To stand apart from omnivores in this one very public way we stand out. And who’s afraid of people standing out, especially if they’re story tellers or educators (as distinct from po-faced preachers)? So it’s like that for vegans, maybe suffering rejection but enjoying peace of mind and a foood regime that is totally acceptable.
If we happen to live amongst omnivores (and don’t we all?), one day we’ll be a valuable resource, our experience and knowledge will be more than useful. As the things people love to eat and wear become scarcer they will have to eventually be dropped. Food shortages especially will be on everyone’s mind ... and then veganism will make more sense … and then humans will adapt to the only regime possible - a plant-based diet.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The dead stuff
Friday 25th February 2011
Looking at the ‘bigger picture’, most of us respect the beauty of the natural environment and don’t want to see it go down the tube. All people who are environmentalists are purposely making themselves more aware, sometimes to their own considerable inconvenience. Bit for vegans it’s even harder to bring that same sensitivity to light, concerning the food we eat ... avoiding the dead stuff
‘Food’ represents so many things not the least of which is the taste-bud-experience involving addictive taste sensations. Animal products are most often quite addictive. The ‘body’ demands them and we’re not used to denying ourselves what we want. So we find arguments (any old arguments will do) to give-in to the demand. Translate that to the food market and if it’s good to eat it’s well-sellable, and if it’s from an animal it will be well dead.
Looking at the ‘bigger picture’, most of us respect the beauty of the natural environment and don’t want to see it go down the tube. All people who are environmentalists are purposely making themselves more aware, sometimes to their own considerable inconvenience. Bit for vegans it’s even harder to bring that same sensitivity to light, concerning the food we eat ... avoiding the dead stuff
‘Food’ represents so many things not the least of which is the taste-bud-experience involving addictive taste sensations. Animal products are most often quite addictive. The ‘body’ demands them and we’re not used to denying ourselves what we want. So we find arguments (any old arguments will do) to give-in to the demand. Translate that to the food market and if it’s good to eat it’s well-sellable, and if it’s from an animal it will be well dead.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Go to jail, go directly ...
Vegans have ample justification to judge those who are not vegan ... and that’s the very reason why should be seen even hinting a judgement upon another person ... unless friendly. Our warning should be to ourselves - “don’t judge unless you want to be judged yourself”. Restraint here signifies that we aren’t interested in winning but in talking. No pistols-at-dawn. That never solves anything.
Say we go to the movies and see this great inspiring film, during which we can feel our whole outlook changing. The film ends and everyone goes home. And then we forget about the film, it was just the emotion of the moment. We all revert to business-as-usual. Deep change is not made lightly.
It’s hard to shift normal behaviour especially when dealing with those who have a behaviour shared by the ‘vast majority. If you meet a judgemental vegan you’ll probably be wanting them to go away. We’ll be avoiding them in the future, the way we avoid drunks.
From our point of view, as vegans, we may not be free to influence omnivores but we are free to rattle our own cage doors. We can, in a way, leave our own prison cells, we can come and go as we please and return back to the fray when we wish. We’re freer than the omnivore in that way, if only because we have a reason to be coming and going, to go out and search for new breakthroughs from the ‘nonsense reality’ in which most people are trapped’, err, all omnivores are trapped. Are vegans perhaps the Escape Committee?
Our prison-world is experienced amongst other species; all of us, animals and humans, are enslaved. And we may shudder at the controls placed on us but that’s nothing compared to much worse inflicted on sentient non-human ‘food’ animals.
Say we go to the movies and see this great inspiring film, during which we can feel our whole outlook changing. The film ends and everyone goes home. And then we forget about the film, it was just the emotion of the moment. We all revert to business-as-usual. Deep change is not made lightly.
It’s hard to shift normal behaviour especially when dealing with those who have a behaviour shared by the ‘vast majority. If you meet a judgemental vegan you’ll probably be wanting them to go away. We’ll be avoiding them in the future, the way we avoid drunks.
From our point of view, as vegans, we may not be free to influence omnivores but we are free to rattle our own cage doors. We can, in a way, leave our own prison cells, we can come and go as we please and return back to the fray when we wish. We’re freer than the omnivore in that way, if only because we have a reason to be coming and going, to go out and search for new breakthroughs from the ‘nonsense reality’ in which most people are trapped’, err, all omnivores are trapped. Are vegans perhaps the Escape Committee?
