On Veganism and Terrorism

When I read on GreenIsTheNewRed.com that chef Anthony Bourdain called vegetarians "the worst kind of terrorists," I was peeved. Due to a combo grande of lazy linguistic behavior, assumptions, judgments, and at least a moderate dose of ignorance, people say some pretty stupid things. Now, you’d think the rest of the world might recognize those stupid things as such, but most people have combo grandes of their own that allow them to say: Yes! Those darn vegetarians are on par with Osama bin Laden and Timothy McViegh.

In "Inside the Terrorist Mind," by Annette Schaefer in the December 2007/January 2008 issue of Scientific American Mind, a handful of common misconceptions about terrorists are debunked, such as that they are usually mentally ill or that psychological injuries in early childhood are a root cause. In the list of terrorist types, special-interest groups are mentioned first: "These people hang on the radical fringe of legitimate causes. They use terrorism to defend their views, say, against abortion or in support of animal rights" (75).  I’m not disagreeing that people like that exist. I’m underscoring that the vast majority of vegans call nonviolence their motivation (among others) and therefore cannot be called terrorist.

Bourdain and others point to vegetarians (I’ll say vegans, though many oddly lump us all together) and say that we want to take choices away from them. Foie gras, for instance (it’s frequently defended by chefs and people in Chicago). But the way I see it, the intention behind any kind of foie gras ban has nothing to do with Bourdain. It has to do with a society growing a collective conscience and saying: We don’t care how yummy it is if you’ve done that to make it yummy. Foie gras, for some, tips the scales of injustice. Again, those campaigning for a foie gras ban don’t care about Bourdain–they care about the geese and ducks. But due to his exaggerated sense of self-importance, he thinks it’s about him.

Now, call me crazy, but if someone is standing up for the geese who have no voice, and that person wants the violence to the geese to end, where’s the terrorism? An end to terror (for the geese) is really the goal here. And what consumer would be so ridiculous as to say that not using ducks for their livers is tantamount to terrorism of any kind?

Let’s go back to the Schaefer article for facts about real terrorists, for your edification:

• "Group dynamics, often driven by charismatic leadership, play a powerful role in convincing individuals to embrace expansive goals and use violence to attain them" (74).
• "Even suicide bombers are sane in most respects" (75).
• "Terrorist leaders typically screen out [insane people] because their instability makes them dangerous" (75).
• "No matter what their background, what seems to unite all terrorists is a willingness to subordinate their individual identity to a collective identity," according to political psychologist Jerrold M. Post (76).

Anyone who knows anything about vegans and animal rights knows that last one is the biggest problem for us and is the reason we could never be terrorists! There is no subordination of individual identity to a collective identity! There’s no way any reasonable person would call vegans or vegetarians terrorists for campaigning for nonviolence. That kind of usage of language is inexcusable and harmful (oh, and thoroughly inaccurate).

The most telling quote was by psychologist John Horgan, who directs the International Center for the Study of Terrorism at Pennsylvania State University, and who believes that group processes turn political radicalism to violence. He speaks of interviewing ex-terrorists, as that’s how he gets into the minds of those who would ever sign up in the first place. He is asked why he doesn’t work with active terrorists, and here’s what he says: "I find it problematic to interview such people at all. . . . It also crosses my own ethical boundaries to get together with people who plant bombs and kill people" (79).

It also crosses my own ethical boundaries to get together with people who plant bombs and kill people.

Does that sound familiar?

Getting together with those perpetrating and perpetuating violence crosses my ethical boundaries. And paying someone else to get together with them is equally offensive. For this reason, it’s more important than ever to plant the seeds of what might become a movement that has actions aligned with principles of nonviolence, and to consistently remind the rest of the world that nonviolence is what we want, and nonviolence is how we’re going to get it.