I have come to believe that, when it comes to veganism and animal rights, anything less than clear, consistent abolitionist vegan education fails to carry the message I find more important than any other – that living vegan is the simple action every individual can take right now to take a powerful and unequivocal stand against society’s continued commodification and exploitation of individuals of other species. To take a welfarist approach – engaging in single-issue campaigns designed to lessen and regulate abuse rather than abolishing use – is, in my opinion, misguided and counter-productive to the achievement of the goal everyone in our “movement” purports to share: the end of animal exploitation.
Prior to having this realization and still firmly believing I was doing what was best for the animals, I engaged in a host of animal welfare activities, including but not limited to: creating and signing petitions, attending demonstrations and protests, writing letters to editors, publishing articles and, perhaps most of all, public leafleting (or, as I now think of it, public littering. As comedian Mitch Hedberg once said, “When someone hands you a flyer, it’s like they’re saying, ‘Here, you throw this away’.”).
I’d like to discuss one particular piece of welfarist litter-ature: Compassionate Choices from Veg(etari)an Outreach (to understand why even the title is problematic and misleading, please read Colin Wright’s enlightening essay Why We Need Less Compassion in the Animal Rights Movement And Why Decreasing Cruelty and Suffering Is Not the Point of Veganism).
Lest anyone come under (or continue under) the false belief that this intentionally confusing and speciesist booklet espouses veganism or animal “rights”, please have a look at why that couldn’t be further from the truth. Feel free to read along here: http://www.veganoutreach.org/cc.pdf
-
On page 2, the first page of text: “Of course, the choice is up to you. Whether you decide to cut out meat entirely or just cut back, you can make a big difference for the world at every meal.” – presenting people with the “choice” to cut out/cut back on meat reinforces the speciesist ideas that a) exploiting animals is a personal choice (a choice ceases to be personal when said choice involves a victim, and the choice to exploit animals involves countless victims), so whatever one chooses is ok and b) there is a morally relevant difference between meat and other products of animal exploitation, which there is not.
-
Page 3: “When I learned how the animals suffer, I went vegetarian.” – why is “Vegan” Outreach promoting vegetarianism? Either they don’t understand the difference between the two or it’s time for a name change.
-
Page 4 contains a quote from a representative of the Humane Society of the United States, a self-proclaimed animal “protection” organization that sponsors events such as Hoofin’ It, which involved the slaughter and consumption of various species of animals. As the Denver Post reported, “A different hooved (sic) animal will be showcased each evening.” Yes, this is the same H$U$ that also offered coupons for bacon on their Facebook page:
-
Page 6: “when people eat less meat, producers raise and kill fewer animals.” – again, they are promoting “less meat”, which is far different than seeking an end to animal exploitation.
-
Page 9: “it became an easy choice for me. If you choose to educate yourself, it’ll be an easy choice for you, too.” (a quote from Ellen DeGeneres, who is not vegan based on her self-reports that she eats secretions from “happy” chickens) – what is this vague “it”? Is “Vegan” Outreach afraid to use the word vegan in its own publication for fear that they may alienate their largely non-vegan donor base and lose their donor dollars (see below for more information on that topic)?
-
Page 10: “eating vegetarian or vegan” – even when they do use the word vegan, it is relegated to a subordinate position behind vegetarian. Perhaps they should rename the booklet “Vegan: The Second Best Choice”.
-
Also on page 10: “Many elite athletes and bodybuilders are vegetarian or vegan.” – again, vegan is the second choice behind vegetarian and offered as one of two dietary options, rather than as a moral obligation.
-
Page 11: “plant-based diet(s)” is mentioned twice, furthering the common misinterpretation of veganism as a dietary choice. Once again, meat is singled out: “…when I stopped eating meat” leaves dairy, eggs, honey and other products of animal exploitation out of the conversation and essentially speaks of a vegetarian diet as opposed to veganism.
-
Page 12: “Ask your server what dishes they could prepare for you without meat”, “Ask to substitute vegetables for meat in your favorite dishes” and “Order a few side dishes if there are no meatless meals” are among the list of restaurant ordering tips. Nowhere are dairy, eggs, honey or other animal products and secretions mentioned.
-
Page 15: The header reads “IT’S YOUR CHOICE” (see previous paragraph discussing page 2 and “choice”).
-
Also on page 15: Promotion of a “gradual transition to eliminating animal products” based on “research” is coupled with the speciesist idea that one should start by eliminating one type of animal (chickens) from one’s diet before eliminating others (cows and pigs) based on the idea that “many more chickens are killed to produce the same amount of meat as from cows and pigs”. The reasoning behind this – to “prevent more animal suffering”. This reinforces the notion that we should be concerned primarily about reducing suffering rather than ending the unjust use of non-human animals entirely, missing the point that veganism is about ending animal use, not reducing animal abuse. Having met many people who have been “vegetarian” (by their own widely varying definitions) for anywhere from 20 to 40 years, it would seem that a “gradual transition” might keep one complicit in animal exploitation – and therefore directly responsible for continued animal suffering and death – for up to 4 decades, whereas a person who starts living vegan ends their complicity that day.
[I encourage all readers to click the blue links embedded in this essay and explore the information on those sites. Also, please read our Disclaimer regarding external sites, organizations, individuals, etc.]
Colin Ahimsa Go-Vegan Wright too bad 1000’s have told me they went veg. For a few booklets in the trash as shown in the article LOL it’s a numbers game. What do u suggest do nothing because 100% don’t keep or do it? I’ve given out 515,000 booklets at over 125 schools many repeated as a volunteer and I occassionally ask people I see later in the day and many are influenced to make gradual changes. If I give out 1000, 100 are in the trash (I reuse most) 900 are kept and shared with others that is great, the world is not perfect. What is the alternative or what do u do and the results???
I do like the older EI booklets much more tho. For the abolishionist, I just show the truth and people will do what they want weather we say go Vegan, vegetarian or eat less and gradually change etc. The big error is one can eat more meat but less animals, most eat dozens of birds per year but not even one cow which too many focus on.
KC, thanks for offering your insights! 🙂 May I ask how you define “effective”? Is it reducing one’s animal flesh consumption (but not necessarily eggs, dairy, honey and other products of animal exploitation)? Or perhaps going “veg”, which is open to as many interpretations as there are people who use this vague phrase? Or might it be stopping eating animal flesh and secretions but continuing to wear leather, wool and silk while enjoying a day at the circus or zoo? I ask this because when we state that something is “effective”, it can be defined in various ways. If we agree that our goal is to dismantle speciesism by educating people to live vegan because it’s their moral responsibility, then applauding the “effectiveness” of strategies that bring anything less than that express result is to applaud, accept and further the ineffectiveness of those strategies.
Here’s another essay about Vague-an Outreach featuring one of their star “activists” who, having handed out “record-setting” numbers of their pamphlets for two years at the time they wrote about him, is still NOT vegan. How “effective” is the messaging in that litter-ature if the one handing them to thousands of people isn’t even convinced to live vegan two years later???
Sadly and to the detriment of the animals they purport to want to help, VO, MFA, COK and *every* other large, donation-based animal “welfare” corporation aren’t looking to make vegans – they’re looking to make money… and they’re succeeding. The animals are losing.
http://blog.veganeducationgroup.com/vegan-outreach-proudly-creating-vegetarians/