Missed Goodbyes

I've written about Zeus several times before, most recently when serious issues arose with his health a few years back. He's the beautiful boy in my arms in the profile photo for this blog. When I first met him almost thirteen years ago, he was one of two runt kittens fostered by friends of a good friend. Their mother had apparently been found pregnant and starving in an apartment whose tenants had left. Zeus and his sister Sophie were born shortly after they were taken in by the shelter and once I met them, tiny balls of furry energy that they were, I knew we would end up sharing each other's lives for a spell.

Zeus eventually developed the same asthma that led to his sister's death in August of last year. As with Sophie, quality of life became a constant concern. The neighbourhood pharmacist knew them both by name. They were his first ever feline "customers" with their prescriptions for the inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators they both eventually needed to breathe. Both Zeus and Sophie's asthma seemed triggered by food allergies, but as time wore on, other triggers factored in. My home became scent-free years ago. The search for the perfect dust- and scent-free litter left me constantly exploring new products. Different foods where shuffled in or out whenever symptoms worsened. I learned to sleep lightly, sensitive to the sound of wheezing that meant someone needed urgent help; I learned to deal with the constant anxious gnawing of the fear that such an attack might occur if I was at work, at the store or elsewhere.

That same anxious gnawing left me hesitant a few weeks ago when I planned a return trip to the DC area to spend time with a human love. For the first time in my life, I hired a cat-sitter, hoping that in tandem with visits from a friend, someone would be around as much as possible to keep an eye on my feline loves and to ensure that Zeus' medications were administered regularly to mitigate any possible issues.

 
Eight days into my trip, a worried cat-mom's worst nightmare occurred. A friend just happened to drop by on a Friday afternoon and found Zeus in respiratory distress. She rushed him to his vet's where the clinic promptly took him in and then refused to deal with her since she wasn't listed with them as a contact. I'd forgotten to have her added. Worse was that I was stranded at my host's landline-free apartment, my Luddite self without a cell phone. My friend messaged me on Facebook to urge me to find a way to call the vet immediately and after a few frantic emails to my American host (who was at work), phone access was obtained and I was patched through and told that his condition was quite bad and that his prognosis with treatment was incredibly poor.

Zeus had suffered a pleural effusion. Fluid had filled up his chest cavity and by the time my friend found him that afternoon, he was already in seriously bad shape. It was unrelated to the asthma and the vet assured me that its onset is almost always sudden and an emergency, its symptoms manifesting similarly to those of asthma."You wouldn't have been able to have done anything differently had you been there," the vet reassured me. Worse, I would have been at work that afternoon and would not have found him until hours later. The staff at SouthPaw did all they reasonably could and I'm grateful that they were able and willing to look after him when he was brought in.

Zeus' suffering was brought to an end shortly after I called, my friend returning to be with him during his last moments. My heart broke from hundreds of miles away, my arms unable to hold him, to comfort him, to whisper to him how dearly I loved him and to tell him how sorry I was that I'd left. Since kitten-hood, Zeus had always expressed a preference for climbing up to my left shoulder, pressing his head against my neck as I held him to my heart. So many evenings when I've sat here at my desk typing, it's been one-handed with Zeus' warmth against me, listening to his reassuring purrs as he snuggled in more closely. Even now, I remember precisely how it felt to hold him. Sammy and I both miss him, each of us wondering where he is -- where he went.

Hey Lardass?

A few weeks ago, I had someone misinterpret something I had written in a vegan group email exchange. (Yes, I know: OMG! Something was misunderstood on the internet!) I'd cracked a pathetic joke about your average non-vegan man probably relatively packing away more animal products than your average non-vegan Hollywood starlet (i.e. strictly by virtue of their relative overall food consumption). I'm only ever accidentally funny, so it didn't surprise me that the attempt at lightheartedness fell flat. What did surprise me, however, was when someone took off on a tangent, pointing out to me that veganism and weight are unrelated (I had not suggested otherwise -- we'd been discussing two non-vegans). This somehow led to someone else's mentioning overweight vegan friends in a manner that conveyed that he was assuming the previous person's response had indeed been to my perhaps having suggested that non-vegans weigh more than vegans.

The funny thing about that is that I'm usually the first person who will pipe up to object when vegans sometimes lapse into diatribes about the supposed chronic obesity of those who consume animal products, or worse, who insist that going vegan will invariably lead to a 20-50 lb weight-loss. Not only have years gabbing it up online with other vegans shown me that this is in no way "invariable", but I can speak from experience about it. You see, I'm one of those vegans who didn't lose 10-50 lbs upon going vegan. Nope, I am one of those people who went vegan and actually gained weight. After years mired in my vegetarianism, though, I hadn't gone vegan for health reasons. Some friends and family members assumed as much, since my going vegan coincided with the death of my father following his short battle with cancer. And although at the time I certainly wasn't skinny, I most certainly hadn't gone vegan to lose weight. I'd gone vegan for ethical reasons, because a clear vegan message had left me unable to do anything but permanently connect the dots and make immediate (and permanent) changes to my overall life habits. Wandering into my late thirties may have been a contributing factor. An official "bum thyroid" diagnosis just a few years earlier may not have helped. Starting an office job where I sometimes work 10+ hours a day glued to my desk? Sure. The bottom line is that veganism was no panacea for the weight I ended up gaining.

I was left with it, internalizing comments and advice from friends, coworkers, family and romantic interests who made it a point to let me know that the weight gain had been noticed or that the weight gain was deemed unattractive. Eat less, exercise more. That's what the first person I dated after a lengthy years-long relationship's break-up advised on our first (and last) date. So I ate less. I counted calories for the first time in my life, shuffled a lot more raw fruits and vegetables into my diet and would juice for several days a month. I counted calories to the point of spending most of my day tracking every single thing going into my mouth. We're talking hours of plugging ingredients into online databases, or of crunching numbers factoring in the nutritional information on the backs of cans of food. Hell, I spent so much time crunching numbers that I had little time to eat -- or even exercise! Further disincentive to eating came from knowing I'd eventually have to spend an hour documenting a salad it might have taken me a mere 20 minutes to make and eat. I bought a bike and used it daily. I actually lost a lot of the weight... and when I went back to eating ordinary vegan meals, a lot of it just came right back. Life went on. The raw fruits and vegetables were reincorporated into my diet, albeit to a lesser extent during the long cold off-season months when a small head of romaine lettuce can cost as much as $4 at one of the local supermarkets. I kept bicycling. I kept working, blogging, dating -- basically living and loving, but no longer counting calories. I still found myself -- still find myself -- perpetually aware of my shell, even more so than I do of my perpetually over-thinking, introverted and existentialist inner-self. And although I no longer count calories, I still watch what I eat every single day, as if each and every item I put on my plate could possibly amplify that miserable hyper-awareness I've developed of my shell.

