I understand. But they’ve already got a perfectly good word that many people know and understand to describe their brand of vegetarianism. Why the need to claim “vegetarian”?
In India, those claiming to be vegetarians avoid eggs but not dairy. I don’t think Western-style ovo-lacto-vegetarians have any better claim to the term “vegetarian.”
"one-true"ers. :rolleyes:
I’m not disagreeing. I’m saying “vegetarianism” should be a broad term, not a narrow one like “vegan.” Both Indian-style vegetarianism and American ovo-lacto vegetarianism fits under the umbrella of “vegetarian.”
For some reason in Russia every single vegetarian I’ve met ate fish, shellfish, eggs and dairy. Vegans are the same here and there though(although I don’t know the Russian term for “vegan” since I only know one and he didn’t self-identify as anything).
As others have noted, it’s a flexible rule. The Moosewood, one of the country’s most famous vegetarian restaurants, serves fish.
The distinction was based more on economics rather than zoology. In the classical Mediterranean region where the church was formed, fish was a common food for the masses. Meat was a gourmet item consumed by the wealthy. So the idea of renouncing meat for fish was an exercise in humility.
I’ve read that during the Renaissance, the Catholic Church defined beavers as a form of fish so they could be eaten on Fridays. (And yes, you perverts, I’m talking about the large semi-aquatic rodents of the genus Castor.)
When we were on holiday in Russia earlier this year, we went to a restaurant for a traditional meal - our tour guide told me that the chef had prepared a special vegetarian meal for me, and had previous asked me what I did or didn’t eat because their idea of vegetarianism wasn’t the same as mine. The food was fantastic though!