Posts Tagged ‘Veganism’

Why I Am NOT a Veg*n

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

Recently, on a vegan forum, I commented on the use of the term “vegetarian”  or “veg*n” rather than “vegan” while promoting animal rights.  It seemed to unleash a storm of criticism and ad hominem attacks: “Someone is VERY NEW….,”  ”so fundamentalist in nature,”  ”is there ANY evidence base whatsoever…? ”  My comment was in response to the posting of a Huffington Post article by Bruce Friederich, Vice President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), as well as a suggestion to develop the inclusive “veg*n” culture on the same forum.  Mr. Friederich has stated before that he no longer advocates in vegan tee shirts, because people respond better to the vegetarian message. That may be, but it is not a message that will help animals. In fact, it may even create more suffering for the animals. How can an animal advocate promote the dairy industry?  I think of the abuse of babies, little newborn calves; and mothers who are forced into servitude of being milk machines, with distended udders, infected and dragging the ground.  Then there are all those newborn chicks ground alive in massive machines because they cannot lay eggs.  THAT is something for animal advocates to support?

The message Mr. Friederich was giving was that it is indefensible to eat meat. Unfortunately, his last  line reads,

Put another way: If we believe that people should try to protect the environment, OR we believe that we should try not to cause people to starve OR we oppose cruelty to animals, the only ethical diet is a vegetarian one.

Wrong. This following many salient points in Friederich’s article is so disappointing.  Why is there such a great fear of the word “veganism?”  It is a simple word, much more simple and clear than “vegetarianism.”  There is so much ambiguity in the term vegetarian that it leaves people thinking giving up meat for dairy products will somehow be less cruel. Even if one is focusing solely on the dietary aspects of veganism, then why not support incremental veganism? At least doing so would leave a clear impression in the minds of the audience that veganism is the goal, not vegetarianism.

Mr. Friederich has another contradiction or two on his hands. It is difficult to be accepted as someone who values animal life while working for an organization that kills a higher proportion of animals in their “shelter” than most other shelters. It is also an organization that owns stock and profits from animal agriculture, gives awards to slaughter house designers, and uses some questionable tactics which diminishes the level of dialogue regarding the significance of animal rights.  Again, so disappointing. One young animal rights advocate, Beckah Sheeler, recently posted on the site Animal Writes an article titled, PETA: A Hurdle for Vegan Advocacy:

What we are faced with is the split between abolitionists and welfarists, and this will always exist; however, (as cliche the saying as it may be) with the amount of power Peta has, comes a great amount of responsibility, meaning the lives and welfare of animals, the planet, and the indirect meals able to be fed to the hungry due to this lifestyle, are resting in its hands. Bruce Friedrich, VP of Peta, also has stated in a recent post that being an absolutist is the worst way to attract people to this cause. The members of Peta should, of course, not give up their strong convictions of remaining not only meat free, but egg and dairy free, but being that Peta is so big, I believe that it is the organization’s responsibility, with all of its money, resources, and recognition, to advocate in such a way that helps the most amount of animals being that this is its perceived cause.

Ms. Sheeler then goes on to support widening the appeal rather than clarifying the message that PETA spreads.  However, Dan Cudahy, on his blog Unpopular Vegan Essays, reports on the failure of such tactics that are contradictory at the root (from the article PETA: A Corporate Tangle of Contradictions):

PETA’s contradictions in philosophy, rhetoric, and activities – which have led to profound public confusion and fortification of the utilitarian-welfarist status quo that has been in existence since Jeremy Bentham – have been a barrier to progress in advancing animal rights, and will continue to be a barrier as long as they continue as an animal welfare organization.

For a clear look at the problematic nature of the confusion in such welfarist rhetoric, Professor Gary Francione states in a post on his blog, Animal Rights: The Abolionist Approach (Some Comments on Vegetarianism as a Gateway to Veganism):

It is clear: if you explain that there is no distinction between flesh and other animal products and why we should go vegan, and the person with whom you are talking cares about the issue, she will either (1) go vegan immediately; or (2) go vegan in stages; or (3) not go vegan and adopt some version of vegetarianism (or “happy” meat/product consumption). But she will at least understand that veganism is the aspiration toward which to work. She will understand that the line between flesh and other products is entirely arbitrary. If you maintain that going vegetarian is morally meaningful and that there is a distinction between flesh and other animal products, then you increase the chances that her progress toward veganism will be impeded.

