What I love most about this book is not only that I agree with it to a nuanced degree, but it’s remarkable story-telling power. Yes, the story-telling has been mentioned before – indeed, this is the main comment I heard from others about the book before reading it, and the main reason I wanted to read it – but the book was more powerful for me than I could have imagined. The author, who is a famous novelist, takes you on his own intellectual and practical journey with animal farming and animal eating, and in doing so, he becomes the narrative’s hero. He’s an effective hero because he’s one with which almost any reader could and would wish to identify – he is thoroughly and genuinely honest, kind, curious, inquisitive, passionate, humble, courageous, and all-around good, and his flaws (having been an inconsistent vegetarian) and his obstacles (should he be vegetarian? should society be? who, even, is the antagonist?) are made clear and without pretense or evasion of the issue. By emphasizing that this is his journey, and yet not only his journey, he invites you to identify with that journey without trying to force you to. And he speaks not in any kind of academic jargon, but in the plainest, rawest language that doesn’t attempt to hide his personal feelings behind any kind of so-called rational thinking or ideology.

On top of all that, he tells many, many stories of varying and seemingly opposing perspectives, without judging any individual as being the antagonist. There is no cynicism in this book. Every perspective in the book could be the perspective of the hero. Everyone becomes a hero, including you, the reader. The quest that Foer sets out on is to find out who is the real antagonist, and he makes the answer clear in the end: it’s not a carnivore, it’s not a vegan, it’s not a shady corporate executive or anyone else, but rather a system that he unambiguously describes as “bullshit.”

Nor does he even use the word “system” the way so many radical and often cynical leftists/academics do, but instead he narrates it to you, going into great detail about the inner workings of both factory farms and proposed animal farming alternatives. (And I was duly impressed by his research, even after having read and watched so much documentation of what goes on on farms.) He doesn’t come to you as a theorist or philosopher, a romantic or anything of the like; he comes to you as you come to any book on this topic: a person earnestly, and perhaps passionately, seeking truth.

One aspect of his story that magnifies this point is how it was his own maturity into fatherhood – beginning with the decision to have a child – that set him on this journey to maturity regarding eating animals. His son represents a small creature under his care – in this sense, not unlike another species of animal – someone who is beyond him and yet a close extension of him, who will be directly affected by his decisions as a father and about the ethics of eating animals. It speaks to family values, but more than that, the element of family captures in story form what is both so incredibly personal and so incredibly interpersonal about our relationship to animals and farming and eating.

Punctuating this quest for truth are as many questions as there are answers. “What did you do when you learned the truth about eating animals?” Foer asks. “For what, at Thanksgiving, am I giving thanks?” “If you are tempted to put off these questions of conscience, to say not now, then when?“

In the past nearly four years since I stopped eating animal products, my perspective has evolved and matured immensely like Foer’s. For a long time, I was never completely comfortable with my own thoughts on veganism, largely because I thought – or at least wished – that everyone should become vegan. And I was afraid to face the fact that something I had made such a passionate part of my identity, and something that the vegan community likes to police vigorously as a matter of identity and righteousness, could be profoundly misguided.

Foer is easier for me to identify with than a carnivorous hero would be because he does, ultimately, commit to vegetarianism as I do. And, like me, he has decided that it’s okay if not everyone is vegetarian or vegan. It was a key element in my own journey with eating animals when I decided to be okay with others eating meat. There are several reasons I made this decision: 1. it’s clear to me that only someone in denial could deny that not every human is even marginally healthy on a vegan or vegetarian diet (clarification: some humans, like myself, can do veganism, but some can’t); 2. it’s not clear to me that the human world would be sustainable without animal farming/consumption; 3. it’s highly dubious that humans as a species would stay vegetarian for long, even if in the unlikely event that we ever got there in the first place; 4. I got tired of worrying about the well-being of a lot of creatures (i.e. insects) who are too numerous to begin to keep track of and with whom it is very difficult to relate and so have meaningful compassion therefor; 5. the philosophy that everyone should be vegan required me to worry constantly about even the least violent deaths of animals both in captivity and in the wild, which is just plain exhausting and depressing and not particularly productive.

In the second to last chapter, Eating Animals makes some of its key points in a few nutshell sentences, which I will share here because they are important and true:

ranchers can be vegetarians, vegans can build slaughterhouses, and I can be a vegetarian who supports the best of animal agriculture.

At what moment would the absurd choices readily available today give way to a firmly drawn line: this is unacceptable?

At the end of the day, factory farming isn’t about feeding people; it’s about money.