It was a strange experience to have found myself dealing with what became an almost painfully raw self-consciousness about my body -- whether of how I moved or how much space I occupied, and of how others around me observed me and judged me at the time. I'd grown up with a family member with body dysmorphic disorders and had a roommate in college who'd suffered from anorexia. As a child, I'd always felt awkwardness watching my mother pick at her food during bikini season and over having anyone and everyone constantly fawning over my older sister's "petiteness" at 93-95 lbs up into her teenage years, and in college I'd watched my roommate leave behind her a trail of broken-hearted college boys. I always felt that I was an observer and that I somehow managed to keep my emotional distance relatively unscathed. Let's face it, though: We live in a society which, if we cannot admit glorifies thinness, we can at least admit vilifies not-thinness and does so particularly with girls and women. I've watched my sister refuse to eat, heard my college roommate regurgitating her meals, have listened to my size 2 coworker verbalize the loathing she has for her rear (which she refers to as "Lardass", her purported "dating nemesis").

One of my own last relationships was with someone who constantly criticized how much I ate at the table, not because I ate too much around him (I didn't -- I was uncomfortable eating anything at all around him), but because he felt I should eat a lot less to bring my weight down to something comparable to that of his lifelong-thin marathon runner ex-wife's. He used the word "fat" as a weapon in arguments, but then it's hard not to think of the word as a weapon when it's used by anyone who isn't. And as someone who's well aware that she would still not be described as "thin" if she lost 20 lbs, hearing the word tossed around by loved ones -- family, friends, lovers -- invariably leaves me feeling as if that weapon is pointed directly at me. I've been in relationships with other men who've either referred to themselves with disgust as "fat" and who've fingered other women in public as such with equal amounts of disgust. It's no unless unnerving to see that weapon pointed at another.

This same body size fixation seems to permeate vegan circles but with a twist, since it's almost always tied to criticism of non-vegans. Even now, after years of observing it, it still sometimes astonishes me to see or hear the derision with which some vegans rant about omnivorism (non-veganism, really) and obesity, as if the two are inextricably linked. Aside from the ridiculousness of vilifying non-vegans when most of us who are vegan now once-upon-a-time weren't, and when most of us have loved ones who are non-vegan, it's jarring to hear people who concern themselves with others speciesism linking speciesism with a sort of discrimination which, more often than not, is wrapped in sexism or misogyny. It's also ridiculous since far from all vegans are thin and, as I've both seen and experienced, veganism is in no way guaranteed to lead to weight-loss. Less saturated fat? Possibly? Less bad cholesterol? Sure? But less calories? A more efficient metabolism? Nope. It's not in and of itself a 100% guaranteed panacea.

Aside from being off-the-mark in terms of the assumptions it carries with it, this vilification by some vegans of the overweight thus leads to a shaming of overweight vegans. Whether or not that shaming is inadvertent is irrelevant. Isn't it enough that vegans walk around expected by non-vegans to be exemplars in terms of having super-powered immune systems (e.g. if you get the sniffles, it's because you don't eat steak). Do we now need to drag body image into the equation when thinness is no more the vegan default than being overweight is for non-vegan omnis? What vegans should have in common is a rejection of animal exploitation. What abolitionist vegans should have in common is the rejection of speciesism and of other forms of discrimination. What sort of sense of community are we fostering as vegans when we perpetuate the wrongheaded belief that eating animal products = being fat, while not eating animal products = being thin? Also, what sort of message are we sending to young girls who choosing to reject speciesism and who find themselves teetering on the edges of a vegan community that tosses at them the same old body loathing messages they're already hearing from society? What are we reinforcing? Think about it.

On Animal Use and Disassociation

I was minutes away from going to bed last night when a few quick scans of Google News brought me to an article in a publication called VICE (which is apparently available in various cities and particularly in US clothing store chain American Apparel's). "Nicola Jayne Hebson: Vegan Taxidermist Extraordinaire" is a grotesquely illustrated interview with a self-described vegan who basically carves up the bodies of dead animals and who either dresses them up in "cute" outfits to pose them or turns them into fashion accessories for public consumption or entertainment. Have a look yourselves.

I cannot help but speculate whether Hebson's interviewer was seeking to generate the sort of controversy akin to that generated whenever members of the mainstream media profile opportunists who self-identify as either former or current vegans who have decided to involved themselves in some sort of hands-on animal exploitation. Over the last few years, articles have popped up periodically about these "vegans" (i.e. whether past or present) who have become hunters or butchers, or who have opted to start up small animal-rearing farms, and who in most cases insist quite adamantly that the animals whose lives they take--whose bodies they cut up--have lived the happiest and most fulfilling of lives. You have no doubt seen at least a few of these articles.

What differs about this article about Hebson is that she (at least as far as she admits) plays no role whatsoever in what happens to those animals while they are alive and before their bodies end up in her possession.

"I would never kill or harm another animal for the purpose of my art. My only intentions are to preserve the beauty of animals that would otherwise be discarded and labeled as waste."

Their bodies are found by her or found by others who forward them to her. They are other animals whose lives have mostly ended in forests and along country roads, whether from old age, disease, predation or thanks to human encroachment. "I’m basically just recycling," says Hebson. I always carry plastic bags and a little knife with me everywhere I go just in case I stumble upon something interesting."

This attitude is one that comes up often with self-described vegans who sometimes attempt to justify engaging in freeganism and in consuming animal products they find. Why let it go to waste? There are a few possible response to this question, the first of which I think requires that we ask ourselves whether the animal product in question would in fact "go to waste".  In the case of dumpster-diving or otherwise sourcing discarded foodstuff, how could an individual be certain that a non-vegan trailing behind him or her would not eagerly claim and consume the animal product in question? Where the bodies of other animals retrieved from nature are concerned, what about the carnivorous or omnivorous animals (from mammals to insects) who rely on these bodies to nourish themselves or their families and extended communities? Or the nutrients from these decomposing or decaying bodies that leach into the soil to nourish trees and plants that provide shelter or food for those other animals?