In other words, you do not need to advocate vegetarianism. It is completely unnecessary, morally meaningless, and, as a practical matter, it impedes transition to veganism.

While I appreciate the sincere motives of individuals like Mr. Friederich and do not challenge them, it does seem important to continue looking at the tactics of the animal rights movement. This is very different than disparaging individuals.  I fully admit to many shortcomings and work on them; I have my own blind spots. Assuming that all animal advocates sincerely want what is in the best interest of nonhuman animals rather than promotion of their individual animal organizations, then looking critically at tactics and contradictions that may become barriers (Dan Cudahy) or hurdles (Beckah Sheeler) or impediments (Gary Francione) would seem a positive way of helping advocates learn to help animals achieve true rights as living, feeling beings. While listening to a podcast today, I heard someone interrupt a speaker discussing vegetarianism and interject “a lacto-ovo vegetarian — that is pretty much the same thing as a vegan.”  No, no, no.

Another way of stating this was posted by Tim Gier in an article titled, Is Half A Loaf Better Than None?

If you do intentionally participate in the subjugation of nonhuman animals, it does not matter that your participation is infrequent, or irregular, or occasional. Whenever you eat the flesh of a nonhuman animal, a life is ended for your pleasure, and for nothing else. The same is true whenever you wear the skin of another as clothing, or you patronize the zoos and circuses that cage others for life, or you support the medical, scientific or commercial experimentation on others as well.  Cutting back on those things, while better than not, still amounts to participating in them. There is no “half loaf.”

By spreading vegetarian education rather than vegan education, we collaborate in the subjugation (however unintentionally) of nonhuman animals.  The baseline is veganism. The fact that it is not immediately appealing for 100% of all people everywhere is not the point.  Veganism is the goal. It can be incrementally achieved, but it remains the goal. To ask for anything less, anything with wider appeal, anything that appears to be a more popular message, is to sell out the rights of animals. Want to make veganism more popular? Start by talking about it.


Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Abolition, Advocacy, Veganism | 15 Comments »

Oh Yes We Can! Just Watch Us.

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

To reach a goal, you have to believe — believe you can achieve the goal, envision reaching the goal, then take a step towards the goal. Imagine if you did not believe you could make it through school — you would not attend the first class. All those classes between entering school and graduation may seem overwhelming at times, but it is only by taking them one class at a time that you finally reach your goal. You have to step out in faith and believe before you can make it happen.

I just read a commentary on a vegan forum that said no, we cannot, no we will not. That person believed that human beings were incapable of making significant change, that we were so mired in our traditional approaches that we would mess it all up and miss all cosmic deadlines. We would not fix global warming; we would not find cleaner energy. We would not go vegan. We would not make significant change.  In short, we are doomed.

Maybe, but maybe not. Lately I have been mired in lassitude, but even while mired, I knew it was transitory. So will we as a movement overcome; our collective lassitude is just our denial, not wanting to change, not wanting to deal with reality. War, recession, budget deficits, unemployment, oil spills, energy crisis, solar tsunamis, deforestation, overpopulation — it all seems too much to handle.  So some days, we pull the covers over our heads. It may take a crisis for some of us to get out of bed and make a change, but other people are continuing changing every day. Someone on Twitter just tweeted me that they had gone vegan – one more vegan!  Lassitude leaves, energy returns, and the movement gains momentum.