Our prison-world is experienced amongst other species; all of us, animals and humans, are enslaved. And we may shudder at the controls placed on us but that’s nothing compared to much worse inflicted on sentient non-human ‘food’ animals.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Don’t get too near to the Mexican Stand-off
The nutritional side of plant-based diets has been elevated to respectability by research and books written. Eminent authorities now give their tick of approval to plant-based food regimes. The nutrition side of things is no longer a worry. Indeed the nutrition of vegan diets is said to be highly beneficial … but that’s not to get into here … except that for those of us who are long-time vegans, any concerns we might have had about safety have vanished long ago. For beginners that assurance has to be established. When nothing much might be known about a vegan diet it might seem like a frightening prospect, taking on the whole shebang - being open to Animal Rights issues and then moving to a vegan diet in consequence.
Like a reformed smoker, a vegan, once vegan, forgets how he or she felt ‘before’, how she/he had been so often drawn to their favourite (animal) foods and fashionable shoes, and now, as vegans, wanting something quite different.
An established vegan wants to feel ‘clean’ (like the ex-smoker wants clean lungs). If we can ‘clean out’ animal foods we may feel pretty righteous. We may like boasting about it. We may turn this cleansed-feeling into our ‘reason to be’. But if that gets to be too big a part of our identity don’t we start to seem narrow? As if we’ve only got one interest? It’s all a-okay of course if that steers clear of judgemental talk (our ‘reason we boycott’ turning into judging ‘all people who don’t boycott’) ... if we can simply not stray into being judgemental of the ‘meat heads’, but it’s often not the case. We do (all good clean fun) deride people for being ‘crazy’ (for eating crazy food) and we seem to have a need to do that ... because we’re as frustrated as hell that no one’s listening to us or agreeing about animals. We’re frustrated because we have no power to change anything ... so then ... we have to let it out. We figuratively climb onto the roof tops and shout to those below, “look around you”, “See what you are doing”. Ah, but no joy – there are no rooftops to shout from and no one takes any notice. Even if we were that vocal, our voices will always fall on deaf ears. Free people won’t “look around” at anything, especially if they’re ordered to. It’s always going to be a Mexican standoff - whatever we feel about them they’ll as surely feel about us. The bottom line here is about how we come across. It all depends on us taking the initiative, so that we aren’t obvious.
Like a reformed smoker, a vegan, once vegan, forgets how he or she felt ‘before’, how she/he had been so often drawn to their favourite (animal) foods and fashionable shoes, and now, as vegans, wanting something quite different.
An established vegan wants to feel ‘clean’ (like the ex-smoker wants clean lungs). If we can ‘clean out’ animal foods we may feel pretty righteous. We may like boasting about it. We may turn this cleansed-feeling into our ‘reason to be’. But if that gets to be too big a part of our identity don’t we start to seem narrow? As if we’ve only got one interest? It’s all a-okay of course if that steers clear of judgemental talk (our ‘reason we boycott’ turning into judging ‘all people who don’t boycott’) ... if we can simply not stray into being judgemental of the ‘meat heads’, but it’s often not the case. We do (all good clean fun) deride people for being ‘crazy’ (for eating crazy food) and we seem to have a need to do that ... because we’re as frustrated as hell that no one’s listening to us or agreeing about animals. We’re frustrated because we have no power to change anything ... so then ... we have to let it out. We figuratively climb onto the roof tops and shout to those below, “look around you”, “See what you are doing”. Ah, but no joy – there are no rooftops to shout from and no one takes any notice. Even if we were that vocal, our voices will always fall on deaf ears. Free people won’t “look around” at anything, especially if they’re ordered to. It’s always going to be a Mexican standoff - whatever we feel about them they’ll as surely feel about us. The bottom line here is about how we come across. It all depends on us taking the initiative, so that we aren’t obvious.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
We know better today
If we vegans can sink our discomfort (over our failure to ‘communicate our message’) we’ll not suffer so much from being rebuffed – it always brings us back to where the real suffering is, namely in the great discomfort the animals are subjected to. Those imprisoned on farms across the world, our discomfort is nothing compared to theirs.
