Vegan.com - Contributing to the BS

One of the most unfortunate incidents to befall veganism is that the domain name 'vegan.com' is run by Erik Marcus. The irony is that in his logo, he claims to be "Cutting Through the BS":

Yet he doesn't even seem to know what he's talking about. Check out the FAQ on his website. Under "What is a vegan?" he has written:

A vegan is someone who doesn’t eat animal products: meat, fish, milk products, eggs, or honey. Many vegans also avoid fur, leather, and wool as these products generally result in the confinement, abuse, or slaughter of animals.

Once more, veganism is dumbed down. And to the lowest common denominator: it's a diet.

Almost as an afterthought, he mentions "many" vegans also avoid wearing the skins and fibers from animals.

I'm sorry, but ALL vegans refuse to wear fur, leather, wool, silk and whatnot. And no, these products don't "generally" result in "confinement, abuse or slaughter of animals" -- they inevitably do. On top of it all, this apologist bonehead makes it sound as if confinement, abuse or slaughter are the problem. What is the 'line' here? Two out of three? If i don't abuse or slaughter the animal, is it okay to abuse them?

More-over, this all reduces the meaning of veganism. Like most 'authorities' on veganism, Marcus doesn't describe where veganism came from, or what it was originally intended to be about (as is no surprise, since it conflicts with what Marcus purports veganism to be.)

But, to top it off, there's this article (even highlighted on his blog) where Marcus, a supposed vegan, exclaims that he is "thrilled" about a place that exploits hens and sells their eggs.

I'm sorry, but no vegan should ever be "thrilled" about a place that sells eggs. But Marcus is "relieved beyond belief" that there are some cage-free eggs being made available. (Why don't advocates of cage-free eggs and other 'free-range' animals ever address the issue that in order to be cage-free, these farms must spread out immensely - thus eliminating significant amounts of habitat from free-living animals? Do chickens need to be cage-free more than other animals need space to LIVE?? You call yourself an animal advocate???)

In his vision, this "is only 5 percent of what needs to happen", followed by "We’d like them to be exclusive as soon as possible."

So 100% of what needs to happen, according to this vegan, is 100% cage-free eggs.

No, veganism isn't the goal. Cage-free eggs are.

What a disaster. With vegans like this, who needs omnivores? It's becoming really difficult to tell the difference.

Cutting through the BS, Erik? Not even close. You're at the forefront of the BS.

UVic Martlet: Campus food outlets recognized for veggie-friendly practices

I had a quick Facebook interview with Kailey Willetts from the University of Victoria weekly newspaper the Martlet, as PETA had awarded UVic 2nd Place in their 'awards' for vegetarian-friendly campuses. Luckily, this turned into an informative article, rather than some skimpy fluff piece that typically results.

I'm guessing for 2009, UVic won't be included, after PETA's effort to highlight and promote themselves backfires in this instance. ;)

- Dave

Campus food outlets recognized for veggie-friendly practices
Nov 19, 2008 02:23 PM Kailey Willetts

If you head to Village Greens for lunch today, you'll find vegetarian fajitas on the menu. Or, if noodles are more your thing, you can opt for a stir-fry with tofu.

It's because of options like these that UVic scored second in Canada in the "Most Vegetarian-Friendly Universities List" from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals youth division (PETA2).

The competition focused particularly on vegan options, and praised UVic for its vegan lasagna, curried faux chicken and potatoes stuffed with chili and soy cheese. Winners were chosen based on their dining options, student nominations and votes.

Last year, UVic achieved fourth place overall.

With this year's second-place finish, UVic beat out nominees Simon Fraser University and the University of B.C., coming second to Mount Allison Univesity in New Brunswick.

According to PETA2, more students are becoming vegetarians or vegans because, on average, they are fitter than meat eaters. Eating animal products has also been linked to heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases, according to the group, which believes becoming a vegan is the best way to end animal suffering and protect the environment.

Dave Shishkoff, director of the UVic Vegan Association, says UVic is a good school to be a vegan at, and he's impressed with the venues offered on campus, like ones in the Student Union Building.

"The SUB apparently labels foods very well, and places like [Finnerty's] have vegan brownies, cookies and muffins, sushi and frozen burritos," Shishkoff wrote in an email interview. "Plus, our annual Vegan Thanksgiving Potluck is by far the most delicious Thanksgiving event in the city."

However, Shishkoff said the vegan message shouldn't be confused with the vegetarian one.

"Sadly, groups like PETA, Vegan Outreach and many others have completely ignored this, and are effectively 'dumbing down' veganism to what vegetarianism now stands for - which is nothing," Shishkoff said. "How many fish and chicken eating 'vegetarians' do you know?"

Shishkoff says that while UVic may be vegan-friendly, the message is meaningless coming from PETA.

However, he sees that the upside of the PETA competition is that it may encourage more vegan students to consider coming to UVic. Shishkoff believes it's important to have more active vegans on campus.

