This is a critical review of a blog post made by a (supposedly) vegan blogger whose article is a response to/opinion on another blog posted on slate. I've read the linked article on slate and I agree with some of it. However, there are several things that needs addressing which I'll be doing in a different blog post and I'll link that at the end of this blog post. Coming back to this article, there are so many things that needs addressing. Therefore, I will be breaking down the contents of the article, to expose the lack of coherency, consistency and substance in the reasoning involved. This article yet again adds fodder to anti-vegan malzoans in their attempt at justifying suffering of trillions of innocent sentient beings, and in defending the interests of the oppressors.
Honey, I’m A Vegan
No, You're Not.
The paragraph(s) in the article being deconstructed will be italicized, the lines the author quoted from the linked article will be italicized and in double quotes, and the critique will be given below in bold. Here we go:
Thanks to Nash Veggie for tweeting me this article on Slate entitled “The Great Vegan Honey Debate.” I really enjoyed reading this. There are so many things to quote from this article, I don’t know where to begin. Perhaps I should just say, read the article.
Thanks to one of my friends for sharing me this shitty article written by some malzoan who considers themselves vegan. Reading this really pissed me off. There are so many things that needs addressing in this article and I know exactly where to start. I'll start from the very beginning and go through each and every paragraph to address all the nonsensical points in this article.
One of the things that hooked me right away was this:
"Thirteen percent of U.S. adults are “semivegetarian,” meaning they eat meat with fewer than half of all their meals. In comparison, true vegetarians—those who never, ever consume animal flesh—compose just 1 percent."
I thought vegans comprised somewhere around 3-4% of the US population these days, but it’s pretty hard to get a real statistic. But what about the semi-vegetarian comment? Before we went vegan, Jane and I considered ourselves “semi-vegetarian.” But to say we ate meat with less than half our meals would be a gross understatement of how much meat we ate. That holds true for the people we know who categorize their eating the same way, unless the statistics include snacks…
Semi-vegetarian, pure-vegetarian, flexitarian, lacto-vegetarian, etc., are all just fancy names created to categorize people according to their eating habits. At the end of the day, all of these are just diets which veganism is not, but the author seems to be confusing veganism with a diet, which is evident throughout the article.
Then there was this comment:
"You’ll never find a self-respecting vegan downing a glass of milk or munching on a slice of buttered toast. But the modern adherent may be a little more accommodating when it comes to the dairy of the insect world: He may have relaxed his principles enough to enjoy a spoonful of honey."
Now, I’m a self-respecting vegan, and I fully expect to have a slice of pizza next time I’m in New York, deliberately. (BTW, pizza in NYC means a slice of cheese pizza, no other toppings.) Some people say it is this attitude specifically that excludes me from being a vegan, but I disagree. I consider myself to be a law-abiding citizen, but I occasionally exceed the posted speed limit (note: this is hard to do… I live in Los Angeles). One or two slices of pizza out of 1,095 meals (365 * 3) still makes me a vegan, in my book.
Here we go! The author fully expects to have a slice of pizza, deliberately with the mammary secretions of an exploited, abused bovine animal who produced those secretions only for her baby calf, with no other toppings but only the processed secretions called "cheese" and proceeds to call herself vegan, when she clearly is not one. On the occasion when other actual-non-fake-vegans explain to her that she isn't vegan, she disagrees! Sure, why not!? This is a free country (probably hers too). So it's totally okay to consider the moon a light bulb that NASA turns on at night, and disagree with anyone who says a cat is not a bird.
One cannot call themselves a law-abiding citizen if they occasionally and deliberately BREAK the law. So, the argument itself is fundamentally flawed. The analogy itself is terrible considering the fact that eating cheese and honey are legal in all parts of the world (as far as I know). It’s definitely not debatable if a person is actually a vegan or just another malzoan who likes wearing the vegan hat, when they intentionally indulge themselves in the exploitation of non-humans while being fully aware of what happens to the cows and their calves in the dairy industry, and that it's morally wrong. If you want to have pizza with cheese, why stop at cheese? Why not some pieces of bacon and pepperoni on it?! I am pretty sure that it would still make you a vegan in your book, a book with no spine or logical consistency.
 |
| Credits to the meme community on the internet |
But let’s get to the heart of the matter, or the article…
Lets do...
"There is no more contentious question in the world of veganism than the one posed by honey. A fierce doctrinal debate over its status has raged for decades; it turns up on almost every community FAQ and remains so ubiquitous and unresolved that radio host Rachel Maddow proposed to ask celebrity vegan Dennis Kucinich about it during last year’s CNN/YouTube presidential debate. Does honey qualify as a forbidden animal product since it’s made by bees? Or is it OK since the bees don’t seem too put out by making it?"
