I don’t know what omnivores have in their bag of theories. I’m sure they must have arguments. I know we have theories which argue for something opposite to the way most people live. Vegans have theories. I’ll start with this one.
It runs along these lines:
After about 1945 (a lifetime away, almost) we came to know about the diabolical cruelty down on the farm. At that time we also came to know that human life was sustainable on a plant-based diet - we no longer had to make war on animals to survive healthily. The ‘vegan’ diet was born.
At about the same time came the birth of the battery cage, a violation of Nature matched by the violence of the recent war - some started to experiment, breaking with convention, to prove a non-violent world was possible.
That could have been the start of a very nice friendship. It could have started the discussion between vegans and omnivores and by now we could have made very real progress but another factor emerged. Will. Ego.
Now today, in the Information Age, everyone is educated because all information is available ... if only! It could be so but some information has been actively pushed away: it seemed humans wanted to be educated, informed and free to speak their minds but not comprehensively - certain matters were to be off-limits. Certain things had to be concealed and not discussed because it could be too disruptive.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The magic carpet
Maybe the special sort of magic vegans are most familiar with is the magic that lifts us up and puts us down in another world - another perspective: same things but seen differently.
Magic transforms the uncomfortable into comfortable. With foods we love: the magic of a plant-only regimen is at the positive end of a negative perception. It’s at a level of acceptance with which we didn’t know we could be happy. With a new take on foods we can re-examine other things at the same time. Our old Monday attitude switches across to a new Tuesday attitude. By making one decision, we switch everything across, the reasoning, the excitement of change, the first effects of that change … and from all this comes transformation - a feeling of being able to get things moving along, from eating omnivorously to eating herbivorously. When we find out that it’s satisfying we also discover that the feeling’s not so very unfamiliar. Everything is much the same, the only big difference is that we’re no longer members of The Club, no longer killing, hurting or making others feel bad (‘others’ being the animals). With that change of circumstance the magic shows up; the small child with innocent eyebrows raised, glad we’ve at last realised there’s no need to keep bashing animals.
Looking back at Monday’s attitude we can see how it held a whole pattern of behaviour in place. Now, if we can be released from its hold, we can travel far away, comfortably, swiftly, by carpet; travelling by magic.
Magic transforms the uncomfortable into comfortable. With foods we love: the magic of a plant-only regimen is at the positive end of a negative perception. It’s at a level of acceptance with which we didn’t know we could be happy. With a new take on foods we can re-examine other things at the same time. Our old Monday attitude switches across to a new Tuesday attitude. By making one decision, we switch everything across, the reasoning, the excitement of change, the first effects of that change … and from all this comes transformation - a feeling of being able to get things moving along, from eating omnivorously to eating herbivorously. When we find out that it’s satisfying we also discover that the feeling’s not so very unfamiliar. Everything is much the same, the only big difference is that we’re no longer members of The Club, no longer killing, hurting or making others feel bad (‘others’ being the animals). With that change of circumstance the magic shows up; the small child with innocent eyebrows raised, glad we’ve at last realised there’s no need to keep bashing animals.
Looking back at Monday’s attitude we can see how it held a whole pattern of behaviour in place. Now, if we can be released from its hold, we can travel far away, comfortably, swiftly, by carpet; travelling by magic.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Magic
I like to think we can all drum up a bit of magic when we need to, something that transforms a mundane situation into something special. But if we don’t ‘do’ this magic with enough aplomb, then it’s as if we’re messing about with something we’re really rather afraid of. A half hearted approach to magic, as when we’re trying to change our eating habits, is like climbing a mountain with one hand tied behind our back. There’s no balance and too much danger and punishment. If we fear change is it because we deny the wonderful things that can come to us by way of magic?
It’s the philosophy behind veganism that’s adds the magic, the perspective, the oomph of protecting the unprotectable. It changes the unchangeable.
Take anything big in life, big decisions we make, like having our own kids or buying our own car or learning a whole new skill - it transforms our life. Humans are forever transforming. It’s what we do best. Let’s not call it “magic”, but it doesn’t really matter what it’s called, it helps us adapt to the new and lets new things impact on us. Magic carries us into a whole new world of possibilities.
Humans are creative right down to our toes. We are inventors, ever adapting old attitudes to fit new ideas … and of course, unfortunately the brainy ones take things too far and become exploiters. They use magic to enrich themselves.
What veganism stresses is that we stop being exploitative and start being inventive - we adapt to new ways of seeing things - we see animals as sacred beings rather than slaves.
All that’s needed here is a mere change of one tiny habit. Actually, to be truthful, it’s not tiny at all, especially not when in its preconceived form anyway. It’s BIG. I write it in capitals to show I’m being honest about it. ‘It’ being a regular, routine habit performed many times a day which, if changed, lets us transform our routines in a big way. Does this sort of change sound daunting? Maybe, but the magic of ‘it’ is in the challenge and in the magic comes the bravery we need to get stuck into that challenge.
It’s the philosophy behind veganism that’s adds the magic, the perspective, the oomph of protecting the unprotectable. It changes the unchangeable.
Take anything big in life, big decisions we make, like having our own kids or buying our own car or learning a whole new skill - it transforms our life. Humans are forever transforming. It’s what we do best. Let’s not call it “magic”, but it doesn’t really matter what it’s called, it helps us adapt to the new and lets new things impact on us. Magic carries us into a whole new world of possibilities.
Humans are creative right down to our toes. We are inventors, ever adapting old attitudes to fit new ideas … and of course, unfortunately the brainy ones take things too far and become exploiters. They use magic to enrich themselves.
What veganism stresses is that we stop being exploitative and start being inventive - we adapt to new ways of seeing things - we see animals as sacred beings rather than slaves.
All that’s needed here is a mere change of one tiny habit. Actually, to be truthful, it’s not tiny at all, especially not when in its preconceived form anyway. It’s BIG. I write it in capitals to show I’m being honest about it. ‘It’ being a regular, routine habit performed many times a day which, if changed, lets us transform our routines in a big way. Does this sort of change sound daunting? Maybe, but the magic of ‘it’ is in the challenge and in the magic comes the bravery we need to get stuck into that challenge.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Deadpan
Our thinking these days is rather deadpan, as if we have the ability to think but prefer not to, as if we want to be funny but haven’t got a sense of humour. If we’re timid thinkers we may have a reason not to think too hard. It might rock our image especially if it clashes with how we feel inside - we so badly want to be as others might see us.
If that sounds complicated, then perhaps it’s better to concentrate on what we say, concentrate on being creative, intelligent, funny, profound and non-judgemental in all our sentences. If we aren’t we may actually have nothing to say and might have to keep quiet. Maybe we should stay deadpan and unfathomable until we’re clearer who we are and what we want to say.
If that sounds complicated, then perhaps it’s better to concentrate on what we say, concentrate on being creative, intelligent, funny, profound and non-judgemental in all our sentences. If we aren’t we may actually have nothing to say and might have to keep quiet. Maybe we should stay deadpan and unfathomable until we’re clearer who we are and what we want to say.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Taking care or using force
Change, improvement, movement, everything that should have moved on long ago stays the same. For vegans, indeed for everyone, we are so used to making things happen by explosion that we can’t see any other way of bringing about movement. But we meet our match if we attempt to change human attitude by explosive means. Humans dig in their heels as soon as they get a whiff of being pushed around.
For us subtle minded vegans, we need to invent a whole new way of approaching people, whether they are hostile or just indifferent.
For us subtle minded vegans, we need to invent a whole new way of approaching people, whether they are hostile or just indifferent.
The gulf between vegan and omnivore
Saturday 25th September 2010
We live amongst them, we talk to them, we hope to win them over, but is there a big turn-around in vegan attitude needed, from confrontation to a true sympathy and compassion? That’s worth discussing. My view is that we all (vegans) have to get over being ‘insistent’. Even though it’s a significant issue for us (and also for the animals themselves) it seems that perception rules, especially mass perception. Human beliefs can be as change-proof as reality itself … things are as we believe them to be, so many would say, “life without hamburgers is no life”.
To carry someone across this wide gulf, between that last statement and where we say instead “hamburgers are poison and I wouldn’t touch one with a barge pole”, is a massive challenge. Their wanting their favourite foods clashes with a dissatisfaction with themselves on another level; the popular animal foods represent two distinct horrors, that of the poisoning effect on one’s health and the poisoning of conscience, over the animals who suffer because of our own wanting.
Intuitively vegans know reversing this in the omnivore is going to be difficult. Even if we can persuade them, we know they can’t stay vegan for long if they’re hankering for something that’s ‘off the list’. It’s the ‘list’ of things not being allowed which seems to represent the torture for omnivores. And yet they might suspect that it could be worth it, for it might be a light at the end of the tunnel.
We live amongst them, we talk to them, we hope to win them over, but is there a big turn-around in vegan attitude needed, from confrontation to a true sympathy and compassion? That’s worth discussing. My view is that we all (vegans) have to get over being ‘insistent’. Even though it’s a significant issue for us (and also for the animals themselves) it seems that perception rules, especially mass perception. Human beliefs can be as change-proof as reality itself … things are as we believe them to be, so many would say, “life without hamburgers is no life”.
