Comments on: Dropping the activist label

By: harry

harry — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:25:58 +0000

I personally would never be an active “activist” in the sense of being noted for opposing something. Rather, I identify with being kind and loving. In so doing I choose to exclude none from the effect. Albert Schweitzer once said,”Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man will not know peace.”
If asked my reasons for being a Vegan, its easy to say that growing in love resulted in my having care and compassion for all living things. Naturally, I don’t imprison or eat those I have a love for.” Yes, I do live opposed to violence and exploitation, but this is a secondary response to the first calling of loving unselfishly and unconditionally all.

By: victor

victor — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:58:27 +0000

Another voice, thank you for your comment. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the leaders of one animal welfare non-profit (that I know of) have actively discouraged vegans from promoting veganism. Considering this next to the efforts of some dedicated grassroots activists (there’s that word again!) who are promoting veganism, yes, I think it’s fair and accurate to make the statement “Ironically, some of these “non-activists” do more for veganism than the leaders of some of these non-profits!”

As for the comments you and Steven made about the various reasons for which people self-identify as vegans: When I’m in mixed company, I sometimes say anti-oppression veganism as opposed to, say, health veganism, environmental veganism, and anti-suffering veganism.

In spaces where there is agreement on this particular definition of veganism, I drop the qualifier. Even then, there is still sometimes residual confusion between veganism and its colloquial usage as the practice of abstaining from products made from non-human animals.

By: Steven

Steven — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:04:53 +0000

I think this is a great post; I was ‘vegan’ for almost a whole year before I thought to get active beyond my own dietary and clothing choices. Now, however, I see ‘activism’ as flowing naturally out of my stance against oppression (which is also behind my diet, etc.).

One thing–I was wondering how serious to get with the language issues here. I’ve been calling myself a “vegan activist” and calling L.O.V.E. a “group of vegan activists.” Are these labels no longer optimal? Are we just a group of “vegans”? Maybe we are “vegans actively working to end oppression”? I want to honor the definition of ‘veganism’ as an active stance against oppression, but I’m also just wary of connotations of ‘veganism’ the way it’s currently often used.

Input from others?

By: Another voice

Another voice — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:48:20 +0000

“I know some people who are very active in promoting veganism who don’t consider themselves activists. Ironically, some of these “non-activists” do more for veganism than the leaders of some of these non-profits!”

I feel this is a pretty big claim; how do you KNOW for certain that someone is doing more for veganism than another? To me that is saying, “I absolutely know what is best and can therefore judge other “activists” based on my knowledge of absolute right and wrong in terms of veganism”

“This means, when using this definition, we can drop the “activist” label and simply say “vegan.”

What about those who are vegan for health reasons and aren’t interested in ending oppression.. I’ve met some “health vegans” who don’t even like animals. To them it’s no different than another diet, such as Atkins. So what do we call these “vegans”, because as of now, veganism is still considered simply a diet by some.

I hope this doesn’t come off as mean spirited. It isn’t at all. Whenever I read something, I react. Since this is an open community that promotes discussion, I wanted to respond to what got my attention.