Have Gone Vegan

words that'll trigger the "anti-woke" crowd

Disclaimer: even before going vegan my politics leaned about as far left as left can go, so undoubtedly my "leftist" bias will be showing in my possibly LONGEST post to date.

Also, congratulations to the many Americans (younger ones especially!) NOT voting for election-deniers, conspiracy theorists or extremists during November's mid-terms. Canadians applaud you. (But boo to Floridians and Texans who re-elected Republicans hell-bent on implementing anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-transgender legislation.*) 

Note: this post was begun in late October, but the recent Club Q shooting (and subsequent response by those who helped stoke hostility towards LBGTQ+ members), only reinforce some of the reasons I give later on for writing it in the first place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright, let's start with the one word that has helped trigger an almost world-wide (okay, UK, USA, Australia and Canada at least) moral panic (trans panic to be specific) that in my opinion could even be viewed as a social contagion of sorts given how it has spread: 

WOKE

And just in case you haven't come across this term yet, count your lucky stars as it seems to have become ubiquitous both online and in media print. While the term "woke" (and "stay woke") originated in the States among black activists years ago to mean being aware of racial injustice and discrimination, it is now more often used as a pejorative insult against people, institutions and ideas perceived as too progressive, in particular when it comes to issues concerning race and gender inclusion. 

Which means we now have woke as an adjective describing almost anything and everything (plus there are so many derivatives of the word, like wokeness and wokified, it's hard to keep count), and I've even seen Wokes used as a noun to refer to people. Say what? 

And it wouldn't even be so bad except that you have anti-woke sites popping up everywhere (e.g., Vote Against Woke – deleted as it violated election laws, Stop Woke Activism, and the especially insidious Blueprint for Canada – sorry, I wasn’t going to amplify these sites by linking, but the Blueprint site is just so ridiculously off the mark that I couldn’t resist adding a few links at the bottom of this post**), and worse, a concerted effort during municipal elections to stack school boards with regressive anti-woke trustees. Thankfully, most of them DIDN'T get elected, but they sure tried. (Sadly, anti-woke school election candidates in the US did have more success.)

(To be clear, "wokeism" isn't only decried by those on the political right, as there's a segment on the political left – in higher education and publishing particularly – also strongly denouncing "woke culture" as illiberal.)

So, in no particular order, let the partial list (I'm sure I've missed a bunch) of knuckle-clenching words for the woke-fearing (ha, made up my own woke word) begin:

• left or leftist (but notice how you don't really see "rightist" too much) 
• progressive 
• politically correct (remember when this precursor term to woke was in vogue?)
• trigger warning
• victim 
• Antifa (because being anti-fascist and anti-racist is a bad thing?)
• diversity
• inclusion
• identity politics (as if white, straight, Christian, etc., aren't identities used in politics as well)
• oppression
• intersectionality (tsk, tsk, as if one identity/oppression wasn't already too much)
• gender theory
• gender expression
• gender identity (yes, Virginia, there IS such a thing as gender and it IS distinct from biological sex)
• gender affirmation (and gender-affirmation care)
• transgender 
• trans women (saying "trans women are women" will really set them off)
• cis or cisgender (also irrationally loathed)
• okay, basically anything containing the word gender (except for gender-critical)
• genderqueer, genderfluid, nonbinary (because heaven help us if we can't classify folk into neat confining little boxes like male, female, feminine, masculine)
• pronouns (amazing how itty bitty words like he/she/they can irrationally irritate a woke-fearing person like almost nothing else)
• trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF for short, but there is nothing radical or feminist about it, which is maybe why they prefer to sugarcoat it by using the term gender-critical instead – also, in a twisted way, the acronym TERF is considered by most who practice it not only to be a slur, but actual hate speech, even though hate is exactly the effect of what they’re promoting)
• social justice 
• social justice warrior (usually SJW for short)
• equity (equality of opportunity is MAYBE okay, but NOT equity of outcome)
• inequity (because that implies that some benefit from unequal outcomes)
• racism (believe it or not, but this term is actually viewed by some as an anti-white slur)
• racist (some people consider being CALLED a racist more outrageous than someone actually BEING a racist—I know, it boggles the mind)
• anti-racism (again, a big no no, because while not being racist is one thing, actively trying to dismantle racism seems to be beyond the pale) 
• systemic racism (this notion is considered especially offensive—not that it exists, but that some have the nerve to suggest it exists)
• critical race theory (or CRT for short, is SO explosive for some that apparently the only way they can deal with the notion of trying to explain racism is to denounce the theory itself as racist)
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion initiatives or DEI for short (some prefer strategies like The Theory of Racelessness which argues that there is no such thing as race, and to think so is racist, reminding me of those who claim to be colourblind when it comes to race and who will quote MLK as if he was saying to ignore the colour of someone's skin instead of not judging a person by it)
• privilege (white privilege especially, and this may be because many of us have had the luxury of not even having to think of our skin colour while growing up)
• white fragility (say those two words together and you'll really see some people get defensive, like the professor I'll be mentioning in the why-I-wrote-this-post section below)

So there you have it: the two main topics and related words (race, gender identity) that will send the anti-woke into a frenzy these days. Use them sparingly or liberally, as you see fit. ;)

Some other terms you'll often see bandied about by these folk include the by now often-misused term freedom, freedom of speech (a borrowed American term actually, as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to freedom of expression rather than freedom of speech, which, by the way, should not incorporate hate speech under the guise of "free" speech), parental rights (in conjunction with education), anti-mandate, government overreach, tyranny, global elite, global cabal, gatekeepers (a favourite term of Pierre Poilievre's), grooming, indoctrination, virtue signalling, cancel culture, and on, and on.  

TERFs in particular (if you're a radical feminist who is also trans-exclusionary I WILL call you by that name no matter how strongly you consider it to be a slur) who have become obsessed with the imaginary evils and threats posed by transgender women (yes, they ARE women) are equally obsessed with terms like biological sex (essentially positing biological determinism or essentialism arguments that feminists like myself have railed against for years), sex-based rights, and one of the more ridiculous terms, adult human female. 

It can be confusing, for sure, as one of the tenets of feminism is to reject gender stereotypes, but that doesn't mean that gender, along with sex, doesn't exist. And whether gender is more socially constructed or biologically based (my take on the 'is gender based on biology or merely a social construct' debate is that it's likely a variable combination of the two with other factors thrown in that differ for everyone), every person should have the right to express their gender identity as it feels comfortable to them.

Meaning that a cisgender woman should be able to present herself in more traditionally masculine ways if she wants, a transgender woman should be able to present herself in more traditionally feminine ways if that feels right for her, and ALL women should be able to present themselves any damn way they want. In short, there's no room for anti-trans sentiment if you consider yourself to be feminist, as anti-trans IS anti-feminist. And frankly, so-called feminists picking on the most vulnerable group of women as their main (and in some cases only) target of feminist activism (including the all-the-more-reprehensible for misusing her large platform, highly privileged and powerful J.K. Rowling), is disgusting. Using feminism as a cover to exclude trans people and justify transphobia is wrong on every level.

