Tom wrote:
>[The letter-writer] says [about Reclaiming our Health]: "I feel strongly
>that what is needed right now is not Robbins'
>preaching-to-the-converted tirade, but an open and respectful dialogue
>between traditional and alternative practicioners".

Martha:
I think the letter-writer missed that Robbins says this also.  The book is
not a condemnation of allopathic medicine per se, but of the monopolizing
attempts of allopathic doctors, in particular the AMA.  I don't feel he is
preaching to the converted but trying to reach those who haven't had
exposure to alternative practices in existence, nor the attempts of the
AMA to suppress these practitioners.
My own feelings about the book were mixed.  There was a lot of good
information in there.  His repetitive "There was a time when I never
would have believed this" rhetoric became annoying, though.  And his
pro-vegetarian bias came through loud and clear, which would maybe
put off many on this list.

Tom:
>Anyway, I think it is a good sign that people are now beginning to
> challenge the dogma so self-servingly promoted by people like Robbins.

Martha:
I do agree with this.  I've seen Robbins in person a couple of times and
got the feeling he was distinctly self-serving, or at least self-promoting.
Which doesn't in itself mean his message is all wrong.

Tom:
>Veganism has had a "free ride" in the sense that most people have
>accepted it at face value, and not challenged the thin, dubious veneer
>of ethics it wears. Hopefully, that free ride will end soon!

Martha:
Can you explain what you mean by free ride and dubious veneer of
ethics?  Who are the "most people" who have accepted it, the
diet-conscious folks or the general population?

Tom:
>P.S. I sharply criticized "Diet for a New America" on a vegetarian
>Internet group, a few months after it came out. At that time, I was of
>course a long-time vegan.

Martha:
I'd be interested in seeing what you had to say.  Do you still have the
article in a form you could re-post it?  You could send it to me privately if
you don't feel the group would be interested.  Or, could you just give me
a brief rundown of the points you criticized and why?  I personally quite
liked the book, except for the first (?) chapter, the one about the heroic
activities of wild animals, which I found hard to swallow.  I was tempted
to rip that part out when lending the book to friends.  What I did
particularly appreciate was the exposure it gave to factory farm
practices.

Tom:
>The preceding points [apes not being vegan by nature] also impact the
>ethical vegan movement, and people are finally starting to question the
>sort of ethics promoted in veganism.

Martha:
Are you saying that the notion of apes being vegan was the primary
foundation for vegan ethics?  I'm probably missing your point here.

Cheers,
Martha