An article on msn.com about vegans and "the honey debate"
Posted by biodancer on Aug 07, 2008 · Member since Jul 2007 · 978 posts
http://www.slate.com/id/2196205/?GT1=28001
I don't know if this has been posted yet. I didn't see anything on the board with a similar title.
In the face of this insectile carnage, vegans fall back on a common-sense dictum that animal suffering should be "reasonably avoided" as opposed to "avoided at any cost"... but that doctrine won't absolve us for eating honey. In the first place, honey is quite easy to avoid... Honey doesn't fill any nutritional gap, nor is it the only acceptable vegan sweetener.
I think kmk secretly wrote that part.
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.
I bet the bees would feel differently if given a voice. He barely mentioned how diseases are imported and honeycomb structure weakens the hive's immunity to infestation, so that then they get fumed with all sorts of crap. And how the damage to bees is going to affect all of us because bees (domesticated or not) are pollinators.
----------
eta: I also liked this:
There's never been a better time to be a half-assed vegetarian...
Very interesting article! It certainly wil spark more debate in the honey debate! thanks for posting it!!
I could do without the Michael Pollan, "going flexi" crap at the beginning, but that was a pretty decent article.
I think this part speaks to about five of our recent debate threads:
"Animal products are off-limits, period. Indeed, the first Vegan Society was created in 1944 to counter the detestable, flexitarian tendencies of early animal rights activists. Founder Donald Watson called their namby-pamby lacto-vegetarianism "a halfway house between flesh-eating and a truly human, civilized diet" and implored his followers to join him in making the "full journey."
It explains nicely why the term "vegan" evolved. ;)b
heya.
my Dad was a bee-keeper until resently, so i think i know a little about this topic.
personaly i still eat honey but only if i know the supplyr, as i'd say u all know honey is made from necture and turned into honey by the bee's for there food.
In the case of bee keepers such as my father i know he loved the bee's and took really good care of them the protected their hives and also ensure they always had food and a good enviroment.
I see nothing wrong with this.also the bee's could have left @ anytime,and sometimes they did.but 99.9% of the time they stayed and were cared for.
Interestd 2 hear back
This topic provokes a heated song and dance on vegweb from time to time. It usually ends with agreeing to disagree. It's just one of those war-inciting topics.
My stance will always be this: Is honey vegan? No. Is eating honey ethical? You decide for yourself. My personal opinion is No.
This thread comes to mind: http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=23555.0
Founder Donald Watson called their namby-pamby lacto-vegetarianism "a halfway house between flesh-eating and a truly human, civilized diet" and implored his followers to join him in making the "full journey."
... and that would be giving veg*ns of any stripe bad press. Thanks man. You're really furthering the cause there.
Founder Donald Watson called their namby-pamby lacto-vegetarianism "a halfway house between flesh-eating and a truly human, civilized diet" and implored his followers to join him in making the "full journey."
... and that would be giving veg*ns of any stripe bad press. Thanks man. You're really furthering the cause there.
I think namby-pamby is personal and uncalled for, but I think Watson's quote is right on target. The full quote is:
"The unquestionable cruelty associated with the production of dairy produce has made it clear that lacto-vegetarianism is but a half-way house between flesh-eating and a truly humane, civilised diet, and we think, therefore, that during our life on earth we should try to evolve sufficiently to make the 'full journey'."
Note that the author twisted Watson's words from "humane" to "human." ::)
It's true, though. Lacto-vegetarianism is only part of the way there toward ending unnecessary suffering.
That being said, I would guess that the appropriate audience for such a statement would be lacto-veggies themselves, not omni's.
I think namby-pamby is personal and uncalled for, but I think Watson's quote is right on target.
Yeah, that was the part that irritated me, too. I hate those blanket assumptions by people who consider themselves to have the moral high ground, whether they have it or not.
It's true, though. Lacto-vegetarianism is only part of the way there toward ending unnecessary suffering.
That being said, I would guess that the appropriate audience for such a statement would be lacto-veggies themselves, not omni's.
It is indeed only part-way there, but I'd argue that addressing a statement like that even to people who seem to have started 'the journey' does more harm than good. At best it might convince someone on the fence to go vegan, but at worst it makes a lacto-veg - like myself - feel inadequate and insulted. Reading the original quote does something to appease that but I still resent the assumption that I am not yet as evolved as his lordship.
I guess where I have trouble here is that that type of rhetoric DID push me to go vegan when I was lacto-ovo. It made me rethink whether my actions were adequate.
