They're only Animals

1872:

It’s understandable, with pessimism being in vogue, that we’re beating-ourselves-up with shame and guilt about the mess we’re in, and our inability to clean it up. Personal shame is all turned inwards. We make ourselves forget about some of the trickier world issues. If we can’t get a clear run at major global problems because we think they are too complicated and we are too insignificant to make a difference, we give up trying. Since we believe everything is out of our control anyway, we accumulate a list of non-urgent issues, to be avoided. Since animals have ‘nothing to do with our human problems’, why go to all the inconvenience of taking on a vegan lifestyle in the first place? “They’re only animals”.

         

Animal consumers are practising members of an animal-abusing society. The ‘Kill-Club’ is present everywhere on the planet. And since so many world problems can trace their origins back to animal exploitation, it’s as if the human is umbilically linked to the very problems waiting to be solved.

         

Once we can see the part we each play in this, assuming we are omnivores, we have a jumping-off point, from which we can start to move forward. But as soon as we do we often decide to pull back. We only go half way – eaters of red meat switch to eating chicken and fish, the vegetarians stop at meat but make up for it by using lots of dairy. Neither gets close enough to the central problem of animal cruelty, to be an effective advocate for the animals.

Vegans, however, can be true advocates, true to themselves and true to the interests of the animals. But ‘true’ is not always enough for us. When we find that no one is taking what we say seriously, we either go on the defensive, or let everyone know that we are ‘vegan’, and why they should be too.

         

Inevitably, we get a bad reaction, and this surprises and disappoints us. And then we feel frustrated, and then we go for broke, with anger, invective and disapproval. But still, nothing really changes.

         

Nothing can change if we are focusing on the wrongs of animal-attacking, when we then use another sort of attack on those who disagree with us. Perhaps we shouldn’t be phased at all by disagreement, because we’ve at least stimulated a reaction, and introduced some new thinking. When we’re not agreed with, as long as we don’t come across as unlikeable people, or too weak to hold our position, then it’s more likely that something of what we are saying will sink in, be it ever so subliminally.