Now you may wonder why I've gone on at length about anti-wokeness (and gender issues in particular), on this vegan blog, so let me (at length again, I'm afraid), explain. I wrote about all of this stuff because:

• I'm tired of seeing the word "woke" everywhere, especially when used as a negative signifier
• while words change over time (e.g., gay no longer just means lighthearted and carefree), it bothers me when words or slogans (e.g., My Body My Choice) get co-opted 
• or worse, used to mean something entirely false, e.g., equating "grooming" with gender-affirming care for trans youth, rather than the actual process of manipulation by abusers
• and it's not just words, but anti-woke politicians actively trying to implement not only what can be taught in schools concerning race and gender, but anti-LGBTQ+ legislation that has real and devastating effects
• in fact, rather than youth wanting to transition because of social contagion as claimed, I'd argue that perhaps the real social contagion is the  “trans panic” that seems to have arisen among folk who are just repackaging all the anti-gay hatred and serving it onto the transgender community instead
• the folk objecting to woke also tend to be anti-mask, anti-vaccine, anti-mandate, skeptical of climate change, prone to conspiracy theories about things like "The Great Reset," obsessed with freedom that they falsely believe has been taken away, confused about what "free speech" does and does not include, and worst of all, convinced that their rights are being taken away while actively trying to ensure that the rights of groups THEY don't like are taken away
• I'm tired of seeing these symbols in my small Ontario town on a regular basis: huge Canadian flags on (usually) black pickup trucks, F___ Trudeau flags and bumper stickers (I even saw a Confederate flag once, and a bumper sticker saying "Jesus is my saviour, Trump is my President" for Pete's sake), and the fringe freedom fighters STILL congregating downtown every Saturday with their flags and picket signs
• man-child Elon Musk (remind you of anyone?) pandering to the anti-woke crowd on Twitter ensuring it becomes even more of a cesspool than it already is
• people with real clout and institutional power whining about "cancel culture" while using free speech that actually has the potential to cancel those with much less power simply for being who they are (I'm thinking here, for example, of toxic misogynist and weirdly-afraid-of-pronouns Jordan Peterson, J.K. Rowling once again, and even Margaret Atwood, whom I'd admired, retweeting anti-trans articles and signing, along with other privileged individuals, Harper's letter lamenting their concern that they're not free to say whatever the hell they want without social backlash or consequence. In other words, their speech should be free, but heaven forbid that anyone else complain about what THEY say. Again, this from people with big enough platforms that unlike others, they'll likely never encounter the danger of being cancelled, either figuratively or literally.) 
• speaking of powerful individuals, I had a fruitless email exchange with an Wilfred Laurier University professor and author of DIE and Respect are Bad (in part questioning his definitions taken from discredited self-proclaimed CRT expert/disinformation and conspiracy peddler/leading populizer of the term "groomer" as an LGBTQ+ pejorative, James Lindsay), who is also a member of an Academic Freedom Executive Committee (comprised of all male, probably white, middle-aged, straight, cis members) despising anything they claim to be woke, because boy, do they want to hold onto their power and privilege at all cost. Looking at his Twitter feed after, I realized I shouldn't have bothered.
• I'm tired of all the nonsense that gets normalized by Donald-types in the US trickling up north, and then leaving the fringes to become more mainstream
• I get scared, and sad, watching social conservative values, policies and legislation being touted and implemented across the world, and find it disheartening to see so many right-wing (some of them being very far-right) politicians being elected
• closer to home, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre as federal Opposition Leader, yikes
• misinformation and disinformation hurts everyone
• if I thought fighting on behalf of other species was difficult enough, the taking away of rights of human beings belonging to minority groups will only mean that trying to make life better for ALL beings is even more of an uphill battle
• as vegans who believe that power is at the root of all oppression, and that various types of oppression are interlinked, intersectionality isn't just a buzzword
• as intersectional vegans, we can't just say that our focus is only on animals
• finally, as vegans, the sentiment of "stop trying to force your ideology down everyone's throats" is a familiar one, and no matter what group receives that message, it's usually sent by those not liking a dominant narrative challenged

Where do we go from here? I don't know. But I'd suggest that if you're not quite sure where you stand on certain issues, it might help to see who your ideological bedfellows are. For example, if you're an anti-vax vegan (why?) parroting all sorts of alt-right nonsense (again, why?), ask yourself why you'd align yourself with individuals or groups who otherwise have very suspect views on almost everything else. How could they then be completely in the right on this particular issue?

With any issue really, ask yourself, who are the enthusiastic supporters and promoters? Who are the detractors? Who would you rather listen to? In the case, for example, of people pushing anti-trans views, would you rather listen to and respect the opinions of trans folk directly affected, or someone like J.K. Rowling who doesn’t have any skin in the game?  Parse out what is fact, and what are speculation, conjecture, and fear-mongering, from reputable sources. In short, do your homework.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The updated Texas Republican Party platform defines homosexuality as an "abnormal lifestyle choice" and opposes "all efforts to validate transgender identity." State Attorney General Ken Paxton tried to classify transition-related care for minors as child abuse, and Governor Gregg Abbott called on people to report parents of transgender minors if it was suspected they were receiving gender-affirming care. Meanwhile, Florida Governor DeSantis signed legislation limiting the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and discussions of gender identity and sexuality in schools. It should scare the heck out of everyone that someone who proudly asserts that "Florida is where woke goes to die," may be running for President in 2024.

** couldn’t resist these links as they’re too bizarre for words:

https://blueprintforcanada.ca/the_cult_dynamics_of_wokeness.html

one which shows how CRT is misunderstood, misrepresented, twisted and distorted: 

https://blueprintforcanada.ca/what_anti_racism_in_CRT_really_means.html And I can say that having read a number of the books/authors they're particularly critical of.

and this “taxonomy” of woke religion which would actually be funny if its adherents didn’t think it was the gospel truth and it didn’t contain so many blatant untruths:

https://blueprintforcanada.ca/woke_religion_a_taxonomy.html

if you want, here's a Twitter thread debunking this entire Blueprint website: https://mobile.twitter.com/DrArendt/status/1565702149039947776

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot to read, I know, so hopefully you made yourself a cup of tea to go along with it!

p.s. I now realize that according to the anti-woke I’m likely even woker than woke—though not exactly sure what the term for that would be, snort, and that to them I've probably swallowed the woke Kool-Aid whole, but hey...

truth and reconciliation - every child matters

September 30 is National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, and Orange Shirt Day. It's a day to honour the survivors of Canada's Indian residential schools, and the thousands of children who never returned. It's a day to recognize the trauma and inter-generational impacts suffered by families and communities.  It's a day for Indigenous people to try and help each other heal, and for non-Indigenous people to reflect on the roles our government, churches, institutions and individuals played in stripping vulnerable children of their culture, their traditions, their language, their spirituality, their family relationships, and the right not to be emotionally, physically, and sexually abused. It's a day for all of us to contemplate this truly horrific chapter in our country's history, and its long-reaching effects.

