leather isn't vegan... its just not.
i'm on this community in LJ land, people often ask for advice and others give a lot of advice. it really leaves me dumbfounded that so many "vegans" still wear leather, and encourage others to do so as well
( Read more... )
To be blunt, I don't give a shit what "vegan society" says veganism is. Again, I understand the potential to strip a definition of all meaning by not establishing parameters, but I also don't think that is a bad thing. Once we get rid of the moralism attached to definitions, then we can get down to what really matters, how to eradicate animals as commodities from a strategic basis instead of a moral basis.
"being given something isn't a free pass for something to be vegan." -- I think attaching a definition to an OBJECT might be more acceptable, but similar problems still arise. Is veganism simply animal products and by-products, or is it products that contribute to the usage and exploitation of non-human animals? Which is more important..if you want to place importance on these.
I wasn't trying to say that anything i receive that isn't vegan is discarded (non-vegan food goes to my fountain square friend Al), but as far as the EFFECT of the product in relation to animal exploitation, if i'm wearing the socks or Al is wearing the socks, i don't think it matters. THAT is what is most important to me. I'm not concerned so much if Al is vegan or not, as far as my strategy to fight animal exploitation goes, but I am concerned with how we fuckin stop animal exploitation....as i'm sure you are as well. I don't think wearing gifted, found, or pre-vegan diet socks supports animal exploitation in anyway.
true, i wouldn't use food or a racist message that was gifted to me in the same way. but that reasoning comes down to my personal defenition, based on strategy and endgoal. I wouldn't use the food because i think it would compromise my personal health/happiness. I wouldn't convey a racist message or a sexist message for the same reason i wouldn't wear a fur coat (due to the message it sends)...but primarily because that message is BLATANT. wool socks, a leather bracelet, and so forth aren't as blatant and/or recognizeable as permitting the usage of animals. They can be perceived as synthetic or whatever.
Also, I'm not going to be responsible for someone else's perception of my actions and clothing choices (call me a privileged individualist..fine), and I take it as a personal progressive step that when i see a punk kid in a leather jacket, i don't automatically write them off as non-vegan, animal hating, etc. I also take it as a personal progressive step that when i see a vegan kid driving an SUV or working for a stock firm that I don't automatically condem their actions and blame them for creating the Iraq war.
Finally...I'm enjoying this conversation.
Reply
I wouldn't convey a racist message or a sexist message for the same reason i wouldn't wear a fur coat (due to the message it sends)...but primarily because that message is BLATANT. wool socks, a leather bracelet, and so forth aren't as blatant and/or recognizeable as permitting the usage of animals. They can be perceived as synthetic or whatever.
instead of accepting that they could be synthetics, i think we should stop accepting the synthetics/mocks for the potential message they could could send of the acceptability of leather, fur, etc. even promoting the replicas of animal exploitation permits a mindset in which it is ok to view other species as commodities to be consumed. thus, i think true animal/human liberation, a true end to speciesism, means re-framing how we think and view the world--an end to viewing the products of exploitation and their direct imitations/replicas as ok for consumption. to me, this means not promoting fake leather, fake fur, fake meats, etc as consumable, because it still views the likeness and imitation of exploitation as ok, the taste and look still being promoted as consumable/fashionable/ok for use.
Reply
I guess I also take exception to your statement that other species are not commodities to be consumed. If you are saying specifically that other species should not be CONSUMED, I have reservations depending on the social context we are speaking of. If you are saying other species (or anything for that matter) should not be COMMODIFIED, then we are on the same page.
My main point in all this, and maybe it's what you are getting at as well...maybe not, is that strategically speaking, if we want to rid our culture of animal commodification and its subsequent exploitation, than we need to get rid of the economic system that has created and demands this commodification.
Reply
i often use commodified and consumed interchangeably; i probably shouldn't. what i mean be 'consumed' is 'used, objectified and spit out'. used as objects. means to others' ends.
also, there are types of shoes that don't resemble leather whatsoever. canvas and hemp are perfect examples. you don't have to imitate leather to have good shoes, whatsoever.