If I were new to veganism, even if I couldn’t get over my own keyed up feelings about what I’ve seen, there may still be a big side-worry, about health and the vegan diet. How certain are we that it’s safe? Is a vegan diet efficacious? How can we judge it?
As omnivores, all we ever get to know about food and nutrition always involves the ‘essential’ animal products. That’s what we know. It would seem dangerous for any diet not to include them. It would even seem suicidal to go against the ‘obvious truth’, that animal produce is essential to a healthy life. An omnivorous diet has been tried and tested as a diet suitable for humans … but maybe that is written in stone simply because no living race of people have proved otherwise, concerning the efficacy of a totally plant-based diet.
However, things have changed. This is not 1940 but seventy years on, the diet has been tested for that long. Nor is it 1970 when animal liberation was launched – it’s forty years since then. Perhaps uncertainty about plant-based diets was valid half a century ago but now we know better. You have to have great respect for those brave people who, in the early 1940’s, started to question what they’d been told about food. They bucked the ‘obvious truth’. And out of this has come the vegan diet we know today. It has almost come of age.
If I were new to veganism, even if I couldn’t get over my own keyed up feelings about what I’ve seen, there may still be a big side-worry, about health and the vegan diet. How certain are we that it’s safe? Is a vegan diet efficacious? How can we judge it?
As omnivores, all we ever get to know about food and nutrition always involves the ‘essential’ animal products. That’s what we know. It would seem dangerous for any diet not to include them. It would even seem suicidal to go against the ‘obvious truth’, that animal produce is essential to a healthy life. An omnivorous diet has been tried and tested as a diet suitable for humans … but maybe that is written in stone simply because no living race of people have proved otherwise, concerning the efficacy of a totally plant-based diet.
However, things have changed. This is not 1940 but seventy years on, the diet has been tested for that long. Nor is it 1970 when animal liberation was launched – it’s forty years since then. Perhaps uncertainty about plant-based diets was valid half a century ago but now we know better. You have to have great respect for those brave people who, in the early 1940’s, started to question what they’d been told about food. They bucked the ‘obvious truth’. And out of this has come the vegan diet we know today. It has almost come of age.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Easy?
On thinking it over, maybe we don’t inspire. We don’t change feelings, and so we feel that we’ve failed. With every failure (and there are many) we have to learn to deal with it and not get depressed about it. There’s always that bit of edge for vegans. Self pityingly, it’s ‘poor me’ versus ‘the advantaged’ ... or the ‘advantage takers’.
On a personal level vegans sit between two uncomfortable emotions – outrage and intolerance. We feel it but we can’t help but show it. If we’re feeling negative like this people pick that up. If we seem at ease with ourselves they pick that up too. It helps them identify with us (or not). For that reason alone we should move away from vilifying those who don’t agree with us – instead we should be encouraging them to open up a dialogue with us (easier said than done!!).
On a personal level vegans sit between two uncomfortable emotions – outrage and intolerance. We feel it but we can’t help but show it. If we’re feeling negative like this people pick that up. If we seem at ease with ourselves they pick that up too. It helps them identify with us (or not). For that reason alone we should move away from vilifying those who don’t agree with us – instead we should be encouraging them to open up a dialogue with us (easier said than done!!).
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Loving omnivores
I’m sitting here, keyed up, trying to sound constructive, trying not to be too obsessed, trying not to be too judgemental - it sometimes feels like driving through sludge with the hand brake on. It feels like balancing on a tight rope, concealing my thoughts in case I lose my balance. Vegans play a difficult game, especially when we, like everyone else, want approval yet, like no one else, we’re advocating for the animals at the same time.
When we do get it right, when we think we’ve got it across and people seem to agree, it feels great. No bad feelings, each has had a say, no insuperable differences, in theory … but we often discover we haven’t really succeeded after all, for they don’t DO it. They actually have no intention of following through with what they might have seemed to be agreeing with - eating more vegan food, becoming ‘vegan’.
Until someone gets there they’re nowhere. We might ask ourselves the same question till we’re blue-in-the-face - why is it taking some people so long to let go of their omnivous-ness, but the question is unanswerable – it’s a trap to want to know the answer, because it touches on unreasonableness ... which brings on judgement ... which brings on all sorts of agitation and pessimism.