I'm going to try to put myself in the shoes of a lacto-ovo vegetarian in this case. I imagine this going three ways:
Case 1: I might be content in my vegetarianism. I might firmly believe that being vegetarian is adequate and aligns with my personal values. In this case, I disagree with Watson on a fundamental level, and I am unlikely to take anything he says to heart. I would not feel belittled by Watson's statements because I think he is wrong.
Case 2: I might be on my way to veganism from vegetarianism. I might know the facts about dairy and eggs, and I am now working on how to transition to vegan. In this case, wouldn't I agree with Watson?
Case 3: I might be ignorant of how eating dairy and eggs cause as much (more, actually) suffering than eating meat. I would wonder why Watson thought vegetarianism was a "halfway-house" and would do more research about it. This would convert me to either Case 1 or Case 2. If, as I vegetarian, I already harbored some sympathy for animal suffering, I would be unlikely to shut down in the face of such a comment. And if such a comment DID make me feel inadequate, I would wonder WHY. Chances are that the "why" is grounded in my knowing that I can do better. This last case describes how I came to veganism.
But I guess if the statement offends, it offends. But I am at a loss at how to make a case for veganism without stating or implying that vegetarianism is inadequate. That is the basic premise.
See, I'm with Catski on that... the article's (somewhat skewed) statement made me go "Oh, well isn't THAT a nice thing to say? Jerks."
I mean, come on... I'm working on it, okay? Do we need to resort to name-calling? I see it as a glass-half-full thing. I'm getting there. This dude's looking down his nose at me saying "Not fast enough."
Well, you know... at least I'm ON the dang road. And moving forward. Go pick on someone who's sitting on the side eating a burger or whatever.
None of your three thingies really fit what I feel about it. I think the way such things affected you is kind of the exception. If you're ready to leap into being vegan, then it could be just that nudge you needed. If you're not ready, it's just a slap in the face that makes you say "Do I even want to share the same label as these sorts of people?"
When someone isn't ready, nothing is going to sway them. When they are ready... then maybe they'll be swayed... or maybe that's just not the best way to go about it.
Halfway between omni and vegan.... yes.
Inhuman, namby-pamby, and utterly inadequate? You know what? I'm proud of myself. So no... I disagree. I haven't stopped here, I haven't said "I'll never be vegan" (I did say I'll never call myself vegan, though). I'm taking it all in and considering where my morals truly lie, so I don't agree that I'm namby-pamby, inhuman, or inadequate. At least I've come this far. And I'll get there eventually. No need for name calling.
Halfway isn't the worst place to be, you know. Everyone starts somewhere.
Oh, and namby-pamby? wtf IS that?
Sounds stupid and childish. Who says that, anyway?
Halfway isn't the worst place to be, you know. Everyone starts somewhere.
Agreed. No one said it was. You imposed that judgment. Much like the word "inadequate" was imposed on Watson's statement earlier.
Bear in mind the context, please. This was written in 1944, when veganism was totally novel and alien and was just being conceived. It probably had the purpose of explaining more so than persuading. I don't know of any modern vegan activist who uses that type of language in vegan outreach. But I could be wrong. Please consider the context of Watson's remark.
I guess I don't understand the things that keep people whose hearts are in veganism from going vegan already. Like, you have to learn to read labels. That's something fairly simple that other vegans can help with. You have to get some recipes (hello, vegweb!). You have to learn to ask for special dishes at restaurants. That can take practice. You have to wean yourself from cheese (can be challenging). I mean, once the mindset is in place, doesn't everything else fall into place relatively soon? Is an extended transition period due to lack of knowledge? Resources? Time? Is it due to social factors? I don't quite understand. (Really, I don't. I'm not trying to be back-handed and bitchy. I don't get it. I'm asking for clarification because it is beyond the scope of my personal experience.)
Inhuman, namby-pamby, and utterly inadequate?
The first two were imposed by the author. Wrongly, I think. Remember, Watson's word was "inhumane." The dairy and egg industries are inhumane. If there is doubt about this, I can find some resources to elucidate it. "Utterly inadequate" is also nowhere in Watson's statement and was self-imposed by us as readers.
I guess where I have trouble here is that that type of rhetoric DID push me to go vegan when I was lacto-ovo. It made me rethink whether my actions were adequate.