Reply
paragraph 1:
you're right all of those things do have definitions. i believe they should be adhered to. i don't believe a Christian that does not adhere to Catholic doctrine should self-identify as Catholic. I don't think that someone who drinks alcohol on occasion should self-identify as straight edge. the same goes for veganism.
paragraph 2:
i think you should give a shit what the Vegan Society says veganism is, primarily because they created the word and the meaning in order to give a new definition and fight the watering-down process that occurred with the word "vegetarian". the term has a specific definition and was created with that intention.
paragraph 4:
i think it matters just as it matters if you wearing a racist/ sexist/ christian/ etc. shirt. you area implicitly stating by your use and acceptance of the item that you agree with the idea that animals are here to provide humans with the products of their bodies. wearing leather shoes, or wool socks is saying "i think its ok for humans to take these products forcibly from non-human animals".
paragraph 5:
i think this is a point of faulty reasoning. if it is ok to wear non-vegan items that are given to you, then there is no reason to not, for instance, eat non-vegan food that is also given to you. eating small amounts of animal sourced food is not detrimental to human health for the most part. if the main objection is "personal happiness" then i think there is a rational disconnect there.
the message is the same whether it is blatant or not (and "blatant" is a subjective measure), which is "animals are food" or "animals are clothing."
and whether other people see it or not isn't necessarily the issue, you know it. i feel like many vegans don't take animal rights/ liberation as seriously as they take human liberation issues. no one would say it was ok to walk around wearing leather from Dachau, or garments made from human hair from concentration camps just because it wasn't recently bought and no new suffering is being perpetuated.
paragraph 6:
a person wearing a leather jacket is not vegan, by definition.
Reply
1. The problem with definitions, as i stated previously, is they stem from an absolutist and moralist basis, wherein SOMEONE or SOMEONES layed claim to defining the parameters that others then had to follow. This is problematic becasue it doesn't take into account varying perspectives and interpretations, in that we end up with straight edge kids self-righteously denouncing other straight edge kids for having sex. Equally so, we have christians self-righteously denouncing other christians for a whole slew of perceived non-christian activities. And I reiterate, if a definition can not be absolute and pure across the board, then no one (no matter how much more vegan or straight edge or christian they think they are) has the ground to denounce others. With that said, I do accept that practically speaking, there are some absurdities as to how far people stretch their definitions. What that highlights though is that there are GENERALLY accepted parameters to labels and definitions, but by no means does that make them absolute for everyone.
2. The vegan society claiming what Vegan is represents my point above. Just as I don't care what parameters Ian Mackaye would put on the term Straight Edge. I take it and make it my own. Also, I'm not concerned with the watering down process of definitions. An individual doesn't eat fish because they believe they are "still vegetarian". An individual eats fish because they want to eat fish. Widening the parameters of the definition may make them feel better about their decision, but either way, in the end, they'd still be eating fish. I'd rather not rely on a definition to convince people to adhere to their beliefs, but instead deal with the issues at hand.
4. I think it's troublesome territory to attach meaning to people's actions. I understand why you could interpret someone wearing wool socks as permissive of forcibly taking products from animals. But by that interpretation are you saying that you yourself think its ok to forcibly take products from animals for your car, your shoes, etc. etc. My point can't be discredited based on the perception that i'm nit-picking. On a theoretical basis, it is the same thing. I doubt you'd say you support the forced taking of products from animals...despite your usage of them. I don't support the taking of product from animal, which is why I, whenever i find the ways possible, don't engage in the consuming (literally and economically) of animal products. Why would I wear wool socks then? That point was made earlier in relation to not participating in the economic system that does the primary exploiting of animals in the first place.
5. I agree. If someone wants to eat a hamburger out of a mcdonald's dumpster. Then I say go ahead. I would never do it. But if they aren't contributing to the capitalist process of exploitation, then i don't care. Do they fit my personal parameters of veganism? no..but i'm not going to tell them they aren't vegan. Ultimately, what i think of their self-identity doesn't matter. What matters is a discussion on strategy and how we go about stopping animal exploitation.
as to the jewish clothing references. As far as strategy goes, the point still stands. If someone was wearing a coat made out of jewish hair, first off, i wouldn't know, second, that person could easily defend that they have not and are not contributing to the enslavement and killing of any jews. As far as giving permission to future holocausts goes, it's a debateable subject, and that is my point.
6. That statement outright ignores every point i made prior...simply because I can say, "Driving a car is not vegan, by definition." And again. If someone is wearing a second hand leather jacket, that they did not buy, no animals are being harmed. Animals were harmed to create that jacket...and THAT is where we should be focusing our efforts.