One thing I must add that Foer never mentions in his book is the evidence that not all people can even “be” vegan or vegetarian. Although it is not evidence that is necessarily yet well-documented, it is evidence too much for me to dismiss. Ever since I became vegan, I’ve been hearing regularly from a small number of former vegans/vegetarians reporting more or less the exact same, extreme health difficulties with the diet, and I am not talking about those who didn’t do the diet justice. Some of them tried remarkably hard to stay on the diet, but no matter what they did, it failed. At one point, there was a massive controversy in the online vegan/ex-vegan community when the blogger of “Voracious Vegan” came out as an ex-vegan, epically detailing her irreconcilable health problems. The nasty and dismissive response from many vegans was awfully unattractive.

(This post isn’t quite finished. Will update soon.)

Vegan and Raw Food Cuisine Expert Lauren Von Der Pool is a graduate of Le Cordon Bleu Los Angeles and Paris and is a DC native.

Today I attended this year’s D.C. VegFest. It just started back up last year, and from the looks of it there were more people than last year. Just like the 2010 Animal Rights Conference, I found it really energizing and am so glad I went. I got there at 2:50pm, so almost halfway through (6-hour event). Last year I was only there for the first hour and a half volunteering to sell food donated from Java Green and sadly did not get to listen to any of the speakers. So I decided that this year I was going to just go for myself instead of volunteering.

Food

When I got there, Colman McCarthy was speaking, but I decided I’d get some food and wait for the next speaker. I looked around, and a lot of it looked too expensive for me, i.e. the $7 delicious-looking desserts from some out-of-town place or $9 meals. I got a free sample of Gardein “beef” and decided to get something from a local restaurant: Sunflower Vegetarian. For $3, I got a bowl of pasta. Later, I bought a plate of nachos with delicious toppings (with a Frisbee plate) for $6 from D.C. Bread and Brew. Honestly, that didn’t make me feel too well, as nachos on top of wheat (pasta) don’t exactly make for a day of optimum nourishment.

However, there were also multiple groups selling healthy and raw foods, i.e. a local raw juice place. Unfortunately, healthy in this country often means more expensive. There was also a raw food demo that I will talk about in a moment.

Speakers

I was lucky I made it in time for two speakers I was interested in: Tracye McQuirter and Lauren Von Der Pool (both D.C. natives?). Tracye is the author of the new book By Any Greens Necessary. I enjoyed listening to her tell the story of how she became vegan 20 years ago, after listening to Dick Gregory give a lecture, and how she went from being very disdainful of vegetarianism to eventually writing a book about how to sustain a healthy vegan diet. While attending Howard University in the ’80s, she discovered a thriving vegetarian/vegan community within the African American community of D.C., with Soul Vegetarian Cafe (still around!) and number of others I am not familiar with as I’m not much part of that community! When someone asked if being part of that community posed any challenges in her experience of being vegetarian, she said that African Americans are pioneers in that and started many of the first vegan establishments in D.C. She gives cooking demos to kids in D.C. public schools, and I also like that she said veganism is but one of the answers when it comes to health. After listening to Tracye speak, I will definitely have to check out her book.

The other one, Lauren Von Der Pool, was actually giving a raw food demo. I absolutely loved how upbeat she was and the energy with which she spoke. A black guy told me once that African Americans are, culturally and generally, “louder” (and better talkers) because of their history of being prevented from reading, so I don’t know if that has anything to do with it, but we could use a lot more of this in the world and in the vegan/AR movement! She was something special, though. I thought, “Damn, I wish I could be like that!” One person asked her when she would be doing her own cooking show, indicating that she also was loving it.

She is a celebrity chef, has a degree in culinary arts and says that food should look beautiful. I think she may have made three or four salads for the demo, but I only saw the last two. There was a kale salad that I did not try. Then one with other greens and mushrooms. She put basil sauce on them and crowned them both with a beautifully cut piece of mango. I was craving fruit after that. The mushroom I tried tasted really good in that sauce, and I usually am not a fan of mushrooms. Sadly, I did not have my camera with me.

One person asked her something about using honey, and she said she doesn’t use honey because she’s vegan and started talking about “the way the bees are treated,” the overproduction of honey through the exploitation of bees, etc. I loved that because I don’t hear much about bees, let alone an argument as thoughtful as that.

She also answered a question about eating raw vegan for college students, but I didn’t understand what she said, other than that she is “all about eating on a small budget.”

For more info about the speakers, check out their bios here, as well as their websites. Lauren has a collective raw fast coming up starting September 21, and it’s open to people around the world. I may join myself after all that excitement!