It’s a curious phenomenon, peculiar to our age, that people do intend to do something ... but once started aren’t able keep it up. Once vegans come to realise that those who might have agreed with us yesterday no longer do today, then we may know how problematic the idea of a vegan lifestyle is, for some.
If we can come closer to understanding what constitutes the ‘free-will’ which humans prize so much, we’ll see why people are so set in their ways. They don’t like being told what to do, especially if it touches on the private world of eating and how we spend our money. If free-will stands in the way, that translates to a stubbornness - wanting to postpone anything that looks even vaguely uncomfortable. Going vegan does look like that.
If you get past these obstacles and finally do become vegan, then the next hurdle, testing us to our limits, is to love omnivores despite everything.
When we do get it right, when we think we’ve got it across and people seem to agree, it feels great. No bad feelings, each has had a say, no insuperable differences, in theory … but we often discover we haven’t really succeeded after all, for they don’t DO it. They actually have no intention of following through with what they might have seemed to be agreeing with - eating more vegan food, becoming ‘vegan’.
Until someone gets there they’re nowhere. We might ask ourselves the same question till we’re blue-in-the-face - why is it taking some people so long to let go of their omnivous-ness, but the question is unanswerable – it’s a trap to want to know the answer, because it touches on unreasonableness ... which brings on judgement ... which brings on all sorts of agitation and pessimism.
It’s a curious phenomenon, peculiar to our age, that people do intend to do something ... but once started aren’t able keep it up. Once vegans come to realise that those who might have agreed with us yesterday no longer do today, then we may know how problematic the idea of a vegan lifestyle is, for some.
If we can come closer to understanding what constitutes the ‘free-will’ which humans prize so much, we’ll see why people are so set in their ways. They don’t like being told what to do, especially if it touches on the private world of eating and how we spend our money. If free-will stands in the way, that translates to a stubbornness - wanting to postpone anything that looks even vaguely uncomfortable. Going vegan does look like that.
If you get past these obstacles and finally do become vegan, then the next hurdle, testing us to our limits, is to love omnivores despite everything.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Simpatico
In a way this is our difficulty - vegans have problems with omnivores; we have differences of values that make for all sorts of difficulties, socially. It’s inevitable that vegans sit down to eat with omnivores. It’s our difficulty not theirs - we have to get used to it - that’s the way it is. Omnivores don’t think twice about meeting and eating with friends, no worries about the foods or foody conversations. For vegans though, socially mixing with omnivores, where food’s involved there’s always a touch of awkwardness. For vegans there’s such a gulf between us and our mates, family members, colleagues, even ‘fellow’ vegetarians.
The lack of simpatico people, the tediousness of feeling negative about omnivorous attitudes, makes us come to depend on judgement to ease the tension. The truth is that I find myself disliking omnivores for what they do, not just because they eat animals but because they don’t care that they do. But that’s as much my problem as theirs, for judging them. They probably feel bad about animal cruelty and I certainly feel bad about my own animosity towards them but here’s the twist. It’s rather strange - most of our dearest friends and families are omnivores. These are the people I feel at home with. These are people I find interesting, people I really do want to talk to, and listen to, and be with, socially. ‘They’, albeit omnivores, amount to just about everyone anyway!!
The lack of simpatico people, the tediousness of feeling negative about omnivorous attitudes, makes us come to depend on judgement to ease the tension. The truth is that I find myself disliking omnivores for what they do, not just because they eat animals but because they don’t care that they do. But that’s as much my problem as theirs, for judging them. They probably feel bad about animal cruelty and I certainly feel bad about my own animosity towards them but here’s the twist. It’s rather strange - most of our dearest friends and families are omnivores. These are the people I feel at home with. These are people I find interesting, people I really do want to talk to, and listen to, and be with, socially. ‘They’, albeit omnivores, amount to just about everyone anyway!!
Friday, February 18, 2011
Poor animals and obsessed vegans
We see our own lot and compare it to the lot of ‘domesticated animals’, and try to imagine what it must be like for them, to feel so utterly abandoned. It’s as if Nature had allowed humans to take and enslave her gentlest creatures, in order to teach us the most profound lesson of all - that slavery, whilst intellectually achievable is spiritually unachievable. Unless empathy is highlighted, unless humans undergo an attitude transplant, animals will stay gaoled and vegans will remain lonely.
