884:
Isn’t it boring, when people refer to us as ‘vay-gns’, when
you know they know the word has a long ‘e’. It’s only a small matter, hardly
worth mentioning, but I think it shows us how little they want to know about
us, how unenthusiastic they are even to take this up as a subject, let alone
take what we say seriously or to acknowledge vegan principle. In other words, they
do not like our arguments.
Often, vegans are reckoned members
of a cult group which is strict about what we can and can’t eat, dictating what
we may or may not do. So, when people offer you food and ask, “Are you allowed
to eat this?”, they imply the above, but also there’s often a hint of contempt
for my having voluntarily given up normal lifestyle to abnormal. They can’t and
won’t consider, in any seriousness, the giving up of any of their food choices
based upon animal-concerns. I usually say rather testily “Yes, we can eat
anything, it’s just my personal choice NOT to”. And of course that makes me
sound rather precious, which I can be!
Behaving in this sort of way
helps people ‘weird-ise’ us. And that helps them disregard what we say.
So, if you’re NOT vegan and
reading this (brave person!) all I’d ask of you is pronunciation (vee,gn).
But, coming back to conversation
- What happens when talking turns to fighting (with friends or with total
strangers)? Even just one moment of locking horns could set you back endlessly;
and of course, it’s always over ‘major issue-differences’.
Mostly, we just get mildly
irritated by each other, which is usually enough to stay clear of serious
controversy in the future, and that’s EXACTLY what we don’t want.
But serious talkers, all of us,
should be living as we say others should live, in this seriously disturbed
world. And, as far as I’m concerned, as long as we’re ‘clean’, then there’s nothing
better than serious-talk with friends. (I’m including strangers here!)
Each talk or chat leaves its
imprint. And the next time we’re discussing profound moral matters, we can virtually
continue from where we left off. But by this time, hopefully we’ve done more
work on our arguments. We’ve better defined our ethical position. We’re better
prepared to defend.
But if you know you’re already on
weak ground, you’ll see a skirmish ahead. In which case, it’s better to take a ‘bring-it-on’
style.
Therefore, vegan action is needed
to keep these friends happy. Sometimes I just don’t talk animal-talk. A cop
out? Here, as I see it, we have two problems, when advocating for animals - we
can be identified too strongly with it and with nothing else, plus it’s
difficult NOT to talk about it or ‘bring it in’ to a conversation, when so many
other ideas are linked to it.
I’ve never been able to resolve
these two - either I do NOT talk about farm animals, keeping my friends them
sweet, or I never miss an opportunity to mention the animal-angle, and I end up
on a stage in an empty theatre. And then, if there’s no one to hear what I’ve
got to say, I get very rusty at talking, because I can’t find anyone to talk
to. And that’s a very isolating thing for vegans.
The opposite side of this affects
us more directly, like the silliest umbrage-taking, or getting irritated by mispronouncing
“vegan”. There are many ways we feel the heat of the counter-message coming
across – they’ll say we take life too seriously, that we can’t see the joke of ‘vaygans’
being somehow vague. Ironically, that’s the one thing we aren’t. Vegans aren’t
vague about what we believe, in terms of the priorities-of-life.
And while I’m whingeing, another
thing is (very-often, deliberately) misunderstood – the principles behind
Animal Rights, so to spell it out, here and now, it means Right to a Life.
It’s because of this specific
shift in consciousness, from eating them to protecting them, that we have two
main, opposing interests, vying with each other, for the public vote. Our job
is to marshal the protectors to fight a noble and violence-free argy-bargy with
the other mob.
No comments:
Post a Comment