Hebson's opportunistic "recycling", however, differs somewhat from the animal use shrugged off by freegans. In both cases, attempts are made to justify animal use by disassociating oneself morally from how the animal was treated while living and by pointing out that one was not complicit in the taking of that other animal's life. If you think about it a little, this sounds eerily similar to the sort of mindset cultivated by vegetarians who justify their continued consumption of eggs and dairy by insisting that they source them from the "good-hearted farmer down the road who just lurvs his animals as if they were his own children" and who insist that consuming an animal's secretions somehow differs morally from consuming her flesh, since she she needs to be slaughtered for the latter. (Of course, you and I know that animals lives are indeed taken in the egg industry with millions of male chicks sometimes ground alive to be disposed of at hatcheries, and with spent hens sent off to the slaughterhouse to have every last cent squeezed out of them by turning them into frozen pot pies or pet food). We know that cows are repeatedly impregnated in the dairy industry and that their calves--those who are not plugged back into the cycle by being forced to follow in their mothers' paths--are sent off to become "veal", boots and wallets.)

The thing is that with freegans, gobbling down the food in question (whether vegan or otherwise) is usually the end of it--unless the freegan walks around self-identifying loudly as "vegan" and basically communicates to all of the non-vegans around him or her that vegans sometimes consume easily-avoidable animal products deliberately, and that this is morally excusable and perhaps even acceptable. However, there is nothing vegan about choosing to consume easily-avoidable animal products, regardless of whether one was complicit in the taking of the lives of those animals from whom those products are derived. Using "avoiding waste" as an excuse is bunk, whether or not a non-vegan is in fact waiting in line to snap up the animal product for herself. To label it "waste" if it is not consumed by a human seems to imply that the product's worth or value continues to be measured in terms of its use for humans. If we as vegans claim to believe that other animals aren't things for us to use, it it not strange to weigh products derived from them in this manner?

Hebson claims that she uses the found bodies of other sentient creatures in her "art" so that these bodies not be deemed "waste" by others. What she is doing, though, is seeking to profit from animal use. She mutilates their bodies to transform them into odd and sometimes shocking commonplace or dresses them up to construct what I guess is expected to amount to an amusing or entertaining presentation. She says in the interview:

I think society at large has a schizophrenic and often hypocritical relationship with our fellow creatures here on earth; I often reference these issues in my work. I think if my work creates debate, if it stimulates critical thought, and questions the so-called “norms” of society then I can only see that as being a good thing.

She is certainly correct in suggesting that society has a schizophrenic and often hypocritical relationship with the other sentient beings on our planet. She may indeed get people--like me, for instance--thinking and talking about this schizophrenic and often hypocritical relationship. What Hebson has me thinking, though, is that she's quite confused to call herself vegan while treating other animals as things whose sole ultimate purpose (lest they be deemed waste) is to have existed dead or alive for human pleasure. Yet she mutilates animals and sells these parts for the pleasure of others; if you read the article closely, her language also belies the great pleasure she derives from both her finds and what she ends up doing to them.

As a vegan, I would certainly never buy the animal parts she sells at her Etsy shop, "Dead Good". Vegans don't just not eat animal products. We do not consume or otherwise use animal products because we reject, on moral or ethical grounds, participating in others' exploitation. Whether she consumes or sells animal products, Hebson is indeed participating in animal exploitation and is far from vegan. Her misrepresentation as a vegan in this article either represents a deliberate attempt to rile up controversy, or it represents--no thanks to many large animal welfare organizations--the pathetic culmination of overlapping layers of misunderstanding spreading out in the media about what veganism actually is about and about what it stands for. I'm hoping for the former, but am resigning myself to the latter.

A Few Thoughts on Conflating External Criticism with Infighting

Welfarists/regulationists are desperate to deflect our criticism of their advocacy when their advocacy falls short of condemning the exploitation of others. They insist that this criticism is tantamount to "infighting" and that it should thus be disregarded or dismissed as baseless whinging or nitpicking. They insist that it interferes with The Movement's integrity and solidarity and that it sets The Movement back. They say that our criticism of advocacy that doesn't plainly condemn animal use somehow gobbles up valuable time and energy and thus harms other animals. Welfarists/regulationists try to shame abolitionist animal rights activists into shutting up about teaching/asking/begging others to reject animal exploitation and to go vegan. When we don't shut up, they sometimes even go so far as to insist to the non-vegan public that our teaching/asking/begging them to go vegan is unreasonable and extremist--that they should dismiss us, too. We're just pesky trouble-makers, after all.

The undeniable truth which I think we need to face at this point is that we are, in fact, two separate movements. One movement seems somehow too mired in its own speciesism to accept that other animals simply aren't ours to use. If its members do see this, it's most certainly not reflected in their advocacy. The second movement--my movement and hopefully *your* movement--consists of individuals who respect the rights and interests of others to not be exploited and and of comrades who accept that the very least we owe those others is to use veganism as a starting point for our own choices, as well as for our advocacy work.

As for accusations that criticism of welfarism/regulationism is "hurting The Movement"? Which movement? The welfarist/regulationist movement? So what? As long as they continue to promote the myth of "happy" animal exploitation, applaud so-called flexitarianism and teach the public that not eating flesh one day a week--or shuffling out one animal product for another--is somehow morally relevant, they're teaching the public that some other animals are more OK to exploit than others and we're left struggling to undo this damage. We're focused on teaching people to go vegan as a starting point, while they drag them several steps back, telling them that veganism is just one of the several things they can do. Why on earth would we not want to criticize, interfere with or "hurt" a movement which facilitates and often encourages and applauds the continued use of other sentient beings? 

I truly hope that our criticism does indeed hurt their movement and that instead of constantly having to undo the damage they cause, we can instead focus 100% of our own time and energy on spreading a clear vegan message. Hopefully some of them will hear it too and eventually come 'round and join in. Until then, we should allow nobody to shame us into shutting up on behalf of other animals.