Seeing how great these speakers were, I am actually sad now that I missed Chef Tal Ronnen’s demo.

People

The free-admittance VegFest appeared a lot more racially diverse than the 2010 Animal Rights Conference, mainly in that there were a lot of African Americans in attendance, including half of the speakers. I loved that. Since African Americans make up over half the population of D.C., it would be great for me to get more in touch with the AA vegan community around here, sad that I haven’t much yet!

Today I really felt like I was part of a vegan/AR community. I arrived and saw so many people I knew or recognized from the AR Conference, the Open the Cages Alliance conference, etc. Last year the only people I knew at this event were the Compassion Over Killing crowd. Robert Cheeke came up from behind, surprised me with a hug, and said, “Heyyy! Third time this year!” That’s the third time I’ve seen him at events this year. I also saw my manager from Java Green, of course! Other than my university, this is my strongest offline community that I belong to, and it’s only since summer 2009 that I’ve started establishing it. It feels great and energizing to have so much social capital. I really needed this event to give me a boost when I haven’t had much time to read and write (I haven’t posted here in over three weeks!), and have been feeling disconnected elsewhere. Of course, the downside to that upside is what it says about the communities in which I don’t have so much social capital: other places and other movements.

Conclusion

At the AR Conference, I felt a little lonely and disconnected from the interesting people there, while the Open the Cages Alliance Conference was more intimate. This was something in between, but also different because it was a festival rather than a conference, and because it was specifically for D.C., for the local community. Again, this is something I was previously a little skeptical about, about the mainstream-ness of the event and my past experience, but for me these experiences have been getting better and better as I grow internally and build on the past. That’s how life works, as a whole. It was really rejuvenating socially, as well as in the spirit of health that could be seen in the speaker line-up (although not always in the food ). One day, perhaps I shall be good enough at organizing to say I organized something as refreshing as this, but for now I will just continue to look forward to those organized by others.

In India and Nepal, rats are less associated with dirtiness and disease than in the U.S. and are in this case allowed to roam freely in a temple. They are, on the other hand, more likely to be eaten.

When does it become justifiable to kill individuals merely because the species they belong to is associated with disease or property damage and the entire species (unless kept by humans) may thus be marked “dangerous (to humans)”? I think that wild animals in general are associated with disease and illness, and understandably so, but why is it that when we talk about wild dogs, cats, squirrels, and various others, the visceral response is “stay away,” while for mice and especially rats it is “kill it!”?

I thought this was just a non-vegan thing, but I have discovered through discussion on a vegan forum that many and perhaps even the majority of vegans believe that killing is the only solution for the problem of discovering a rat in one’s house. I was quite surprised to see how bent others in the discussion were on arguing against any other possible solution. Although I am open to considering various perspectives – yes, even killing – I found this commitment to the act of killing a bit much for a vegan forum (I have since lost interest in vegan forums generally, as those I used no longer resonate so well with the more critically-oriented commitment of my own).

Eventually, I would like to do some in-depth research on rats, juxtaposed against some information about other wild animals. Are rats really as dangerous as society seems to believe? How are rats and other wild animal species socially constructed? I did some preliminary Google research, and it does appear that rats carry very high rates of dangerous (to humans) diseases, but don’t other wild animals as well? Of course, the risk in presenting the information thus is that society simply adds the association to the other animals along with the same stigma.

In an article titled “The Cougar’s Tale,” Andrea Gullo, Unna Lassiter, and Jennifer Wolch (from Animal Geographies) unravel the story of cougar-human relations in Orange County. Here, the authors explain based on thorough research how various groups from the Orange County area have expressed desire to kill cougars, which in reality have hardly harmed any humans at all. Nevertheless, for the sake of cougars and humans alike, it is argued that, instead of killing cougars, they should simply be taught to associate humans with fear and stay away.

"A leopard walks with a tranquilizer dart hanging from its neck, in the residential area of Jyotikuchi in Guwahati, the capital city of the northeastern state of Assam, India on March 15, 2009. Three people were mauled by the leopard after the cat strayed into the city before it was tranquilized by forestry department officials. The full grown male leopard was wandering through a part of the densely populated city when curious crowds startled the animal, a wildlife official said. (BIJU BORO/AFP/Getty Images)"

However, this case study reveals the need for in-depth (case) studies regarding other species and places. What about disease-bearing animals versus perceived-to-be or previously aggressive animals, i.e. leopards in India or poisonous snakes in one’s home/yard? What if there are small children around versus not? I remember when I was a kid, we’d often get snakes in the yard, and my dad would typically take a machete and chop off their heads. My mom was bitten once in the foot and ended up in the hospital, but she had been wearing sandals in the woods (and pointing a BB gun at my dad, incidentally). Do “privileged” humans have a duty, or rather a responsibility (as defined by H.E.A.L.T.H.), to take precautions like proper footwear so as to protect animal life? I am really finding Adam’s definitions helpful here:

responsibility (contextual response)
vs morality (fixed system)

etiquette (everyday attentive care)
vs ethics (special code of conduct)

Honestly, I think I would draw a line somewhere, and yet life doesn’t seem to be so principled as that. What do you think? I am interested in hearing other opinions and arguments.