To carry someone across this wide gulf, between that last statement and where we say instead “hamburgers are poison and I wouldn’t touch one with a barge pole”, is a massive challenge. Their wanting their favourite foods clashes with a dissatisfaction with themselves on another level; the popular animal foods represent two distinct horrors, that of the poisoning effect on one’s health and the poisoning of conscience, over the animals who suffer because of our own wanting.
Intuitively vegans know reversing this in the omnivore is going to be difficult. Even if we can persuade them, we know they can’t stay vegan for long if they’re hankering for something that’s ‘off the list’. It’s the ‘list’ of things not being allowed which seems to represent the torture for omnivores. And yet they might suspect that it could be worth it, for it might be a light at the end of the tunnel.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Theory number two
What keeps vegans and omnivores apart is that one side knows what the other doesn’t. To the omnivore, any information about food-animals and vegan diet is pushed away, not because anyone believes in cruelty to animals or indulging a death wish but because we don’t like bible-bashers. As free-willed adults, living in the Western world, we don’t like being told what to do, especially what to eat.
Vegans say. “You must hear about it, for your own safety”, and then omnivores question the grounds on which vegans dare to assume such authority. They would like to say to a steamy vegan, “No, I don’t want you to push that point across at me”, but vegans push it anyway. And it’s possible that, in over stepping this mark, between okay behaviour and rude behaviour, we’re perceived as hostile. But it doesn’t feel that way to us, that’s not the vegan’s perception; they think they can stay just inside of the mark and still do some good for the animals.
What a risk! To blow the chance of a sensible low key talk for the sake of scoring a point or making a ‘hit’. To the poor battered vegan so used to having their views put down or ignored, to be in a position where we can ‘push a point, for the animals, it’s tempting. It feels good to do that. It’s a dose of courage and another notch on our stick - to tell the insensitive omnivore what we think of (them) their arguments. We say we owe it to the animals to go in boots and all. As advocates we battle for them. We reckon anything vegan is like speaking ex-cathedra, and that justifies it. We can and should say what we like without being intimidated by the omnivore majority … but let’s get smart about this. We have enough problems communication-wise without adding problems. How we seem to be what we are saying mustn’t ever be frightening.
Vegans say. “You must hear about it, for your own safety”, and then omnivores question the grounds on which vegans dare to assume such authority. They would like to say to a steamy vegan, “No, I don’t want you to push that point across at me”, but vegans push it anyway. And it’s possible that, in over stepping this mark, between okay behaviour and rude behaviour, we’re perceived as hostile. But it doesn’t feel that way to us, that’s not the vegan’s perception; they think they can stay just inside of the mark and still do some good for the animals.
What a risk! To blow the chance of a sensible low key talk for the sake of scoring a point or making a ‘hit’. To the poor battered vegan so used to having their views put down or ignored, to be in a position where we can ‘push a point, for the animals, it’s tempting. It feels good to do that. It’s a dose of courage and another notch on our stick - to tell the insensitive omnivore what we think of (them) their arguments. We say we owe it to the animals to go in boots and all. As advocates we battle for them. We reckon anything vegan is like speaking ex-cathedra, and that justifies it. We can and should say what we like without being intimidated by the omnivore majority … but let’s get smart about this. We have enough problems communication-wise without adding problems. How we seem to be what we are saying mustn’t ever be frightening.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Theory number one
I don’t know what omnivores have in their bag of theories. I’m sure they must have arguments. I know we have theories which argue for something opposite to the way most people live. Vegans have theories. I’ll start with this one.
It runs along these lines:
After about 1945 (a lifetime away, almost) we came to know about the diabolical cruelty down on the farm. At that time we also came to know that human life was sustainable on a plant-based diet - we no longer had to make war on animals to survive healthily. The ‘vegan’ diet was born.
At about the same time came the birth of the battery cage, a violation of Nature matched by the violence of the recent war - some started to experiment, breaking with convention, to prove a non-violent world was possible.
That could have been the start of a very nice friendship. It could have started the discussion between vegans and omnivores and by now we could have made very real progress but another factor emerged. Will. Ego.
Now today, in the Information Age, everyone is educated because all information is available ... if only! It could be so but some information has been actively pushed away: it seemed humans wanted to be educated, informed and free to speak their minds but not comprehensively - certain matters were to be off-limits. Certain things had to be concealed and not discussed because it could be too disruptive.
It runs along these lines:
After about 1945 (a lifetime away, almost) we came to know about the diabolical cruelty down on the farm. At that time we also came to know that human life was sustainable on a plant-based diet - we no longer had to make war on animals to survive healthily. The ‘vegan’ diet was born.
At about the same time came the birth of the battery cage, a violation of Nature matched by the violence of the recent war - some started to experiment, breaking with convention, to prove a non-violent world was possible.
That could have been the start of a very nice friendship. It could have started the discussion between vegans and omnivores and by now we could have made very real progress but another factor emerged. Will. Ego.
Now today, in the Information Age, everyone is educated because all information is available ... if only! It could be so but some information has been actively pushed away: it seemed humans wanted to be educated, informed and free to speak their minds but not comprehensively - certain matters were to be off-limits. Certain things had to be concealed and not discussed because it could be too disruptive.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Vee-Ghn
What vegans are talking about is as powerful as it comes; logic, spirit and body applaud vegan-living because it has peaceful intention. But people are put off by the association of this idea with a certain type of person. Our holier-than-though look doesn’t help us, nor does the name we use to describe ourselves. The word we use, “vegan”, isn’t particularly nice-sounding but it was the most logical contraction of ‘vegetarian’ to represent a vegetarian who takes no advantage of animals. “Vee-Ghn” sounds almost ugly - those letters put together (easy to mispronounce) doesn’t sound attractive ... but does it matter? It’s here to stay until the root cause for it’s being is removed. At the moment it stands like a brick wall between the intelligent people on one side and other intelligent people on the other.
The perception of veganism to an omnivore is very different to the life saver it has become to vegans. For them it means a living death, an ideal taken too far, a life-spoiler. On first hearing about it, it doesn’t sound credible - it sound like a threat to safety and happiness. Omnivores often feel hostile towards us for promoting it.
Vegans get used to that, and it only serves to increases our resolve to press the point, but here’s the sticking point. When we push we are perceived as confrontational - it’s almost as if each opposite view is intent on opposing for its own sake: they’d like to make hypocrites of us peace-lovers for forcing ‘peace’ on them, and we’d like to make fools of them for getting mixed up in such a crime without having to. They think we’re rebels, we think they’re suckers. And in that sort of atmosphere it doesn’t take long for a quarrel to start.
Our radical and idealistic attempt to convert omnivores (and it doesn’t happen the other way round, with them trying to convert us their way) may show we care for them more than they care for us, but the stumbling block is not about a lack of mutual care. What is between them and us must be identified by vegans since we are the initiators of this debate over animal use. We set the standards. We’re the ones speaking up.
Once the quarrelsome element is taken out of the picture then an adult discussion can take place. Then we can trade theories, and move towards some sort of consensus. Vegans need it all to be talked about, exposure, anything to give the issues the airing they deserve.
The perception of veganism to an omnivore is very different to the life saver it has become to vegans. For them it means a living death, an ideal taken too far, a life-spoiler. On first hearing about it, it doesn’t sound credible - it sound like a threat to safety and happiness. Omnivores often feel hostile towards us for promoting it.
Vegans get used to that, and it only serves to increases our resolve to press the point, but here’s the sticking point. When we push we are perceived as confrontational - it’s almost as if each opposite view is intent on opposing for its own sake: they’d like to make hypocrites of us peace-lovers for forcing ‘peace’ on them, and we’d like to make fools of them for getting mixed up in such a crime without having to. They think we’re rebels, we think they’re suckers. And in that sort of atmosphere it doesn’t take long for a quarrel to start.
Our radical and idealistic attempt to convert omnivores (and it doesn’t happen the other way round, with them trying to convert us their way) may show we care for them more than they care for us, but the stumbling block is not about a lack of mutual care. What is between them and us must be identified by vegans since we are the initiators of this debate over animal use. We set the standards. We’re the ones speaking up.
Once the quarrelsome element is taken out of the picture then an adult discussion can take place. Then we can trade theories, and move towards some sort of consensus. Vegans need it all to be talked about, exposure, anything to give the issues the airing they deserve.
The impact of what we say
Tuesday 21st September 2010
As animal advocates, our number one aim should be never to get nasty. Number two, never insistent. The seriousness of the (animal) issue isn’t necessarily shared by everyone, or even a single other person in any group we might be talking to. So the serious details we might want to impart - we keep them tucked up our sleeve, in reserve for when we can be sure we can use them effectively. Until we have their attention. If they show interest, that’s fine but if it’s not genuine interest we’re wasting our breath.
If we do get the chance to say something, what’s to mention? The less impact we make the less they notice but the more impact the greater the risk of shock and total rejection. It’s a toss-up.
Some fundamentals worth mentioning. (To give omnivores something to chew over when they’re on their own, concerning the treatment of food animals!)
• Sentience - there’s a similarity between humans and animals, in the way we each feel or suffer.
• Poison - there’s especially a long-term effect on health from ingesting animal products.
• Conscience - there’s shame in our being in conspiracy with the Animal Industries, against animals.
