I was reading an interesting article and it really made me think about the "vegetarians" who eat meat. According to the authors, Karen and Michael Iacobbo, vegetarianism orginally started as people who do NOT consume any animal products (duh) and veganism is a fairly new concept. Well the article states that people who decide to only eat fish or chicken are now calling themselves vegetarians. Do you think that these people will cause the "vegetarian movement" to evolve into subsections that are seperated by the animal in which one consumes? Do you think the same will happen to veganism? Would there be two types of vegans; ones that consume animal byproducts (milk, etc...) and ones who don't? I really hope that this doesn't happen. I understand that it is only a label. One chooses what he/she whats to consume and shouldn't care about a label. I just have an issue about this due to the fact that vegetarianism means the consumption of NO MEAT! Here's the link to the article: http://www.earthsave.org/news/03summer/vegetarianism_usa.htm
From the article i did not see where it said that vegetarian originally meant animal product free (although this could be due to my intoxication and uncareful reading.) Anyways heres my 2 cents on the topic. When I tell people I'm vegetarian theyre like "Woah, so you eat fish right?" So i ask them if fish are animals. Its very suprising that 80% of the people ive asked this don't think fish are animals. I ask them why they think this and they say "Well because animals cant live in the ocean" or "duh fish cant think" WTF do people think fish are, fungi or something? I agree with you. I don't think you are a vegetarian if you eat any kind of meat. I think the people who believe they are vegetarian and eat fish and chicken are just people who do not pay attention in science class and think that these animals are actually members of some Kingdom they invented. To ME vegetarians are people who choose to eat no meat. A vegan is someone who chooses to eat/use no animal products. For people who choose to eat just fish or just chicken and want to label themselves call yourself something else like a piscetarian or poultritarian or idonteatredmeatatarian. leave the veg prefix out of your label please out of respect for people who dont eat any meat.
Yeah that is kind of weird.. And kind of defeats the purpose. I understand a lot of people are vegetarians for health reasons or whatever, but I think that most vegetarians are doing it at least partly for animal rights.. And eating animals doesn't really help that case.. If people are eating chicken and fish frequently and calling themselves vegetarians they're dumb and need to look up the word. Now I can understand maybe like an occassional slip.. a slip does not deface your vegetarianism in my opinion (maybe cuz I've slipped before with the sushi but not anymore!). So yeah I dunno thats silly.
Wouldn't be surprised if there were several sects of veganism in the future. I don't know how many times, after saying I am a vegetarian/vegan, have gotten "so do you eat chicken or fish?". I'm less afraid that labels will get misconstrued and more concerned with people getting the wrong ideas about vegetarianism and veganism (i.e: that fish/dairy/eggs "don't count").
agreed, there are many reasons to being a vegetarian, so there are different types of vegetarianism, and outside of vegetarianism, that should also be respected. It's not about having a club mentality, either your part of it or not. being vegan is wonderful but doesn't give you the right to put down vegetarians who just don't eat meat. Being vegetarian is awesome but doesn't give you the right to treat pesco, or pesco pollo "vegetarians" harshly, even if their ways seem contrary to you. Remember there are many reasons to become an educated person in your food choices. People don't always agree to what is right, or how to even fix problems when they agree something is wrong. the only thing that keeps me from being fully veggie, or really almost vegan (I finally quit cheese!) is sushi, lol, it's so addicting. I do feel bad about the over-fishing and ecological degeneration it produces, but some part of me is selfish, and I do not make excuses for that. But I do try to reach for the higher good, if it only means I fall among the stars. p.s. Me and my pesco sweetheart are currently getting into Indian food. So maybe we'll be able to kick our sushi addiction (though doubtfully at the momment) with some other great variety of ethnic foods. Mediterrian was my last favorite. Now thai and Indian are filtering through.
The veggie sushi I've had just doesn't even come close to comparing. If you know any good recipies maybe I can experiment with it. Maybe I'll change my mind
People that eat the flesh of an animal (or sentient creature for those that think chicken and fish are not animals) are NOT vegetarian. They can claim it 'til their blue in the face but they are not, period. The reason I get annoyed by the so called "vegetarians" that eat fish and/or poultry is because I, as a vegan, have to constantly answer the same stupid question of " Oh.. do you eat fish or chicken?". These false vegetarians are leading omnis to believe that vegetarians eat these things and quite frankly I wish these people would quit labeling themselves as something they are not so that the true meaning of vegetarian can shine through for what it really is, which is a person that does not eat any flesh, whether it be fish, fowl, cow, pig, sheep or any other being that is not of the plant world. Think about it. OMNIvores eat of both flesh and plant, thus the use of the part of the word-OMNI-meaning all. VEGEtarians eat only a plant based diet, thus the use of the root word -VEGE- meaning vegetable. It's not rocket science, but somehow the meaning has become diluted and therefore almost as complex.
To the article, it was badly written and VERY country centric (non flesh/fowl/fish eaters have existed in the West in numbers since Pythagoreas popularized the practice, and let us not forget Hindu India, esp the higher castes, who considered eating of living creatures polluting (and probably Uncle Vikram). Every major religion has a subsect that embraces Vegetarianism, either in practice or as a goal. But what the article said but didn't directly say is the concept is imported. I hope they speak better than that article, esp if someone paid to go. I think vegetarianism is undergoing a devolution as people allow the concept of meat eaters into the veg tent, so to speak. Why not create a healthy food movement that includes animal protein, if that's what you want? Look at teh Slow Food conviviums, Nourishing Traditions, diet of teh week, etc. the place is out there. Being a "pescstarian" (shouldn't it be pescavore?) and considering yourself veg is like being a worshipper of Cthullu in a mosque or church. or a "messianic Jew." why attempt to be what you are not? Sure, this is fundamentalism, but it is also literacy and the ability to red a freaking dictionary.