It's a day to really let the numbers sink in. That over a span of about 150 years (between 1831 and the late 1990s(!) when the last federally supported residential schools closed) 150,000 or more First Nations, Inuit and Métis Nation children were taken with the goal of assimilating them. That more than 2000 unmarked graves have been found. That over 4000 children is estimated to have died in government-funded, church-run schools. 

It's a day (but not just a day, week, or year) of acknowledging and recognizing the truth of what happened, and a day of starting or continuing the process of reconciliation. It's a day of understanding both intellectually and emotionally that every child matters indeed. 

I wish the notion that all children are important was actually true in terms of individual and societal actions. Because it wasn't true for the ones ripped from their families and sent to those schools. Still isn't true today if you count something like access to clean drinking water as just one example of many. 

It wasn't true for the working-class kids sent to Ontario Training Schools either. And while not comparable in terms of cultural genocide, lasting trauma from severe abuse meted out by unqualified or plain sadistic adults also haunts its survivors to this day. 

It still isn't true if you consider the number of children currently living in poverty, going hungry, or being abused in any number of ways. We need to do more than pay lip service, more than small gestures like wearing an orange shirt. We need to genuinely honour, listen to survivors, and make reconciliation more than just a goal. 

On Friday, please reflect on the children who never made it home, and the ones who did, but not unscathed. Listen, learn, support, share, amplify, challenge stereotypes, respect, celebrate, attend an event - just do something to help make things better.

Some of the information I used in this post comes from Missing Children of Indian Residential Schools, a comprehensive resource of text, photos and recommended documents, compiled by the University of Windsor. And here's a good article for those wondering what they can do to better understand history, and what they can do now: Why the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation isn't just another stat holiday.

whose lives matter continued: part B

Hello! If you haven't read part A yet, feel free to do so now. More importantly, if you haven't read the original whose lives matter? then you'd better do so tout suite!

In that post I was trying to convey why saying All Lives Matter (abbr. to ALM from now on) in response to Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a problem. And while I believe ALM may be said in different ways by vegans (as in, all animal lives matter too) and non-vegans (as in, non-black lives, but mainly white lives), it's still problematic regardless of who says it.

To restate, BLM doesn't mean that only black lives matter, but that their lives matter too, and that all lives CAN'T matter until black ones actually do. And while some may suggest that black lives already matter, systemic racism says otherwise. People denying that systemic racism exists clearly say otherwise too. 

BLM is a movement that has gained traction for a reason. While the need for it has existed for what probably seems forever, enough people are standing up now and saying enough is enough, and their voices can no longer be ignored.

I cited a couple of examples of other campaigns where the message is not given the same type of pushback, and the fact that they don't indicates the stronghold that white supremacy and racism has. I also talked about the existence of systemic racism here in Canada as well, and provided links to books and actions for allies.

A few more examples of why saying ALM is not appropriate include a house, a pool, and a birthday. From my reply to a comment: The analogy that I've often seen used to explain why saying ALM isn't appropriate is the 'house on fire' one. Basically, if one house in a neighbourhood is on fire, it is appropriate to focus all attention on trying to put out that particular fire, and not worry about the other houses. One could argue that All Houses Matter, but in this instance the house on fire gets priority. Another analogy I've seen is the lifeguard one. If a person is drowning, then that person gets helped, not everyone else in the pool.

The birthday one I just mentioned goes something like this: if you're at a party wishing someone Happy Birthday, it doesn't mean that no one else has birthdays or that those birthdays aren't equally important, it's just that they're not being celebrated or focused upon that particular day.

I provided a few links to other articles that explain this better than I could, and am quoting from the first link here:

When someone counters “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter,” it’s appropriate to use the metaphor of a neighborhood: if someone’s house is on fire, while others are not, whose house is the priority? Similarly, choosing to insist that “All Lives Matter,” including those of non-human animals, is not technically wrong, but still distracts from and diffuses the potential impacts of an important and necessary racial justice movement.

The author of Stop Comparing Black Lives Matter to Animal Rights makes the powerful argument that non-black vegans should NEVER make that comparison:

Why? The reasons why are multiple, but let me start with the most basic: You already enjoy the opportunities and privileges that Black people are fighting for.

They end with saying:

Please, vegans with privilege, I’m asking you to join me: Show up and fight racism without equivocation, suppress that impulse to compare the plight of non-human animals to the plight of your fellow humans, see that society’s compassion will never extend to animals before it extends to all humans, and recognize your privilege as a non-Black vegan to fight for animal rights without having to also fight for your own rights.

One more link includes 9 different explanations as to why we should stop saying ALM, which means that something should resonate with everyone, hopefully.

As I mentioned in part A:

Right now the world is also more fully waking up to the reality that racism plays a role in every institution and layer of society (systemic racism), and while some vegans may continue to not want to deal with that, may continue to insist that our movement should only focus on nonhumans, a veganism without intersectionality at its core is like a feminism that doesn't want to include all women in its fight for equality.

...Which is why as vegans, we have to fight for the most marginalized of ALL groups, including both animals and humans. Fighting against speciesism is important, but without paying attention to other interlinked forms of oppression, veganism misses the mark.

One last thing. I would suggest that vegans saying ALM is even more tone deaf than when non-vegans do, in part because of the importance of intersectionality, but also because of the very history of black people being compared to animals themselves.

As a white person who doesn't suffer from systemic racism but likely benefits from and upholds it, I'm clearly not the one with any authority on the subject matter. But if I'm going to try and be an ally, and put forth the notion that vegans have to be allies if veganism is important to them, then all I can do is learn as much as possible and do the best that I can.

And if I can offer up one piece of one-word advice (before I shut up) that everyone (myself included) really could do much more of, it's this:

LISTEN

hiatus interruptus: when words fail

Came across a passage in a book recently (I read daily no matter what else is going on in my life) lamenting how we don't have a real word for men who kill women, whereas the term "man-hater" is used so often you would think actual harm is caused by those accused of being one. And even though not new, this observation still strikes me every time I see it. They also rightly asserted that while we do have "misogynist", this too clinical and too academic-sounding word doesn't do the concept justice. 

It's ironic that man-hater is usually directed at those who don't actually hate men, but who do object to hateful actions that hurt everyone. Man-hater is especially lobbed against those who question the status quo, and who fight to eradicate gender inequality. Actually, no, you just have to look like you're not living up to outdated gender expectations and you can expect to have this word spat out at you. Feminist is another term that when not used by like-minded peers, is more apt to be hissed, snarled, or accompanied by spittle than merely said. Just like the term "man-hater", these words are often hurled in anger or contempt. Fear too, because how dare people, women especially, assert their right not to be subservient. An interesting word, subservient, as you can practically see the words serve, servile and servant floating within it.

Man-hater. But if you think about it, how many acts of physical violence resulting in bodily harm or death are caused by these so-called man-haters? How many injuries, rapes, other sexual assaults, or murders? Leaving verbal and other forms of violence aside for now, how much physical damage do victims of man-hating actually endure? 