To all the nay sayers, Oh, Yes We Can and Yes We Will. The vegan movement is having an impact and it is growing every day.  How many teenagers were vegan a generation ago? Look at what is happening among  young people, those with the biggest stake in our future – they are still flexible, open, and inquisitive and many are learning about veganism and supporting the movement forward. And there are others of every agen, including elders, too, who prove daily that it is never too late to become educated about what is happening to animals.  We will abolish the commodification of animals. We must. There are a hundred billion reasons every year to do so.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Veganism | 8 Comments »

Progressive Disappointments

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

Recently, I have become very disappointed in progressive media.  It would seem that when it comes to animal rights, things are not all that progressive.

Huffington Post Misses the Irony in Recent Post by Jamie Lee Curtis

Huffington Post recently published an article by Jamie Lee Curtis, lamenting the Conklin Dairy Abuse revealed by undercover videos.  We now know there will be no cruelty charges for the owner of the dairy (see linked article by Angel Flinn), no matter how distressing the videos.  Where there is demand, the brutality continues.  How does Ms. Curtis think that the very product she touts, yogurt, is created? By raping the cows with artificial insemination, stealing the baby calf from his or her mother, and then stealing the mother’s secretions from her, secretions made for the survival of her baby, not for adult humans. I always find those yogurt commercials to be interesting.  They suggest their brand of yogurt will help people with digestive problems, the very problems that come from eating a highly processed, animal-based diet. The solution? Another highly processed, animal-based product of course! Perhaps Ms. Curtis has never considered the cost for other beings of the products she sells. But when she wrote that article, obviously distressed at seeing animals treated as objects, devoid of any consideration for their personhood, she missed an important connection between what she does for a living and the act of living for other beings. And Huff Post missed a chance to post an article based on the stark and horrendous reality of the more than sixty billion land animals that perish for the pleasure of human appetite each year.

Mother Jones Appears to Have Lost the “Fearless” in Their Journalism

Even more egregious, Mother Jones (July/August 2010) published an article by Kiera Butler, a “lifelong vegetarian,” who broke her no-meat stance to dine on “grass-fed beef” (an interesting term denoting how devoid of acknowledgement of animal personhood our thinking is — cows eat, not beef; beef is a dead animal.)  She shared that it was delicious and she felt satisfied.  In the article, Get Behind Me, Seitan, Ms. Butler reports that the “vegetarian-equals-green argument” is not so cut and dried.  She then proceeds to offer a comparison between highly processed fake meat and grass fed animal flesh. She notes that her Berkeley, California crowd is really moving towards eating more meat, not less, and she seems to move along with them. One wonders why she ever became vegetarian; she did not mention any moral concerns, health concerns, certainly no consideration for the impact on the animals themselves, no discussion of violence or cruelty.  This was all about the trend and “local buzz.”  It seems preying on baby animals is all the rage these days.

Touting the “great caloric bargains” of things like fish, there is no mention of the toxins that accumulate the higher you go up the food chain. There is no mention of the dying oceans, respect for nature, or a moral baseline; there is plenty of talk about crab feeds and pig roasts.  There is discussion of hexane, used to remove soybean oil and keep soyburgers low in fat, a registered air pollutant and suspected neurotoxin.  Ms. Kiera reports that with a processed soyburger, there are numerous ingredients but with grass-fed beef there is only one, making it somehow purer. This defies everything we know about the accumulation of pesticides and other toxins as one moves up the foodchain, making it more and more dangerous to eat other  beings. There is no discussion of the impossibility of providing enough grazing land for the way the world now consumes animals. And worst of all, there is no discussion of the animals themselves, discussed solely as a commodity for humans throughout the entire article.

The progressive media needs to become truly progressive in the arena of animal rights and veganism. A start would be to post the work of one of the really good vegan advocates who are talented writers — Gary Francione, Roger Yates, Dan Cudahy, Angel Flinn, Tim Gier, Nathan Schneider, Jeff Perz, Mylène Oullet, and many, many others.  They could select someone to write who actually has a philosophical stance that does not move with the crowd, and leaves the “fearless” in their ability to stand alone when necessary, to actually take a position based on something beside their own health, coolness or gustatory delight.  It is  much easier to be oh-so-flexible when dining out, selling out the suffering of animals at every turn, and keeping in lockstep with mainstream thinking. This is progressive? NOT!

