Alternative Vegan, the folks on Vegan Radio and Bob and Jenna Torres of Vegan Freaks. After that, I read and listened to anything I could get my hands on. Meanwhile, I was learning that some of the animal protection organizations to which I had sent money in the past were not helping animals the way I always assumed they had.  In fact, some of them were making things much worse, profiting from animal abuse by owning stock in some of the worst animal abuse industries and promoting the status quo by asking for regulation of the existing structure of domination and abuse rather than trying to abolish it. Some were participating in sexist, violent campaigns. Some were promoting flexitarian or vegetarian campaigns rather than veganism.  At the same time, I was getting an education online via some abolitionists, including Gary Francione. I was also becoming the object of some very snarky individuals and got caught in the crossfire between abolitionists and welfarists on more than one occasion. Good grief!  Then I started to really catch it; I was called divisive and told that I wasn’t  DOING anything for animals.  Those who believed in ending animal abuse by tackling one problem at a time saw those of us who wanted to end the domination of animals altogether as nothing but TROUBLE!

~~~~~~

Opposing Theories or Personal Attacks?

I was shocked and disturbed to see the personal attacks on people in the movement, in particular Gary Francione. Rather than debating him, or challenging the abolitionist ideas, there is a  deterioration into ad hominem assaults on occasion.  Many of us respect Professor Francione immensely because of the clarity and consistency of the message he ends, because of his tireless work for animals, and for his stand for ahimsa or non-violence.

Anyone who finds his message resonating within them is then accused of being a cult member, which is rather humorous in light of the theoretical basis of his view of animal rights. What these misguided people see as a fanatical attachment to a personality is, in fact, admiration and respect for a theoretical approach which seems to offer the only hope for peace and the end of commodification of animals.  Personally, there are many welfarists that I admire for their optimism and tireless work on behalf of animals. I love their hearts and know how sincerely they want to end all animal suffering. I deviated from the path they were on, and here is why:

Why I Left Welfare Activities

1. First, welfare reform is ineffective.  As long as animals are property, they will be difficult to protect. They will be considered commodities and will be subject to the whims of their owners. Despite decades of protesting the clubbing of seals, elephants in the circus, shooting of wolves, the fur trade, hunting, the killing goes on. Until a large proportion of the population adopt a vegan attitude towards animals, little will change.
2. Second, it supports the status quo. The current situation for animals is precarious because they are considered property and some humans benefit financially from their commodification.  Since working within the given structure reinforces the subjugation, it is doubtful it will ever change without a change in attitude towards animal life.
3. Third, it sends a very confused message to the public. Few of the animal protection organizations support veganism; some support veg*n, veggie, vegetarian or other such terms. This is confusing because if one is not vegan, one is still supporting the commodification of animals. Asking people to send money to an organization whose own members are consuming animal products is a sign of moral confusion. Owning stock and profiting from animal abuse causes confusion, as does campaigning for measures such as Controlled Area Killing (CAK), free range eggs, and humane labeled meat. There is some evidence that these campaigns have actually increased the demand for meat and eggs; it has definitely confused the public.  Let’s not add to it.
4. Fourth, it detracts from the energy and resources that could be going towards clear and consistent vegan education. HSUS  and PETA both take in millions of dollars each year. Imagine if they clearly promoted veganism. Imagine rather than using celebrities, many of whom are inconsistent and unclear about the meaning of veganism, if PETA promoted vegan education with their considerable PR machinery and funding.
5. Fifth, individual causes reinforce speciesism by gaining momentum based on emotional appeal. Baby seals, dolphins, cats and dogs all appeal to many human beings, but lobsters, turkeys, and pigs need non-speciesist individuals to fight for them, too. Animal welfare organizations tend to promote animals that are appealing to humans as a priority. It is no more just to work on protecting only certain species than it is to protect only certain human beings. It reinforces speciesism.

First, We All Need a Vision

One of the problems between welfarists and abolitionists is an inability to dialogue and debate. Many welfarists, sometimes referred to as New Welfarists, actually say they are abolitionists but believe the road to the abolition of animal use must be paved with welfare regulations first.  Believing they are being pragmatic, they view abolitionists as doing nothing, while abolitionists regard welfarists as spinning their wheels and wasting energy better spent on vegan education.  I would like to suggest that all of us need to expand our vision to what we would like to see happen and stop voicing that it is impossible. It is not. In my lifetime I have seen changes in women’s rights and civil rights that led to a female presidential candidate and an African-American president in 2008. But it took the vision of a man who went to the mountain top before it could happen.  Things change, if we can envision it, if we can imagine…..

It is doubtful that welfarist and abolitionists will ever see eye to eye, because there are two distinct views of how to end the subjugation and injustice towards animals.  In one vision, we must work within the existing power structure to effect change by using rules and regulations.  In the other viewpoint, animals should never be considered as property, must have a right to their own personhood, should be allowed to live their lives in the way they were intended rather than being used to benefit another species. This also means clear vegan education.

Many say abolitionists are dreamers, but the vision is very important towards achieving success.  It doesn’t take a preponderance of individuals in a movement to make it successful; in fact, it is usually a minority of people that effect change.