Reply
"[T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
its not about being "more vegan" than others, more christian, or more straight edge. its about being straight edge or not, and vegan or not. one who smokes cigarettes is not straight edge. this is obvious. one who does not believe that Jesus existed is not a christian. one who wears leather is not vegan, i feel this is equally obvious.
there are things in the world of veganism that are quite difficult to get around living in our culture. this includes the use of automobiles on some level, an example you used.
fortunately those who created the definition allowed for this ("as far as is possible and practical"), and at the same time allowed for the definition to evolve progressively as time goes on and more animal friendly options are available and adopted. a great example of this would be film which (as i'm sure you remember) was a big dilemma for vegans for a long time, both in taking personal photos and in movie-going. this point has become moot with the development of digital imaging. it is now both highly possible and practical to use digital photography over standard film photography.
personally i wouldn't put the concept of not wearing animal based clothing (regardless of their source) into the categories of either "impossible" or "impractical". it is both entirely possible and practical do do without, beyond that even, its pretty easy. it can be a lot more difficult (and at times very impractical) in our society to get by without using automobiles in some capacity, for example, as i think you know.
at base i feel that your argument is that anyone should be able to self-identify themselves as "vegan" as long as they want to, regardless of how they live/eat or what they wear. i feel that if your problem is with definitions then you should just let go of the label itself. no one is being forced to call themselves "vegan" and its not a value judgment, or an assessment of dedication towards a long-term goal of ending non-human animal oppression.
i find that definitions are useful and clarify many issues. they aren't always perfect and (necessarily) suffer from inconsistencies and hypocrisies of varying degrees just because of the culture we live in. there is very little getting around that.
my issue is this, i understand your points, but i find them irrelevant. i think that if one wishes to self-identify with a pre-defined label then one should actually adhere to that label, whatever it is. if your issue is with labels and definitions, then don't take on the label.
the point about concentration camp products was a specific one. its quite a hypothetical of course, but i highly doubt that you specifically would make use of such an object, or say a lampshade made out of human skin. i'm guessing you would find it distasteful, even though no further individuals are being harmed by the use of the objects.
in line with that example, my argument is that these objects are not only distasteful because of their origins, but they are distasteful in their essence as items produced through oppression, and more importantly, as parts of sentient beings that have been forcibly taken through coercion and violence.
Reply
"[T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose;.."
I still claim that my actions (creating cooperative relationships, fighting trade agreements, fostering dissent, creating non-domineering social structures, attacking institutions of exploitation, etc.) are seeking to exclude exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose...despite the fact i wear gifted wool socks. because as i've said, wearing those socks does not exploit animals. the actions of mine that DO exploit animals are what should be at issue here...and those actions, which i'm willing to admit, are the ones that create definitive relationships based on domination between myself and other beings. Those relationships are created everytime i go buy food, drive to work, buy cat food, etc. etc. etc.
using very base examples to define these labels is avoiding the nuances of my point. sure, we can agree that smoking cigarettes is not straight edge (though i don't give a shit if someone x's up while smoking), but again, what about having sex? who has the right to define the parameters and who say which interpretations are right or wrong?
again, i don't want to get too heavily into specific activities that are commonly defined as vegan or not. it IS possible to use cat food that doens't contain animal products, but would you go so far as to say people who feed their cats meat based cat food aren't vegan (biological dietary needs of case aside of course).
i admit that labels are helpful in certain contexts...that's not my point or problem. my problem is with the rigidity with which people demand that others accept their parameters of labels, instead of letting others create identities for themselves. Yes, in a way, i'm not denying anyone the ability to call themselves vegan while eating meat, hunting and so forth...primarily because i don't care how they define themselves. What I care about are an individual's actions and how they relate to the world they want to create. I want to create a world where we are free to live out our desires without restricting others desires (within a reasonable degree of conflict). My actions, to the point that i'm OK with, follow that goal.
as to your last paragraph. you find the objects distasteful because of their origins and their essence. taht is just fine..for you, but i obviously don't find my wool socks as distasteful enough not to wear them. regardless, neither of us, through our actions, has created the need for more sheep to be domesticated and shorn. that is my primary consideration.