The article in Mother Jones did:

  • present some of the problems with highly processed foods
  • discussed some of the problems with unnatural methods of feeding animals that result in disease
  • highlighted that Great Plains pastureland stores 54% more CO2 per acre than cropland

The article failed to:

  • mention the many ways to eat a vegan diet that provides plenty of protein and keeps you fully satisfied
  • investigate the consequences should the nation move towards grass fed animals
  • mention the high levels of toxins in flesh products
  • look at the fact that a vegetarian diet may not offer any moral, environmental, or welfare benefits over an omnivorous diet
  • mention anything about the lives of animals as living, feeling beings
  • mention the correlation between animal slaughter and violence in society
  • even consider a whole foods vegan diet
  • address the false dichotomy presented: there are infinite choices besides eat animals and eating fake meat.

In the end, Ms. Kiera decides to eat mostly plants, but with an occasional “indulgence.” Most vegetarians and vegans would not consider eating meat an indulgence; they would find it disgusting and nauseating. The callous disregard for the various ways these decisions impacts other living beings, the environment, or public health seems out of sync with the purpose of magazines like Mother Jones. The complete lack of any consideration for social justice towards animals, human or non-human, is a glaring omission.

Other articles online at Mother Jones include one about a “kinder, gentler, more convenient abattoir,” a man who kills animals six days a week. This sounds like ancient history, not “fearless journalism.”  Buying into the humane slaughter myth, the happy meat myth, and misrepresenting the positive aspects of healthy vegan cuisine seems more like something one would hear on Rush Limbaugh. Et tu, Mother Jones?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Media | 1 Comment »

Veganaphobia – Podcast #006

Friday, May 7th, 2010

After reading three books in a row about the horrors of factory farming, food safety, and the politics of the food industry, it has become apparent that some people within the vegan revolution have become fearful of veganism.  Moby, in his book, Gristle, admits to “softening” his approach, downplaying his veganism.  Jonathan Safran Foer, author of Eating Animals, takes a side step to vegetarianism and romances the humane meat movement, avoiding veganism altogether.  And Melanie Joy, in her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows, never promotes veganism, preferring the term “veg*n” or “vegetarian,” in order to appeal to a wider audience.  As someone who was raised to be an omnivore, evolved into vegetarianism, and finally learned enough to become an ethical abolitionist vegan, I am left wondering — why all the fear of the “V” word?

Veganism and the Peace Sign

When I was a young woman, the sign of a “V” meant peace — two fingers (the index and middle finger) erect and apart at the nail, just like in American Sign Language “V.”  I would hope we would reinstitute the use of the “peace” sign, the “V” that also means the “V” word, veganism. Without peace for all, and that includes the animals, there will be peace for no one. In fact, at this time, there many not be much life left on planet earth unless we mend our ways.  Let’s start using the peace sign and stand out as vegans.

Vegetarianism as a Sign of Veganaphobia

I noticed on the site VeganWrites, a site for student activists, that Bruce Friedrich of PETA was getting rid of his Vegan tee shirts because the Vegetarian tees elicited much better response. I bet a BBQ tee would do better still here in Texas, but that would hardly be vegan education. If we believe in veganism, how will it ever become prevalent if even the vegans are afraid to talk about it?  What is behind this veganaphobia?  The student writing the article then quoted Foer, stating that we should ask people to take the first step, not the last, meaning vegetarianism. But vegetarianism is not the first step – it is a side step, one that still uses animals and their bodies for purely selfish reasons. It is also not a healthy stance not a moral stance, nor even an equivalent environmental stance.

Here is a quote from Bruce Friedrich, VP of PETA

I actually think that using the word “vegan” (other than perhaps with youth) may be counterproductive to helping animals, relative to using the word “vegetarian.” As a species, we are given to seeing things as “all or nothing,” and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had discussions with people who write off making any changes because they believe they can’t go vegan.