All this should be discussed, and when it has been, when first principles of Animal Rights are understood, then it might be appropriate to mention one or two statistics. As an example we can mention that 250 animals will die each year for each (Western) person; that many animals put to death for our own food, each year.
But even before we get to any crunch figures there’s another preliminary has to be settled. Before animal freedom comes our own freedom of speech - if we can’t agree about that, there’s no point talking.
How much right do we have, as humans, to speak freely to each other and how much permission do we need when we expect people to listen to us? No shoulds or oughts about it, if ‘no-listening’ is the way things are we need to accept it. We, as vegans, are still a long way from being able to ‘get down to it’ with omnivores. They need to be weened.
When vegans acknowledge the trickiness of their subject, especially when speaking to reluctant individuals, the ‘vessel’ will be filled according to its capacity. No spills, no diluting, no fighting. Ramming opinions down peoples’ throats is a no-win game: if they aren’t reluctant when we start, you can be sure they will be when we finish.
As animal advocates, our number one aim should be never to get nasty. Number two, never insistent. The seriousness of the (animal) issue isn’t necessarily shared by everyone, or even a single other person in any group we might be talking to. So the serious details we might want to impart - we keep them tucked up our sleeve, in reserve for when we can be sure we can use them effectively. Until we have their attention. If they show interest, that’s fine but if it’s not genuine interest we’re wasting our breath.
If we do get the chance to say something, what’s to mention? The less impact we make the less they notice but the more impact the greater the risk of shock and total rejection. It’s a toss-up.
Some fundamentals worth mentioning. (To give omnivores something to chew over when they’re on their own, concerning the treatment of food animals!)
• Sentience - there’s a similarity between humans and animals, in the way we each feel or suffer.
• Poison - there’s especially a long-term effect on health from ingesting animal products.
• Conscience - there’s shame in our being in conspiracy with the Animal Industries, against animals.
All this should be discussed, and when it has been, when first principles of Animal Rights are understood, then it might be appropriate to mention one or two statistics. As an example we can mention that 250 animals will die each year for each (Western) person; that many animals put to death for our own food, each year.
But even before we get to any crunch figures there’s another preliminary has to be settled. Before animal freedom comes our own freedom of speech - if we can’t agree about that, there’s no point talking.
How much right do we have, as humans, to speak freely to each other and how much permission do we need when we expect people to listen to us? No shoulds or oughts about it, if ‘no-listening’ is the way things are we need to accept it. We, as vegans, are still a long way from being able to ‘get down to it’ with omnivores. They need to be weened.
When vegans acknowledge the trickiness of their subject, especially when speaking to reluctant individuals, the ‘vessel’ will be filled according to its capacity. No spills, no diluting, no fighting. Ramming opinions down peoples’ throats is a no-win game: if they aren’t reluctant when we start, you can be sure they will be when we finish.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Out of interest, not aggro
Aggressive vegans do neither themselves nor the Animal Rights Movement any favours, by rubbing their opinion in people’s faces. It’s not necessary anyway. People know more than we think. They realise the compromises they make by eating the food they eat. Most get irritated by being lectured by people masquerading as authorities.
Vegans often adopt an authoritativeness in their voice to be more persuasive. It happens when arguments stop being logical and start getting emotional. For example, most unprepared arguments rely on slogans and are usually not original. They’re therefore predictable.
The more unpredictable we are, the better we come across. We should be half entertaining and half interesting to keep the listener on the edge of their seat, guessing at what’s coming next or where we’re coming from, until they let us have our say . Then they can assess what type of vegan we are.
Presentation counts for a lot - we need a calm exterior (a quietening-down quality) and a tone of voice that’s not shrill. Once an omnivore is no longer afraid of our potential violence towards them they’ll start to reveal themselves And then that puts us in the best position to assess them - discover what interests them.
If it were me listening to you, talking about animal rights, veganism, liberation, etc, I’d be waiting for the barb. But that aside, I also would be dreading an ego performance. I wouldn’t want you to be revealing all your feelings like laundry flapping in the wind. What you show could be true but these days it’s likely not to be, so meeting a paradigm of virtue. Instead of you telling me about virtuous diets and vituous conscience, I’d rather, first up, discover YOU. I’d be wanting to get to know if you’re a scheister or not, and if not then maybe I’ll listen to what you have to say, out of interest.
Vegans often adopt an authoritativeness in their voice to be more persuasive. It happens when arguments stop being logical and start getting emotional. For example, most unprepared arguments rely on slogans and are usually not original. They’re therefore predictable.
The more unpredictable we are, the better we come across. We should be half entertaining and half interesting to keep the listener on the edge of their seat, guessing at what’s coming next or where we’re coming from, until they let us have our say . Then they can assess what type of vegan we are.
Presentation counts for a lot - we need a calm exterior (a quietening-down quality) and a tone of voice that’s not shrill. Once an omnivore is no longer afraid of our potential violence towards them they’ll start to reveal themselves And then that puts us in the best position to assess them - discover what interests them.
If it were me listening to you, talking about animal rights, veganism, liberation, etc, I’d be waiting for the barb. But that aside, I also would be dreading an ego performance. I wouldn’t want you to be revealing all your feelings like laundry flapping in the wind. What you show could be true but these days it’s likely not to be, so meeting a paradigm of virtue. Instead of you telling me about virtuous diets and vituous conscience, I’d rather, first up, discover YOU. I’d be wanting to get to know if you’re a scheister or not, and if not then maybe I’ll listen to what you have to say, out of interest.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The vegan facilitator
How we are seen by others, and the way others are seen by us. If we are role models (because we’re the ones who are wanting to initiate debate and change) it’s entirely down to us to take the initiative. First we shouldn’t consider ourselves better. We’re vegan, that’s all. In many ways each of us has our own embarrassing faults, enough to match anyone else’s. When all’s said and done, all honestly added up, none of us can afford to feel ‘above’ anyone else. Even with the best arguments in the world (and of course we do have the best!) we shouldn’t flaunt that advantage, and anyway, it’s not a competition about me being better than you; it’s not about ‘me’ anyway, and we aren’t trying to win any arguments, necessarily. This is not the persuasion game nor an excuse for a fight. We’re surely trying to encourage people to crank up their brain cells, touch their hearts and get them to take this subject seriously. We have to be seen by others simply as facilitators of discussion.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
You do it so I do it
In the face of greatly differing views, we each seem implacable, vegans judging the weak ethics of non-vegans, and they judging us for our wackiness. Today perception rules … “okay!”
In all matters of food, omnivores support the status quo, and they have to. They don’t want to go down the path of boycotting things. That leads to a huge inconvenience - being consistent about what to be boycotted, with all the self discipline that implies, is difficult to contemplate.
Life’s a matter of fitting-in; if we don’t do things the way others do we look like weirdos. We’re outcast for it. Vegans want to alter things in a quite incredible way, so we’re seen to be people who want to deny others the simple pleasures of life; we’re seen to be persons obstinate to common sense (what’s so very wrong about a cheese pizza or a quiche?) That’s the accepted line. That’s the perception!
So, for starters, vegans need to point out, if we ever get the chance, that there’s such a thing as an imposed collective consciousness, based on an ill-informed or even pernicious idea of herbivorous living. It’s down to us, as vegans, to better inform people.
Vegans take an important initiative here. We’re pioneering a certain type of change, the sort of change that heads straight into the very core of perception: how we perceive things that are hardly ever thought about by the majority of people, who comply with fashion - you do it so I do it.
In all matters of food, omnivores support the status quo, and they have to. They don’t want to go down the path of boycotting things. That leads to a huge inconvenience - being consistent about what to be boycotted, with all the self discipline that implies, is difficult to contemplate.
Life’s a matter of fitting-in; if we don’t do things the way others do we look like weirdos. We’re outcast for it. Vegans want to alter things in a quite incredible way, so we’re seen to be people who want to deny others the simple pleasures of life; we’re seen to be persons obstinate to common sense (what’s so very wrong about a cheese pizza or a quiche?) That’s the accepted line. That’s the perception!
So, for starters, vegans need to point out, if we ever get the chance, that there’s such a thing as an imposed collective consciousness, based on an ill-informed or even pernicious idea of herbivorous living. It’s down to us, as vegans, to better inform people.
Vegans take an important initiative here. We’re pioneering a certain type of change, the sort of change that heads straight into the very core of perception: how we perceive things that are hardly ever thought about by the majority of people, who comply with fashion - you do it so I do it.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Shocking facts part three
Because animal exploitation concerns us so deeply, vegans will talk to anyone about this subject; it’s we who usually get conversations going, not the omnivore. So, if we up the ante, we must take responsibility for what happens. Our passion can easily look like bragging and what we say can seem deliberately confronting. Being with a vegan, under any circumstances, should be a happy experience, not something to dread.
Being confronted by a zealot, who only wants to tell people what they may or may not eat, is a disturbing experience. But there are practical reasons too why we shouldn’t confront omnivores - it may take time for them to realise what we’re suggesting, to get over ingrained, resistant attitudes and to compute how ‘going vegan’ would impact on one’s social life.
Communicating any subject has to start somewhere. We meet. We kid around, maybe a little intimacy just to confirm we’re still friends. Then if it feels safe we slide into more ‘serious talk’. Hopefully we each try to keep it ‘together’ for the benefit of our mutual enjoyment and mutual learning.