What This Vegan Eats

I've grown really irate over Blogger's recent changes to how folks can upload images to blogs. They seem to have grossly limited flexibility where sizing photos is concerned. If not for that fact that I'm currently exploring a different web-based advocacy project altogether with a vegan friend, I'd be spending more time looking at shimmying My Face Is on Fire over to WordPress or another blog hosting site. I may still do so. Meanwhile, here are some photos I've shared on Facebook of things I've gobbled up over the past while. Veganism doesn't mean restricting yourself in terms of diet; if anything, it allows you to really branch out and try new things and to eat so much more healthily (if, of course, you choose to do so. Knowledge is power an' all that jazz, right?

Visting New Friends

It's been a while since I've had a chance to update. I've been busy trying out recipes for cookbook reviews, planning a new animal advocacy project with a friend and (perhaps best of all) traveling. I recently spent a little over a week in Virginia, DC and Maryland to visit a vegan pal and to meet a few others with whom I've been corresponding or interacting online for years. I got to sample Ethiopian and Burmese food for the first time ever and enjoyed such a wide variety of vegan fare that it's a puzzle how I was able to roll myself into my plane seat to make it back home.

Perhaps the best part of my whole trip was an afternoon we spent walking around and meeting the furry and feathered residents of the 400-acre Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary in Poolesville, MD. I was also introduced to the two vegan humans -- Terry Cummings and Dave Hoerauf -- who also call it home. Earlier in the week, I'd met Deb Durant who writes the Invisible Voices blog and who also volunteers at PSAS. She'd offered to show us around a little the following weekend, but we ended up scheduling a visit during the week instead since I was flying out on Sunday. It would have been great to hear each of the residents' stories. Dave shared a few when our paths crossed and Deb's filled in some blanks since then. I've also been spending time reading up on them over on PSAS' website and Invisible Voices (and you should too if you'd like to learn more about the place or would consider sponsoring one of their residents).

It's heart-wrenching to know what some of them have been through.  Then again, it's heart-wrenching to think of the lot of each and every other animal who ends up bred for exploitation and slaughter. Meeting these individuals and seeing the joy with which they're now living their lives left me grateful more than ever that I yanked myself out of that cycle of exploitation by going vegan.

Mini Moo

Chelsea was a sweet walking companion during our visit.

Duchess, precious sentry who held me at bay for several minutes.

Napoleon, who along with his buddy Sebastian off to the left, is a pygmy goat who was rescued from a hoarding situation.

Sal, who is blind in one eye, was rescued from a hoarder a few years ago.

Harley was rescued as a piglet when he fell off a truck heading to an auction.

Lance was rescued from a reptile show last April.

Ainslie was rescued as a calf before being sold for slaughter at a "veal" auction.

Enjoying the sun on an otherwise chilly day.

My host, Gary, enjoying a cuddle with Zachary a baby who arrived at the shelter less than a month ago. Zachary was seized by animal control officers after someone heard him bleating from a small cat carrier outside on a neighbour's porch. He was going to be killed in a sacrificial ritual and the only reason they were allowed to take him is that it was illegal for residents to keep "livestock" in the area in which he was found. Now he'll get to spend the rest of his natural life at PSAS.

As the afternoon neared its end and it was time to go, all I could think of is how beautiful it had been to see the sanctuary's residents finally living out their lives in comfort, no longer victims, but instead sheltered refugees.

Vegans Writing About Veganism in Mainstream Media

I was scanning through online newspapers today, looking for vegan holiday meal features. Anyone who claims at this point that veganism is still some sort of obscure ideology of which most people have never heard either don't watch television or don't read the paper or magazines. The word is indeed in circulation and people are curious about it -- for all kinds of reasons.  It's being discussed in entertainment and fashion magazines, in food and health columns, in news stories about rates of chronic illness or the environment. Of course, people are mostly talking around it or using it as a buzz-word, misrepresenting it or taking it out of its ethical context. More than ever, now is a great time for ethical vegans -- for abolitionist animal rights advocates -- to submit opinion pieces on veganism to their school papers, to volunteer to write food articles for their local papers, or to comment on articles we see where veganism is maligned, misinterpreted or lumped together with some other food fad.

Missed Opportunities

Take for instance this short bit in Carlisle, PA's The Sentinel, in which vegan writer Lisa Wardle shares a recipe for homemade black bean burgers and fluffs it out by talking a little bit about veganism. Great opportunity for a wee bit of education, right? Except that she touts it as being good for your health and good for the environment, with nary a single mention of how it's actually remarkably "good" for other animals who'd otherwise end up on someone's plate. Her focus in the article is on food and she presents veganism as being more akin to having an apple a day (y'know, to keep the doctor away) than what it actually is, which is a commitment to rejecting animal exploitation. Indeed, she mentions "not eating animal products once or twice a week" and being "an occasional vegan" as quite beneficial to one's health.

Of course there are indeed health benefits to lessening one's consumption of animal products -- but lessening one's consumption of animal products from time to time doesn't make one "an occasional vegan" any more than not pressing a female employee for sexual favours in exchange for a job promotion a few times a week would make a male manager "an occasional feminist". Think of the seeds that may have been planted in readers' minds by simply changing two or three sentences.

An Opportunity Taken

In Newfoundland & Labrador's The Independent, Jess Dawe went a more elaborate route to write about veganism. I like the piece. It's well-written and a fair amount of thought and research were put into it. She starts off explaining that veganism "is a lifestyle choice" and that it involves avoiding animal use going beyond food and extends to the avoidance of other animal products. Where Dawe unfortunately confuses matters, though, is with her insistence that all kinds of reasons can lead someone to become vegan. For her article, she focuses on health, the environment and then ethics and she then writes:

What I’ve provided here is an overview of three of the most popular reasons someone may adopt a vegan lifestyle. The reasons explored are by no means exhaustive, as there are many other reasons why someone may choose to adopt a vegan lifestyle.

While there may indeed be various triggers to get people thinking about different aspects of their animal use, I doubt that concern for one's health will lead to one's avoiding an animal-using circus or to eschewing leather belts.  Dawe seems aware of this herself as she specifies that switching to a "vegan diet" would be the result of being motivated for either health or environmental reasons. This seems to suggest, though, given that the health and environmental reasons are listed as two of three of "the most popular reasons someone may adopt a vegan lifestyle" that becoming a strict vegetarian and simply not eating animal products (while otherwise continuing to participate in other facets of animal exploitation) qualifies as being "vegan". Veganism isn't just a diet.