Vegans, being so isolated in the community, are prone to solitary pursuits ... but, given half the chance, most vegans would rather merge and huddle just like everyone else. Amongst our small number of colleagues we talk serious stuff. As we piece together that ‘bigger picture’ (then go backwards - finding it all a bit unrealistic, and then we get disappointed, and then we get angry all over again) we attempt to talk it all out with others. We exchange the latest stories about animals being hurt, about outrages on factory farms … there’s so much to talk about and get out of our system. We express our fiercest judgements (but usually in camera, letting it out where it’s safe ... the tension being too great to keep bottled up) but then at home, alone perhaps for most of the time, with no support, then what? What does happen might go something like this:
The images in my head make me feel sick or at least keyed up and I easily become preoccupied with it all. I try not to be seen like this, in case my friends think I’m obsessed. I feel one thing and show another, just to avoid losing what few friends I do have.
Vegans, being so isolated in the community, are prone to solitary pursuits ... but, given half the chance, most vegans would rather merge and huddle just like everyone else. Amongst our small number of colleagues we talk serious stuff. As we piece together that ‘bigger picture’ (then go backwards - finding it all a bit unrealistic, and then we get disappointed, and then we get angry all over again) we attempt to talk it all out with others. We exchange the latest stories about animals being hurt, about outrages on factory farms … there’s so much to talk about and get out of our system. We express our fiercest judgements (but usually in camera, letting it out where it’s safe ... the tension being too great to keep bottled up) but then at home, alone perhaps for most of the time, with no support, then what? What does happen might go something like this:
The images in my head make me feel sick or at least keyed up and I easily become preoccupied with it all. I try not to be seen like this, in case my friends think I’m obsessed. I feel one thing and show another, just to avoid losing what few friends I do have.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Don’t eat them, help them
In the West the wealthy animal industries do good business out of us. In Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer it states that each of us will consume 21,000 animals in our lifetime. Just in that one frightening statistic it is clear that Earth is one cold-hard factory planet.
Those of us who try to observe vegan principles, who share a common horror of what is happening, prefer to stay away from certain habits that fellow human beings have, even to the point of isolating ourselves socially. In consequence, by disassociating, they don’t much like us for being non-omnivores. Luckily for us this is not the 1940s, when veganism made its first appearance but seventy years later. There may be more of us now (but not many more and we are scattered thinly across the globe). However the compensation, for being still in such minority numbers is that, amongst fellow activists, we’re likely to have some pretty impressive friends, fellow vegans. They share our boycott (i.e. food and clothing solely from plant products) and provide a sense of normality for us. Nevertheless it’s not pleasant being misunderstood by just about everybody. It’s particularly unpleasant being resented, being made to feel lonely and in consequence made to feel sorry for ourselves. Poor us!!
Those of us who try to observe vegan principles, who share a common horror of what is happening, prefer to stay away from certain habits that fellow human beings have, even to the point of isolating ourselves socially. In consequence, by disassociating, they don’t much like us for being non-omnivores. Luckily for us this is not the 1940s, when veganism made its first appearance but seventy years later. There may be more of us now (but not many more and we are scattered thinly across the globe). However the compensation, for being still in such minority numbers is that, amongst fellow activists, we’re likely to have some pretty impressive friends, fellow vegans. They share our boycott (i.e. food and clothing solely from plant products) and provide a sense of normality for us. Nevertheless it’s not pleasant being misunderstood by just about everybody. It’s particularly unpleasant being resented, being made to feel lonely and in consequence made to feel sorry for ourselves. Poor us!!
Powerlessness
Wednesday 16th February 2011
By bringing such a powerful element of faith into the picture we can branch out, help others, etc.
“This”, you say “is all very well, but what about me and my own interest? How would such daily altruisms make me feel? Have you taken into account my burning anger, my sensitivity (that forces me to act on what I read and what I’m told or what I’ve seen with my own eyes). “
We as ordinary people don’t know what to do when we’re burning up inside. The animals … one has the deepest rage about it. One is in a perpetually shocked state at what some humans are allowed to do to animals. How does it make me feel when they get away with it? How does it feel that they have all the power (to continue) and we don’t? Our rage is about how the vegan-animal-rights movement is so unconnected to power. We don’t influence things. All we can do is protest publically or act illegally to stop things continuing. Whereas for omnivores - all they have to do is maintain their present position. And relax. They act completely legally.