That's actually fascinating, the complete opposite effect of 'fire and brimstone' rhetoric upon you. I think the main issue here is that it affects us in utterly different ways. But to address your post:
I'm going to try to put myself in the shoes of a lacto-ovo vegetarian in this case. I imagine this going three ways:
Case 1: I might be content in my vegetarianism. I might firmly believe that being vegetarian is adequate and aligns with my personal values. In this case, I disagree with Watson on a fundamental level, and I am unlikely to take anything he says to heart. I would not feel belittled by Watson's statements because I think he is wrong.
Case 2: I might be on my way to veganism from vegetarianism. I might know the facts about dairy and eggs, and I am now working on how to transition to vegan. In this case, wouldn't I agree with Watson?
Case 3: I might be ignorant of how eating dairy and eggs cause as much (more, actually) suffering than eating meat. I would wonder why Watson thought vegetarianism was a "halfway-house" and would do more research about it. This would convert me to either Case 1 or Case 2. If, as I vegetarian, I already harbored some sympathy for animal suffering, I would be unlikely to shut down in the face of such a comment. And if such a comment DID make me feel inadequate, I would wonder WHY. Chances are that the "why" is grounded in my knowing that I can do better. This last case describes how I came to veganism.
Personally, I am halfway between Case 1 and Case 2. I call myself ovo-lacto vegetarian because, although I have bought soy milk rather than dairy for nearly two years, and I eat very little cheese and few eggs, I do still consume those products. That's an obvious point but I feel it's important clarification in this context. Since going vegetarian two years ago I have not only stopped eating meat and byproducts such as gelatine, I no longer wear leather and I have massively reduced my consumption of dairy. Am I vegan? Of course not. Do I consider veganism a future goal? Yes, absolutely, which makes me Case 2, but on the other hand my current lifestyle and morals are such that I feel I'm doing my best, right now, and in that I am more Case 1.
Watson's statement makes two assumptions. Firstly, that vegetarians are either unaware of the conditions under which the majority of dairy is produced, or are aware but do not care to change their diet accordingly. Secondly, that they are not already making moves towards veganism. Not everybody can make a total lifestyle change overnight, be that for practical reasons or the worry that they will backslide. Watson seems to view the situation in much more black and white terms and I imagine that two years ago as a brand-new vegetarian I would have found that statement very discouraging. Many people experience considerable negativity from friends and family even transitioning to a vegetarian diet - it is 'wrong', it is 'hippie-ish' it is 'other'. It can be a highly life-changing step, changing diet, learning to scrutinize labels, adopting new cooking techniques and ingredients. In one aggressive statement, Watson writes off the compassion and learning people have shown by taking the decision to become vegetarian.
But I guess if the statement offends, it offends. But I am at a loss at how to make a case for veganism without stating or implying that vegetarianism is inadequate. That is the basic premise.
I don't know about you, but certainly for myself and many people who were brought up in strongly omnivorous families, removing meat from one's diet is the hardest step to take. I feel much closer 'ideologically' to a vegan than an omni, something which Watson doesn't seem to hold with. I agree with Jeanacorina:
Maybe I'm spoiled by VegWeb, but I've always considered that even by being vegetarian I am part of a wider community which has always been understanding and welcoming. I feel being vegetarian in a vast majority of meat-eaters is something to celebrate, not criticise, and it is exactly that celebration and encouragement that makes me want to get my shit together and one day go vegan. When that day comes I hope omnis will look at me as a compassionate VegWebber and not a critical Watson.
Curse you, speedy poster!
Bear in mind the context, please. This was written in 1944, when veganism was totally novel and alien and was just being conceived. It probably had the purpose of explaining more so than persuading. I don't know of any modern vegan activist who uses that type of language in vegan outreach. But I could be wrong. Please consider the context of Watson's remark.
The time is massively significant. I wasn't aware of that (oh, bad Cat, you should have checked the source!) but would have hoped the author of the original article was. It would certainly have been worth mentioning.
I guess I don't understand the things that keep people whose hearts are in veganism from going vegan already. Like, you have to learn to read labels. That's something fairly simple that other vegans can help with. You have to get some recipes (hello, vegweb!). You have to learn to ask for special dishes at restaurants. That can take practice. You have to wean yourself from cheese (can be challenging). I mean, once the mindset is in place, doesn't everything else fall into place relatively soon? Is an extended transition period due to lack of knowledge? Resources? Time? Is it due to social factors? I don't quite understand. (Really, I don't. I'm not trying to be back-handed and bitchy. I don't get it. I'm asking for clarification because it is beyond the scope of my personal experience.)