Which takes us back to Dawe's introduction, which states outright that veganism isn't just a diet, so why she would list "reasons" that may lead one to merely change one's diet as "reasons" people go vegan is quite confusing. It is no doubt even more confusing to her readers who are constantly bombarded in mainstream media by stories about strict vegetarian Bill Clinton being "vegan" or of other celebrities who've adopted a completely (or mostly) plant-based diet purportedly being vegan. Is it any wonder when we run into leather or wool-wearing folks (I'm looking at you, Kathy Freston). 

I do love many of the points she raises, though -- about being vegan not necessarily meaning you're more healthy, about the ethical reasons one may go vegan not merely revolving around the horrors of factory farming, and so on. The points she raises about the health and environmental aspects of rejecting animal consumption are valid, but health and environmental arguments are really just ancillary when it comes to veganism, whose focus is not on ourselves but is instead on other animals -- or at least it should be if we expect to convince others to respect the rights and interests of those other animals. So reading her article is kind of like reading a pretty decent book, then finding a chapter missing and the order of a few others jumbled.

What about you? Have you thought about writing about some aspect of veganism for your local or school paper? Have you started a blog? Have you considered publishing a 'zine? There are all kinds of opportunities to get the word out there whether in a stealthy or overt way. Others would not be writing about it if the public was not interested in reading about it. Why not give it a shot?

The "Little Steps" that Count

The response to my post from Friday on Mercy for Animals' failure to both combat speciesism and promote veganism has been almost overwhelmingly positive, whether from emails I've received, to comments left on the  blog's Facebook page. Many have agreed that it's essential for animal rights advocates to know the actual ethical positions on which these large groups are basing their advocacy.

Elsewhere on the interwebs, particularly in the anti-abolitionist slanted vegan subreddit of the social news website Reddit, the old familiar accusations of nit-picking and being divisive were the norm, along with my personal favourite: "Well, if you have such a big issue with them, why don't you shut up and go out there and do it better?" As if one wee blogger should be shamed into silence for not being able to compete with the $1.3 million in annual revenue enjoyed by a group like Mercy for Animals! It's funny, though, how none of the negative responses to my blog post actually addressed the content -- and legitimate concerns -- of the blog post. "Every little bit counts," they said about Mercy for Animals' campaigns. " When those so-called little bits involve placating the general public into feeling comfortable with continuing to participate in the exploitation of others, though, where is it that they actually count? Surely not in the interest of those other animals?

Each time HSUS insists that it's not out to end the farming of animals for human consumption, it's telling the public that it's alright to use animals. Each time that PETA or Farm Sanctuary -- a sanctuary, for pete's sake! -- chooses a non-vegan celebrity spokesperson, it's telling the public that it's alright to use animals. Each time Vegan Outreach insists that vegans should shrug off easily avoidable animal ingredients when around non-vegans to avoid looking nit-picky, it's telling the public that it's alright to use animals. Each time Mercy for Animals insist on its website that asking members of the public to go vegan is off-putting, it's telling them that veganism is too hard. And when abolitionists say that veganism is a first step, these groups tell the public that we're extremist and unreasonable. When abolitionists say that all animal advocacy should have veganism as its moral baseline, these groups tell the public that we're critical and divisive. Joe Public nods in relief, forks over a donation and signs a petition, then goes home to a roast chicken dinner.

How absolutely sad that it's become taboo in animal advocacy circles to actually assert unequivocally -- to even merely suggest -- that other animals aren't ours to use. How so very much more crucial it's become for those of us who do reject animal exploitation to speak out. If we agree that veganism should be the starting point for any meaningful advocacy in our fight against speciesism, we should not allow ourselves to be shamed and silenced by those groups who profit from its perpetuation. 

We may not have the millions these organizations do, but every single one of us has the ability to affect someone -- to change someone's heart and mind. Those are the real "little steps" that do count. We need to speak out. If we don't, who will?

So What's the Matter with Mercy for Animals?

I often get into conversations or exchanges with advocates who'll bring up this or that group or organization to mention that they like one of its posters or pamphlets, or that they heard a quote from one of its heads and that this quote really got their attention. Often, I'll find myself nodding and then shrugging, remembering this or that bit of information I'd filed away at some point which had left me dismissing the group in question, whether for its being speciesist and regulationist and as promoting ineffective campaigns, or for its endorsing and condoning (whether explicitly or implicitly) what are portrayed and presented as lesser degrees of animal use. Sometimes the group in question will have  used things like sexism or the threat of violence to promote whichever message it claims as its own. More often than not, the group will have seemed more concerned with fundraising for all of its wrongheaded campaigns than in earnestly effecting serious and permanent change in the public's continued use and exploitation of other animals.

Whatever the reason, there invariably seems to be something that leaves the group either falling short -- often far, far short -- of championing the rights of others or failing altogether to present any sort of clear message to the public about animals not being ours to use. Sadly, there also seems to be a growing tendency for animal groups to publicly distance themselves from the concept of veganism, from the word "vegan" itself and even expressing hostility towards those who refuse to equivocate when it comes to what we owe other animals. Sometimes these animal groups will perpetuate stereotypes and even ridicule those who are unequivocal in asking the public to consider that these sentient beings over 98% of us view as things existing for human use should be left alone. "Every little step counts," they'll assure non-vegans as they cash they donation cheques. "Not everybody will go vegan, so we have to applaud and encourage whatever they're willing to do," they'll argue. "Mentioning veganism is pushy and pushing them is judgmental," they'll insist. It should come as no surprise that validating (again, whether explicitly or implicitly) others' continued use of animals can be profitable.

Over the next while in a regular series of bi-monthly blog posts, I hope to examine some of the better known animal groups whose names get tossed around in activist circles. I'll try to highlight examples of where their advocacy doesn't jive with abolitionist animal rights advocacy and evaluate what they have to say about veganism, whose promotion is the starting point for any earnest and meaningful animal advocacy geared towards combating speciesism.

Mercy for Animals and its SICs

Mercy for Animals has certainly been in the news these last few years, earning itself a fair bit of mainstream media coverage thanks to its taking undercover footage of the abuse of animals at specific factory farms or slaughterhouses. Recently and just in time for the US Thanksgiving holiday, its cameras focused on one of Butterball's turkey facilities to offer up an expose of the horrible treatment endured by the turkeys at the hands of that facility's workers. Mercy for Animals even set up a website called Butterball Abuse on which you can find disturbing portions of the video footage, photos, expert testimony that the footage shows bona fide abuse and then a call to take action by going "vegetarian" (which for Mercy for Animals means adopting a plant-based diet), spreading the word about the Butterball Abuse site and.... making a donation to Mercy for Animals.