By the way, I just discovered this organization called Mice and Rat Rights that I would like to share because I would not have found it had I not seen the URL advertised at the Animal Rights Conference.

Today I attended a benefit for animal and earth liberation prisoners, which was sort of a mini conference. That makes it my second conference ever, after the Animal Rights Conference. Since I have never looked much into the issues surrounding the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) and the like, I saw this and thought it would be great to try something new. I got a bit better of an idea of what the AETA is about and had a more fruitful time networking than at the previous conference.

The AETA is obviously an absurd law, although I already kind of knew that. I am not so sure I agree with all of ELF and ALF tactics, but I definitely disagree with the AETA. I am not going to say much about it here because I would not have anything original to add. All of the speakers were helpful, from my perspective. Some interesting talks were by a former prisoner, the founder of Food Not Bombs (Keith: a brief prisoner), and journalist Will Potter. Keith is a funny, charismatic guy who tells the story of how Food Not Bombs, an organization that distributes vegan food to the homeless, has been targeted as a terrorist organization. Why would an anti-war group that merely distributes fliers and vegan food be targeted as a terrorist organization? He said that one time he got on a plane and was then pulled off and interrogated about his role in this violent organization (remind anyone of racial profiling?). Clearly, a group with “bombs” in its name must be about bombing people. That’s some thorough logic right there. Only terrorists would think to use the word “bombs” in public, right?

Admission was only $10, and the food was very inexpensive (in stark contrast to the AR Conference). Some of it was so-so (I don’t like white bread or LightLife Smart Dogs), and some was good. Thumbs up on the spicy samosas and mashed potatoes!

Networking was different from the AR Conference, I found, because most of the people in attendance were fairly local. Will Potter lives in D.C. (according to his Twitter), there’s a local Food Not Bombs to get involved with (Keith just put it out there that he would like to speak at my university), the hosting organization was from Baltimore, and various people I met were from D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. I made a new activist friend who lives in the area. Also, because it was much smaller and all set in one room, everyone seemingly had a much easier time introducing ourselves to strangers. The number of people was less overwhelming and more intimate. I felt like each of us had more of a presence there than at the AR Conference (some of the people I met there had attended that, but I hadn’t seen them or learned their names if I did).

I expected there to be a balance between earth and animal liberation going on, but it was very animal-focused. I suspect that is because the problem stems from the A(nimal)ETA.

Anyway, my first two conferences have both been very worthwhile and energizing, and I continue to look forward to attending more conferences of this nature. They make me feel a little bit like I am getting out of my book/blog cocoon. I hope I will do an even better job of meeting people at the next one. And I heard there is going to be a Critical Animals Studies Conference next year!!! (In the past, they have skipped years.)

people standing in front of flier/pamphlet table

Three weeks ago I attended the 2010 Animal Rights Conference near my city (D.C.); it was essentially vegan. I was worried that the conference would be too mainstream and thus not very self-critical, and it seemed only perhaps slightly less mainstream than I expected. Nevertheless, it improved my appreciation for mainstream AR. People are doing a lot of good work, and it was good to hear from people out there working in shelters and working to stop unnecessary hunting, as opposed to merely facts recited by those who’ve heard from others who’ve recited about someone else’s reports, etc.

It was also pretty energizing to be around so many other activists who care about animals. This was my first conference of this sort, so I can’t compare to others. I saw a lot of people I already knew, but I didn’t meet that many new people, unfortunately. That’s partly because I wasn’t there for the entire conference and during the late evening mingling hours, and didn’t stay in the hotel. I did meet one activist who I hope to keep up with (at the networking workshop, no less) and some bloggers I knew, but didn’t get to talk to very much. I reckon staying longer would have helped, as well as perhaps following the example of an attendee who actively decided to meet me. Since this was my first conference, maybe the next one will work out better as I’ll know more what to expect and go in with more purpose.