The Dancing Guy and Starting A Movement for Change

There has been a You Tube video going around called Leadership Lessons in Starting a Movement (by Derek Sivers) about how a dancing guy at a concert represents the start of a movement. There is just a single guy, dancing alone, with people giving him a glance as if he is a bit odd.  But after a while, a second guy gets up and starts dancing, too.  This second guy changes everything, because now the first guy looks like a leader  and not a crazy guy – he is just ahead of the pack.  After awhile, more and more people get up and  begin dancing, until the hillside is alive with dancing. At first it might have just been Gary Francione, dancing solo, getting hit from all sides.  But now, more people are joining in. We already have two teen abolitionist podcasters in New Zealand alone – imagine if there were teen abolitionist podcasters all over the globe! It will be wonderful when there are people joining us in the dance all around the world. As Emma Goldman said, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.”  All we need to do now is just dance!

Animal Rights People to Know

Tim Gier mantains an excellent animal rights blog. He is on Twitter and Facebook, too, and provides a lot of relevant information and articles for other people.  Tim has an engaging style of writing that is sure to win you over and get you thinking.  His Facebook page says it all, “I am not trying to be better than anyone else; I am just trying to be better than I was before.” You can find his blog at timgier.com. Be sure to bookmark it because you are going to want to come back to it again and again. Tim is a prolific writer so check back frequently – you do not want to miss any of his posts.

Another important contributor in the animal rights field is Sandra Cummings. Sandra has a facebook page called the Vegan Starter Kit that has more information in a small space than you can find anywhere.  She also posts lots of positive articles relating to justice, animal rights, and veganism.

An excellent writer is Angel Flinn of Gentle World. Angel writes for Care2.com and maintains her own blog, The Vegan Solution. Don’t miss her article, Being Vegan is a Speciesist World and Free Range – Not Free Enough.

Trouble by Elvis Preseley

Trouble by Over the Rhine

Imagine by John Lennon

Just Dance by Lady GaGa and Colby O’Donis

Leadership Lessons from the Dancing Guy by Derek Sivers

Tim Gier

The Vegan Starter Kit by Sandra Cummings

The Vegan Solution by Angel Flinn

When I heard that Moby was softening his message, I grew concerned. I am aware that most celebrities do not understand how their support of institutions like the Humane Society (HSUS) amd PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are counter-productive to ending animal exploitation. Moby does a lot for the vegan community; he donates music to upcoming filmmakers and makes pro-vegan videos for YouTube. He advocates for veganism. He is talented, creative and likable. By his own admission, he has decided that he was too “militant,” too strident in promoting veganism, and it was turning his friends off. In his new book, Gristle, written along with Miyun Park, he presents a series of essays and lets the audience decide for themselves. No more preaching for Moby, just the facts.

The first essay was by Branden Brazier, author of Thrive Fitness, Thrive Nutrition, triathlete, and vegan advocate. So far, so good – I was glad to see Brazier included. He advocates not only for veganism but for high-density nutrition and brings some often overlooked foods to the fore. He puts an emphasis on the recovery phase of training and has achieved great personal and financial success in so doing. He promotes fitness from a vegan perspective – and lives what he preaches. There is Christine Chavez and Julie Chavez Rodriguez, who make a case for the workers in the factory farm industries, most of whom have coughs, chronic bronchitis and/or respiratory problems due to the toxic air quality in which they work.  The workers die in horrific ways,as do the animals they kill: sliced by the hog-splitter saw, death by falls into manure pits, crushed by the grinder. Amputations. Crushed bones. Mental stress. A disassembly line that brutalizes animals in mechanized horror while spewing blood, disease and depression on the workers and their families.  Important things to know about an industry, indeed.

But other authors are not quite as hopeful. John Mackay, founder and CEO of Whole Foods Markets, Incorporated – a man who himself makes money from the sale of animal flesh; Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of HSUS, an organization that owns stock in some of the worst animal exploitation industries and benefits financially from animal exploitation; Paul and Phyllis Willis, owner of the Willis Free-Range Pig Farms, also financially benefitting from the exploitation and commodification of animals. If this is the new Moby, I would prefer the old — the one that believed in veganism and would not hesitate to speak out for it.

Despite the fact that this book does not promote veganism, the book has lots of statistics and information easily assembled for the use of the reader. The cover has an outline of a steer carved into those dotted lines which so often delineate cuts of “beef,” only this time they say things like: health, animals, workers, environment, global hunger, zoonotic diseases, climate change, communities, taxpayer cost. It is a book that may attract someone to pick it up and that might become more informed about what is going on with animal agriculture. I found the book helpful, if disappointing.

When one’s friends call on us to sacrifice our core beliefs, maybe it is time to get some new friends.

As a young teenager, I used to surf the coast of Southern California. My vision was poor, so I learned to feel the currents of water beneath me. When there was a light drawing back, it meant a swell was coming and I needed to get paddling. If I delayed, I would miss the ride, and if I was too fast, I would have the wave crash down on me and would wipe out. Lately, I have been feeling a shift in the currents beneath me once again, only this time I do not plan to miss it.

