Progressive Veganism

by ecoethicalvegan

Some vegans just don’t get it, they just don’t get that the very reason that veganism was borne from vegetarianism was to protect NHAs from human exploitation and abuse. The literal definition of vegan isn’t as important as the spirit it imparts which is to reduce/eliminate animal exploitation.

If veganism doesn’t grow/evolve with time and technology and become current then it will eventually become irrelevent. As a vegan the next time you meet an omnivore that shows an interest in the vegan ideal why don’t you try explaining to them that vegans don’t eat honey but do eat farmed bee polinated fruits and vegetables. Maybe vegans could make sense of not eating sugar that was filtered by bone char but find it ok to eat vegetables grown in manure.

All too often it isn’t very fruitful talking about the definition of vegan which in some instances isn’t ethical and invites DOA discussions and do what  http://www.carpevegan.com/ has done, which is to look at veganism in a more progressive way although some vegans in general may disagree about the term progressive (it’s something we did independently of each other, great minds think alike) I like the term veganish (a term Carpe Vegan is proposing the use of) it leaves room for error, for some personal interpretation while providing a framework upon which to work from.

I came up with a different term and did exactly what Donald Watson did, (something I mentioned in a previous post) I took the term vegan, reconfigured and redefined it, he did this with ‘vegetarian’ so now I’m calling myself an ecoethicalvegan. No it’s not a portmanteau or contraction like ‘vegan’ I chose to add vegan at the end, my etymologically manipulated version is just as valid as the one conjured up by Donald Watson & Elsie Shrigley.

We, ‘veganism’ and communities like  http://www.carpevegan.com/ have some similarities and some differences and are going to have to ‘deal’ with each other because the CarpeVegan ideal is an undercurrent within the vegan community and that of other conscientious consumers that will become a growing force in the coming years.

Veganism as an ethic not to abuse/use nonhuman animals is laudable, however for the vast population of mankind it will never be a choice they take up.

That leaves NHAs at a massive disadvantage & it’s time for vegans and others to form organisations that go beyond the narrow confines of veganism. We need organisations that stand up for animal rights and that also seeks not to be as stringent & dare I say dogmatic with it’s definition so that it becomes available to more people. By way of an example is the aforementioned issue of bone char (and there are certainly other issues).

Avoiding sugar that was filtered through bone char can just seem to be another layer of minutiae that the general public most likely will never quite be comfortable with alongside a number of other ‘things’ & it can make veganism seem unattainable & out of reach in general which extrapolates into NHAs suffering for even longer.

I’m not advocating for veganism to redifine itself, what I’m saying is we need a different organised movement, similar to veganism but one that has a different, more expanded baseline.

Anyway (not sure if I’m supposed to start a paragraph with that word but what the hey) I’ve been squawking enough for now and if anyone reads this and it makes them dig a little deeper then that’s the most I can ask for….later 🙂

Advertisements