The big issues

* Aplogies for today's blog being longer than usual.

Vegans want to strike a blow for compassion, and we are willing to deny ourselves things for that. We know where we stand on the big issue of animal slavery even though it’s opposite to how the majority believe, and we realise why people (who would like to agree with us) don’t agree because it logically leads to going vegan, and that for many people is a scary idea. Everyone agrees slavery is a terrible thing but because of the difficulties imagined in becoming vegan most people can’t let their horror of slavery apply to animals, not the ones they eat anyway. They’ve been brought up with animal foods and with animal eating people. To question animal slavery and to alter conventional eating habits is socially prohibited, but thought quite mad too since humans must not let the side down by not acting like a dominant. In the case of animals, especially over the ones we eat. Our own convenience must outweigh ethics, just in this one area. No argument is valid when it comes to the human birthright of eating the animals.
This is where vegans and non-vegans part company. And often it’s the reason we don’t feel at one with the omnivore who, apart from food items, also buys clothing and other commodities that are animal based or tested. It’s why vegans feel separate from those who aren’t vegan, and once that separation is apparent it puts us one rung up (or down) the ladder, and the first level of separation takes place. We set up shop as vegans and live according to a quite different set of rules to non-vegans, but it doesn’t stop there, because we itch to discuss this subject. We’ll bring up the issues when others would prefer we didn’t. It almost looks like vegans are spoiling for a fight or are wanting to cause embarrassment.
The Interface: if an argument starts up it can easily and quickly become intimidating. But how can we know, if the subject arises, that things won’t turn nasty? From a vegan’s point of view, if the subject comes up, why let anyone get away with opinions that we passionately disagree with? Why not make it clear where we stand?
It’s a trap for all concerned. For example you visit someone’s house. Food is offered out of hospitality. We refuse it - the reason is given and a response to that is expected. The ‘meathead’, no, it’s not polite to use that word, let’s say ‘non-vegan’, he or she thinks they can brush matters under the carpet, change the subject or say something that will appease. The vegan might not accept that and decide to bludgeon their way through with their own attitude to animal food.
This vegan seems rude. The vegan hopes this rudeness will be outweighed by an admiration for our having the courage of our convictions, etc. But there’s much less of this admiration knocking around than we might think. It’s a danger zone for vegans, that one.
The trap closes as each party underestimates the strength of opinion of the other. Each underestimates the willingness of the other, to accommodate differing views. The non-vegan thinks they’re protected from being condemned, because almost everyone else does ‘it’, and questioning such a vast majority is not considered very sensible. So, mostly they haven’t thought about these issues, purposely. Like squeamish people avoiding information about people’s surgical interventions, so most meat eaters avoid self-disapproval areas, especially concerning the need to become vegetarian.
When vegans are around there’s a whiff of impending collision … with one. So if vegans are aware of this, they’ll know what to do. I suggest number 1: that it’s not useful for vegans to express in any way disapproval - one look, one tone of voice, is all it takes. In this ‘secret’ world we’re all joined up in, if there’s even one hint of “evangelist”, the game is up. Vegans, from then on, will be purposely (and justifiably) avoided, because of the fear that VEGANS are not dispassionate, and especially that we’re not going to be dispassionate about their reply. It reminds people of walking into a no-win situation. And that is unnerving!
Innocent vegans often have no idea how badly they are thought of. But that’s also exactly the same as the innocence of the meat eater, who also has no idea how they are thought of, by ‘green’ people, specifically for lacking enough moral fibre to make a stand about something that’s important to them.
Perception of each side is so totally, foundationally, on opposite banks of the river that one mirrors the other - in the meathead’s view the vegan is to blame, because Mr and Ms Righteous Vegan have no idea how pushy they seem and how that approach offends. The problem here is that:
Vegans think hard about something that matters to them whilst,
Non-vegans think almost nothing at all about the very same matters.
Obviously this world is very wicked.
So many issues are crowding out our conscience.
We have to ask which issues are more important than others?
Which are the major decisions we should be making, to rescue any of the terrible situations facing humanity and the planet?
Which decisions should we be making, when we behave in ‘questionable ways’?For example: if we travel by air it’s our carbon footprint; if we ignore the plight of suffering people it’s our selfishness. We are faced with our own behaviour all the time, and, at the first whiff of criticism, it’s likely we resent it, and dig our heels in, and refuse to change - we’ll simply try to avoid the critic. And when someone is avoiding a vegan for fear of inevitable confrontation then it’s obvious. From a vegan’s point of view, when they are avoided, they want to hit back, by attacking the “meatheads”.