Veganism is Clear

I would disagree.  Going vegan is much easier for many reasons. First of all, it is very clear – animals are not to be exploited, have intrinsic value and are not for human consumption.  Vegetarianism gets confusing for the general public. People bring you dead chickens or think it is acceptable to eat the secretions of animals or use their body parts in other products. Many people use the term vegetarian to indicate someone who eats fish and chicken as well as other animal products. This is not progress for the animals.

Second of all, veganism opens up an entire new world of food.  For me, going vegetarian meant giving something up, avoiding certain foods. Going vegan meant adding many, many things to my life. I became more sensitive to the animals around me, to the wealth of plant food, and to the joy of eating for the first time in my life. If I feel positive about being vegan, then when I discuss it with others it will shine through.

Third, it is much healthier for the individual and the planet. We can collectively feed more of us beings by eating plant food. We can save more of the rainforest and other forests. We can lower our cholesterol and, if we eat whole foods, get rid of most of the chronic diseases that plague modern man. We can reduce our carbon footprint and help stop global climate instability. And we can decrease the amount of violence, suffering, domination and subjugation in the world.

If there is this much confusion among vegans about the best approach towards educating the public, no wonder the public is so confused.

Sam Tucker and Gary Francione, Animal Abolitionists

While listening to one of my favorite podcasts, NZ Vegan Podcast, I was amazed at the solid, logical sound of a very young man, 13 years old at the time, who was on fire for animal rights and veganism.  Not only was he intelligent and well-spoken, he was doing something about the injustice he was witnessing.  Sam Tucker is that young man, now 14, and he is already an enterpreneur (having owned a tee-shirt business), a radio host (Food for Thought), a public speaker (at Animal Rights assemblies and on podcasts), and a successful animal rights advocate.  He is also a snowboarder and a musician.  Sam, as you can tell, does not let any moss grow under his feet.  He is part of a growing number of young people who are making enormous contributions to changing the way people think about animals, about food, and about the earth.

I am very fortunate that during my “research” phase of learning about the animal rights movement, I listened to some excellent, clear and consistent people who clarified things for me. To emphasize the point that promoting veganism via education need not be fear-inducing, there is Gary Francione and his Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach podcast for further clarification.

Animal Writes – To call yourself vegetarian or vegan

John Pizzarelli website

Fierce at Fourteen – profile of Sam Tucker

Book Review: Dr. Melanie Joy’s Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows

Food for Thought radio show

Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach Blog


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Advocacy, Podcasts, Portfolio, Veganism | 2 Comments »

How to Bash a Vegan

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Lately there have been quite a few snarky articles denouncing the horror that is veganism and the people that promote it.  We are an insensitive lot, they relate, that try to force our will on unsuspecting omnivores, who want nothing but to be left alone with their personal choices.  One article denounced masked vegans who threw a cayenne-laced pie — evidently that reader did not understand that true vegans do not resort to violence, it is antithetical to a belief in non-exploitation, respect and non-violence; I would denounce them too.  Yes, some very well-know groups call themselves animal rights groups and they do use unsavory tactics like sexism and assaultive techniques, but most self-respecting vegans I know distance themselves from such organizations.

(more…)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Veganism | 6 Comments »

Please, No Pies! – Podcast #002

Saturday, March 27th, 2010

Lately I have been noticing that the pie has been the chosen medium for garnering attention to animal rights issues, and while I can understand the need to let something fly once in awhile, there has been some unfortunate fallout from some of these pie-tossing incidents. Three recent incidences illustrate my concerns.