Then think about the instances of physical assault, sexual assault, rape and death experienced by women. Without even looking up statistics, I know the numbers are staggering and frightening, but woman-hater isn't a term that's regularly used to describe the perpetrators of these acts. One could argue however, that evidence indicates we live in a rape culture, which is part of a larger woman-hating culture. So why is the more accurate term woman-hater rarely used?

Another word that I almost never see used relates to dehumanization. Loosely defined, to dehumanize refers to an act or process of depriving a person or group of human qualities. A terrible thing, obviously. A synonym for this is animalize, meaning to cause to be or act like an animal. Leaving aside the inherent anthropocentric bias (we've all heard phrases like, they're no better than animals!), why (and this is more of a rhetorical question) do we not use the term deanimalize to describe a similar process against animals? 

A paltry 2,540 results when Googled, it seems to me that this lack of acknowledgement of the horrendous injustice done to individual beings and groups on a daily and worldwide basis deserves greater use of the term. We routinely strip animals of their animalhood (personhood some would even say), that is, the essential qualities that make them a sentient being and not an object, and don't give it a second thought. It begins with the use of the word "it" to describe most animals instead of he or she, words like pork instead of pig, beef instead of cow, television commercials about eggs that don't even show or mention chickens, and of course the routine farming practices we all abhor. Language is twisted and doesn't include the appropriate naming of what would be considered theft, kidnapping, rape and murder if the victims were human.

Animals, male and female, old and young, sick and healthy, are instead treated as inanimate objects, products of consumption and cogs of a vast and vile agricultural machine. In short, living beings with their own interests are rendered invisible, and the very act of invisibling is made invisible for most people as well. So another word almost completely missing from our vocabulary is animal-hater, and really, what word better describes a person who kidnaps and kills without fear of punishment because of a victim's species? Animal-hating (even though it isn't defined as such) is very much a part of our culture and that of others, so it seems absurd to have many who condone animal cruelty refer to themselves as animal-lover simply because they favour a couple of specific species. Love isn't even necessary; animal-respecter would be nice enough.

Man-hater, animal-lover. Woman-hater, animal-hater. So much hate, but not enough words to identify accurately where the real hatred is coming from, and whom it's actually aimed at. A lot of fakery in other words, and sadly, in today's political climate, even the word "fake" is now failing. The difference between fake and genuine was once more easily discerned, but nowadays fake seems to be applied by some to anything they don't want to hear. In some ways even topsy-turvy is now better thought of as turvy-topsy, as if things weren't bad enough before.

Words fail when they mean the exact opposite, when they conceal what's really going on, and when we don't even have proper names to describe what's happening. Words in this post fail too, of course, because of what I've left out. While I've talked (the words briefly outlined would perhaps be more accurate) about some of the words that fail women and animals, I haven't even touched upon words that fail humans who, for example, aren't white. And I haven't mentioned the most important word, the word that's at the heart of misnaming or not naming at all, and the word at the root of harm to different groups of beings whether based on categories like class, race, gender, ability, orientation or even species.

I love words, but even I often fail to do them, and you the reader, any real justice.

the following words may tell you that you're on the right track

And while it might be annoying to hear them at first, they're actually a sign that you're successfully ruffling some feathers (should vegans still be using this idiom?) and upsetting the badly-in-need-of-upsetting status quo. 

• radical
• fringe
• extremist
• lunatic or nutjob
• pushing an agenda
• or even plain old 'agenda' 
• lies or propaganda
• terrorist or terrorism
• anti-human or anti-humanism
• and human exceptionalism (a term worthy of its own future upcoming post)

Yep, those words mean you've hit a nerve, made folk uncomfortable, defensive or angry, and are messing with their version of what's normal, natural and acceptable. These may include individuals around you, people online, industry representatives, members of scientific and medical communities with vested interests in continuing animal use, and anyone whose livelihood is threatened by what you stand for. But know that when you or your work is described by any of the words in the list above, you're making headway.

On the other hand, don't spend too much time with those bandying around the more inflammatory terms on the list, because that would be like trying to persuade ardent Trump supporters that the Donald really is NOT interested in helping anyone but the already wealthy, or that Hillary Clinton is not the devil incarnate herself. Good luck, snort. (Okay, sarcasm doesn't really help either, and neither does shaming.)

No, spend your time with those who are still open to facts, who haven't completely closed off the notion that other sentient beings aren't just things or property. Keep up the good work, the good fight, and remember what we're actually fighting for:

No animal wants to suffer. Every animal wants freedom, at the very least to perform its innate needs. We humans might value our own lives in a more intellectualized manner, but we all share a desire to live. To be with others that we care about. To be with family. To run, if we are built to run, to leap, if we leap, to swim, if we are meant to swim. A desire not to be slaughtered by a merciless hand. --Jo-Anne McArthur WE ANIMALS p200

so I'm thinking of calling myself a 'New Abolitionist', snort

Cuz you know, it's classy, clever and cool to attach the word "new" to a term to make it a pejorative. Um, no, it's actually old and tired, but hey, small things amuse me. All kidding aside though, I DO struggle with what to call myself. I'm abolitionist, but have no problem supporting reform measures that reduce suffering. And for that I may have earned the openly mocked "new welfarist" label by some, but tough. 

So why am I bringing this up now? The beginnings of this post has been sitting untouched in my drafts folder since February of 2012, and I suppose I just wanted to finally get it off my chest. And because this time of year tends to make me a little Grinchy before the spirit of the season eventually manages to infiltrate my system, I thought I'd deal with it so I can hopefully move on to a more positive state of mind. And clean up the coal before the new year begins. ;)  

I've been vegan for a fairly long time now (8 years next summer is pretty long, no?), but did you know that I almost gave up on being vegan practically right after adopting the label? As soon as I decided to go vegan I looked up the concept online so I could join the group of loving, joyous, peaceful and supportive folk that vegans obviously were. [Okay, I'll give you a minute here to guffaw at my naïveté.] You can imagine my shock then when I discovered that the animal rights movement was more divisive than any other movement I'd thus far encountered, and in comparison made being a feminist look like a walk in the park.

One of my first online searches landed me in a forum (it may have been Examiner) where I soon noticed this one person being even more obnoxious than the rest. What also annoyed me was that unlike everyone else who just went by their first name, this individual kept including their educational and work credentials every time they said something. Who is this jerk, I thought, and why are they so damn status-conscious? Sorry, but that kind of crap doesn't impress me, and I hoped they would just go away already. Oops, as I learned soon enough, this was the leader (leader!) of an influential branch of the movement, and I was almost ready to throw in the towel. Because if this jackass (or, to be more fair, person with jackassy ways) was supposed to be someone to admire and learn from, well, the movement could count me out. 

I was genuinely bummed for a while, but then figured that there had to be other vegans whose philosophy and approach more closely resembled my own, and of course, there were. Veganism is about compassion and other animals more than the petty (and sometimes not-so-petty) differences between vegans, and it wasn't long before I found my own kind of people so to speak.