Isn’t that how things should be? And isn’t that surely why different humans, from different cultures, have (largely) stopped trying to tear each other’s throats out. And instead converse, to get things moving along. They workshop issues. Anyone, even the most ardent carnivore, is speakable-with. No one has to be ‘impossible’ to talk to.
Being confronted by a zealot, who only wants to tell people what they may or may not eat, is a disturbing experience. But there are practical reasons too why we shouldn’t confront omnivores - it may take time for them to realise what we’re suggesting, to get over ingrained, resistant attitudes and to compute how ‘going vegan’ would impact on one’s social life.
Communicating any subject has to start somewhere. We meet. We kid around, maybe a little intimacy just to confirm we’re still friends. Then if it feels safe we slide into more ‘serious talk’. Hopefully we each try to keep it ‘together’ for the benefit of our mutual enjoyment and mutual learning.
Isn’t that how things should be? And isn’t that surely why different humans, from different cultures, have (largely) stopped trying to tear each other’s throats out. And instead converse, to get things moving along. They workshop issues. Anyone, even the most ardent carnivore, is speakable-with. No one has to be ‘impossible’ to talk to.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Shocking facts part two
If Animal Rights hasn’t reached many people yet then perhaps it’s time to re-consider our approach, and that might start by becoming less reliant on ‘shocking-facts’.
Back in the 1980’s when the horrors of modern animal farming first came to light everyone was shocked, but soon enough it was ‘business as usual’. Things down on the farm are worse today, but essentially not that much worse in terms of mindless cruelty and indifference. The phrase “hens in cages” is understood to represent how cruel humans have become, but that hasn’t meant people think about it. Yes, we are shocked, yes, we shake our heads in disbelief but we’re not willing to change the habits of a lifetime. We say ‘Be kinder to animals’ but that’s where it stops. That’s why vegans, knowing humans have ‘form’, say “Don’t trust humans around animals. They have a history of abuse”.
As activists we have to start from a ‘rights’ point of view (not welfare) and promote a no-use-animal policy. That’s a long way from the norm and a long way from those who say “But I do eat free range”. Some day every omnivore will have to come to terms with what we know today as ‘vegan principle’ and, in all fairness, they may find it interesting enough … first time round. But they’ll probably want to cross the street, next time they see us, to avoid a repeat session with us, on our pet subject. We all dislike the discomfort of being evangelised by someone who is passionate and righteous with it. That’s surely why Animal Rights should never seem like a church and why vegans shouldn’t preach.
So, if omnivores accuse us of anything let it be for igniting dangerous discussion. We need to be seen as open people, valued for who we are rather than as purveyors of shocking-facts; if we can become a conduit for ideas and information that would be great. That’s all we can expect in these very early days of animal rights consciousness.
Those of us who advocate animal liberation are never short of something to say, but in the beginning we have to be cautious. This is one ticklish subject. We might expect people to be open with us but not if we drop bombs on them. As soon as we get personal, over ‘differences of opinion’, then dialogue ends and fights begin, whereas if we can have a non-judgemental exchange, we can’t go wrong. Somehow, god-knows-how, we need to establish mutual respect, and keep it coming … certainly before we lunge at them with the spear of truth. Whew!
We can say whatever we like … unless we’re uncertain about our own tendency to ‘turn nasty under provocation’. If we feel a ‘violence’ coming on it’s time to leave or change the subject.
Back in the 1980’s when the horrors of modern animal farming first came to light everyone was shocked, but soon enough it was ‘business as usual’. Things down on the farm are worse today, but essentially not that much worse in terms of mindless cruelty and indifference. The phrase “hens in cages” is understood to represent how cruel humans have become, but that hasn’t meant people think about it. Yes, we are shocked, yes, we shake our heads in disbelief but we’re not willing to change the habits of a lifetime. We say ‘Be kinder to animals’ but that’s where it stops. That’s why vegans, knowing humans have ‘form’, say “Don’t trust humans around animals. They have a history of abuse”.
As activists we have to start from a ‘rights’ point of view (not welfare) and promote a no-use-animal policy. That’s a long way from the norm and a long way from those who say “But I do eat free range”. Some day every omnivore will have to come to terms with what we know today as ‘vegan principle’ and, in all fairness, they may find it interesting enough … first time round. But they’ll probably want to cross the street, next time they see us, to avoid a repeat session with us, on our pet subject. We all dislike the discomfort of being evangelised by someone who is passionate and righteous with it. That’s surely why Animal Rights should never seem like a church and why vegans shouldn’t preach.
So, if omnivores accuse us of anything let it be for igniting dangerous discussion. We need to be seen as open people, valued for who we are rather than as purveyors of shocking-facts; if we can become a conduit for ideas and information that would be great. That’s all we can expect in these very early days of animal rights consciousness.
Those of us who advocate animal liberation are never short of something to say, but in the beginning we have to be cautious. This is one ticklish subject. We might expect people to be open with us but not if we drop bombs on them. As soon as we get personal, over ‘differences of opinion’, then dialogue ends and fights begin, whereas if we can have a non-judgemental exchange, we can’t go wrong. Somehow, god-knows-how, we need to establish mutual respect, and keep it coming … certainly before we lunge at them with the spear of truth. Whew!
We can say whatever we like … unless we’re uncertain about our own tendency to ‘turn nasty under provocation’. If we feel a ‘violence’ coming on it’s time to leave or change the subject.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Shocking facts
How do animal activists come across? We meet a mate in the street, it’s nice to see them, but how do we seem to them? Maybe we smile, hug, ask how we are and everything is signalled. We do it without thinking. I’m calm, they’re calm, feelings are mutual, and that’s how it starts out. But sometimes we move into dangerous territory, when the subject of animal rights comes up. We might have a lot to say on the subject. It can be said calmly, approachably and strongly, but not so strongly that they want to change the subject.
No sermons, no attacking, no sloganeering, just calm talk - more can be said by understate than by diatribe, and those ‘Animal Rights Shock-Facts’ can sound stale if they’ve been heard before, or similar. If we try to persuade people it won’t necessarily be taken as a friendly gesture, more like attempted conversion. And anyway, it doesn’t usually get people thinking outside the square … or thinking about what they don’t want to think about.
Conscience doesn’t seem to call the shots any more, especially when it interferes with our ‘little comforts’ (like animal food and clothing). We’ve all known about ‘Hens in Cages’ for a long time, it’s a familiar horror story even amongst kids - but it isn’t ‘thought about’ … so it’s not acted upon. Most people are nowhere near boycotting animal products. They buy things they can’t possibly approve of. But if that’s so it isn’t necessarily our job to exploit their guilt to convert them. We might win them by getting them thinking but we achieve nothing by embarrassing them.
No sermons, no attacking, no sloganeering, just calm talk - more can be said by understate than by diatribe, and those ‘Animal Rights Shock-Facts’ can sound stale if they’ve been heard before, or similar. If we try to persuade people it won’t necessarily be taken as a friendly gesture, more like attempted conversion. And anyway, it doesn’t usually get people thinking outside the square … or thinking about what they don’t want to think about.
Conscience doesn’t seem to call the shots any more, especially when it interferes with our ‘little comforts’ (like animal food and clothing). We’ve all known about ‘Hens in Cages’ for a long time, it’s a familiar horror story even amongst kids - but it isn’t ‘thought about’ … so it’s not acted upon. Most people are nowhere near boycotting animal products. They buy things they can’t possibly approve of. But if that’s so it isn’t necessarily our job to exploit their guilt to convert them. We might win them by getting them thinking but we achieve nothing by embarrassing them.
Growing up in the shadow of an abattoir
Tuesday 14th September 2010
The omnivore is still blasé, passing the abattoir down the road and remaining un-shocked. Why? Perhaps because, in the weed patch of violence we all live in, it’s difficult to separate problem weed from harmless weed; ‘holocausting’ animals isn’t yet a sin.
With all the violence going on about us, why don’t we see this particular violence? Well firstly, unlike the barrage of ads on TV for meat, it isn’t exactly in our face. And when it is, it’s thrust at us too confrontingly. And when the animal rights message gets through it’s associated with types of people we can’t relate to or identify with.
The general public’s sensitivities are blunted by their addiction to yummy animal stuff but also by the fact that the animals’ ‘last home’, the abattoir, is never likely to be ‘just down the road’ or even near by. Both it and the animal farm are out of town and behind closed doors. The ‘dark side’ is hidden while the bright side is flashed in our faces every day on TV. We’re shown lovely-looking people selling lovely-looking products. The omnivore buys, feels normal, safe and satisfied. The products even seems efficacious. Do omnivores watch too many ads? Are they too easily swayed by what others do? Are omnivores hard hearted? Maybe, but normality is powerful enough to smother individual thought; thinking is not allowed; we are kept in the juvenile state by vested interests. We do as others do –no thinking is necessary and there’s no need to grow up.
The omnivore is still blasé, passing the abattoir down the road and remaining un-shocked. Why? Perhaps because, in the weed patch of violence we all live in, it’s difficult to separate problem weed from harmless weed; ‘holocausting’ animals isn’t yet a sin.