"I think a more useful campaign would be to assist vegans at colleges and universities in [promoting] veganism," he said.

For Shishkoff, being a vegan isn't a dietary or lifestyle choice, but a philosophy of "peace and respect, that argues that we shouldn't be exploiting other animals." He made the choice to become vegan 18 years ago, because it made sense.

"There was no reason for me to consume animal products. There's no physiological need, or requirement for anything that comes from an animal," said Shishkoff. "Other animals deserve respect and consideration as well ...should it really be a misfortune to simply not have been born in a human body?"

Shishkoff says being a vegan is very doable - it just takes a little education about alternatives. He also says it's more difficult dealing with social situations, but that people who take themselves seriously will encourage other people to as well - that they'll respect the "anti-speciesist" as they would an anti-racist or anti-sexist.

For more information about PETA2, visit their website at www.peta2.com.

For information about the UVic Vegan Association, visit their Facebook group: "UVic Vegan Association."

Omnivore Outreach

I was recently reintroduced to a Vegan Outreach article the group touts called ‘How Vegan?’ by Matt Ball.

VO (Vegan Outreach) is very troublesome, in my opinion. They purport to promote veganism, but fail utterly to acknowledge where veganism even comes from (which seems ridiculous for an organization labeling themselves as such to do.) A search on their website for Donald Watson, who coined the term and defined veganism yields zero results on the date of this publication.

Of course, to recognize Donald Watson, or the Vegan Society would be a further step towards admitting that what they’re advocating isn’t actually veganism.

It’s very clear from VO literature that they’re all about suffering. We must do what we can to reduce animal suffering, even if it means eating or using the animals themselves (as suggested in the article I reference above.)

Imagine if I were to say that to better combat sexism, we should occasionally behave in a sexist manner in order attract more people to the cause.

The fallacy of this is evident, yet VO thoughtlessly makes this specious claim when dealing with veganism (or speciesism).

Isn’t this actually an argument against veganism? That it’s such an unimportant cause that we can at times participate in the system we supposedly oppose, in order to appear more acceptable to the general public? Must we put ourselves down and demean our own activism in this way?

This is patently wrong, just as how VO defines veganism, as some systematic approach to reducing animal suffering. Veganism has virtually nothing to do with suffering. Watson was keen, and the definition of vegan does not mention suffering at all. It is very explicit that animal exploitation is what is to be of concern to vegans. And this is a radical way to deal with the issue: exploitation is the root, and it is the cause of this suffering. To try and combat suffering is to respond to a symptom, but ignore or bypass entirely what’s causing the symptoms…and in all likelihood will only allow the illness to fester.

VO would likely define veganism as a diet. To me, this would be akin to defining feminism as ‘equal pay’. It totally strips away the rich and progressive views that are imbued in feminism -- and veganism.

More thoughtful activists would describe veganism as a lifestyle, but this still misses key points. To me, and others who have spent time reading what Watson wrote, it’s very evident that veganism is most accurately described as a philosophy. It is an outlook or perspective that seeks to actively oppose the exploitation of animals (including humans).

To ignore this is to ignore why veganism was brought about in the first place.  Watson was well aware that even in 1944 vegetarianism was becoming vague. There were vegetarians who ate animal products (dairy, eggs), which undoubtedly led to the deaths of the animals being used, not to mention that the exploitative mentality was also very present.

Vegetarianism was fundamentally veganism, but this message was being eroded away in order to make it more popular or acceptable. So, Watson envisioned a more consistent and progressive movement, and coined the term ‘vegan’ to label this outlook.

Today as you’ve probably already concluded, veganism faces this exact same problem. Instead of being a vivid and clear message against exploitation, it’s been dumbed-down to a diet – and in VO’s terms, not even a consistent one (as they try to include non-vegan things like honey as being vegan).

Sadly, very few ‘vegan’ groups have any idea where veganism came from, let alone the deep and important message that is trying to be conveyed. (I’ve seen that some even believe that VO or PETA came up with veganism!!)

It seems to me that Vegan Outreach is really Omnivore Outreach, as they seem entirely fixated on farm animals, and how they’re treated and should be treated. And at the end of the day, they’re missing entirely the scope that veganism covers, from the wide array of other animal products such as leather and fur, to free-living animals (who are the ones benefiting from a vegan human society.)

There is so much more to vegan advocacy, and for them to have ‘vegan’ in their name, and this degree of ignorance and divorce from the term itself is nothing less than shameful.

It’s time vegans consider more deeply what this movement is about, and recognize that we’re a part of a serious and important social movement, and by thinking and acting this way, we’ll eventually be accepted as such. I, for one, want to be recognized for more than being an advocate of a ‘diet’. That isn’t veganism.

(Note: I don’t mean to put Watson on a pedestal, hero worship is something I oppose strongly, however he is a handy reference point, and deserves credit for the vision and social movement he initiated.)