That first person who rudely awakened me to the reality of the vegan movement never did go away, and I encountered them again years later in a completely fruitless one-on-one online discussion that cemented my dislike of this person even more. It also made me question their professional skills because surely a lawyer would know that parroting the same stock phrases over and over does not an argument make? Zero listening skills, debatable debating skills, complete arrogance, and the most linear black-and-white thinking I've ever seen. Not exactly a recipe for inspiring change methinks.

That opinion hasn't changed. And while I'm sure that this individual started out with the best of intentions and still truly believes that their approach and strategy is the best one where other animals are concerned, we have to call a spade a spade. Or in this case, a bully. Not a label I use too often, but from my own personal and work experience, I tend to recognize bullying behaviours almost instantly.

Okay, at this point you're probably thinking that I'm not being nice right now either, and you're likely right, but I also believe that vegans have a responsibility not only for our message, but for our messengers as well. And allowing even one of those messengers to be controlling, to delete comments that even slightly deviate from their own opinion, to ban group or forum members outright for not strictly toeing their philosophical line, and to deny any legitimacy to other approaches is well, unacceptable. What's worse is that this kind of behaviour would be rightly recognized as abusive were it to happen in a personal relationship, so why do we condone it when it happens in a political movement?

It's not right, and we shouldn't.

These days I tend to describe myself as abolitionist in theory and ideals, and pragmatic in approach. In short, a pragmatic abolitionist. Call me new welfarist if you will, but I define myself as an abolitionist because I want to see the abolition of animal use. I just don't see it happening as quickly as certain absolutist abolitionists do, and definitely not by just chanting the world is vegan if you want it over and over. It will, in my opinion (and those of others), require many strategies (both abolitionist AND reform), many approaches, and the inclusion of people who aren't even vegan.

Until that time, we need to be nicer to each other, and to those we are trying to reach. We need to lead by example (myself included), both online and out in the real world that we're trying to change. Because if compassion for others isn't shown, why the hell should non-vegans think compassionately about other species?

In sum, I can't really call myself a new or old anything if I don't at least try to live up to the ideals of what veganism really means. So I pledge, right now, to become a better person in the new year, and to try and become the kind of vegan I admire. Anyone with me? :)

would we call women non-male humans?

Of course not. It not only sounds ridiculous, it IS ridiculous. But that's how I often feel about the term non-human animals too, even though I understand why it's used, and use it on occasion myself. So this post is about how we name the beings we care about and fight for, because after seven years of being vegan it's something I still haven't been able to resolve. Obviously I'm not alone in this what-to-name-other-animals quandary, as the more-than-qualified Vegan Feminist Agitator herself wrote a brilliant post on this very topic not so long ago. And I considered linking to her post and leaving it at that because I really don't want to repeat her many good points, but, my need to muddle through this in writing with you in the hopes of finally solving this maddening linguistic conundrum proved to be stronger. Ready?

So, what do we (what do you?) call other animals when you're trying to convey that humans are animals too? Because sadly, we often forget or even actively squash our own animalness when trying to differentiate ourselves. Specifically, how do you refer to other beings who* are animals but not human animals? And how can we do this without implying that human animals are somehow superior, or the norm? Because as we know, naming is crucial in how we identify and interact with others. Naming is not neutral, is not objective, but determines from the outset how something or someone (or whether something is in fact someone) will be treated.
[* Spelling and grammar check suggested who should be that. Naturally I disagreed.] 

The problem of course with the term "non-male humans" is that it posits male humans as the norm and places female humans in the category of Other. (Now I would argue that in practice we still act as if women deviate from the norm, but at least our language reflects an ideal of treating men and women as equals.) Unfortunately, the term "non-human animals" does the same thing (in this case positing human animals as the norm), except that it doesn't sound as ludicrous. Perhaps this is because we're so used to the term, or because speciesism is ingrained enough that even vegans haven't quite outgrown our outmoded language.

Back to the question: How do we refer to other animals?

• animals
• non-human animals
• humans and other animals
• other animals 
• beings
• other beings
• sentient beings
• earthlings
• insert your term here

Of those eight terms I try to avoid using animals as much as possible because for most folk that word excludes humans. I also try (but often fail) to avoid non-human animals for the reasons discussed above. Humans and other animals is a bit cumbersome so I tend to shorten it to other animals. I like sentient beings quite a lot, and will often use that, in addition to beings or other beings. The only term that I haven't really used even though I see it a fair bit is earthlings, not because I don't think it appropriate, but because for some odd reason (maybe I've read or watched too much sci-fi?) the word always makes me think of Martians. And I mean always, snort. 

Sadly, I slip and sometimes find myself using animals (see how ubiquitous animal use really is?) when I don't actually mean to, so I wish I could settle on one term once and for all. One term that is clear, compact, and sounds just right.

What about you? How have you solved the problem of what to call those not called Maria? ;) 

the X in Christmas

For people who are not Christian, this holiday has very little to do with celebrating the birth of Christ, and while Christians may lament this, holidays should be inclusive. Inclusive, of course, having a much more expansive meaning for vegans than non-vegans. And while I've never given the word Xmas all that much thought (or use, except when I didn't have enough space), I've been seeing it a fair bit lately and all of a sudden its appropriateness struck me with full force today.

Because that X really does sum up what happens, doesn't it? 

Even folk who believe that a birth should be the focus of this event, do so by reveling in the deaths of billions of sentient beings. We literally snuff out the lives of countless others, putting a big ol' X through their existence (see how that word has an x in it too?), and think nothing of it. Most holidays involve the deaths of other beings on a massive scale as well, but I've never seen the hypocrisy of Christmas as a religious holiday quite as clearly until now.

X brings to mind: 

• ex
• cross
• cancelling out
• unknown value
• a dead cartoon character's eyes when marked with x's
• and incorrect when used as the opposite of a check mark

X, one letter with multiple meanings, including a literal death sentence on a day that for many humans is supposed to be about birth. How odd. How sad.

why don't we have a term for hating animals?

Actually, we do, but it's so little known (I only ran across it myself a while ago) that it hardly even registers in Google search. Try looking for its cousins, and you'll find misogyny (hatred or dislike of women) coming back with a scary 1,640,000 results, misandry (hatred or dislike of men) clocking in at 1,100,000 results, and the more equal-opportunity term misanthropy (something I definitely fall prey to on occasion) yielding 542,000 results. But misothery?  A paltry 1,780 results is all you'll get. 

A shame, really, since the term itself (coined by Jim Mason in 1993) contains the resulting misery for animals right within its letters. I like this term, I really do. And it reminds me of the dangers when we don't have proper names for things so commonplace, so underlying just about everything, and yet so silent. Remember the world-changing effect when Betty Friedan described the problem that has no name? Naming is powerful, necessary, and exciting too.