While I’m on the topic of people, I want to say that this event was definitely very white, just as I’ve heard. A lot of punk and creatively-styled people (very unusual to see so many around D.C.!!!), and people who could be stereotyped as queer women, all white. There were definitely some non-white people there, and Sistah Vegan on sale, but one moment when I looked around the only black people I saw were two women at some table that was definitely not an AR organization. They may not have even been interested in AR, for all I know, but I never got around to talking to them. Anyway, this is a bit disconcerting as over 50% of the D.C. population is African American.

Prior to this, the biggest related events I’d been to were D.C. VegFest and a winter holiday party in 2009, I had been involved with a local vegan organization, and I had organized some talks at my university. So this was quite a new experience for me, attending what is probably the largest meeting of AR activists and vegans in the world. The cool thing about a lot of these events is that a limited number of people can volunteer for free/cheaper registration, which I did for both the aforementioned holiday party and the conference. (Of course, the downside is that it’s still pricey for most people, unlike the Critical Animal Studies Conference, which last time was only $15.)

I decided that I wanted to register for the conference when I saw that some of the workshops addressed a topic I had been thinking about a lot at that time: wildlife. I went to a few of those, which were mostly an offering of facts and basic descriptions of the problem and the panelists’ activism. As it turned out, my favorite events of the 11 or so I attended were Fund Raising, Promoting on the Internet, and Zoe Weil’s talk on Humane Education.

I had been to a fund raising workshop before with the Washington Peace Center and was unimpressed, so I was hoping to finally hear some good advice, and I did. The two speakers I remember were Dr. Gary Weitzman who founded the Washington Animal Rescue League and Lorri Houston from Animal Acres. Weitzman (who also spoke at the Sunday morning plenary) told an inspiring story of how he raised millions of dollars to build a new shelter that would take in animals who were on the kill-list of other shelters. He had a platform built over the space so he could throw a fund raising party and then ask donors if they could make a 5-year pledge of the same amount they offered at the party. Potential donors he mentioned include people at conferences like this, local businesses, politicians, prominent local wealthy people (ha), etc.

One of the first things Lorri Houston said was, “Never be afraid to ask [for help] for the animals,” because that’s who this is really about, not ourselves (we do need to reflect on the non-profit industrial complex, but I couldn’t say these two panelists were part of that). Here are some tips she offered:

-The holiday season is a good time for donations.

-Create a sense of urgency. (I agree: There are a million important things in the world, but we really only act on what is personally urgent for us, regardless of whether or not it is important.)

-Have a distinct donor club.

-Thank everyone.

-Call one-time donors.

-Network!

-Be communicative – use e-alerts and newsletters.

-Have a website.

Then there was Promoting on the Internet, which frankly I only wanted to go to because Stephanie Ernst was on the panel. I had a volunteer shift halfway through, so I wouldn’t have gone otherwise. I filmed her talk, but unfortunately it seems that I lost my transfer cable while moving (because I’m always moving), so I will have to wait until I get a new one to post that. I will also reserve my comments on it until then, but suffice it to say that it was totally worth it. Stephanie also later redeemed an event we both attended on networking when Dawn Moncrief asked her to comment at the end. One of the speakers seemed to have forgotten what the workshop topic was and got off-topic. Stephanie added that part of networking is for our own sanity.

Zoe Weil, founder of the Institute for Humane Education, had a longer talk, all to herself. She started off by talking about the meaning of education, which is not indoctrination, but to teach others to educate themselves. She differentiates between trying to change people and trying to educate them.

Which brings me to what I realized were my favorite moments of the conference: the ones where I heard speakers asking us to think critically, not just about others (i.e., the evil hunters), but about our own actions, views, and movement. I heard this in Stephanie’s talk, obviously Zoe Weil’s, and at least one or two of the plenary speeches. That said, I think that some of these calls to self-critique (i.e. in plenary speeches) were minimal despite not necessarily being very new, but that is why I say that it was only at most slightly less mainstream than expected. There were definitely people across the animal advocacy spectrum to be seen there, but a lot if not most of the speakers definitely struck me as mostly action and too little introspection. For example, the Indian woman who made a sweeping statement about the Hindu stance on cattle slaughter that I had just read a rigorous critique of in Animal Geographies. There were also a number of speakers, including Bruce Friedrich, who talked about “ending animal suffering forever,” which sounds a bit absurd if taken literally, and certainly seems to place non-humans in an entirely passive role.