Reply
Reply
- as far as labeling is concerned -
does "vegan" have a definition? yes, i believe it does. i believe that the label is fairly clear as things go - more clear and concise and less confusing than straight edge in many ways.
is one under any obligation to self-identify as a "vegan"? absolutely not.
does not being self-identified as a vegan preclude that one is working towards ending the oppression and exploitation of non-human animals? not necessarily.
so my real question is that if you personally have such a problem with definitions of this kind, why do you want to self-identify with the definition?
- labeling continued to "what is vegan" -
it still seems to me that your argument is that anyone can call themselves vegan as long as they want to. i mean "can" as "should be able to". i understand that you don't care how people self-identify and would rather focus on their actions and the consequences of such actions. at the same time i am guessing that you would not identify someone who ate meat every day, or even lets say specifically dumpstered at a steak house every day to obtain meat, as a vegan (i could be wrong). my point is that there are some actions that i think you also draw as to what you consider vegan and what you do not consider vegan.
i argue that there is no detriment to drawing a different (and i think more useful) line as to what being vegan is, and what behaviors are and are not vegan. as long as you are drawing some line then i don't see how you can argue against a line drawn to a different degree.
rationally it seems to me that your argument would have to be that the definition itself is useless and you have no need for it. otherwise everything is vegan as long as any individual wishes to think it is. otherwise you are arguing in favor of your acceptable level of "rigidity" in favor of a more strict level.
(and honestly it could probably be argued economically that even buying animal products does not really affect the lives of the animals on a one-human scale)
- on straight edge and sex -
totally different discussion, and one i have thought a LOT about and argue with a lot of sxe people about as well. if you want to hear that let me know and i'll explain more. i will say that i think it is a different case in part because straight edge has a lot of problematic areas and does not have a concise, thought out and coherent definition. its really kind of half-assed when it comes down to it.
i think the difference is more pronounced when we understand that the definition of vegan was created purposely to combat the dilution of "vegetarian".
personally i don't have an issue with the definition, or concrete definitions/labels in general, obviously.
- cat food -
this is another interesting case, especially because it deals with non-human animals that are not physiologically omnivores. but i think it currently falls under the "possible and practical" heading. when it was both possible and practical to feed my cats vegan i did so. unfortunately they both developed struvite crystals and had to switch to special food. this is an instance where it would be much easier and consistent if i didn't feel an obligation to two cats, and if there wasn't an issue with domestication of "pets" in our culture.
Reply
my real point here is to try and get people to understand that i feel there is a double standard being applied, one that is culturally ingrained. that it is ok for us to profit from the use of the bodies of tortured and murdered animals, because these beings are inherently assumed to be for these purposes, where on the flip side we do not believe that it is acceptable to harvest humans for the same purposes.
for instance i have heard vegans talk about keeping leather furniture in their house, because it was given to them. i can guarantee with some certainty that none of them would receive happily and use without compunction furniture made from human skin, that, though it may have been harvested brutally, is now somehow cleansed of that onus through the act of gifting. why? because people aren't objects to make furniture out of, at base. i believe that animals are also not objects to make furniture out of, or clothing, etc. and i would no more want a sofa made out of a cow carcass in my house than i would one one made out of a human carcass. people are living, feeling, sentient beings, not commodities. i feel the same is true for non-human animals.
i believe that using these objects, regardless of their origin reinforces the cultural paradigm that non-human animals = objects to be used for human gain.
so in reference to you, i was trying to make comparisons to other things that you could conceivably be given that you would not use primarily because of their inherent meaning, aside from their utility.
does that make sense?
Reply
Reply
your points still keep missing the underlying ideology that viewing the products of suffering or products which promote messages that said suffering is ok are wrong. viewing the products of another's exploitation as fit for use denotes an acceptance of that suffering. if you can use the products of exploitation, you give passing credence to that suffering. instead of rejecting it, you allow yourself to benefit from it.
you have the full option to not benefit from the forced shearing and mistreatment of sheep by refusing to wear wool. this is not a decision that would ever conceivably put you in a life-or-death situation, either. i honestly think that most of your arguments seem to stem from an attempt to justify your actions.
you said: "An individual doesn't eat fish because they believe they are "still vegetarian". An individual eats fish because they want to eat fish. Widening the parameters of the definition may make them feel better about their decision, but either way, in the end, they'd still be eating fish." replace fish with 'wool'. i think it perfectly applies to, and undermines, what you've been saying. in the end, i think your own arguments subvert what you say more than anything anyone else could bring up in this discussion.