So? So the public was horrified. Calls to boycott Butterball popped up all over the internet, whether singling the company out for the obviously (not) out of the ordinary and extreme cruelty caught on film by Mercy for Animals, or for its being involved in factory farming in general. Non-vegans across the interwebs were outraged. How dare Butterball leave them potentially feasting on the carcass of some poor bird who was somehow mistreated? The idea of it was just repugnant. Thanks to Mercy for Animals, participating in animal cruelty could be avoided. Armed with knowledge of Butterball's facilities' workers obviously extraordinarily heinous treatment of the turkeys in its possession, members of the general public were left able to source a turkey from some other company (i.e. in whose facilities no such awful footage had been taken). I've no doubt that it was a relief for those who may actually believe -- or want to believe -- on some level that the majority of turkeys lead perfectly wonderful lives and die quick painless deaths to end up a carved carcass on a holiday table.

When the Exceptional is no Exception

The truth that gets overlooked is that there's no such thing as the humane enslavement and slaughter of any sentient being. From birth to death, other animals raised for human consumption are confined, mutilated, deprived of the chance to form relationships with others (whether kin or not). They're often deprived of even basic things like clean food or water and are just ordinarily treated like things with no interests of their own. Their lives alternate between being filled with terror and boredom. Butterball? Butterball was just an extension of the same old, same old. The company is just particularly well-known and thus made an effective target to single out to be able to grab the most media attention. It worked, but what did it really accomplish? So some Thanksgiving turkey consumers bought their turkeys elsewhere. Maybe a few even skipped over the turkey altogether and opted for a meat-free Thanksgiving, inspired by Mercy for Animals' ChooseVeg.com site -- its "guide to vegetarian and vegan living", which although it offers up a lot of animal-free recipes uses the terms "vegetarian" and "vegan"  interchangeably and thus confusingly.

Limiting the Focus


On its "About" page, the group describes itself as follows: "Mercy for Animals is dedicated to preventing cruelty to farmed animals and promoting compassionate food choices and policies." Right there, we have it stated outright that Mercy for Animals concerns itself with those animals we call "food". Furthermore, this concern zooms in on not whether there should be animals farmed for human consumption, but on how these animals are treated as they're farmed for human consumption. Once upon a time, as evidenced by all of the now-dead links on its "Site Map" page, it engaged in plenty of other single-issue campaigns that are ordinarily very popular and fast-cash-grab types of campaigns -- anti-fur, anti-circus, anti-vivisection, et al. These days, though, the group has limited its scope to highlighting worst-case scenarios when animals are raised to end up on supermarket shelves.

Why "Veg" and not "Vegan"?

In what is perhaps its most bewildering article on its site, one called "The 'V' Word: A Note about Terminology", Mercy for Animals explains why it has chosen to sometimes deliberately avoid using the word "vegan". The group states that it 

always has, and always will, unapologetically encourage people to adopt a lifestyle free of meat, dairy and eggs, based on cruelty-free, plant-based alternatives.

This description, of course, focuses on that part of one's "lifestyle" which concerns itself with eating. When it then addresses how people often ask why it sometimes uses the words "vegetarian" instead of "vegan", it responds by implying that the term "vegan" is off-putting to some segments of the public and that shuffling it out is part of what it calls a "carefully considered strategy" to appeal to those members of the public who are apparently a little skittish. It lists off a bunch of vague or misused  terms -- "pure vegetarian, plant-based, plant-strong, herbivore, or just plain ethical" -- it says are all used to describe "a cruelty-free lifestyle" and explains that it is reclaiming the word "vegetarian" in the sense in which it was initially meant to be used -- to describe a diet free of animal products.

So what's wrong with that? Nothing, I guess, if you're merely advocating an animal-free diet. However, Mercy for Animals lumps the word "vegan" in with the rest of those (apparently interchangeable) terms when what it's really talking about is limited to diet. Veganism isn't a diet... yet the group describes quite plainly that it limits its focus to diet and nonetheless insists that it is in fact advocating "veganism". It makes perfect sense to me, given that the group doesn't promote veganism, that it doesn't employ the word "veganism" to describe any aspect of its advocacy, but hey -- what do I know?

The piece goes on and on about how the word "vegetarian" facilitates more discussions with people and how it's a lure that can be used to grab peoples' attention so that discussions can eventually be had about (whatever it is that it thinks is) veganism. It also goes to great lengths to drive home that using the word "vegan" is alienating and leads to

conversations generally focused on the seemingly endless list of obscure ingredients that are nearly impossible to avoid or how hard it seems to give up cheese or ice cream.

One can't help but wonder how on earth members of the general public could possibly view the word "vegan" in any sort of possible light, given Mercy for Animals' obvious conviction that even just talking about veganism is harmful to advocating veganism -- which Mercy for Animals isn't even advocating in the first place.  And not only does Mercy for Animals try to make a case for its not advocating for whatever it thinks veganism is, but it goes on make a final assumption that "humans" are just incapable of hearing a vegan message at all -- from anyone, and that somehow promoting vegetarianism and with it the idea that there's something ethically significant about just avoiding meat is the only really effective way to fast-track someone to not eating any animal products at all.

As a species, humans tend to have very "all or nothing" mindsets. Because they view veganism as impossibly difficult, they will often write off making any lifestyle changes at all. But when presented with the prospect of going vegetarian, people tend to be much more open-minded and will often take that initial step toward cruelty-free living. Once they’ve taken that first step, the next step is that much easier.

What Mercy for Animals misses, though, is that to "get" veganism, once must accept that it's unethical to use other animals. It in no way follows that condoning different degrees of animal use will somehow facilitate someone's connecting the dots that animals aren't ours to use at all. 