Nevertheless, I’m really glad I went to this conference. I learned a lot from the best events and got to see what this major conference is like. I definitely saw that it’s a great networking event, with a central table where new fliers/handouts just kept appearing, not to mention all the exhibitors. Way preferable to the social justice unconference I went to in January, which was an unorganized mess, to be honest. I am now even more eager to attend future animal-related conferences when I get a chance. It would be a great way for anyone with new ideas to get their message out, whether at the Animal Rights Conference or another.

In the past month, I have read 3.25 animal/vegan-related books – that’s a new record for me. Here is my first animal book review.

I just finished reading Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres (2007). It’s not terribly long (153 pages) and not very difficult to read. Overall, Torres’ ideas are interesting, but they aren’t on the whole particularly original, as you might expect, nor very complex. This isn’t all bad per se, but I do want to explain what the book is.

The most exciting and memorable points of the book for me are where Torres tells stories from his own life as a student and as a teacher. He tells of how his own interest in food politics began while taking a dairy production course toward his ag science major in college. Later, he brings up a class he taught on anarchism and the anarchist power relations he tried to set up within it, as well as the not-so-surprising discussion the students and professor had on the topic of veganism. Not only is story-telling great in and of itself, but it gives something more original to the book. The lesson he draws from the latter story about the parallels between sexism, racism, and speciesism is interesting, but there is a risk here of ignoring the differences between the three forms of oppression. As H.E.A.L.T.H. blogger Adam Weitzenfeld points out, parallel lines don’t intersect or touch, but perpendicular ones do. At one point, Torres even mentions the concept of “equality of unequals,” or equality between different individuals/groups.

Torres spends most of the book summarizing the arguments of others, from Gary Francione to Karl Marx, Murray Bookchin, Will Potter, and many more. Having been to his website, I wasn’t surprised to see Francione’s ideas again, and for me those parts were mostly a review (I’ve already read the two books by Francione cited in Making a Killing). Some of the other ideas, i.e. on the general problems of neo-liberal capitalism, were also just in review for me. I did like how the book simplified some of Marx’s ideas for me because I’ve never seriously studied Marx to understand them: exchange value comes to usurp use value in capitalism.

Some of Torres’s anti-capitalist ideas I found questionable. For example, he says, “corporations are of one mindset: to deliver value to shareholders” (103). Here he seems to be suggesting that this is the only way that corporations can be, although it’s not clear if he is in fact saying this or just choosing not to get too deep into the issue. In Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street, Karen Ho compellingly suggests that corporations can and should be by and for the people, though she spends a lot of time critiquing the current state of things (she also doesn’t agree with doing away with capitalism entirely). Admittedly, this wasn’t a significant part of Torres’ argument.

The bigger issue is that I was waiting for him to explain the alternative to commodities and property, which he spends a good portion of the book deconstructing. He ends by restating Francione’s argument that veganism should be the “baseline for animal rights.” My understanding is that he is simply saying that veganism is the solution to property/commodities, at least the commoditizing of animals / animal laborers. I still wonder what we will do without commodities at all, or if Torres means to say that getting rid of commodities actually isn’t really a concern because the main issue is hierarchy. The problem of the way that commodities mask production and social relations seems potentially soluble through education. One other thing that would have been useful is a clear definition of “exploitation,” since vegans have used it to mean either all use or only what is decided to be violent/oppressive use.

At the end of chapter four, Torres mentions, “the anti-speciesist necessarily does not consume animals, …” Even though Torres tries to be cognizant of the fact that inequalities amongst humans make it easier for some to be vegan than others, he seems to be ignoring that fact with this statement-in-passing. Not to mention, there may actually be some humans who cannot survive without animal flesh (judging by a few people I’ve heard personal accounts from who really tried), and therefore, in accordance with Torres, one would have to say that not all humans can be anti-speciesist, maybe ever.

One idea in this book that may be original is a brief critique of Hribal’s article “Animals are Part of the Working Class,” which I need to finish reading; Torres makes a distinction between the human working class, human slaves, and animal slaves.

Despite some problems I see with this book, on the whole it could make an engaging introductory book. The argumentation is much simpler than Animal Geographies and probably somewhat simpler than Animals and Women or even the books of Gary Francione himself, and it reminds me of a textbook or reader in the way it collects the ideas of various writers about animals. What is unusual about it is that it explicitly addresses the intersection of economics and animal rights, citing both animal studies philosophers and anarchist/socialist philosophers; on the other hand, I can’t say that my understanding of the economy of animal rights is now much deeper than it was after reading Francione’s work. If I were teaching a high school class and just wanted to introduce students to the idea of challenging speciesism/misothery or even of anarchism/socialism without having to delve too deeply, I might choose this book – in the former case, for the sake of simplicity.