The first incident took place on September 21st of last year, 2009. In that incident, a large adult, dressed in a chicken costume, went onstage at a children’s event for South San Francisco Days, at Orange Memorial Park.  There was a child onstage at the time, and there were numerous children in the audience.  The large adult dressed in the chicken costume then proceeded to throw a pie in the face of an actor dressed up as Ronald McDonald.  In this one instance, we have disrespect for children, for chickens, and for an unknown man who has very little to do with animal exploitation except to be in the employ of an animal exploitation industry.  The point of the pie was to emphasize PETA’s request that McDonalds use only suppliers of chicken that employed Controlled Atmosphere Killing, which the PETA blog states is a more profitable and efficient way of killing chickens. They are not asking McDonalds to quit slaughtering chickens, just to use a more profitable and less troublesome way of slaughtering chickens. Once again, PETA is missing the whole point; it is not just how the animals are killed but it is objectionable that they are killed at all. It also does not say much for PETA that they would sponsor that kind of behavior in front of children. What it did accomplish was to set the bar very low for rational discourse regarding a very serious issue of injustice and make a mockery of the devastation that is caused by the demand for animal flesh.

~~~~~~~

Then on January 25th of this year, 2010, a PETA supporter sent a pie to the face of Canada’s Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to protest her continued support of the clubbing of baby seals.  While I am in no way a supporter of the slaughter of infants of any kind, a pie in someone’s face does little to help those baby seals. The seal slaughter touches a particular nerve with the public because of the beautiful eyes of the seals, their completely defenseless state, and the brutal and bloody scenes this activity leaves in its wake. What sending flying pies does is reduce animal rights activists to a problematic category at best.  It causes all animal rights activities to get lumped into a very unfair category.  It does nothing to reduce the destruction of the seals which has been going on for decades. A recent search about the seal slaughter revealed a long history of protest against the annual killing with no cessation of the activity. When the demand for seal skin decreased, a market was created to use the animal bodies for another commercial purpose.  Without a shift in thinking about animal life, these kinds of horrendous practices will continue.

I went to PETA’s blog to see if they could explain their reasons for pie-ing people, and found a column they host called, Ask Carla. Someone had asked the question about why PETA throws pies at people. This was her response, and I quote,

Vaudeville pie throwing ala the Three Stooges can hardly be considered violent in this day and age.  Nobody gets hurt, and better natured recipients laugh it off and crack jokes. Confining animals to tiny cages, beating them, starving them, poisoning them, chopping their beaks, tails and toes off without anesthetics, slitting their throats and ripping their skin off while they are still conscious– now that is violent.

So it is supposed to be funny? The Three Stooges? Really?  The Three Stooges and this kind of terror for animals?  Why would anyone want the recipient to laugh it off? Why would PETA want the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to laugh it off?  As a former public servant, if someone had thrown a pie in my face rather than choosing to write to me or speak to me over a disagreement about a policy, I would have considered that person unstable and recommended treatment for them. There is such an incongruity between the first part of that response and the last part of that response that laughing it off seems to have nothing to do with chopping off tails, toes and beaks. It is appalling that anyone could put those things in close proximity with levity and pie tossing.

Then this past week, I noticed an alert asking for people to volunteer to throw pies at a radio station for hosting the author of an anti-vegetarian book. The ire of the group was against a woman name Lierre Keith, who has written a book entitled, The Vegetarian Myth.  Ms. Keith was a vegan for twenty years and then reverted to omnivorism.  I learned about the book and its author in a snarky column meant to denounce veganism. I left a response on the article that had been asking for pie throwers that read:

Throwing pies in people’s faces discredits the serious issues at hand. How can you expect to be taken seriously or demand respect for animals if you are so disrespectful yourself. Veganism should be a non-violent stance that means respect for others, even if their attitudes are negative towards the movement. Unfortunately, the fallout splatters on the entire movement and makes us look like buffoons rather than rational people with an important issue. You will get press, and you will harm the movement towards respectful treatment of animals.

There had been a prior pie incidence, wherein Miss Keith had been the recipient. This was an additional attempt to pie the radio station that was hosting her. A fellow Examiner who represents Low Carb Diets, Jimmy Moore, has so far posted three articles about the incident and as you can imagine, most of the articles were very supportive of Ms. Keith and very negative towards vegans. Please listen to an interview Jimmy Moore did with Lierre Keith regarding the pie incidence.

~~~~~~~

Thank you to Jimmy Moore for presenting a more rational vegan’s viewpoint and thank you to TJ for interjecting somethng on behalf of vegans who are non-violent.