PETA’s Failed Policies

There have been rumblings on the vegan blogosphere about some of the latest new lows reached by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  Their pie-in-the-face disrespect to a person in authority seems contraindicated when requesting more respect for other beings.  It is assaultive and inappropriate behavior not becoming adults with serious intentions. Then there is the full frontal nudity of a young woman in their State of the Union Undress (deliberately not linked here) – disrespectful not only to women but also to our elected leaders. Even Ingrid Newkirk‘s response (A pragmatic fight for animal rights) to Victor Schonfeld’s article, Five fatal flaws of animal rights activism, in which she defends “silly antics” as being part of animal rights activism misses the mark by a mile.  While Ms. Newkirk may be well-intentioned, her behavior is the same old tired tactics that have been failing to do anything but increase the PETA budget and gain some press for many years.  At every turn, Ms. Newkirk sells out the animals and any chance to show respect for their lives, whether it is by cooperating with fast food enterprises that kill animals for food and profit, or partnering with corporations by buying stock in animal exploitation schemes. Ms. Newkirk never draws a line in the sand, never acts as if she believes what she says that animals are not ours to use; she uses and exploits them freely to draw attention and financial support to her organization while they remain in a living hell. I have noticed lately that when an outrageous behavior occurs in the news, such as the recent intrusion into Senator Mary Landrieus’ office by men dressed as phone company repairmen, the allusion on a recent MSNBC news discussion was to liken them to “PETA protesters.” Meanwhile, only 7 animals were saved in PETA’s “shelter” in 2008, while nearly 2,000 were killed.  With millions of dollars in annual income, it seems impossible that those lives were valued, because with the will to save them, they could have. If PETA wants ethical treatment for animals, they should begin by delivering some themselves.

HSUS Sells Out to Flexitarians

HSUS recently got into the fray, decrying the criticism from abolitionists this organization has been receiving.  While HSUS does not stoop to media madness in the same vein as PETA, they still have quite a few things in common with them and appear to be becoming more and more aligned with similar policies. While Wayne Pacelle is a hired hand whose position requires him to support the policies of his agency, unlike Ms. Newkirk who is a founder of hers,  it is still his choice to do so.  Reportedly he is a vegan; however, his organization does not support veganism to any significant degree. They have recently sold out by also partnering with fast food companies that kill animals for profit and joined in a “flexitarian” campaign with a major food service corporation. While it is admirable that this corporation is providing more meat-free meals, it is a far cry from HSUS taking the stand that all animal commodification is not to be tolerated. There are many vegan businesses that HSUS could profile; they deliberately chose a corporation that will allow their supporters to feel the warm fuzzies while consuming animal products. With friends like these, who needs enemies? If no one in an organization called HUMANE is willing to say commodifying animals is unacceptable, one would assume that, like PETA, HSUS considers the commodification of animals acceptable practice, at least in the immediate sense. Most would not deny that HSUS does some good; indeed, with millions annually, they have ample opportunity.  Stopping dogfighting is a noble idea, but doing so while participating in eating and commodifying other animals is not.  In the big picture, their policies are failing the bulk of animals yet they lack the moral courage to take a stand on the animals’ behalf.

It is interesting that Gary Francione has done more to change attitudes without any organization and without any budget than all of the high profile organizations put together.  Neither Wayne Pacelle nor Ingrid Newkirk are willing to debate Gary Francione, either. Put simply, he has remained consistent and has not sold out. So please do not write a check to any organization to make yourself feel better about the plight of animals without reading the paper – the news is not good for most animals on any given day. And despite what  you may be told, things appear to be getting much worse.  But within the vegan community, things are growing bigger, too, and a swell is developing. There are a number of individuals who will not sell out, who are quietly working hard to improve the status of animals, to promote peace, to save the earth, and who draw a line in the sand — animals are not commodities, not “things” to be modified and abused for commercial gain, profit, research or entertainment.  Recent reads of letters such as Mr. Schonfeld’s reveal numerous abolitionists agreeing about failed welfarist policies; letters in response to Ms. Newkirk’s letter offer contempt for that agency’s tactics.

This is not to lump all animal organizations into one.  There are some good organizations out there doing some very good work with limited financing.  They support veganism, allow space for ethical discussion, support no-kill shelters and spay-neuter programs, and work to improve and preserve habitat so there will be wildlife left for the future.  Organizations exist that provide sanctuary to homeless animals who would otherwise be destroyed. Working for justice and respect for life, promoting non-violence, and building a vegan community of support are all important work.  There are those that take in homeless animals and try to find homes for them. There are companies producing some excellent vegan products and some wonderful human beings developing innovative ideas for the future.  But even without that kind of structure or vision, each of us individually can reach out to change attitudes.  It is through individual activism and outreach, especially in this era of the internet, that real change will take place. Keep challenging those who harm the movement by behaving in violent or disrespectful ways. Become part of the rumblings, and let the volume grow. Make disrespect for other forms of life totally unacceptable.

A vegan tsunami is coming; add your voice.