See here for another review of Making a Killing. As far as general book recommendations for the already-vegan, sophisticated student, I probably would not recommend it unless you are looking for a light, glossary read. I might recommend it to some non-vegan acquaintances, depending on the individual’s interests.

I wonder if Bob and Jenna Torres’ Vegan Freak book is more creative.

Havahart Mouse Trap

Fitting into the Animal Geographies focus on urban wildlife, I just discovered a company called Havahart that sells animal traps and repellents which are virtually harmless to the animals. The traps look great, and I am considering buying one for rats (it’s only $20). Eventually, wildlife (including rodents) is something vegans are going to have to address much more, if we are to reconcile our philosophy with environmental and other issues (what do we do about rats, let alone cougars and deer overpopulation). As I feel this issue is relatively infrequently addressed, I want to give a brief pre-purchase analysis of this interesting company to promote awareness, and also discuss my own experience with rodents and why I am so excited about Havahart traps.

A Brief Analysis

Havahart® is a leading manufacturer of caring control products for wild life.

Havahart sells harmless traps ranging from extra small for mice and rats to extra large for raccoons, and each trap is specially designed for each species. They are also pretty affordable. This sounds great, and if anyone has experience with these, please post your thoughts about it.

The repellents, on the other hand, are questionable. They are organic and environmentally friendly, which is promising. They also work as irritants or taste/odor repellents, yet not as poison. However, the Critter Ridder uses piperin, which may be used as an insecticide, and the other repellents that I found on their website use egg whites for the odor. Thus, they are not vegan. Again, if anyone knows more about this, please share your thoughts.

They do have one very cool repellent, but it’s on the expensive side. For $80, you can get a motion device that simply sprays water at approaching animals. And the Get Away for dogs and cats uses Methyl Nonyl Ketone, which seems  to be non-lethal insect and animal repellent.

Rat Experience

Now here’s my story. When I started talking to one of my housemates today about the rat I encountered in our bathroom last night, which subsequently vanished and may still be in the house, she said, “I have no idea what to do, I’m sorry… use rat poison, I guess.” That suggestion had an eerily familiar ring to it, and one I had been specifically hoping not to hear.

Last year when my vegetarian, “animal-loving” roommate found a rat on the porch, she went on about how they’ll eat holes in your walls and destroy various household objects. At one point, I walked into the dining room to hear everyone (including my roommate) agreeing nonchalantly on the effectiveness of first, lethal traps, and then rat poison. I told them incredulously, “You can’t kill the rat.” This was my self-proclaimed, animal-loving roommate talking carelessly about killing a rat!

And speaking of carelessly, that’s exactly what these lethal traps and poison are. Who would even question how these methods make a rodent feel? The Havahart rodent traps are more sophisticated than lethal ones because they don’t just aim at the lowest common denominator of trapping efficiency – snap conveniently at a limb and be done! (Snared animals are known to chew off their own limbs due to the intense pain.)

I live in a house with other students who are always cool and quite politically open-minded, if not radical, so it shows the sad state of affairs that they can only think poison and lethal traps when they hear “rat.” Most people in Western societies would probably not think poison or injurious traps when it comes to wild dogs and cats, but instead would think exactly of a harmless trap, if a trap at all. I can only speak for myself, but when I heard “trap, neuter and return” in the past, I never thought of cages for some reason, much less traps that snap through the animals’ skin and bones. Dogs and cats may be easy to catch, but wild ones may well carry diseases just as wild rats.

After last year’s incident, I learned that it is possible to create a makeshift rat trap using cardboard and a trashcan, but if I’m going to do this I’d rather leave behind a sturdy trap for those who move in after me to use and make them forget about poison when I’m not around. I was really excited to find out about Havahart because there don’t seem to be a lot of companies manufacturing no-kill traps; or, in any case, I was having trouble finding a variety of ideas. Plus, I have to admit, the Havahart looks cool and shiny, and it might help to have a large, shiny object to show off to my poison-loving housemates.

How else can we change this sociocultural environment wherein “rat poison” is a household term that rolls off people’s tongues faster than any other thought – almost as fast as those critters scurry out of sight? I know that sometimes a rat in the house can be a pressing issue, as between my housemates wanting the rat out immediately and the trap being a few hours’ research and an online order away; I hope this post is a step in alleviating some of that pressure. Now, if we apply some pressure back at the rest of society, they might see how easy it is, after all, to have a heart.

After deliberating about which book to read for the book discussion I am organizing for this month, I have chosen Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands. Thank you, Adam, for the idea. I looked into this book to see if it would be good, and there’s a lot in there that would make for interesting discussion.