Summary

So there you have it. Mercy for Animals' campaigns emphasize the treatment of only certain species of animals -- those we raise for human consumption -- rather than educating the public about whether all animals are ours to use. It profits off confusing people into thinking that some forms of animal use are worse than others and (whether inadvertently or not) by misleading people into thinking that all animal food production isn't always inherently torturous for the animals involved. Furthermore, it misrepresents veganism as a diet and then criticizes using the word "vegan" (whatever it is that it understands this word to mean) as too extremist and as ineffectual and potentially detrimental. How on earth could anyone who takes the rights and interests of other animals seriously support or condone an organization like Mercy for Animals? I certainly couldn't.

Further Listening/Reading:


For information on why vegetarianism isn't a gateway to veganism, listen to Gary Francione's podcast on the topic and then read his follow-up post about it.

For more on the wrongheadedness of SICs, see last month's MFIoF blog post on the topic.

Check back over the next week or so for a feature I hope to do on successful grassroots advocacy in New Zealand, Australia and North America with stories from folks who've taken an abolitionist vegan message to the public.

Veganic Bread?

I don't do product endorsements. Actually, what I mean is that I have never endorsed a specific brand of any type of product on My Face Is on Fire before (at least not deliberately or in a way in which I wrapped a post around said endorsement). It's just never really come up and the truth is that it gets so tricky sometimes to figure out who owns what and which vegan company just got snapped up by which Mega Corp that it's never interested me all that much. Then several weeks ago, I got a friendly email from a representative of a company called One Degree Organic Foods asking me if I'd like to try out their bread.

Now, the funny thing is that if you scroll through the hundreds of food photos I've posted on this blog every month or so for the last few years, you'll see that bread doesn't turn up often. Well, bread loaves of the sort you slice don't turn up often. My obsession with pizza precariously held in check, the only wheat based baked things you'll find more often than "almost never" are wraps, pita bread and the odd organic kamut roll. After checking out the One Degree Organic Foods website, though, I found myself too intrigued to shrug off the offer. See, One Degree's breads are not only organic, but they're veganic. The company sources its ingredients from farmers who use only plant-based fertilizers to grow their non-GMO crops and uses these ingredients to make their healthy and wholesome Canada Organic and USDA Organic certified bread.

It also used something called QR codes which mean little to a more often than not unplugged Luddite like me. Apparently this means that each loaf of their bread has a code on it that can be scanned with a gadget like a smartphone (I wish someone would offer to send me a free smartphone to review for my blog!) so that the purchaser can get detailed information on each ingredient used in the bread. I couldn't try this out myself, but will take their word for it that it works.

What I was good at, on the other hand, was finding things to do with the bread. I was sent a loaf each of their Lentil Grain, Ancient Whole Wheat, Flax and Spelt and Sesame Sunflower breads. My favourites were definitely the Lentil Grain and Sesame Sunflower and I hope to track them down locally in the future. I did ask 2-3 times if I could obtain some coupons for a blog giveaway, but no dice. All I can leave you with are some photos of various ways in which I sampled and devoured some of the crazy amount of bread I was sent.

Organic tofu marinated in soya sauce, ketchup, sesame oil and dried onion flakes, dredged in multigrain flour/nutritional yeast and pan-fried with sliced red onion. Tomato, pickles, avocado and ketchup on lightly-toasted veganic Ancient Whole Wheat bread.

Avocado mashed with lemon juice, crushed garlic and scallions, grilled portobello (it's in there!), tomato and Dijon on One Degree Veganic Sesame Sunflower bread. Broccoli slaw tossed with red bell pepper, parsley and sesame/lemon dressing.

Veganic Lentil Grain bread topped with mushrooms, nooch gravy, cheddar Daiya and fries. Peas on the side.

Flax and Spelt toast with Earth Balance and nooch and a big smear of organic strawberry jam.

Cabbage slaw with Vegenaise. Pickles, tomatoes and Tofurky slice with Dijon mustard on Lentil Grain bread.

Grilled Daiya cheddar  sandwch on Lentil Grain bread. Broccoli slaw tossed with red bell pepper, parsley and sesame/lemon dressing.

Adam Kochanowicz Interview w/Gary L. Francione

Conducted in 2009 at the Rutgers School of Law in Newark, this interview is a must-see for anyone interested in learning more about speciesism and the abolitionist approach to animal rights advocacy.

Why I Won't Support Single-Issue Campaigns

What Is a Single-Issue Campaign?

Prof. Gary L. Francione, who's written about single-issue campaigns (SICs) extensively in his published work and on his on his Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach website, defines it simply as such:

A single-issue campaign involves identifying some particular use of animals or some form of treatment and making that the object of a campaign to end the use or modify the treatment.

Basically, instead of focusing on educating the general public about how all animal exploitation is wrong, a spotlight is put on a specific type of use or treatment. Welfarist groups often initiate SICs which focus on how animals used for human consumption or entertainment are treated -- on the size of their cages and the other conditions in which they continue to be enslaved. However, SICs can sometimes confuse advocates by seeming to focus on use, and are thus sometimes misunderstood as being abolitionist in nature.

Why SICs Aren't Abolitionist

I had a conversation with an animal activist friend the other day about groups that wrap their fund-raising around single-issue campaigns (SICs). We were discussing the differences between welfarist and abolitionist activism and how or why it is that activists who are vegan and who don't personally condone animal use -- even sometimes those who self-identify as abolitionist -- may end up participating in some of these SICs. While a few of these groups occasionally do engage in some degree of vegan education and very vocally disassociate themselves from animal welfare groups, they nonetheless keep their main focus on more highly-publicized protests based on eliminating one specific type of animal use, often concerning some "hot button" form of animal exploitation such as the wearing of fur or consumption of foie gras.

Some animal advocates, abolitionist or otherwise, interpret these groups' activities as consistent with striving to abolish -- instead of regulate -- the use of other animals and then extrapolate that these SICs are somehow small steps towards eliminating all animal use. These campaigns often involve fundraising, whether lobbying and public relations costs or legal fees and -- let's admit it -- they're easy sells to a non-vegan public comprised of folks who, for the most part, honestly don't want to think of themselves as participating in any sort of cruel activity. The truth is that they are on different levels counterproductive and inconsistent with an abolitionist approach to animal rights, whether or not the SIC itself seems focused on the use of other animals.