With all the violence going on about us, why don’t we see this particular violence? Well firstly, unlike the barrage of ads on TV for meat, it isn’t exactly in our face. And when it is, it’s thrust at us too confrontingly. And when the animal rights message gets through it’s associated with types of people we can’t relate to or identify with.
The general public’s sensitivities are blunted by their addiction to yummy animal stuff but also by the fact that the animals’ ‘last home’, the abattoir, is never likely to be ‘just down the road’ or even near by. Both it and the animal farm are out of town and behind closed doors. The ‘dark side’ is hidden while the bright side is flashed in our faces every day on TV. We’re shown lovely-looking people selling lovely-looking products. The omnivore buys, feels normal, safe and satisfied. The products even seems efficacious. Do omnivores watch too many ads? Are they too easily swayed by what others do? Are omnivores hard hearted? Maybe, but normality is powerful enough to smother individual thought; thinking is not allowed; we are kept in the juvenile state by vested interests. We do as others do –no thinking is necessary and there’s no need to grow up.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Growing up as an indifferent omnivore
We’ve all grown up omnivore, used to indifference about animals, the type you eat anyway. Shifting to herbivore is quite a big step.
Once vegan then we have problems, not in diet or conscience but in finding hands to hold. Scary out there alone in a non-vegan world. So we try to get others to join us.
That’s the problem. People push us away even faster if we try to convert them. And this brings us to the whole matter of our anger about their frustration, the slowness of the vegan revolution. Persuading others to shift is difficult since the art of persuasion and selling is so sophisticated these days, but anyway the whole thing of persuasion is very much on the nose these days.
The standard animal-demonstration approach is fundamentally flawed. Sincere, yes. Urgent, yes. Outrage - that’s good. But a demo, protest or diatribe is often an excuse to hit out. For all the good it does! Omnivorousness is like a flow of water, the more you stand in its way the more it flows around you. Our information might be arresting enough but our way of presenting it is problematic.
This subject exploded into peoples’ consciousness some forty years ago, when Animal Liberation was first published and The Animals Film came out. Our shock was fresh. But now everyone knows the essential details, so the shock-approach seems stale. Even back then the ‘latest information’ didn’t inspire people to veganism and, without that nothing can change, without our help no one’s going to be inspired. It needs a little magic to break the indifference bug.
Once vegan then we have problems, not in diet or conscience but in finding hands to hold. Scary out there alone in a non-vegan world. So we try to get others to join us.
That’s the problem. People push us away even faster if we try to convert them. And this brings us to the whole matter of our anger about their frustration, the slowness of the vegan revolution. Persuading others to shift is difficult since the art of persuasion and selling is so sophisticated these days, but anyway the whole thing of persuasion is very much on the nose these days.
The standard animal-demonstration approach is fundamentally flawed. Sincere, yes. Urgent, yes. Outrage - that’s good. But a demo, protest or diatribe is often an excuse to hit out. For all the good it does! Omnivorousness is like a flow of water, the more you stand in its way the more it flows around you. Our information might be arresting enough but our way of presenting it is problematic.
This subject exploded into peoples’ consciousness some forty years ago, when Animal Liberation was first published and The Animals Film came out. Our shock was fresh. But now everyone knows the essential details, so the shock-approach seems stale. Even back then the ‘latest information’ didn’t inspire people to veganism and, without that nothing can change, without our help no one’s going to be inspired. It needs a little magic to break the indifference bug.
Picking-up on vegan
Sunday 12th September 2010
I’m suggesting, especially for long term activists, that the good old standby, ‘shock-horror’ approach, needs a tweak. It’s been a lot of fun, out on protests, with mates in a group, screaming about the horrors of animal abuse. But it’s cost us a lot too, since we trashed our credibility to some extent.
It felt good to protest this way, it felt ‘right’. Justified. But the after the seventies a more sophisticated communication came along and showed us ‘cooler’ ways to talk to each other.
If there’s a germ of dislike or disapproval in our speech, whatever we say will smell ‘off’. To the omnivore that is made even easier if there’s a whiff of hypocrisy too, when they can show we’re wrong about something … and therefore likely to be wrong about everything.
That’s the reason surely why poorly-informed vegans get so uptight when their information is challenged. That may be down to the fact that we haven’t necessarily checked out what we are saying. But once our cover is blown, that we aren’t entirely ‘cool’, that we can be upset … then our ‘uptight’ could be anger, could be quarrelsome or could even be violent, each a step towards the other. The reason our information doesn’t impress people is more to do with our antics when under fire.
I’m suggesting, especially for long term activists, that the good old standby, ‘shock-horror’ approach, needs a tweak. It’s been a lot of fun, out on protests, with mates in a group, screaming about the horrors of animal abuse. But it’s cost us a lot too, since we trashed our credibility to some extent.
It felt good to protest this way, it felt ‘right’. Justified. But the after the seventies a more sophisticated communication came along and showed us ‘cooler’ ways to talk to each other.
If there’s a germ of dislike or disapproval in our speech, whatever we say will smell ‘off’. To the omnivore that is made even easier if there’s a whiff of hypocrisy too, when they can show we’re wrong about something … and therefore likely to be wrong about everything.
That’s the reason surely why poorly-informed vegans get so uptight when their information is challenged. That may be down to the fact that we haven’t necessarily checked out what we are saying. But once our cover is blown, that we aren’t entirely ‘cool’, that we can be upset … then our ‘uptight’ could be anger, could be quarrelsome or could even be violent, each a step towards the other. The reason our information doesn’t impress people is more to do with our antics when under fire.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
In a flash
We need seconds to get everything we have to say across. It's encoded in the calmness of our voice. If we're speaking for the voiceless - we should speak as they might, calmly and never forcefully. Look at it this way: Why are there so many animals here in the first place? Are they missionaries? Are they here to teach humans how to be more like themselves. It’s a big job. Perhaps there are so many because their magic has to be slow and subtle and extra powerful, to bring humans around ... because we are so obstinate. We won’t see what we don’t want to see. Even when the beauty and calmness of an animal is staring us in the face we still think we have the right to exploit them. Paedophiles operate in exactly the same way, they know it’s wrong yet they do it all the same. The human condition, the misery and suffering we put each other through, is probably a tit for tat lesson we have to learn; until we treat the animals in a civilised way we will never know how to treat each other properly.
We, as vegans, are both human beings and advocates. We’re talking with the Voice itself, the collective consciousness. Are vegans hoping to influence this vast violence? Do we think we can touch it?
I suspect we can reach other humans with words, as long as we stick to the rule regarding permission to speak.
To get that, we may have to fill in a few forms and submit them in triplicate - such is the amount of permission we need. It's the omnivore’s greatest generosity towards us: allowing us in, giving us their permission to speak to them.
If we have the go-ahead to speak then, in a flash, we can pick ‘it’ up and run with it, keeping one eye on any signs of withdrawal on their part. If permission is not there, we'd best go home and have a nice cup of tea. It’s either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, and if it’s ‘no’ then either we haven’t approached the matter with enough subtlety or magic or the person we're talking to is really a no-hoper.
We, as vegans, are both human beings and advocates. We’re talking with the Voice itself, the collective consciousness. Are vegans hoping to influence this vast violence? Do we think we can touch it?
I suspect we can reach other humans with words, as long as we stick to the rule regarding permission to speak.
To get that, we may have to fill in a few forms and submit them in triplicate - such is the amount of permission we need. It's the omnivore’s greatest generosity towards us: allowing us in, giving us their permission to speak to them.
If we have the go-ahead to speak then, in a flash, we can pick ‘it’ up and run with it, keeping one eye on any signs of withdrawal on their part. If permission is not there, we'd best go home and have a nice cup of tea. It’s either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, and if it’s ‘no’ then either we haven’t approached the matter with enough subtlety or magic or the person we're talking to is really a no-hoper.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Please, no dry philosophy
I was told years ago that in Australia one never mentions the “ph” word. It puts people off. But damn it, philosophy it what it is, take it or leave it. ‘Vegan principle’ is a philosophy for life. It can be summed up in the simple soundbite “no-using-animals”, and from there it’s an endless voyage of discovery. It’s both calming and electrifying, it’s daunting yet full of promise for a better life - that’s what we’re promoting, as a philosophy. And we can lull people towards its acceptance. One taste of what’s on offer and we’ll get them driving over to our place. Our café is always open.
The more omnivores think things through, in their own good time, the more convinced they’ll be at their own conclusions – as they ‘think’, so their thinking machine starts to function better, it improves with use until the rickety process is in good enough shape to take a longer journey.
The journey towards becoming vegan is something to look forward to. In this case it’s a matter of opening up to new ideas: thinking as we might have thought when much younger, adventurously.
What vegans and animal advocates are explaining to people, logically, rationally and calmly, is what omnivores may secretly be wanting to know anyway. It’s like kids doing what’s suggested, taking it in constructively (instruction, advice, suggestion) - wanting form and structure rather than chaos. There’s surely nothing more destructive and chaotic than eating the secretions or body parts of executed animals. The purpose of philosophy is to bring order to chaos.
As vegans we need to explain our message, but we also need to create magic – make myths disappear and new ideas become tantalizing.