As this is a collection of articles, some of them might be less interesting than others. It’s not a light read, so if you want to lighten it a bit, I would say based on my reading so far that chapters five and  eleven could be skipped, and chapter one could be skimmed (but read page 1 because that’s awfully interesting).

The book looks a little pricey, and possibly out of print (only available used?), so check your library and Interlibrary Loan. Luckily, my library has a copy. (Google Books has about a third of the book.)

Please let me know if you plan to participate so we can coordinate meeting time. We will most likely use Skype, though if you live in D.C. we can also meet in person. It will be sometime in the last week of July (check this post for updates), and we will probably meet once or twice. If you want to discuss here, though, I will most likely post about how the real-time discussion goes, along with my thoughts on the book.

One of the key points of the book, from the preface:

Surely there must be spaces in which both animals and humans have authority, but they are neither in the dictatorial fascism of some forms of deep ecology or sociobiology, nor in the smug authoritarianism of anthropocentric humanism.

Here is the editorial review on Amazon.com:

In the battle for dominance between humanity and nature, it seems there has never been room for compromise. It’s time, say editors Wolch and Emel, to reevaluate our relationship with animals, to explore progressive models for a more completely integrated culture. The forcefully written essays within these 12 chapters address how humans relate as individuals to creatures (e.g., pets), the preservationist-vs.-capitalist conundrum (the spotted owl and logging), and agricultural industrialization fueled by the “lean-meat imperative.” An eclectic group of scientists from the U.S., Australia and Britain cover many contexts, from zoos in Australia to slaughterhouses in New Delhi and public parks in Orange County, where cougars clash with nature lovers. Geographer Kay Anderson argues that Victorian-era zoos served a sociological function: animals in cages reinforced the barrier between the citizenry and the “lower orders,” reinforcing the larger notion of colonization and even racial stereotyping. Jody Emel, geographer and animal rights activist, expounds on the annihilation of wolves in the American West as it supports social precepts of masculinity and virility. While these experts provide a knowledgeable global perspective, it is Green Mountain associate professor and geographer William S. Lynn’s eloquent mapping of “geoethics” that completes the thesis: a geographically informed respect for all life, he says, ought to replace the view that animals exist solely for human benefit.

My favorite vegan blogger asked some friends if they were interested in reading and discussing with him. I signed up, and we discussed an excellent book for four days in a row on Skype. It was a lot of fun, I got to know someone on a new level, and I learned a lot. This has got me wanting more, so I am inviting anyone interested to read/discuss a book with me at the end of July. If interested, please take a look at the books on my to-read list. I was thinking David Nibert’s book would be good, but that might be a bit dry (I’ve read a few pages before). Let me know what you would be interested in reading together, including possibilities not on my list, as long as it’s not something I’ve already read.

Now here’s the deal. As someone who has studied linguistics, I respect the evolution of language, which is one aspect of culture. If “vegan” refers to a mere dietary practice in our culture/language, which it does, then I respect that. Sure, we can point to the etymology of “vegan,” but I don’t think it is that important. What is confusing about “vegan” is that, by reducing “vegan” down to a mere extension of vegetarian without changing the form of the word makes it appear that we are only dealing with one word here. In fact, when we say that “vegan” has two meanings, what we really mean is that “vegan” is two words that are homophonic and spelled the same.

Even more confusing is the fact that the reason “vegan” now means a mere dietary practice is probably due to many people failing to understand the original meaning of the word. Vegans following the original meaning of “vegan” still see the popular usage of the term as no more than a misappropriation.

The French language appears not to have this confusion. Végétarien means “vegetarian,” végétalien means an extension of vegatarian, and végan means a political ethic and practice opposing all abuse of animals. (If you’ve ever studied languages, you probably noticed that it’s completely guaranteed to come across instances where what appears to be one word in one language is two or more in another.) Végétalisme is just a dietary practice of abstaining from dietary animal consumption, whereas a végan would also oppose fur farming, animal vivisection, puppy mills, etc. and other forms of animal consumption.

Clearly, then, “vegan” is two words. Of course, language is always negotiable and constantly evolving, and I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to efforts to clear up this confusion by changing some words around, or even continuing to try to completely reclaim the word. Nevertheless, it is possible to reduce the confusion simply by calling attention to the linguistic mechanics going on here. A word is still a legitimate word, even if it has been misappropriated. If we really want to change the language, we cannot simply argue against this new meaning; we will have to take the positive action of beginning to use another signifier in its place, i.e. herbivore. Until veganism becomes much more popular, though, I don’t see this change happening.