RSS
Home
A story of non-vegan vegans
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.png)
In November of 1944, a gentleman named Donald Watson publised the very first edition of "The Vegan News," Now called "The Vegan Magazine." It was in this document where the word "vegan" was first defined.
...ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
In this document, Watson also talked of the trouble of the term "lacto-vegetarian," an alternative form of "vegetarianism" which describes a vegetarian who consumes dairy. This may seem an odd prefix to the reader as we currently define a "vegetarian" as someone who consumes dairy anyway. However, the word "vegetarian" once referred to a similar diet as is prescribed by a vegan lifestyle. Some dictionaries still define it this way.
Lacto-vegans etc.
In his discussion of lacto-vegetarians, he was optimistic of them as people, but noted the inconsistency of a "lacto vegetarian" diet with vegan values.
To resign oneself to lacto-vegetarianism as a satisfactory solution to the diet problem is to accept a sequence of horrible farmyard and slaughter-house incidents as part of an inevitable Divine Plan. Need it be added that it would imply too accepting the spectacle of a grown man attached to the udder of a cow as a dignified and rational intention on the part of Nature!
The idea of veganism was to preserve a word to describe those of us who abstain from the use of any animal for any reason to our highest practical abilities.
Of course, sooner or later, someone would come along and start making their own versions, doing the very same thing to the meaning of veganism as was done to vegetarianism.
A few days ago, I learned of an individual who started their own site on what they called lactoveganism to address the need for a word to describe vegans who consume dairy.
You may be asking yourself, “What does lactovegan mean?”. Well, lactovegans are individuals who limit their dietary intake to products that include anything considered vegan and dairy products.
Why invent a new term? In American society, the term vegan is very well understood. But, everybody has their own definition of vegetarianism. Depending upon indivdual interpretation, a vegetarian food may include dairy, eggs or fish. To overcome this vagueness in description of individuals who do not consume meat, eggs, fish etc. but do consume veggies and dairy, we use the term lactovegan.
When word got out on Twitter, the @lactovegan individual was apparently impaled by a storm of disagreement.
@lactovegan replied to the statement "It is not possible to be a lactovegan" with "Yes it is. We are." I'm not sure who the "we" is but perhaps there is more than one person out there who doesn't see any problem with calling a vegan who consumes dairy a "lactovegan."
The problem with "forms" of veganism
.jpg)
It's understandable to put conditions in front of some words. For instance, a union carpenter is different from a carpenter having not the word "union" before his name. However, being a part of a union does not defy the characteristic of being a carpenter. But some conditions do defy the characteristic.
The word "lactovegan" doesn't make any more sense than "out-of-work employee" or "nonviolent murderer." Murder is always a violent act; it would have to be or it wouldn't be murder. This goes beyond being a matter of opinion--it's a matter of definition. For the same reason, the word "vegan" describes a lifestyle of non-violence, one which does not use animals as property or as means of consumption.
This same argument applies for an individual who called themselves a "part-time" vegan, because they consumed animals and animal products only on the weekends. Veganism is a lifestyle, not a diet. It means you have taken on the identity of being a vegan not only in the behavior of consumption but in one's personal mindset about animals. If I only murder people on the weekends, does that make me a part time non-murderer?
In addition, the above quoted statement is terribly ironic. The author uses the fact vegetarianism is so losely-defined as a reason to modify veganism. As mentioned before, the very inspiration for creating the word vegan was to absolve oneself from being confused with an individual who diets from some animals but not others. The fact vegetarianism is so loosely-defined is the very reason why it would be disrespectful and counterintuitive to create the term "lacto vegan" How can an indivdual admonish the animal industry while at the same time say the rape, kidnapping, and slaughter of one particular species is justifiable?
The disrespect of such a term doesn't seem to phase the author, however. It is described as more of a trade-off for their own personal convenience.
That is what I wanted to say ["lacto-vegetarian,"] until I realized I had to explain everytime I ate out what my definition of vegetarian was… “No, I don’t eat eggs, No sir, fish is not vegetarian.. bleh bleh”. For some reason everytime I say I am lactvegan, waiter’s tend to understand.. at least here in Cali they do! Or else they ask and I explain and it’s settled once and for all
Related Articles:
Comments
