Vegan No More

Interesting article. I can see where the author is coming from. It's definitely worth placing a focus on our reasons for choosing not to eat animals.

I'll probably keep using the term vegan... But even now, I don't use it all the time. Not because I don't like it, but because I think there are many effective ways to get the idea across and using the term 'vegan' is only one of them.

Interesting. Thanks for posting Vincent.

"Vegan" may be a result, which can be reached through a number of starting points (e.g. animal rights, environmental concerns, health, taste preferences, income, religious underpinnings, etc.). Whereas the term "animalist" your article poses, may make clearer the starting point (i.e. the grounding for the subsequent choices made), but less so the ending point? I think it's arguable that an "animalist" is not necessarily always vegan as an end point; and perhaps too, being animalist would entail other changes: What do you think? ...

Perhaps, what one could say in that proposed interaction (in the article) about the cow's milk is: "I don't drink cow's milk, because I dislike drinking the milk of another species". ("Why's that?" ..."Because it was only intended for its calf." ...) And get out of this label business some. Anyway, I'll ponder this further some other time. Good night

FYI, I just noticed the following book has a chapter in it by David Cantor – 'Beyond Humanism, Toward a New Animalism'.

http://veganpublishers.com/multimedia-archive/injustice-anywhere-essays-connecting-human-animal-and-environmental-well-being/

(Not sure who is the author of the article you posted - could be the same guy?)

Hi reddapanda and thanks for your great answers!

I am the author of this article and of this blog.

I have never heard of David Cantor – Beyond Humanism, Toward a New Animalism so you can imagine that I am indeed very excited about this. Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention, I will contact David and I will also order this book and pay great attention to this chapter!

I don't see veganism as a result or as an objective but as a tool, nothing less but nothing more.

I have called myself a vegan and worked at changing veganism but I have come to the conclusion that veganism is what it is and that it is a closed club, which is detrimental when it turns it into a rigid dogmatic venture based on personal purity and exclusion. Veganism as a movement to fight speciesism is not something I embrace or even condone any more.
Veganism is all about the micromanagement of one's consumption and it is nit-picky and exclusive.

I still don't consume sentient animals and their by-products and I still want to encourage others to do likewise, in a friendly and pragmatic manner. Promoting an animal friendly lifestyle is a tool, not an end.

Veganism revolves too much around wasting time about whether the 10th ingredient may have come from an animal derived substance or about whether we can call something or someone vegan or not. I don't think it matters who gets to be called a vegan and who doesn't.
A so called “movement” where membership is so heavily scrutinised and where bickering over definitions becomes common practice is not something that I find attractive or beneficial.  Persuading people to make individual changes in consumption is a tool I can appreciate – and I use it a lot in order to make the world a better place for all sentient animals.

A few readers misunderstood my article as an attack on a minority of intolerant vegans. It’s not the case.
Even if all vegans were nice and friendly, the point of my article is that veganism in itself as a movement is not something I want to be a part of. A broader, more inclusive approach focussing more on the animals and less on every detail of an individual’s current lifestyle is more effective. Either way, it remains nothing but a tool amongst many that can be used against speciesism, for animal rights. It isn’t a goal and it shouldn’t be a dogma (a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true).

I have added a few points to my article, in particular something about the book you mentioned. Thanks again! This is fantastic.

Hi Vincent,

I just read the book chapter by David Cantor. I thought it good to add to the melting-pot of ideas and perspectives. Though I didn't agree 100% with the way Cantor framed everything.

It somewhat reminded me of the book Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. (That the leaving 'the Garden of Eden' was a story about the beginning of farming.)
http://www.bookdepository.com/Ishmael-Daniel-Quinn/9780553375404

Another writer it happened to make me think of is Pattrice Jones, who was interviewed by the 3CR 'freedom of species' program.  http://www.freedomofspecies.org/show/pattrice-jones

For a different/contrasting perspective, also thought of Daniel Lieberman's 'The story of the human body'. I think it's important to note that people did "track down" animals prior to settling in farming communities.  http://www.bookdepository.com/Story-Human-Body-Daniel-Lieberman/9780141399959

I'm unconvinced that an "animalist" philosophy, even if that entails being connected to other animals and being on a more equal footing, "necessarily" results in eating "no" other animals. I think it would result in drinking no milk though! And just eating some hunted meat, not from farmed animals - similar to the Indigenous Australians perhaps. ...?? (Because the philosophy also links with discussion of 'property' etc too).

Cheers.

P.s. Also, found Cantor's preference for "moral indignation" instead of compassion interesting (page 33). For further thought sometime.

An animalist approach will result in whatever it results in, but it will result. Because it is encompassing and welcoming while clearly having the animals in mind.

I don't see why anti-speciesist / pro-animal rights folks couldn't push it further and encourage the fight to go on towards taking into account the interests of the sentient animal individuals.

The point of animalism is to accept to fight alongside ANYONE on given objectives.