Reply
if someone got you underwear that had racial slurs screen printed all over it, would you wear it? its not blatant, its underneath your clothes. only YOU know its there. would you feel comfortable with that? i'd surely hope not. and if someone finds out about them, and says "hey, are you racist? i heard you have some underwear that say "i <3 lynching blacks" on them." how do you respond to that? its okay, because no one sees it?
if one who touts trying to stop racism is found out to be regularly doing racist things "in secret", does that make it okay? does that make any sense? absolutely not. i really think the same thing can be applied to purposefully using the products of animal enslavement, torture, and murder, even when only YOU know about it. wrong is wrong, whether its blatant or not. if you're interested in stopping animal exploitation, STOP EXPLOITING ANIMALS. that's a really good first step.
Reply
And for the same reasons I've previously stated, even if I did decide to wear them, knowing I'm the only one who sees what they say, it wouldn't matter. In no way would I be perpetuating racism or exploiting non-white people with that act. To perpetuate racism demands a relationship between myself and others. To exploit someone else demands that i am actively restricting someone from experiencing their own freedom. by wearing second-hand leather, or underwear with racist slogans on them, or eating meat out of a dumpster (none of which i personally do - wool socks as an exception), does not involve a relationship or restriction of freedom. Purchasing those items though, is creating a relationship with the being, is necessitating the use and abuse of the beings. THAT is different and that is what matters.
Very simply, I'm not a moralist. I don't give excessive influence to abstract concepts. I'd consider myself more of a strategist. I'm more concerned with the physical relationships we conduct with each other, which is why i'm more focused on eliminating the most exploitive relationship of all, capitalism, as well as our individual relations via anarchism.
You lost me on Wrong is Wrong. You haven't convinced me that I'm Wrong yet. and I'm not convinced that by not wearing gifted wool socks, i'm somehow stopping the exploitation of animals. you're going to have to further clarify.
And although i'm not trying to prove my point with this following statement, let me point the moralist finger at you. When you purchase vegetables, are you taking into account the relationship you are perpetuating through industrial agriculture and the removal of animal homes and outright killing of animals in the way of the machinery of agriculture? Are you taking into account the human animals that have their lands taken away by global trade agreements, forced to migrate for low paying jobs picking those vegetables you have purchased, in part because of the color of their skin (primarily brown)? I'm hard pressed to accept your disapproval of my actions when you are just as trapped by this economic system of exploitation as everyone else is.
Stop worrying about how good vegan moralism makes you feel, and start considering how we can stop capitalism from commodifying everything and everyone.
Reply
You don't know where I purchase my vegetables from or who picks them or where they're grown, so don't assume. You have no idea what type of consumer I am when it comes to food. I'm as mindful as I can be when it comes to buying local and buying in-season and responsibly.
I'm not an anti-capitalist. I'm not a human rights activist. I don't really get into the whole "human animals are animals too!" thing. Not a fan of humanity. I'm talking about veganism. I DO have morals. If you don't have morals, this discussion is pointless, because its really hard for me to even look at people as human when they are coming from where you are coming from. That's actually one of the reasons I'm not really too fond of human beings in general. From your point of view, you'd have no problem watching free child pornography, or no problem with people who watched free child pornography. I, on the other hand, think it's wrong. I am not of the mindset that just because something morally abhorrent is free, it is a-ok. There are certain things that in my heart and soul i believe are disgusting and immoral and ethically horrifying and just plain wrong. That's why I'm vegan. I don't believe that its possible to be vegan and not have a moral and ethical tie to how you feel about the exploitation of animals. I would rather lose a toe to frostbite than wear socks that were a result of museling, enslavement, and exploitation of living creatures. Out of respect for that animal, I will absolutely not wear wool. You'll wear it because the socks were free and you're an anti-capitalist. Its not that abstaining from wearing the socks is going to stop the exploitation of animals. I don't think the exploitation of animals will EVER stop. I'm vegan because its the right thing to do.
I'm coming from an animal rights, vegan, anti-animal exploitation viewpoint. You're coming from what seems to be more of a freegan, stick-it-to "the man", crust punk, anarchist type of perspective. The lives of animals are more important than any of that to me. So I don't really "get" you, or people like you who share that "veganism is whatever you want it to be!" loophole-hugging idea that exists to cater to their other political agendas.
Reply
Leave a comment