So the result of the attack on Miss Kieth was to increase support for anti-vegan advocate, increase book sales of an anti-vegan book, and decrease respect for the vegan movement. Not very positive. Let’s keep vegan advocacy positive- reaching out to teach other people about the benefits of veganism for the animals, for the earth, and for the health of all of us.

Article about 9/25/2009 pie toss with photo

You Tube video of McDonald’s pie toss

Ask Carla article defending pie throwing by PETA

Article about pie toss at Gail Shea, who supports baby seal slaughter

Response to request for pie throwers

Jimmy Moore article

NZ Vegan Podcast

Gobble Green

Abolitionist Approach

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in PETA, Podcasts, Portfolio | No Comments »

Only 1.3%

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

We share an estimated 98.7% of the DNA with our brethren, the chimps and bonobos.  These highly intelligent, sensitive social animals are our closest cousins in the tree of life.  But what a difference that 1.3% makes in respect and viability.  So many chimps end up as inappropriate pets, in the entertainment industry, or in the medical labs. If they are lucky, they might have a few years in a sanctuary, but that is still a confined life and not the one they were designed to live.  Even those who live in the wild have dismal odds of surviving for long without capture or murder. They face diminishing habitat, callous disrespect, and an uncertain future. Because of our choices as humans, so do we.

The Animals Are More Like Us Than We Knew

Declining numbers and habitat are both taking their toll. What is it about that 1.3% of DNA that allows humans the hubris of thinking we are so divine? It is certainly not our capacity for compassion or sensitivity – no sensitive, compassionate creature could wreak the havoc we wreak on one another and on the animals each and every day. Genocide, war, deforestation, animal agriculture, racism, sexism, are all part of this legacy of uniformity. It is deadly.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Animals | No Comments »

Vegan Boy

Monday, February 1st, 2010

My four year old grandson told me, “I am a vegan boy.” He understands a little bit about veganism; I bought him Ruby Roth’s book, That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals, and I read it to him when asks me to read it.  He told me yesterday that, “my parents eat animal projects.”  I knew he meant products; his mum told him that “the animals feed us.”  (Not willingly, though.) He is trying to make sense of the difference in how I eat and how the rest of his family eats.  Sometimes, he is peeved with me, for not buying him the cheese he wants.  Other times, he is peeved with his parents, because he senses their choices are harming animals. He happily eats vegan food and loves the animals he has come to know, but he eats what is put before him at preschool and at home. I do not proselytize, but I do answer his questions as honestly and briefly as I am able.  I think most children would be appalled at what is done to animals if they knew. He only knows a little but it does have him thinking. It has me thinking, too.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Children, Veganism | 2 Comments »

Fierce at Fourteen: Sam Tucker

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAWhile listening to one of my favorite podcasts, NZ Vegan Podcast, I was amazed at the solid, logical sound of a very young man, 13 years old at the time, who was on fire for animal rights and veganism.  Not only was he intelligent and well-spoken, he was doing something about the injustice he was witnessing.  Sam Tucker is that young man, now 14, and he is already an enterpreneur (having owned a tee-shirt business), a radio host (Food for Thought), a public speaker (at Animal Rights assemblies and on podcasts), and a successful animal rights advocate.  He is also a snowboarder and a musician.  Sam, as you can tell, does not let any moss grow under his feet.  He is part of a growing number of young people who are making enormous contributions to changing the way people think about animals, about food, and about the earth.  Below is a recent interview done with Sam:

When did you start to realize what was wrong with the way animals are being treated? When did you go vegan and why?
It all started when I read a book called Man vs. Beast by Robert Muchamore.  It was a fictional book about vegan terrorists and one activist described the inside of a battery farm; I was horrified. I thought to myself, surely it can’t be that bad in real life.  So I did some research and found out that it was that bad.  I immediately stopped eating battery eggs and started eating less factory farmed products.  Eventually I decided that, regardless of how well treated, it is wrong to kill an animal simply because you like how they taste.  So I went vegetarian.  As soon as I learned about the horrors of all the other animal industries, I decided to go vegan.  It is only in the last few months that I’ve learned about the abolitionist approach to animal rights.
(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Vegan People | 5 Comments »