- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I haven't read the book, so I'm reluctant to defend or criticize it.
But it sounds like they make some dubious claims and say some things that I (a long-time vegan) would not agree with. I'd just ask that you not judge all vegans by what I, or the authors of this book, or any individual vegan says or does.
I must say, however, that it's always fascinating to see how eager the writers at Salon are to be critical of vegans. I don't believe that I have ever read an article on Salon where being a vegan was presented in a positive light. In this article, for instance, the word "shunning" is used to describe the ethical choices that vegans make. "Shunning" is a negative word with judgmental and anti-social connotations, and the decision to use that word obviously reflects the author's opinion of vegans.
In reality, though, being a vegan is solely about making positive choices to help end animal exploitation, and has nothing to do with "shunning" or depriving yourself of anything. Instead of saying that vegans are "shunning" animal products, the author could have said something like, "vegans are people who choose to reject the societal norm of animal exploitation, and are motivated by the positive impact they hope their choices will have on the lives of billions of innocent animals, both now and in the future." Although you might think that that is too far in the other direction, it is the way that I, and I believe most vegans, think about it.
And, while we're on the subject of Salon and its biases, hardly a day goes by that I don't click over here and read some harsh criticism of atheists, or people who voted for Ralph Nader, or just about anybody else who is trying to change the horribly flawed norms of our society.
Is all of that criticism because Salon's writers are trying to be "fair and balanced?"