The word misothery may have an awful ring to it, but I'm glad I found it, and will be adding it to my arsenal of tools to fight animal and human exploitation. Because these two types of exploitation are linked, with the one enabling and the other perhaps begetting, but definitely reinforcing. And who knows, maybe one day, certain acts of animal use and abuse will be seen more widely for what they really are: hate crimes based on species.

p.s. if you agree that this term is a damn fine one, and deserves a wider audience, please help pass it on :) 

my elevator pitch needs work

Yesterday in the staff-room, someone said to me, "You're vegan, right?" (She knows my sister-in-law, so I believe she knew this from her rather than hearing about it from someone at work.) I replied yes, and she right away said that she would find being vegan hard. In response, I kind of shrugged my shoulders and said I actually found it quite easy. Then the seemingly obligatory question of But how do you fill in the blank because you know how the rest of this goes followed, to which I rattled off a bunch of items like beans, nuts, pasta and grains.

Then she asked the question that no one in my family has even asked me, Why are you vegan? If you don't mind my asking, she quickly added. Sure, I said. Then, not having been asked this directly before (and not being prepared, plus being more articulate in writing than I am in person), I stated that I felt being vegan was healthier and better for the environment. At this, she sort of nodded. Then I added, But the main reason I'm doing this is for the animals. I looked at her as I said this, and noticed that she had gone blank, and completely still. No expression on her face, no facial or bodily movement, and no hint of recognition in her eyes as to what I was saying. 

At this point I panicked a little, and because I work in a Christian retirement home, then said that animals were God's creatures too, and that horrible things happen on factory farms for no good reason because we don't need to eat any animals, and look at me, I've been vegan for over five years and I'm one of the healthiest people I know... all in one breath until the door opened and the awkward conversation came to a halt. By this time, my break was over and I left. But what occurred to me walking back to my floor was that it was the word animals that had seemed to throw her for a loop. As if health and environment made enough sense, but that the role of animals was foreign in the equation. As if she was asking, but what do animals have to do with any of this?

And this is one of the many reasons why I wish we were less euphemistic in our language. We need to be saying "I eat pigs", "I eat cows" and "I drink cow's milk" rather than I eat bacon, beef and drink milk. I don't like the term "meat eater", because it helps to disguise whom you're really eating. If you're still rationalizing eating meat, then you should be comfortable with just saying that you're an animal eater.

I wish now that I had skipped health and environment, and had said something more accurate and to the point. Something like, "I'm vegan because I don't want to participate in animal suffering." (Or even, I'm vegan because it's the Christian thing to do, although that could have made her defensive.) I wish I had been less dismissive and acknowledged that the idea of eating vegan can be daunting when you're used to eating animals. I wish I had reminded her though that she's already eating vegan food whenever she chomps on an apple or slices up a banana. I wish I had actually included fruits and vegetables when talking about my plant-based diet. And I wish I had had more time and not gone a bit blank myself. So, time to work on a more pithy pitch for next time!

till the cows come home

Yep, been gone a long time. I last posted on the last day of last year, so I suppose it hasn't been that long, but it sure feels like it.  I've been busy with eldercare, my Etsy shop, plus my casual job is now permanent part-time (and as permanent is getting rare these days I guess I can't complain about it too much, snort), so this blog (and commenting on others) was put on the backburner for a bit. But I didn't want anyone to fear I'd completely disappeared, so thought I'd pop in for a spell and talk about cows coming home.

The title of this post is an idiom of course, and it's always struck me as odd that for a species who tries to deny its animalness as strongly as we do, animal references litter our linguistic landscape as often as factory farms dot the physical one. Sadly, while some cows may indeed have come home when the colloquial phrase was first coined, cows haven't been coming home for a long time. Factory farms aren't home by any stretch of the imagination, and you certainly can't talk about "coming home" when you can't even leave in the first place. So I was happy to see, and happy to share, a couple of instances where we CAN talk about genuinely happy cows and cows coming home. Home to safety, warmth, and comfort.

The following cows (in case you haven't seen them yet) are joyful indeed, and remind us of why happy cows (unless living in a sanctuary) are usually found only within scare quotes:

 

Then, there's Sweety, who truly has come home to not only find warmth and safety, but also genuine friendship:

 

This, my friends, is what love (rather than the saccharine slop dished up by the media) is really all about. More about actions than words, and never species-specific. So find your true heart this Valentine's Day, and go vegan if you haven't already. :)

what's wrong with this picture?

 

right
left                                                                           

               old                     young       

 

        female                                    male                                

                 masculine\feminine

 

   wrong                          right

                                                                    gay---------straight

white   black       

 

            liberal            conservative

welfare                                                                                                  abolition

 

              OFF on              cold hot             

 

                                                       vegan(non)vegan

 

            [mind][body] 

 

                                happy        sad   sick        healthy 

 

                                                            nothingALL

                                   (see hear speak no) evil good

us \/ them

                                              night day

                                                                             No                    Yes

           huge tiny

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So why are we still acting as if there is no overlap, no continuum, no middle ground, no in-between, and no grey? That's not real life. That's not how the real world works. And it isn't how we're going to achieve vegan (r) evolution.

p.s. I've always liked how evil written backwards is live -- now THAT spells dichotomy.

being vegan is like being pregnant

Either you are, or you aren't.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Um, no, I don't agree with that. Because while it's true that you can't be pregnant-ish, you most certainly CAN be vegan-ish, and that's exactly what we have to encourage folk to move towards if they aren't ready to embrace veganism whole hog, so to speak. (A speciesist phrase no doubt, but also a good example of how animal use and abuse is so embedded in our language.)

And while I understand the appeal of this pithy saying, I don't think it's terribly helpful in trying to get more people to adopt a vegan path. It also reflects a rigid and dichotomous black-or-white, either/or way of thinking that personally drives me nuts. You can't force veganism on someone else, so wouldn't it be better to help people discover how some of their values align with veganism already? Wouldn't it be more effective to let them discover their inner vegan, if you will? I want people to aspire to be part of the vegan movement even if they're not quite ready yet to go the whole distance. I want them to at least HAVE vegan ideals. So how is an either you're 100% in, or we'll consider you 100% out approach useful? Sure, it may foster certain group cohesion, but don't we want our small (and sometimes clique-like) group to grow? Even if it means messy imperfection and folk disagreeing about labels, I want ALL of us to want to use V words: vegan, veganish, veganist, vegan-in-progress, mostly vegan, veggie, vegetarian. Hurray for them all I say! :)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Two other vegan phrases I also find annoying (although I'm sure there's more, snort) and may address in future include:

• ex-vegans were never vegan to begin with
• the world is vegan if you want it

top ten carnist phrases/excuses that drive me crazy

Speaking of crazy, is it true that Melanie Joy is now being considered a "new welfarist" by some abolitionists after having written An Introduction to Carnism? I haven't read it myself yet, but that would seem like a stretch. Even if the main focus of animal use in her book is on eating meat, surely it's recognized that while she's dealing with one form of speciesism, she's not denying there are others? Anyway, Top Ten, take it away!

Top Ten Carnist Phrases Or Excuses That Drive Me Crazy:

10. "I respect your personal choice, so you have to respect mine."

 9.  "But what would happen to all the animals otherwise?" 

 8.  "It's not natural because you have to supplement with vitamin B12."

 7.  "The proof is in our teeth."

 6.  "Our brains wouldn't have gotten so big without meat."