Once we’ve performed we can go home, the seed having been sown. Hopefully we’ve left them with something they can ccontemplate later.
No one is ever dragged to see a conjurer. We go voluntarily. Omnivores will come across when they’re ready. Sure, we can chivvy them up a bit from the sidelines, we can spruik a bit too, but then it’s up to them. We’ve handed out sample packs - if they want any more we can let them ask for it.
When we drive over to their place everything depends on whether or not their car space is available for us to park in. We have a long way to travel and they have a long way to go to listen. It all depends whether or not they can afford to take in what we have to say. Are they up to appreciating our magic show. Ideally, we have to be ready with some magic when they are ready to open to the subject.
The more omnivores think things through, in their own good time, the more convinced they’ll be at their own conclusions – as they ‘think’, so their thinking machine starts to function better, it improves with use until the rickety process is in good enough shape to take a longer journey.
The journey towards becoming vegan is something to look forward to. In this case it’s a matter of opening up to new ideas: thinking as we might have thought when much younger, adventurously.
What vegans and animal advocates are explaining to people, logically, rationally and calmly, is what omnivores may secretly be wanting to know anyway. It’s like kids doing what’s suggested, taking it in constructively (instruction, advice, suggestion) - wanting form and structure rather than chaos. There’s surely nothing more destructive and chaotic than eating the secretions or body parts of executed animals. The purpose of philosophy is to bring order to chaos.
As vegans we need to explain our message, but we also need to create magic – make myths disappear and new ideas become tantalizing.
Once we’ve performed we can go home, the seed having been sown. Hopefully we’ve left them with something they can ccontemplate later.
No one is ever dragged to see a conjurer. We go voluntarily. Omnivores will come across when they’re ready. Sure, we can chivvy them up a bit from the sidelines, we can spruik a bit too, but then it’s up to them. We’ve handed out sample packs - if they want any more we can let them ask for it.
When we drive over to their place everything depends on whether or not their car space is available for us to park in. We have a long way to travel and they have a long way to go to listen. It all depends whether or not they can afford to take in what we have to say. Are they up to appreciating our magic show. Ideally, we have to be ready with some magic when they are ready to open to the subject.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The café
The café is always open but it doesn’t sell cheap. We, at the café, are maybe not what we seem at first. Our windows are kept a little misty to keep them guessing what’s inside: we have some ambiguity about ourselves, some not-quite-obvious tone in our voice. We have a come-in-if-you-dare look about us.
We encourage people to enter our café but not like those striptease-joint spruikers or evangelists Bible-bashing. We’re more like the conjurer who has intriguing paraphernalia or indeed, a café that oozes delicious smells. It’s depth we sell. This is no junk café. We sell a for-life experience, a satisfying, full-feeling experience. It’s for young and old alike.
The best things in life are never obvious. It’s likely most people haven’t thought too much about veganism. I might be wrong about that and I hope I am, but I suspect people think only what they want to think, that vegans are simply diet freaks.
That it goes deeper than food, health and animal issues might not be obvious at first. But there are deeper issues we’re presenting to people. With depth we aim to attract.
Put it this way, if we reckon we’ve got something panacea-like going for us, why sell it cheap? “Come in. Take a sample from this café. If you’re interested, come back tomorrow for more; we sell more than food”. Our café is always open.
We encourage people to enter our café but not like those striptease-joint spruikers or evangelists Bible-bashing. We’re more like the conjurer who has intriguing paraphernalia or indeed, a café that oozes delicious smells. It’s depth we sell. This is no junk café. We sell a for-life experience, a satisfying, full-feeling experience. It’s for young and old alike.
The best things in life are never obvious. It’s likely most people haven’t thought too much about veganism. I might be wrong about that and I hope I am, but I suspect people think only what they want to think, that vegans are simply diet freaks.
That it goes deeper than food, health and animal issues might not be obvious at first. But there are deeper issues we’re presenting to people. With depth we aim to attract.
Put it this way, if we reckon we’ve got something panacea-like going for us, why sell it cheap? “Come in. Take a sample from this café. If you’re interested, come back tomorrow for more; we sell more than food”. Our café is always open.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Moving day
Free-willed humans guard their own space. No one gets in without permission. Vegans may want a chance to influence others’ thinking but is that going to happen? We, as advocates for the ‘forgotten ones’, want to get inside the omnivore’s head, rearrange a few parts, get them to see things another way … but we go nowhere without their permission. We may want to give our omnivore friends our best shot, but first we have to encourage them into thinking. Thinking big.
I‘m planning on driving over to your place, along rough roads … I’m at home, searching for my car keys, I find them, I turn on the ignition, the car actually works, the machine will get me there. In specific ways I know the roads better, my machine functions well on these roads, it lets me travel over towards you, so maybe I can meet you MORE than half way, your car’s not used to difficult surfaces and it’s a bit rickety anyway.
I’m on the move: I’m getting you thinking. Where we meet is irrelevant. As long as there’s movement. As long as I can hear the sound of turning wheels, I’ll be sure you’re making an effort.
I‘m planning on driving over to your place, along rough roads … I’m at home, searching for my car keys, I find them, I turn on the ignition, the car actually works, the machine will get me there. In specific ways I know the roads better, my machine functions well on these roads, it lets me travel over towards you, so maybe I can meet you MORE than half way, your car’s not used to difficult surfaces and it’s a bit rickety anyway.
I’m on the move: I’m getting you thinking. Where we meet is irrelevant. As long as there’s movement. As long as I can hear the sound of turning wheels, I’ll be sure you’re making an effort.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Finding a parking spot
When we get talking to someone about all this, at first we want them to make an effort, to think about the subject. So, perhaps instead of driving over to their place we need them to come half way, towards us. Maybe meeting near the middle, which is a point where we are at ease with each other. That means first and foremost establishing and maintaining a friendly atmosphere. We want their respect: they want our non-judgement of them.
Driving over to their place may be largely our idea. We set the ball rolling - getting them thinking. So our ‘no-use-animal’ idea, if it’s to impact on them, means they have to travel past their own resistance, past preconception and even a little bit further so they’re not put off by our boasting about our being “vegan”.
If we want parking rights over at their place we must make the best use of them. We may only have them for a limited time. (Back to picking up a date: they could be called ‘intimacy rights’). Talking vegan is heavy. Why would anyone want to be listening to me talk to them about this subject? Back to my car, and driving over, the question is – can we park in their spot? And if so for how long? How long will it be before their patience runs out, before they want us gone?
After we get permission to enter, it’s a question of striking a balance – and not overstay our welcome. We don’t want to get a parking ticket from our friends, or anyone else for that matter.
Driving over to their place may be largely our idea. We set the ball rolling - getting them thinking. So our ‘no-use-animal’ idea, if it’s to impact on them, means they have to travel past their own resistance, past preconception and even a little bit further so they’re not put off by our boasting about our being “vegan”.
If we want parking rights over at their place we must make the best use of them. We may only have them for a limited time. (Back to picking up a date: they could be called ‘intimacy rights’). Talking vegan is heavy. Why would anyone want to be listening to me talk to them about this subject? Back to my car, and driving over, the question is – can we park in their spot? And if so for how long? How long will it be before their patience runs out, before they want us gone?
After we get permission to enter, it’s a question of striking a balance – and not overstay our welcome. We don’t want to get a parking ticket from our friends, or anyone else for that matter.
First principles
Monday 6th September 2010
Why would you want to talk with me about Animal Rights? Perhaps because it’s interesting … but if you do decide to listen to me you’ll only do so as long as I’m not breaking the rules. When talking about this subject you want to know I’m not wanting to drown you, that I’ll be okay you just dipping your toes into the chilly waters.
Let me put it this way: if I want to drive my car over to your place, enter your home, enter your mind, I need a parking spot to drive in to. It’s got to be available. I need your ‘okay’, to penetrate your attitudes … and you may do just that, but I need to offer you something in return. (At first you expect the usual conversion pitch - ‘join the group’. At first you won’t be expecting benefits). So I come bearing gifts. What gifts? Gifts of advice all carefully and tastefully wrapped.
I’m driving over to your place: I’m hoping to change your mind about animals, to lead you from being omnivore to being herbivore. How do I do that without being accused of over-stepping the mark?
Perhaps there are some useful tricks of approach to be learnt, rather like going out at night to pick up a date, like the first tentative steps of intimacy. With this tricky subject, as with our first date, we don’t want to appear pushy. No lunge-threats. Talking with potentially hostile people and continuing the converstaion without losing them … it’s not immediately obvious how to do that. There’s such a huge resistance to vegan persuasion. We are even laughable. Vegans trotting out all the horror stories is as disappointing as premature ejaculation, people at first need smaller movements from us, like advice. No need to bring out all our trump cards too soon. First there’s thinking to be done - we’ve got to encourage them to be thinking about first principles. Animals are used by humans – should they be?
Why would you want to talk with me about Animal Rights? Perhaps because it’s interesting … but if you do decide to listen to me you’ll only do so as long as I’m not breaking the rules. When talking about this subject you want to know I’m not wanting to drown you, that I’ll be okay you just dipping your toes into the chilly waters.