Well, I’ve weighed in on this before… I am a vegan who eats honey. Again, a stance that has some of the vegan community pointing fingers and saying “You’re not a real vegan.” To that I say, you’re entitled to your opinions. I consider myself a vegan. Yes, in the animal, vegetable, mineral categorization, bees are animals. However, they are insects. I would not hesitate to have my house tented or sprayed if I had termites; insects are killed collaterally in the harvesting of my produce… If I’m willing to kill insects in these instances, is it not hypocritical to forego eating honey? If my point of view isn’t sufficient enough to sway you, here’s what Vegan Action, has to say:
"I am a vegan who eats honey" - That's an oxymoron. No, I won't say "You’re not a real vegan", you're not a vegan at all. You eat honey, you want to eat cheese, and you probably eat (and use) other animal substances too, which you haven’t mentioned here. So, who's gonna stop you?! Someone who thinks exploiting animals is okay to satisfy their selfish desires, and actually does it, is NOT a vegan. Facts don't care about your opinions. Bees are insects. They are still sentient non-human animals, and there is a WORLD’S difference between accidental deaths, deaths caused in self defence, and deliberate deaths caused by intentional exploitation of those animals. The difference is the same as asking "if it's okay to kill someone in self defence, why is it not okay to kill and rob them? Humans die in accidents anyway. If I am willing to kill someone in those instances, is it not hypocritical to forgo murder and robbery?". A big ZERO for moral consistency.
"Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products, because they do not believe insects are conscious of pain. Moreover, even if insects were conscious of pain, it’s not clear that the production of honey involves any more pain for insects than the production of most vegetables, since the harvesting and transportation of all vegetables involves many ‘collateral’ insect deaths."
The number of people who believe in something doesn't make it a fact. Just because some people who call themselves vegan, don't believe that insects are conscious of pain, that doesn't mean insects don't feel pain. Evidence shows that all insects have the biological machinery for feeling pain (a central nervous system) and it is demonstrated that in this largest taxon of animals, there are a plethora of mechanisms by which insects may experience pain. The comparison between the exploitation of bees to get honey and the accidental/unintentional/unavoidable deaths of other insects in the production of most vegetables is just ridiculous. It is the same as saying "it’s not clear that the production of meat involves any more pain for the animals in farms than the animal deaths caused on roads due to accidents, since driving on roads involves many inevitable animal deaths." How hard is it to comprehend the difference between exploitation followed by death, and accidental/unintentional/unavoidable deaths? A dictionary would help if common sense doesn't.
(This group has been established for over 10 years; they are a vegan outreach group. They’re calling it an acceptable vegan behavior. This is the party line I choose to follow.)
The age of an established organisation doesn't give any credibility or authority if all they do is consider beliefs of the majority, ignoring the true definition of veganism (by the Vegan Society) and being apologetic to animal exploiters, to come up with fancy new statements (and words like veganish), to gain more followers and popularity. And morally inconsistent people like the author who tries to justify their actions using morally inconsistent excuses would always try to cherry pick what they like or what is in-line with their actions, which happens to be the above statement which seems convenient enough for the author to follow.
It’s also been pointed out to me that the original definition of vegan, according to the Vegan Society who coined the term back in 1944: “. . . eats a plant-based diet free from all animal products, including milk, eggs and honey.” To this I reply, (unfortunately) language is organic. In the 1913 Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of “gay” was:
1. Excited with merriment; manifesting sportiveness or delight; inspiring delight; livery; merry.
2. Brilliant in colors; splendid; fine; richly dressed.
3. Loose; dissipated; lewd. [Colloq.] Syn. — Merry; gleeful; blithe; airy; lively; sprightly, sportive; light-hearted; frolicsome; jolly; jovial; joyous; joyful; glad; showy; splendid; vivacious.
Today, Merriam-Webster defines “gay” as:
1 a: happily excited : merry b: keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits
2 a: bright, lively b: brilliant in color
3: given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4 a: homosexual b: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals
But if you use the word “gay” in conversation today, it will be understood to be definition #4. Language is organic; definitions change.
Sure they do, and the definition of veganism also did. It is now: "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."
When definitions change, you need to update yourself with the latest definition created by the person/people who coined the term, and not assume and create your own definition just because "definitions change". And the definition of a philosophy, whose sole purpose is to end animal exploitation, must change in such a way that it leads closer to the intended purpose, not deviate away from it, such as including words that encapsulates the fight for animal rights and the destruction of speciesism. If the definition of veganism is going to change further, it would probably change to something closer to "veganism is a moral imperative", which most actual-non-fake-vegans already use in their daily lives, and would NOT change to something like "eating cheese is also acceptable behaviour, along with eating honey".