 5.  "God said we could."

 4.  "But plants have feelings too!"

 3.  "If lions can kill gazelles..."

 2.  "top of the food chain"

 1.  "circle of life"

Obviously there are more than ten annoying excuses and phrases and no doubt you have your own favourites (let us know in the comments!), but the above ten seem to rankle me the most. Or at least, the quickest. The last two in particular really bother me because they're lazy clichés that folk frequently spew out to justify their habits so that they don't have to spend any real time contemplating why they do what they do.

For a complete dismantling of the above lame phrases and excuses (plus many more) check out Vegan Poet's comprehensive responses to typical comments so that you'll always know how to reply to those still not vegan yet. I'd do it myself, but I'm lazy too. ;)

"I'm not an animal rights activist, but..."

Funny how this sounds awfully familiar to what I used to hear all the time back in the 80s and 90s when a person would announce to me, "I'm not a feminist, but..." before proceeding to tell me something they believed or did that sure seemed like a feminist thing to say or do, snort. I hear the animal rights line up above quite a bit, so maybe "I'm not a vegan, but..." will soon become an oft-heard line as well? What comes first? Beliefs or actions? :)

are YOU a sentientarian? ;)

You know, a person concerned with the needs of mankind allkind and the alleviation of sentient suffering. Also, one who is devoted to the promotion of sentient welfare (I use the term here in the traditional sense of well-being) and the advancement of social reforms. Although closely related to the (speciest?) term "humanitarian", think of sentientarian as going one step (or a hundred miles) further, snort.

If you haven't already switched over, please do so now. There are no forms to fill out, and no fees will mysteriously show up on your credit card. Thank you, and Welcome!

is the V word too scary?

And no, I don't mean The "V" Word, which is a lovely blog full of tempting recipes that one day its author will turn into a delightful cookbook. Right, Rhea? ;) 

I mean the word vegan of course. I've thought about it before, but it really struck me yesterday as I watched the segments of the Dr. Oz show discussing The China Study and The Engine 2 Diet without once referring to veganism. Not surprising I guess since the show is more about diet and health, but I wondered if only using the phrase plant-based diet was deliberate. And in a sense because they were only talking about veganism in terms of the diet aspect and not about the other essential parts, plant-based diet was probably appropriate, but still. To be vegan IS to follow a plant-based diet, so it was a little odd not to hear about the philosophy behind the food choices. Mind you, the Dr. Oz show tends to be hyperkinetic with shorts bursts of rapid-fire information so no topic gets more than a superficial treatment in the time allotted.

But I still wonder if they intentionally avoided using the word and if so whether that was wise. As an ethical vegan (although I don't really like that terminology either) I have no problem with labeling who I am and what I eat as vegan, but if the main goal is to reduce suffering and eliminate use, then does it matter what words are used? If the phrase plant-based diet is easier to digest, so to speak, then is my preference of the word vegan important? If people find it easier to adopt and say they're on a plant-based diet than to label themselves vegan, and if a real reduction of animal use occurs, should we focus more on results than labels? Because in a sense I'd rather that 100 people actually adopt a "plant-based diet" than 10 people to identify as vegan. In the end, I guess I wonder which strategy is more effective: getting more people to greatly reduce consumption or getting fewer to eliminate it completely. 

I don't know. What do you think?

keep calm and vegan on

 

Is this a great print or what? Based on the Keep Calm and Carry On poster phenomenon, this parody made me smile and well, resolve to keep my vegan chin up. Timely too, given the recent Oprah debacle, although I'm starting to think a bit differently about the show too. Oh sure, I'm still annoyed and think the many criticisms raised absolutely valid, but I'm chilling out somewhat. Bea, of Provoked, did a wonderful job of gathering reactions, and reading through the original posts I came across some interesting viewpoints.

 

Vegan Machine's review was probably the most positive of the bunch, and while I didn't agree with all of her observations, I was glad of the mathematical reminder of how many animals were spared that week. And I found some of the comments in Dreena Burton's post quite fascinating. Consider the following by a nonvegan poster:

For people (like me!), the vegan life seems radical, difficult to sustain and dare I say weird. I would have never considered trying it until watching her episode. I'm not certain it's a lifestyle choice I could make, but it got my wheels turning... You have to remember the audience, I think. Majority of those watching having, like me, don't understand it. The show made it seem more attainable... You have people thinking about who otherwise wouldn't be. That' a success.

It made me wonder what other nonvegans thought of the show, and how many of them were inspired to think of veganism differently. It would also be interesting to know how many vegan starter kits were ordered from Oprah's site, or how many clicks there were on the various information links (like the Going Vegan FAQs answered by Dr. Neal Barnard) and vegan menu plans. And what about this last comment?

Well, as someone who watched the show as a certified meat eater I can happily tell you that I went completely vegan on 2/6 after reading most of Kathy Freston's book. I have attempted the vegetarian/vegan conversion intermittently over the past 15 years, but her approach really won me over... The bottom line is that if this gentler approach can get more people on board with a plant based diet then ultimately everyone wins. You really do not win people over to your point of view when you take an antagonistic, I hate to say it this way, but " I'm more evolved than you " attitude because people automatically leap to defend their position no matter how misguided... Just a few thoughts from someone who was affected enough by the not so pc vegan presentation to change her dietary choices.

Bingo! I call that a good result. Apparently, Kathy Freston's Veganist shot to the top of the Amazon list February 1, and is still the #1 book in the Cooking category. Not bad. Her book will fill in the gaps and present the ethics, health and environmental benefits of veganism as well. And what about the term veganish that I wasn't particularly enamoured of? I like This Vegan Life's take on it, and am thinking that if we really want a vegan world then perhaps having people who are becoming veganer, veganish, and veganist is at least a start. Language both reflects and shapes societal attitudes, and the more terms that contain the word vegan as a positive root, the better.

The Vegan Soapbox also reinforced my "well, maybe it wasn't a complete waste of time" reflection, so maybe we can put this episode behind us (or demand a follow-up show where Oprah acknowledges the error of her outrageous retort), and be glad of the opportunity to have more vegan newbies (and curious bystanders) on board. We can answer their questions without being interrupted by commercials or obnoxious meat-endorsing guests, come up with brilliant rebuttals, and offer suggestions and support. 

So next time we hear a celebrity say something incredibly stupid about our cause, let's remember to: a) let them know how they're wrong, and b) keep calm and vegan on! ;)

the Oprah vegan show "review" of sorts

So how did I feel after watching Oprah's vegan challenge show? In a word: disappointed. And by the last five minutes downright angry. But let's go back to the beginning. (I'm also writing this before reading any other blogger's post on the subject so I won't be influenced by my usual "damn, why didn't I think of that" envy. Snort.) And, just as the episode did not include a lot of investigative journalism that I could see evidence of (despite Lisa Ling being a paid journalist), this post will not attempt to be balanced or even-handed if I don't feel like it, nor necessarily present my impressions in chronological order. Ha! 

