[lbo-talk] Alternet reviews Singer's latest (The Way We Eat) (andother responses)

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Mon May 29 19:35:39 PDT 2006


At around 29/5/06 10:10 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> ravi wrote:
>> a vegetarian (or vegan) life.
>
> I haven't followed this thread very closely, but I believe this casual
> "or vegan" is at the core of Kelly's irritation. Vegetarianism + eggs,
> milk, etc. No problem. Vegan life style creates a very big problem
> unless people are loudly informed of the necessary supplements it
> requires.
>

Someone else (Wendy?) pointed out that K wrote words to the effect that vegetarianism too does not usually provide necessary ingredients. I am not sure I understand what she is irritated about, but perhaps I am taking it personally -- other respondents may be the cause of her annoyance (though she takes me to task for making fun of her health, which I never did!).

But to return to the start of the thread: the AlterNet review presents Singer's *latest* view, a stricter requirement of veganism. I mentioned right at the start that I do not think veganism has to be proposed as an all or nothing thing. In the case of K, her question is personal: she is unable to see how to build a healthy diet that meets her needs but is also vegan. Perhaps there is no way to do that. In the general case, even a move towards vegetarianism by humans is a huge gain for the movement. So, from that general perspective, despite Singer's newer position, it is not of great relevance to emphasize the difference between veganism and vegetarianism.


> Animals have no rights,...

Which is fine with me... I have noted elsewhere that I use the term "rights" in "animal rights" as a place-holder or to trigger familiarity. Its a misuse, in my case, since I do not well understand the concept of rights at all. For instance, as used in the U.S constitution. I do not at all see why human beings have [inherent] "right"s. Singer of course titled his seminal text "Animal liberation" and not "animal rights".


> but cruelty to animals is brutalizing to those
> who practice it. Of course your idea and mine of what is cruelty
> probably differ. The author of _The Postmodern Prince_ (Monthly Review
> Press) wants to make animal rights part of the core of the socialist
> movement.

I think I used to confuse my education in [sort of] Gandhian humanism with socialism (just because the two coincided in the formation of independent india). I have therefore, unfortunately, spent quite a bit of time in the confusion of arguing the issue of animals within socialism. Since my own understanding of socialism seems mostly personal (and perhaps quite wrong), it is better I entirely abandon the term, and think of and refer to myself simply as a Gandhian humanist. But your pointer is quite interesting!

--ravi

-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list