Also, there is plenty to talk about regarding the inclusion of the ‘homosexuals’ in the definition. Is the author so daft to not realize that the example given is antithetical to her argument, because the INCLUSION of the fourth definition is based on the historical change in attitude towards a socially disenfranchised group. Watering down the/creating another definition of veganism to EXCLUDE another group of socially disenfranchised group (sentient ‘social’ insects) is the opposite of the example provided.
Some people complain that the fact that some vegans eat honey, while others don’t (refined sugar too), causes confusion in the non-vegan sector. Perhaps it does. But “vegan” is confusing for most non-vegans anyway. Do you eat eggs, milk, fish? What do you eat anyway? Before you condemn those of us who eat honey, remember, there are no perfect vegans out there.
The actual reason for this confusion is not so hard to comprehend. It is the malzoans and apologists like the author who consider themselves vegan while eating and using animal products and animals occasionally or regularly. The non-vegan questions are simple to answer. We don't eat anything that comes from animal exploitation - includes all animal substances. We eat all kinds of plant based foods - except those which are evidently obtained from animal exploitation. There are no perfect vegans out there? Another catchy phrase used by speciesists and apologists. There is no perfect vegan, imperfect vegan, 100% vegan, 80% vegan, vegan with cheat days, veganish, or other shitty fancy terms.
YOU ARE EITHER VEGAN, OR YOU ARE NOT.
YOU ARE EITHER AGAINST ANIMAL EXPLOITATION, OR YOU ARE NOT.
There is NO kinda care, kinda don't.
Reading the Slate article further, the author, Daniel Engber, points out:
"…you can’t worry over the ethics of honey production without worrying over the entire beekeeping industry. Honey accounts for only a small percentage of the total honeybee economy in the United States; most comes from the use of rental hives to pollinate fruit and vegetable crops. According to food journalist Rowan Jacobson, whose book Fruitless Fall comes out this September, commercial bees are used in the production of about 100 foods, including almonds, avocados, broccoli, canola, cherries, cucumbers, lettuce, peaches, pears, plums, sunflowers, and tomatoes. Even the clover and alfalfa crops we feed to dairy cows are sometimes pollinated by bees.
Life for these rental bees may be far worse than it is for the ones producing honey. The industrial pollinators face all the same hardships, plus a few more: They spend much of their lives sealed in the back of 18-wheelers, subsisting on a diet of high-fructose corn syrup as they’re shipped back and forth across the country. Husbandry and breeding practices have reduced their genetic diversity and left them particularly susceptible to large-scale die-offs."
So, are you vegan if you exploit insects in this way? Would this treatment of mammals be acceptable?
This is a good question, given all the stupidity in this article. The author ask us this question - "are you vegan if you exploit insects in this way?". So is the author asking this question because she is genuinely concerned about the insects being exploited? Or is she asking this because she is trying to justify the consumption of honey by using this as an excuse? To me it's clear, the reason is the latter. If you don't think so too, ask this question to yourselves - "If you are genuinely concerned about someone being harmed because of you, would you try to find ways to minimize that harm as far as possible, or would you use that to justify the harm that you are causing to others which is already completely avoidable?" The author already used this when she said she's willing to kill the termites that "infest" her house. If she is not a speciesist, or at least trying not to be one like most actual vegans do, she would try to explore humane ways to protect her house from the termites without causing them harm as far as possible. Coming to the question of the insects (and other animals) killed in the production, protection, and transportation of food crops, vegetables, etc., we don't have control over that and we are not in a position to survive and thrive without eating those crops and vegetables, while it is absolutely possible to thrive without eating honey, and other animals and their substances. That being said, (actual) vegans don't ignore, or neglect the deaths of all those insects and plants. We do what we can. Vegans who are able to grow food in their backyards are already doing that. Most vegans probably don't even have backyards. Veganic farming is also picking up, though slowly, where (actual) vegans are the farmers so they take care not to harm insects and other animals as much as possible. As more people turn vegan, new methods and technology would arise which minimizes our harm footprint even more. So the question is not "are you vegan if you contribute to the exploitation/harm for your necessities?" but it is "are you doing everything in your power to reduce your harm footprint, as you probably already consider yourself vegan?"
(more about this issue, along with the issue of "using" bees to pollinate, will be addressed in the next blog post on the original slate article referred by the author in this post). Also interesting is the framing of the question “...in this way?” as if other more “humane” ways of exploiting is acceptable.