The show started off pretty well, I thought. Oprah and 378 staff members signed up for a week long vegan challenge (participation was not mandatory), and in terms of lunch line-ups and staff-wide hugely increased fiber-induced bowel movements, the week was a big success. The term radical was tossed around a few times with regards to veganism, but I suppose most of us are used to that, just as we're used to hearing words like militant and extreme when our philosophy is described. Michael Pollan (Oprah introduced him as being a rock star of the food movement which I thought quite silly) did agree that veganism is a "cool idea" because it forces you to be conscious and think about where your food comes from, and he also mentioned the link between the standard American diet and chronic disease. Oprah then introduced the statistic of 10 billion animals being consumed each year including 30 million cows and let those numbers (I'm assuming those are  stats for America only) sink in. So far so good.

Unfortunately, from there it went downhill for me, but before I continue, I want to say how much I dislike the term meat. It's too ambiguous, too sanitary, and too far removed from what we're actually eating. Michael Pollan to his credit (who will be referred to as MP from this point on), also mentioned how far removed we are from reality when we buy stuff wrapped in cellophane. Snacking on deceased (and diseased) animal flesh is terminology much more accurate  as far as I'm concerned.

The show then continued with Lisa Ling (after seeing cows being fattened up on corn and corn byproducts) taking a tour of Cargill, one of the largest slaughterhouses in America I believe. Twenty companies had refused a request for a tour of their facilities, but oddly, there was no question as to whether Cargill was typical or representative of most slaughterhouses (correction: MP later stated that Cargill was cleaner, bigger and better run than most), but they still would not allow the actual killing to be filmed. The general manager (sorry, forgot her name) paid lip service to the idea that animals should be treated with dignity and respect and reiterated a number of times how the company and employees had a lot of respect for the former living creatures. Right. I also heard her use the phrase "harvested (gotta love that euphemism) carefully" and that killing animals was somehow part of the "natural order of things." And did you know that the stun bolt gun doesn't hurt, but renders animals completely unconscious so that they don't feel any pain when the bolt is driven into their brain? The effect of the tour on Lisa Ling? Well, she did appear to wince when shown how cows don't feel pain, but now has a new appreciation when eating the animals described as naturally curious by the guy responsible for fattening them up at the beginning of the show. 

So what is MP's take on this industry? Well, meat is not evil (I'm inclined to disagree, and would argue that the production of what we call meat today most definitely is), and while it may be a good idea to reduce our consumption, there's no need to eliminate it, especially meat that's "humanely" raised. He expressed concern that eliminating meat would hurt farmers, and that reforming the industry is preferable. He also credited veganism for improving industry conditions. And remember how I said in my last post that I wasn't sure how I felt about MP? I do now! Putz indeed. MP has a new book coming out soon and I truly hope his sales tank. While it's possible that there are humane ways of raising nonhuman animals, there's nothing humane about killing them for food. 

This brings me to one of my major objections in how veganism was presented in the episode: veganism as diet only. While I appreciate the time constraints of a commercial-riddled hour-long show, absolutely no mention was made of how vegans try to avoid the exploitation of animals in all its forms. Even worse, the implicit (and usually explicit) assumption among most humans that animals are ours to use wasn't addressed at all. 

The show then focused on Kathy Freston and how the vegan challenge was met by staff participants. I like Kathy, I do, and her vegan segment in her Quantum Wellness book was persuasive enough that it (and other factors) convinced me that I wanted to go vegan full-time and not just convert slowly. Some might not like her "lean into it" approach, or her "lose weight, get healthy, change the world" campaign, but I welcome any step in the vegan direction. I also don't have a problem with her seeing veganism as a spiritual path. And, I was quite impressed when she jumped in as soon as MP said, "meat is not evil" with the retort that she wasn't able to look into the eyes of an animal and feel that their suffering was less important than her appetite. At that point though Oprah interrupted with her most delusional and asinine comment ever by saying, "but the animals don't suffer!" What? Really? She then referred back to Lisa Ling saying that whether a person decides to eat meat or not needs to be an individual choice. Maybe she's been burned by the hamburger lawsuit, but to me that's a major cop-out because nonhuman animals certainly don't get that individual choice. No, animal use needs to be seen as a collective decision (one I don't agree with) that human needs/wants are more important and that they trump the rights of any other species.

And surprise, surprise, Oprah does not want to commit to going vegan, although she doesn't mind being veganish if and when it suits her. To sum up I would say that in some ways this show was a good start, but I was extremely frustrated by the end of it. What a shame. Oprah could have done so much good had she wanted to. And yes, I'll still be contacting her, but it'll be to let her know that she clearly doesn't have a clue and missed a big opportunity to achieve something positive with her useless fame. Sigh.

Ninety-Five

It wasn't planned, but by coincidence this happens to be my 95th post, so I think it highly appropriate to be reviewing one of my favourite animal rights books today: Ninety-Five: Meeting America's Farmed Animals in Stories and Photographs. 

As the subtitle of the book says, Ninety-Five is about meeting America's farmed animals in stories and photographs, and what photographs and stories they are! The photos are gorgeous, and besides being a visual feast for the eye, they are illuminating for folk like me who have never seen most animal species in real life. And that, I think, is one of the saddest facts: people who regularly dine on chickens, cows and turkeys (Thanksgiving is celebrated here in Canada next weekend) are probably more familiar with what the animals they're eating used to look like from the packaging, than from what they've seen in real life. Justice, on the front cover for example, is beautiful, and I was quite amazed to see tufts of hair on his back, and that's how far removed I am from the reality of real animals. 

I loved reading the stories of all these rescued animals and when I brought this book over to show my parents (at ages 83 and 94, these two are unfortunately not prepared to give up their meat-eating ways) I kind of had to laugh (even though it was sad) when what struck them the most was that all the featured nonhuman animals had names. For them the primary purpose of these beings is to be eaten, so naming them seemed foreign. But that's exactly what I love about this book: it gives names and faces to those that we are used to--and here is where I get stuck with language because really, the most appropriate word to use is dehumanizing. One of the ways we distance ourselves from other species is by using the terms humans and animals, but even human animals and nonhuman animals still puts the human animal as the norm and treats nonhuman animals as deviations from that. 

But what I'm really trying to say here is that we're so used to objectifying other species and stripping them of their sentient features, that this book is a contrast and a welcome relief. It does the opposite and reintroduces us to who our fellow creatures are, which is so important when trying to convince others that veganism is the way to go. After all, what good is focusing on the horrors of factory farming and other animal use/abuse when most of us don't even know who the victims are? I'm not saying those other books aren't valuable in their own right, but I think this one does a great job of showing who we're actually slaughtering and makes us more aware that the meat (another distancing term  I hate) we're eating had a name and a face. 

I keep this book on my desk as a daily visual reminder of why I'm vegan, and wish I could donate a copy to every library and every school because it's just that good.

Oh, nearly forgot, the title Ninety-Five refers to the estimated average number of animals said to be spared annually by one person's vegan diet. And because I'm actually not that good at writing book reviews, here is a much better one. (Thankfully I wrote mine before finding his otherwise this might have been a one-line post, snort.)