New article:

Exploring the Roots of Naturalism in the Vegetarian, Raw Foods,
Natural Hygiene, and Vegan Movements

Documented by excerpts from publications from the early 1800’s,
supplemented with select earlier and later excerpts.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...turalism.shtml

Many of the more idealistic beliefs found in vegetarian-related
advocacy today have historical roots in religion, mythology, and/or
old, outdated science. The hostility that some modern vegetarian
advocates display towards non-vegetarians has historical roots in the
cultural imperialism of the early 1800’s. Instead of being repeated
(often without question), these outdated beliefs and attitudes should
be rejected and excluded from modern vegetarian, raw-foods, natural
hygiene, and vegan activism.

A few highlights:
William Lambe, M.D., 1815, makes the earliest scientific argument for
eating raw foods. He is probably the first raw vegetarian (probably
vegan) diet guru.
The bogus argument that “humans can’t eat meat because they lack fangs
and claws” dates to Plutarch, about 2000 years ago.
Fruit diets have as their philosophical foundation the Christian
“Garden of Eden” paradise story. This also appears to be the basis for
the bogus “wild animals never get sick” claim.
Controversy over fruit diets dates back to the time of Galen (1800
years ago).

Article structure. This article is written for both casual readers and
scholars with an interest in the history of vegetarianism, raw foods,
and natural hygiene. Many of the primary sources cited here are out-of-
copyright, and lengthy excerpts from the full text are provided in an
appendix. The reference list also includes URLs and links to full text
online, for those who wish to read the complete original sources.
Internal links to excerpts from full-text sources and other article
sections are provided for those who want to read the article (or parts
of it) on a by-topic basis. The structure of the article – discussion
section, a summary, with excerpts from full text – introduces some
redundancy if one reads the article in a straight-line, sequential way.