By bringing such a powerful element of faith into the picture we can branch out, help others, etc.
“This”, you say “is all very well, but what about me and my own interest? How would such daily altruisms make me feel? Have you taken into account my burning anger, my sensitivity (that forces me to act on what I read and what I’m told or what I’ve seen with my own eyes). “
We as ordinary people don’t know what to do when we’re burning up inside. The animals … one has the deepest rage about it. One is in a perpetually shocked state at what some humans are allowed to do to animals. How does it make me feel when they get away with it? How does it feel that they have all the power (to continue) and we don’t? Our rage is about how the vegan-animal-rights movement is so unconnected to power. We don’t influence things. All we can do is protest publically or act illegally to stop things continuing. Whereas for omnivores - all they have to do is maintain their present position. And relax. They act completely legally.
Snobbery
Tuesday 15th February 2011
It is said that humans invented judgement (being judgemental) and not tolerating others with different values. They also say that anything we can think of actually exists somewhere in the universe ... except judgement. It’s entirely man-made and entirely destructive
If we have faith in non-judegement, dropping the destructive, becoming more constructive, that must be intrinsically satisfying to us, not just in the thinking of it but in the doing of it. By not ‘doing’ judgement we touch a higher level of acceptance of differences. If we can acquire faith enough to be that way we’ll probably make some transformatory progress, and be rid of energy-drainers, like anger and frustration. Where judgement is so distasteful is when it becomes snobbery. I originally come from a country where it’s a national pastime. They specialise in the insincerity of self-justification, which can be so useful in perpetuating speciesism (and quite a few other ‘isms’).
It is said that humans invented judgement (being judgemental) and not tolerating others with different values. They also say that anything we can think of actually exists somewhere in the universe ... except judgement. It’s entirely man-made and entirely destructive
If we have faith in non-judegement, dropping the destructive, becoming more constructive, that must be intrinsically satisfying to us, not just in the thinking of it but in the doing of it. By not ‘doing’ judgement we touch a higher level of acceptance of differences. If we can acquire faith enough to be that way we’ll probably make some transformatory progress, and be rid of energy-drainers, like anger and frustration. Where judgement is so distasteful is when it becomes snobbery. I originally come from a country where it’s a national pastime. They specialise in the insincerity of self-justification, which can be so useful in perpetuating speciesism (and quite a few other ‘isms’).
We don’t hurt others
Monday 14th February 2011
Here, all that’s being suggested is that before building cathedrals we build attitudes, from scratch.
So to the big picture: in it humans are comprehensively gentler. We don’t hurt others, in thought/word/deed (like good little cub-scouts!!). We don’t hurt in adult ways, like judgements or those things we do for self-opportunity. In the end, doesn’t it always come back to (acting in the best interests of) ‘others’. And referring to ‘domesticated animals’, boy, could this Largest Group of Others do with some help! Let’s all go down to the farm for the day, even in one microsecond of. Contemplate the plight of any one of a billion sentient, living beings. If we truly want to become ‘people of the future’, even with a limited life expectancy for ourselves, we must employ ourselves by working for ‘others’. With that as a template for the future, humans can’t go far wrong.
Here, all that’s being suggested is that before building cathedrals we build attitudes, from scratch.
So to the big picture: in it humans are comprehensively gentler. We don’t hurt others, in thought/word/deed (like good little cub-scouts!!). We don’t hurt in adult ways, like judgements or those things we do for self-opportunity. In the end, doesn’t it always come back to (acting in the best interests of) ‘others’. And referring to ‘domesticated animals’, boy, could this Largest Group of Others do with some help! Let’s all go down to the farm for the day, even in one microsecond of. Contemplate the plight of any one of a billion sentient, living beings. If we truly want to become ‘people of the future’, even with a limited life expectancy for ourselves, we must employ ourselves by working for ‘others’. With that as a template for the future, humans can’t go far wrong.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Reality-making
A slogan: “here’s wishing you the best future” … that should be our. This could be our reason for being, simply to go around wishing this! What we do today sets the example of how things will be done in the future. These are fruits for the future.