Let me put it this way: if I want to drive my car over to your place, enter your home, enter your mind, I need a parking spot to drive in to. It’s got to be available. I need your ‘okay’, to penetrate your attitudes … and you may do just that, but I need to offer you something in return. (At first you expect the usual conversion pitch - ‘join the group’. At first you won’t be expecting benefits). So I come bearing gifts. What gifts? Gifts of advice all carefully and tastefully wrapped.
I’m driving over to your place: I’m hoping to change your mind about animals, to lead you from being omnivore to being herbivore. How do I do that without being accused of over-stepping the mark?
Perhaps there are some useful tricks of approach to be learnt, rather like going out at night to pick up a date, like the first tentative steps of intimacy. With this tricky subject, as with our first date, we don’t want to appear pushy. No lunge-threats. Talking with potentially hostile people and continuing the converstaion without losing them … it’s not immediately obvious how to do that. There’s such a huge resistance to vegan persuasion. We are even laughable. Vegans trotting out all the horror stories is as disappointing as premature ejaculation, people at first need smaller movements from us, like advice. No need to bring out all our trump cards too soon. First there’s thinking to be done - we’ve got to encourage them to be thinking about first principles. Animals are used by humans – should they be?
No-use-animal
Sunday 5th September 2010
If a vegan decides to talk to a non-vegan, about animal liberation, we should give them something to chew over when they get home (perhaps alongside that tasty vegan pie we’ve cooked for them). On this very serious subject we can leave them with the germ of an idea, without leaving too many bruises behind.
If we really want to communicate the essence of this subject with people we have to talk their language not our own, which may include lots of typical vegan-to-vegan detail. They need something they can understand. Plus they want to know what they can do about it, if they accept it.
But even before that we should get them to understand some of the fundamentals, about the gradual nature of change, about being gentle on ourselves and about NOT becoming overwhelmed by the idea of moving on attitudinously. The task ahead is, of course, ‘going vegan’ – accepting that animals shouldn’t be being used and, to prove the point, boycotting everything animals are used for. That change, the moving-towards-veganism, may be slow but it does need to be consistently on-the-move.
If the wrongness of ‘using animals’ isn’t talked about then all the chit chat over free-range farming and more humane killing is wasted talk. The point from which any useful discussion may start is at this first principle, the non-using in any circumstance.
If a vegan decides to talk to a non-vegan, about animal liberation, we should give them something to chew over when they get home (perhaps alongside that tasty vegan pie we’ve cooked for them). On this very serious subject we can leave them with the germ of an idea, without leaving too many bruises behind.
If we really want to communicate the essence of this subject with people we have to talk their language not our own, which may include lots of typical vegan-to-vegan detail. They need something they can understand. Plus they want to know what they can do about it, if they accept it.
But even before that we should get them to understand some of the fundamentals, about the gradual nature of change, about being gentle on ourselves and about NOT becoming overwhelmed by the idea of moving on attitudinously. The task ahead is, of course, ‘going vegan’ – accepting that animals shouldn’t be being used and, to prove the point, boycotting everything animals are used for. That change, the moving-towards-veganism, may be slow but it does need to be consistently on-the-move.
If the wrongness of ‘using animals’ isn’t talked about then all the chit chat over free-range farming and more humane killing is wasted talk. The point from which any useful discussion may start is at this first principle, the non-using in any circumstance.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Don’t carpet bomb the opposition
Keep driving, keep talking, tell it how it is, but maybe avoid driving on the highway, using conventional methods of hitting people with all the facts all at once. Drive on the low-road, don’t conform to the way it’s usually done (and screwed up).
If our ‘approach’ is to get people focusing on Animal Rights, we have to be sparing with our words - it needs only a moment. The smaller the seed of truth, the less confronting it feels to those who we want to consider it. We don’t need to raise their hackles. We surely want to help people who will eventually be wanting to find out the details of our information.
At first meeting with disapproval (being confronted by a ‘dangerous vegan’) a ‘fight or flight’ response is natural - everyone hates having their values judged. It’s our job to turn that around, when talking Animal Rights with omnivores.
If our ‘approach’ is to get people focusing on Animal Rights, we have to be sparing with our words - it needs only a moment. The smaller the seed of truth, the less confronting it feels to those who we want to consider it. We don’t need to raise their hackles. We surely want to help people who will eventually be wanting to find out the details of our information.
At first meeting with disapproval (being confronted by a ‘dangerous vegan’) a ‘fight or flight’ response is natural - everyone hates having their values judged. It’s our job to turn that around, when talking Animal Rights with omnivores.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Speaking about animal rights
It’s a great privilege to have something original and significant to say, that others mightn’t have heard before. It’s also our responsibility not to be censorious since everything we could is capable of shocking and frightening people off.
“What’s veganism about?” We need to weigh our words and not let them fall too heavily. It’s not necessary to speak in high, piercing tones or get hysterical about saying it as we feel it. Maybe under-stating our own feelings, being a little inscrutable, holding ourselves in the background as it were, makes it more difficult to be written off too soon. We need to keep them guessing, to keep them focused on what we’re saying. Getting ‘the message’ across successfully means downplaying our own emotional involvement in the subject.
Talking ‘vegan’ isn’t about converting omnivores, it’s surely about opening up discussion. It’s like a parent explaining the facts of life to a teenager; it’s a delicate matter, it’s potentially embarrassing … but the aim is surely to make matters easy to discuss. If Mum or Dad are easy to talk to then kids feel comfortable discussing details of actual interest. It’s the same with Animal Rights, once there’s ease-of-talking then details can be dealt with.
When someone allows us to speak, unafraid of being embarrassed, they’ll listen. And when we are given an opportunity to speak, we don’t have to say everything there and then, as if there’ll never be another chance; we don’t have to play all our best cards at once.
“What’s veganism about?” We need to weigh our words and not let them fall too heavily. It’s not necessary to speak in high, piercing tones or get hysterical about saying it as we feel it. Maybe under-stating our own feelings, being a little inscrutable, holding ourselves in the background as it were, makes it more difficult to be written off too soon. We need to keep them guessing, to keep them focused on what we’re saying. Getting ‘the message’ across successfully means downplaying our own emotional involvement in the subject.
Talking ‘vegan’ isn’t about converting omnivores, it’s surely about opening up discussion. It’s like a parent explaining the facts of life to a teenager; it’s a delicate matter, it’s potentially embarrassing … but the aim is surely to make matters easy to discuss. If Mum or Dad are easy to talk to then kids feel comfortable discussing details of actual interest. It’s the same with Animal Rights, once there’s ease-of-talking then details can be dealt with.
When someone allows us to speak, unafraid of being embarrassed, they’ll listen. And when we are given an opportunity to speak, we don’t have to say everything there and then, as if there’ll never be another chance; we don’t have to play all our best cards at once.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Information-day specials
Regarding the enslaved animals, those we eat and make use of, as long as people stick them in this ‘special category’ they maintain a cut-off point, regarding certain animals; they remain The Ultimate Frustration for vegans. Our information falls on deaf ears. We can’t get past it.
But getting angry about it is the LAST thing we need to do. Anger and shouting-at-people is no longer an effective protest tool, not with this issue anyway. The best thing we can do is dump the attitude. It’s not mandatory to show The Vegan Flag all the time, with everyone, and it’s not compulsory to show standard anger when stupid remarks are made.
But isn’t our anger a sign of feeling passionate about something? Isn’t that good? … to hold an opinion strongly enough, to get a bit out of control of ‘good behaviour’ model? That’s my anger and I’m proud to feel this way – that’s how I feel.
Both vegans and omnivores perceive their right-to-be-me similarly – “This is a free country, I can think and say what I like?”
Yep. True. But then again, isn’t our anger always on the very edge of getting personal and disapproving with others? Our favourite vehicle for getting what we want. Anger is real. Is anger not all bad? Yah! anger schmanger. In a much more interesting reality, surely, everything comes down to how the ‘mirror of being with others’ reflects us. It’s our presentation that counts … and maybe that shouldn’t include spewing our emotional guts on people.
The world of communication starts with a variety act, including performing a little, showing off a bit and being good to watch (or be with), etc. Who wants to spend ANY time with a sad-sack or an evangelist? Who wants bad company? People who make you depressed or quarrelsome? [or feel inferior]
In our presentation we can afford to be cuter. All five year olds understand this - being fun and interesting to be with is the name of the game. So … if we can make friends, do a little presenting here and there, try to smile as often as possible, then it’s magic! By hypnotising the ‘Opposition’ with affection (you know, the sort of thing usually reserved for pussy cats), we can ride the stormy seas of Animal Rights whilst building mutual affection.
Effective relationship-building must be done because of perception, namely the Omnivore perception of ‘vegans’ and what they are like. It may not be a perception of untrustworthiness but a ’you’re an idiot” … so we may have to work quite hard to fix that up. But no big deal because effective relationship-building can be done on the trot.
We humans are multi-taskers. We can devise a million thoughts per second each of which may be the start of a whole new world. Between each other we have a great opportunity to find common ground instead of getting off side with each other all the time. Just watch how the ‘wise-ones’ do it, those from the very beginning of life, little kids. They’ve got it down to a fine art. And eventually they always get what they want … whilst of course, all the time, building trust. Precisely the same sort of thing adult to adult.
We adults need to apply the same techniques as small kids, vegans with omnivores, omnivores with vegans, to lead up to Information Day.