When an animal advocacy group singles out something like the wearing of fur as particularly worthy of its ire, it's generally not all that difficult to get people on board to either scrawl their monikers on petitions or to send a cheque off in the mail. Fur isn't really something which any more than a fairly small minority of the non-vegan public tends to wear and it's generally associated with wealth and disposable income. Basically, it's easy to point a finger at it since most of us don't wear it and we associate it with excess or vanity. It's easier to point at it than to get all up close and personal with our own speciesism and to question the decisions we make each day when we involve ourselves in the cycle that leads to the habitual enslavement and slaughter of so very many others.

When an animal advocacy group gives members of the general public this easy out instead of asking them to reconsider their own speciesism -- to reconsider the mindset that leaves them thinking it's altogether alright to consider participating in this cycle, how does that change things for those other animals? How is this effective in bringing about an end to speciesism? It becomes evident fairly quickly how regardless of whether they focus on treatment or use, promoting SICs is counterintuitive to addressing the speciesism which underlies the casual shrugging off of what so many deem "ordinary" animal exploitation.

 

"One of These Things Is Not Just Like the Other"

The problem with presenting one particular form of animal use  as somehow being of greater moral relevance than another form of use is that it makes it appear that other forms of animal use are less relevant -- maybe even excusable . Advocates single out fur and picket outside a fur store filled with coats most ordinary folks couldn't afford anyway or circulate petitions which even non-vegans I know myself who collect leather shoes and purses like dryers collect socks wouldn't hesitate to sign, sharing in the advocates' indignation. After all, fur is cruel -- heinous and unnecessary. Cute Italian pumps, on the other hand, are "irresistible", and cheeseburgers are "delicious". If fur is single-out, though, then what about leather? If veal is singled out, then how about the dairy industry? Your tuna may be "dolphin-safe", but that doesn't do a whole heck of a lot for the tuna, does it?

Problems also arise when advocates believe that striving to end one single type of animal use will chip away effectively at the the prevailing mindset held by an overwhelming majority of people that all other animals are ours to use in whichever way we desire. Henry Thoreau once wrote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root". By picking "easy sell" campaigns and convincing non-vegans to find certain forms of animal use in which they don't ordinarily engage outrageous or repulsive, nothing effective is accomplished in terms of addressing the everyday types of animal use in which most people engage and which most view as normal, ordinary and acceptable.

In fact, perhaps the greatest danger when it comes to SICs is that non-vegans often latch on to them and let themselves be lulled into thinking that by throwing $20 or $50 into the pot -- a donation to help the goodly animal advocates fight the Big(gest of the) Bad(s) means that they've truly done their "part" -- that they've done "enough" for other animals and can carry on with the ordinary and everyday types of animal use in which they engage which in turn leads to 150 billion animals being slaughtered globally each and every year just for human consumption.

Veganism as Moral Baseline and Message

I've not scribbled any earth-shattering revelations here. If you've leafed through some of Gary Francione's books or have spent some time on his website, you'll already be familiar with much of what I've written -- possibly even in much greater nuanced detail than I've articulated. If you've ever spent time reading the now-defunct Unpopular Vegan Essays blog (and many other abolitionist blogs along with it which have come and gone over recent years), none of what I've presented here should be new to you. Sometimes things just need to be re-emphasized, though. Sometimes when we get swept up in wanting to do the right thing, we forget that what may feel right -- may feel good -- isn't necessarily what's most effective in the end. And in the end all that truly matters is that we shift the status quo permanently.

For more information on SICs presented by folks much more knowledgeable and wordsmith-y than this wee blogger, read this and this. Don't hack at the branches, reach for the low-hanging fruit, cherry-pick causes and (a whirlwind of analogies and metaphors aside) confuse someone into thinking that anything other than taking non-human animals seriously -- and rejecting their use in all facets of our everyday lives where and when we can -- could ever be enough. Going vegan is the very least we can do and spreading this message to the overwhelmingly non-vegan public is, in fact, the very least that all animal advocates should do. At least it's the very least we should do if we earnestly want to bring about an end to the continued enslavement, torture and slaughter of others. Think about it.

Bits and Blurbs in the News

On Being Full of Beans About Veganism

"Hooray! Superstar So-and-So has gone vegan!"

Call me cynical, but each time I read something akin to this, my heart continues to beat its same old kathump and my attention is sooner-than-later diverted elsewhere. Most of the time, what is meant is that "Superstar So-and-So" decided to adopt a plant-based diet for a while to lose weight for a role or to cash in on some sort of PETA-related media attention. It's often temporary and sometimes partial and since the focus is merely on diet and is usually for self-concerned aesthetic or health reasons, at some point or another during a slow news week, someone in the media tries to dig up a gotcha moment and succeeds.

Such was the case with Houston Texans running back football player Arian Foster, who just a few months ago was featured on Ecorazzi for having adopted a "vegan diet" and Foster himself boasted of being "vegan" on Twitter.  Now what's splattered all over the news this week is that Foster's veganism includes eating meat.

“I’m not in a cult,” Foster said. “Nothing’s going to happen to me. I just wanted a piece of chicken. It wasn’t like temptation. I felt like I could use one.”

[...]

“I’ve been dabbling back and forth,” Foster said on his diet. “I just like to eat healthy. The whole vegan thing, a lot of people are really interested in my food. … I’ve had meat since I said I don’t eat meat anymore, but I like to stay with the plant-based foods, but every now and then, I’ll eat something.”

So there you have it, folks: Veganism is a diet and if you don't feel comfortable having the occasional piece of meat while on it, you're in a cult. Now if you'll excuse me, I think that I just saw something shiny out of the corner of my...

PETA: Redefining "Tasteless" One Campaign at a Time

Earlier today, Jezebel featured a YouTube video uploaded by PETA Europe on October 31, purportedly "in honour of World Vegan Day". Jezebel described it as "horrifying" and summed it up as follows: "Hey guys, with a plant-based diet, you will be able to leer at women, like, all day, waving your genitals at them while you grimace in a vaguely menacing way." If that sounds like a melodramatic overreaction to you, I assure you that it's not. Check it out for yourselves:



Some of the comments left in response to the video on YouTube:

"Ew."
"Go home PETA. You're drunk."
"This is the stupidest video ever. What are you trying to tell us???"
"WTF?"
"So if you join PETA your ding-dong turns into a plant?"
"Go vegan and you might improve your sex life. Do drugs and you might land a job with PETA."
I don't even know where to start with it, myself. It's lewd on so very many levels and is unfortunately not that far-removed from what I've come to expect from PETA. Your thoughts?