It would be absurd to include in our envisioned bigger picture anything of destruction, war or hurting, leave those arts to Mother nature, eh? Humans are not potentially absurd beings. That is not who we are (although you’d never believe it sometimes, looking at the absurdity of the people newspapers thrive on). Humans may have many faults but not that one. Our brains are advanced enough to avoid absurdity, surely?
In everything we do, especially important things, we’re either look like ghosts and gods, but it’s worth considering nonetheless ... that we are all, each of us, engaged in the act of ‘creating our own reality’. Now if this is so, then it looks likely that we can grow it like a carrot - reality. We have the sophistication and intelligence to paint the picture of the future we want, which is reality but not quite of the moment. And surely that could include almost anything, minus the ‘going-around-hurting’ bit). The hurting is illogical and only dabbled in by people who are particularly unwell. In Europe we had a male of the species, in the 1930s, going through a particular illness that involved causing mayhem. If only someone had spotted his pathology in time. So, what I’m suggesting is that we are in charge of our own reality. And it’s that which drives everything, from corn flakes at breakfast to believing that I could rule the world or go to sleep when my head touches the pillow.
I think the phrase is, ‘we create our own reality, absolutely’. Does it sound unrealistic?
Whether it is or not is up to each of us to find out for our self. But if we do, and if we create a universal ‘bigger picture’ in our mind, then it occurs, not only privately but universally.
Anyway, anyway, I want to see a world without hurting, particularly hurting animals. Ghastly grim, hell holes exist in our world and people who are advocating for animals want to see them a ‘thing of the past’. Could this ‘bigger picture’ be a fairly decent description of a no-damage world? Perhaps in its extreme form, yes, almost weird, but a reality only exist because we keep them there. Perceptional, attiduninal alterations could be made overnight.
In a ‘moving-towards sort of way’, we leave behind the dark side of ourselves and take up a somewhat lighter being. That very fascinating process is reality-making. Sounds a bit fancy in 2011 but I imagine it will be served up as something like ‘creating reality’, like today when we move towards becoming vegan ... and towards being more non-violent. What a great start that would be for the human race! It’s pleasant to think we’re developing our own ‘building’ instinct. And it’s likely we can all do it at more or less the drop of a hat.
It would be absurd to include in our envisioned bigger picture anything of destruction, war or hurting, leave those arts to Mother nature, eh? Humans are not potentially absurd beings. That is not who we are (although you’d never believe it sometimes, looking at the absurdity of the people newspapers thrive on). Humans may have many faults but not that one. Our brains are advanced enough to avoid absurdity, surely?
In everything we do, especially important things, we’re either look like ghosts and gods, but it’s worth considering nonetheless ... that we are all, each of us, engaged in the act of ‘creating our own reality’. Now if this is so, then it looks likely that we can grow it like a carrot - reality. We have the sophistication and intelligence to paint the picture of the future we want, which is reality but not quite of the moment. And surely that could include almost anything, minus the ‘going-around-hurting’ bit). The hurting is illogical and only dabbled in by people who are particularly unwell. In Europe we had a male of the species, in the 1930s, going through a particular illness that involved causing mayhem. If only someone had spotted his pathology in time. So, what I’m suggesting is that we are in charge of our own reality. And it’s that which drives everything, from corn flakes at breakfast to believing that I could rule the world or go to sleep when my head touches the pillow.
I think the phrase is, ‘we create our own reality, absolutely’. Does it sound unrealistic?
Whether it is or not is up to each of us to find out for our self. But if we do, and if we create a universal ‘bigger picture’ in our mind, then it occurs, not only privately but universally.
Anyway, anyway, I want to see a world without hurting, particularly hurting animals. Ghastly grim, hell holes exist in our world and people who are advocating for animals want to see them a ‘thing of the past’. Could this ‘bigger picture’ be a fairly decent description of a no-damage world? Perhaps in its extreme form, yes, almost weird, but a reality only exist because we keep them there. Perceptional, attiduninal alterations could be made overnight.
In a ‘moving-towards sort of way’, we leave behind the dark side of ourselves and take up a somewhat lighter being. That very fascinating process is reality-making. Sounds a bit fancy in 2011 but I imagine it will be served up as something like ‘creating reality’, like today when we move towards becoming vegan ... and towards being more non-violent. What a great start that would be for the human race! It’s pleasant to think we’re developing our own ‘building’ instinct. And it’s likely we can all do it at more or less the drop of a hat.