But getting angry about it is the LAST thing we need to do. Anger and shouting-at-people is no longer an effective protest tool, not with this issue anyway. The best thing we can do is dump the attitude. It’s not mandatory to show The Vegan Flag all the time, with everyone, and it’s not compulsory to show standard anger when stupid remarks are made.
But isn’t our anger a sign of feeling passionate about something? Isn’t that good? … to hold an opinion strongly enough, to get a bit out of control of ‘good behaviour’ model? That’s my anger and I’m proud to feel this way – that’s how I feel.
Both vegans and omnivores perceive their right-to-be-me similarly – “This is a free country, I can think and say what I like?”
Yep. True. But then again, isn’t our anger always on the very edge of getting personal and disapproving with others? Our favourite vehicle for getting what we want. Anger is real. Is anger not all bad? Yah! anger schmanger. In a much more interesting reality, surely, everything comes down to how the ‘mirror of being with others’ reflects us. It’s our presentation that counts … and maybe that shouldn’t include spewing our emotional guts on people.
The world of communication starts with a variety act, including performing a little, showing off a bit and being good to watch (or be with), etc. Who wants to spend ANY time with a sad-sack or an evangelist? Who wants bad company? People who make you depressed or quarrelsome? [or feel inferior]
In our presentation we can afford to be cuter. All five year olds understand this - being fun and interesting to be with is the name of the game. So … if we can make friends, do a little presenting here and there, try to smile as often as possible, then it’s magic! By hypnotising the ‘Opposition’ with affection (you know, the sort of thing usually reserved for pussy cats), we can ride the stormy seas of Animal Rights whilst building mutual affection.
Effective relationship-building must be done because of perception, namely the Omnivore perception of ‘vegans’ and what they are like. It may not be a perception of untrustworthiness but a ’you’re an idiot” … so we may have to work quite hard to fix that up. But no big deal because effective relationship-building can be done on the trot.
We humans are multi-taskers. We can devise a million thoughts per second each of which may be the start of a whole new world. Between each other we have a great opportunity to find common ground instead of getting off side with each other all the time. Just watch how the ‘wise-ones’ do it, those from the very beginning of life, little kids. They’ve got it down to a fine art. And eventually they always get what they want … whilst of course, all the time, building trust. Precisely the same sort of thing adult to adult.
We adults need to apply the same techniques as small kids, vegans with omnivores, omnivores with vegans, to lead up to Information Day.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The cut-off
We are subject to a powerful common perception that being omnivore is the only way humans can live. Not enough prominent people have said how dangerous this ‘common perception’ is. The 250 executions, per year, per person isn’t a well known fact (and its being little-known is significant in itself) but would it touch people if it were known? Enough to change them?
Maybe not, because ‘universal perception’ says that animals fall into a special category. That catagory doesn’t directly foster contempt for animals because we do love animals, but it’s a cut off point about certain specific animals. [And whist we put them in a lower category we don’t have to fel guilty, not as equals, jus like years ago other races as inferior bodies].
That’s basically what this blog looks at - that ‘cut-off’ point which is central to omnivore-thinking. People abide by an elaborate trick of the mind, to stay in the kindergarten section of the Normal Club. Their willingness to consume animals is a sort of passport to living the good-life, with good-food being very much part of it, and it including restaurant dinning, home-cooked dinners, walk-down-the-street snacks or even cashmere sweaters. It’s ‘turn-on’ stuff, and we love it,{ neve r considering fear [ain etc. ]
The powerful ‘cut-off’ and ‘turn-on’ (over food and clothing) isn’t that much different from sex. We’re either powerfully attracted or repulsed. To control our impulses we need something extra HUGE and powerful, to pull us away from ‘the good things of life’ … as well as the comforts of ‘normality’.
Can we counter that? Of course we can, easy-peasy. Can what vegans say be powerful enough to pull at this? Enough in the end to liberate our animal slaves?
If we can then we can.
For what is it we’re attempting here, if not the tiniest jolt. Something we all have, potentially, within the tool kit on board vegan space ships, which is basically what we are!!
So, with what are we trying to attract? With what can we equal the powerful attractions coming from the other side (the ‘dark side’)? What wins people over, enough for them to join hands and stand against the locking up of animals. [Welfare and Rights].
Perhaps it’s our own vanity in the end, that won’t allow us to be so UN-attractive, in our thinking. And once ya start to think about animals, whoo, it’s hard to stop. Seeing them locked up and in-use? But resting on this laurel is still not ‘attractive’ to anyone but ourselves. We’re here to out the inner vegan. We don’t do that by being angry, or necessarily with fine logical argument either.
The sort of magic we have to spin (along with the natural attractions of the food we prepare or the clothing we wear) HAS to attract. Attention arresting attraction - interesting to people. It is anyway a bit of a riddle, a risk, a range of perceptions not all of which are accurate. The vegan thing, whatever it is, is innately magic, and each individual vegan can spin it, because each one is in a unique position to overview things without gut-ache guilt fogging everything up.
However each vegan chooses to express our message, each knows luck is not relevant – there’s no “perhaps people will see the light, one day” choice here, it’s down to a revolution within ourselves, enough to overcome a Herculean barrier, enough to put people off their intrepid march. Somehow we must persuade change, otherwise the Animal Industry will keep its twenty million customers here and its seven billion customers overseas.
Magic, as distinct from luck, dictates we do this well. Speaking kindly helps things no end. Take this ‘250’ statistic. For that to be It’s as sharp as hell itself. It hurts, it attacks, it speaks the truth, it’s a ‘new food’ which has to be digested (that’s if we quote it at all). A good doctor administers the medicine carefully enough to out-trick the wicked virus. In a way, we have to do the same, gently, kindly, yes, yes, all that ‘soft’ stuff, but it needs trying if only because all the ‘pushme-pullu’ methods have failed.
This one can’t … if vegans become nice people and work like the clappers to get people to come round. If we are nasty types we shouldn’t be representing the gentlest beings on earth – the animals.
Maybe not, because ‘universal perception’ says that animals fall into a special category. That catagory doesn’t directly foster contempt for animals because we do love animals, but it’s a cut off point about certain specific animals. [And whist we put them in a lower category we don’t have to fel guilty, not as equals, jus like years ago other races as inferior bodies].
That’s basically what this blog looks at - that ‘cut-off’ point which is central to omnivore-thinking. People abide by an elaborate trick of the mind, to stay in the kindergarten section of the Normal Club. Their willingness to consume animals is a sort of passport to living the good-life, with good-food being very much part of it, and it including restaurant dinning, home-cooked dinners, walk-down-the-street snacks or even cashmere sweaters. It’s ‘turn-on’ stuff, and we love it,{ neve r considering fear [ain etc. ]
The powerful ‘cut-off’ and ‘turn-on’ (over food and clothing) isn’t that much different from sex. We’re either powerfully attracted or repulsed. To control our impulses we need something extra HUGE and powerful, to pull us away from ‘the good things of life’ … as well as the comforts of ‘normality’.
Can we counter that? Of course we can, easy-peasy. Can what vegans say be powerful enough to pull at this? Enough in the end to liberate our animal slaves?
If we can then we can.
For what is it we’re attempting here, if not the tiniest jolt. Something we all have, potentially, within the tool kit on board vegan space ships, which is basically what we are!!
So, with what are we trying to attract? With what can we equal the powerful attractions coming from the other side (the ‘dark side’)? What wins people over, enough for them to join hands and stand against the locking up of animals. [Welfare and Rights].
Perhaps it’s our own vanity in the end, that won’t allow us to be so UN-attractive, in our thinking. And once ya start to think about animals, whoo, it’s hard to stop. Seeing them locked up and in-use? But resting on this laurel is still not ‘attractive’ to anyone but ourselves. We’re here to out the inner vegan. We don’t do that by being angry, or necessarily with fine logical argument either.
The sort of magic we have to spin (along with the natural attractions of the food we prepare or the clothing we wear) HAS to attract. Attention arresting attraction - interesting to people. It is anyway a bit of a riddle, a risk, a range of perceptions not all of which are accurate. The vegan thing, whatever it is, is innately magic, and each individual vegan can spin it, because each one is in a unique position to overview things without gut-ache guilt fogging everything up.
However each vegan chooses to express our message, each knows luck is not relevant – there’s no “perhaps people will see the light, one day” choice here, it’s down to a revolution within ourselves, enough to overcome a Herculean barrier, enough to put people off their intrepid march. Somehow we must persuade change, otherwise the Animal Industry will keep its twenty million customers here and its seven billion customers overseas.
Magic, as distinct from luck, dictates we do this well. Speaking kindly helps things no end. Take this ‘250’ statistic. For that to be It’s as sharp as hell itself. It hurts, it attacks, it speaks the truth, it’s a ‘new food’ which has to be digested (that’s if we quote it at all). A good doctor administers the medicine carefully enough to out-trick the wicked virus. In a way, we have to do the same, gently, kindly, yes, yes, all that ‘soft’ stuff, but it needs trying if only because all the ‘pushme-pullu’ methods have failed.
This one can’t … if vegans become nice people and work like the clappers to get people to come round. If we are nasty types we shouldn’t be representing the gentlest beings on earth – the animals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)