"Mr. Engber ends with this:
According to Matthew Ball, the executive director of Vegan Outreach, the desire for clear dietary rules and restrictions makes little difference in the grand calculus of animal suffering: “What vegans do personally matters little,” he says. “If we present veganism as being about the exploitation of honeybees, it makes it easier to ignore the real, noncontroversial suffering” of everything else. Ball doesn’t eat honey himself, but he’d sooner recruit five vegans who remain ambivalent about insect rights than one zealot who follows every last Vegan Society rule.
That may be the most important lesson to come out of this debate: You’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
The above paragraph will also be addressed in the next blog post on the original slate article referred in this.
The last paragraph will be deconstructed line by line.
Which brings me to my final point. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… There is a small, but vocal, minority of vegans out there who think that if you eschew animal products for any reason other than animal welfare, then you are not a vegan.
The small but vocal minority of vegans who are vegan for animal rights (not animal welfare, in the welfarish sense) are the actual vegans. People who think it's okay to exploit animals once in a while, to exploit animals only a little bit, to exploit animals "humanely", etc., and still call themselves vegan, are just trying to twist the definition of veganism to suit their conveniences and to reduce the guilt of their contribution to animal exploitation.
What the hell people?! If you want to be a vegan, be a proper vegan, why on earth would you want to be a vegan, but also don't want to be a vegan, and end up changing the definition and the intended meaning of the term? Is the term “vegan” that cool to be identified with?! Grow a spine! have some moral consistency.
Or that if you’re not being vegan to the extreme (by this I mean scrutinizing the ingredients and processing of every food item you’re going to ingest) then you may as well eat meat.
If one can understand the definition and the intended meaning of veganism, these kind of silly questions would solve themselves even before they arise. Being vegan means being against animal use, to get them the freedom that they always deserved. How do we do that? It's not possible as long as we are using them, so first we need to end their use. For that we need to stop buying and consuming/using all products and services derived from animal use. If you can understand this, it's clear that all those products that have animal substances in their ingredients, are made from animal use. Now, if you still buy them, you are paying for animal use - conflicting with veganism. Some products have milk shown in allergen information, but that does not mean that milk is put in it to make it that way. It means that those foods are manufactured on equipment that also processes milk products. Does that mean the original product that 'may' contain traces of animal substance ONLY because it was manufactured on shared equipment, is made from animal use? Obviously not. So eating such products MAY (also may not) mean that you're going to digest traces of animal substances but that does not mean that you are paying for animal use. Those products never needed animal substances/animal use. Paying for such products does NOT encourage companies to use more animal substances/animals. Looking for ingredients while purchasing something is not 'extremism', you are not working your ass off to do that, you're not doing the impossible to look up ingredients which are already listed on a package, and you are not reverse engineering a product to find out if animal substances are used or not. Doing such a thing comes naturally if you really care about animals, animal rights, and ending speciesism, because it is both practical and practicable as stated in the definition of veganism. You would obviously find it extreme if you just jumped on the bandwagon because you saw an ad, or a celebrity, or found it interesting, or because you did it for the health or your environment, all or most of these are selfish! One cannot be vegan if it's not for animals (the whole ‘vegan for the environment’ can be discussed in another article).
We emphatically disagree.
Facts don't give a fuck.
Every little bit helps, and if that means embracing the omnivores who choose to “eat vegan” one or two days a week, I say welcome to the fold!
Sure every little bit helps, but the moment we acknowledge it, people like the author starts feeling comfortable and starts eating honey, wanting cheese, and who knows? Maybe beef, wool and rodeo are next in line. And when a lot of people do this, it does NOT help.
Yes, you can be vegan one day per week.
NO, you cannot be a VEGAN one day per week. You can be PLANT-BASED one day per week. Unrelentingly speciesist malzoans like the author who type this sort of nonsensical apologetic articles are a real problem for the animal liberation movement.
If you choose to eat honey, I believe you are not “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
If you choose to eat honey, you successfully ignored the exploitation and the commodification of bees and participated in it. You are definitely ignoring one of the babies in the bathwater while caring about other babies in there, according to your convenience.
And I have to ask the less flexible members of the vegan community, what exactly is the goal here? Because it seems to me, if you are coming at veganism from an animal rights or environmental perspective, every little bit helps.
Animal rights and environmentalism are not the same, and so is veganism and environmentalism. We are not the less flexible members of the vegan community, people like the author are the back stabbers of the vegan movement. The goal is animal liberation, not satisfying and suiting the conveniences and interests of non-vegans and malzoans.
If you are not vegan, please go vegan. You probably understand the 'why' already.
If you want to know the "what and why" of veganism, here is a great article to start,
The blog post addressing the related slate article "The great vegan honey debate" quoted by the author, in the article refuted in this blog post, can be found here https://animalrightsallegiance.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-great-vegan-honey-debate-debunked.html
Comments
Post a Comment