Just speaking personally, half a year after I went vegetarian I spent an academic year in Russia. Even the concept of vegetarianism is practically impossible to explain and I didn't much fancy explaining veganism. There isn't even a word for 'vegan' in Russian. I came back and was flung into the horror of my final year of a degree. Were I to go vegan now - and I would definitely avoid calling myself vegan if I couldn't successfully adhere to the lifestyle - I doubt I would have the time and motivation to truly do the label justice. That's my own situation; I just don't have the additional energy to expend right now. As a friend who graduated last year said to me, "It's so great to have a job, I don't have to work anymore."
Watson's statement makes two assumptions. Firstly, that vegetarians are either unaware of the conditions under which the majority of dairy is produced, or are aware but do not care to change their diet accordingly. Secondly, that they are not already making moves towards veganism.
EXACTLY! Because he wrote it in the same breadth that veganism was conceived! Those assumptions are absolutely true to the context! Which is why we are remiss to judge ourselves by his statement!
That's actually fascinating, the complete opposite effect of 'fire and brimstone' rhetoric upon you. I think the main issue here is that it affects us in utterly different ways.
I've never been subject to fire and brimstone. I'm talking about a vegan friend who said, when I asked why he was vegan, "I'm not OK with what happens in the egg and dairy industries. I've come to realize that they are as cruel as the meat industry." (He knew I was vegetarian at the time). How is that (a) different from Watson's statement, and (b) judgmental, hurtful, or off-putting? I mean, maybe he sensed that I am not the type to whither in the face of opposing ideas, but really. I still think the fire-and-brimstone vegan for the purposes of outreach is a figment of our imaginations.
I've never been subject to fire and brimstone. I'm talking about a vegan friend who said, when I asked why he was vegan, "I'm not OK with what happens in the egg and dairy industries. I've come to realize that they are as cruel as the meat industry." (He knew I was vegetarian at the time). How is that (a) different from Watson's statement, and (b) judgmental, hurtful, or off-putting? I mean, maybe he sensed that I am not the type to whither in the face of opposing ideas, but really. I still think the fire-and-brimstone vegan for the purposes of outreach is a figment of our imaginations.
Ah, that's my bad. When you said "that type of rhetoric" I believed you meant the same tone as Watson. I too think you're unlikely to find fire and brimstone in any kind of concerted and official outreach, but all it takes is one condescending or unpleasant vegan to put people off. I know there are a few people who assume I'll be like that as a vegetarian, because they've met some pushy types before. It's a personal experience call but I've definitely run into a couple of vegans who've made me wince.
Ah, that's my bad. When you said "that type of rhetoric" I believed you meant the same tone as Watson. I too think you're unlikely to find fire and brimstone in any kind of concerted and official outreach, but all it takes is one condescending or unpleasant vegan to put people off. I know there are a few people who assume I'll be like that as a vegetarian, because they've met some pushy types before. It's a personal experience call but I've definitely run into a couple of vegans who've made me wince.
Agreed. There are definitely those types. No doubt.
Approaching from the other side, there are definitely those who perceive veg*ns as self-righteous and judgmental when they are not. People often project their own self-judgment onto others to ease cognitive dissonance.
Like, if I had a friend who was very fit, and she told me about how she goes to such-and-such fitness class every day so she could stay in shape, I might perceive that she was judging me for NOT being in shape and doing the same. When that isn't the case.
eta: I'm sure we've all been in a situation where we've said, "Oh, I'm veg*n, no thanks," and the other person says "Oh. Well I don't eat that much meat." or "Oh. Well I think it's OK to eat meat because of x, y, and z." Or a million other rationalizations. And you're like, OK, I wasn't really asking....thanks for sharing? That's the type of thing I mean. Being veg*n is being a mirror for other people's actions.
Agreed. There are definitely those types. No doubt.
Approaching from the other side, there are definitely those who perceive veg*ns as self-righteous and judgmental when they are not. People often project their own self-judgment onto others to ease cognitive dissonance.
Like, if I had a friend who was very fit, and she told me about how she goes to such-and-such fitness class every day so she could stay in shape, I might perceive that she was judging me for NOT being in shape and doing the same. When that isn't the case.
That's also true, but it's unfortunately hard to know which of the two options are the reason for negativity towards vegans in any given situation.
Notice how far we've come from the topic of honey? ;) You're a killer debater. This has woken my brain up so much that I might even do some reading for my essay...
Pages