The profound
Saturday 12th February 2011
Since most of us aren’t in the military we aren’t used to being ordered around. In fact if anyone tries we react badly (unless we’re a child or an employee or a soldier). When someone says “change now” our immediate reaction is to tell them to piss off. We have a right to not be bullied, ordered or advised … but leaving that particular ‘right’ aside for a moment, if someone is bold enough to bring something to our attention (“you’re wearing your shirt inside-out, you’ve got lipstick on your collar”) we don’t have to take it as criticism, just a useful comment. It comes down to how we take things – positively or negatively.
We’re talking though here about profound change. My comment to you is not about some transitory matter but something as significant as one’s whole food regime. ‘Profound’ - it’s often worth talking about, although there’s always a risk in bringing it up, of causing offence.
Dealing with anything ‘profound’, advocating big changes (like going vegan), these events lodge in the memory as a stirring of faith, not the religious sort or like having faith in science but faith in ourselves. Specifically, profound thoughts point to the possibility we might be something more that we think we are, not in an up-yer-bum sort of way but more as a coming-to-know who we are. Painful at first maybe, looking at our own faults, but at the same time we’re looking at our own high points. All invaluable eventually.
That sort of focussing (who am I?) lets us plant seeds of deeper understanding which might turn out to fall under the heading of ‘bigger picture’ stuff. This is where we’re looking at a world of the future. And not necessarily our own but others’ future, one that might ‘outlive’ our own present lives.
The thing that makes it so profound is that almost any positive thing we do today might not come to fruition until after our own lifetime. The really ‘big change’ in our outlook may be our taking profound thoughts on board but not for our own immediate benefit but in order to specifically do something else; to motivate and inspire us, commitment-wise, to Animal Rights. That’s why vegans are rude enough to make comments and duly get kicked in the arse for doing so. But it’s why vegans emphasise the profound and not the mundane or superficial. The more profoundly different we want change to be the more it’s likely to be about others’ rights. A less profound attitude will focus on “my-rights”!!
Since most of us aren’t in the military we aren’t used to being ordered around. In fact if anyone tries we react badly (unless we’re a child or an employee or a soldier). When someone says “change now” our immediate reaction is to tell them to piss off. We have a right to not be bullied, ordered or advised … but leaving that particular ‘right’ aside for a moment, if someone is bold enough to bring something to our attention (“you’re wearing your shirt inside-out, you’ve got lipstick on your collar”) we don’t have to take it as criticism, just a useful comment. It comes down to how we take things – positively or negatively.
We’re talking though here about profound change. My comment to you is not about some transitory matter but something as significant as one’s whole food regime. ‘Profound’ - it’s often worth talking about, although there’s always a risk in bringing it up, of causing offence.
Dealing with anything ‘profound’, advocating big changes (like going vegan), these events lodge in the memory as a stirring of faith, not the religious sort or like having faith in science but faith in ourselves. Specifically, profound thoughts point to the possibility we might be something more that we think we are, not in an up-yer-bum sort of way but more as a coming-to-know who we are. Painful at first maybe, looking at our own faults, but at the same time we’re looking at our own high points. All invaluable eventually.
That sort of focussing (who am I?) lets us plant seeds of deeper understanding which might turn out to fall under the heading of ‘bigger picture’ stuff. This is where we’re looking at a world of the future. And not necessarily our own but others’ future, one that might ‘outlive’ our own present lives.
The thing that makes it so profound is that almost any positive thing we do today might not come to fruition until after our own lifetime. The really ‘big change’ in our outlook may be our taking profound thoughts on board but not for our own immediate benefit but in order to specifically do something else; to motivate and inspire us, commitment-wise, to Animal Rights. That’s why vegans are rude enough to make comments and duly get kicked in the arse for doing so. But it’s why vegans emphasise the profound and not the mundane or superficial. The more profoundly different we want change to be the more it’s likely to be about others’ rights. A less profound attitude will focus on “my-rights”!!
Friday, February 11, 2011
Rights
Attitude change can’t come soon enough for vegans. We wait impatiently for the human to be compassionate towards food animals. For animal-eaters of course, vegans and their ideas can’t disappear fast enough. We are a royal pain in the arse.
For us though, we want a chance to say something. Not to lecture but talk about our particular interest that may include introducing another type of cuisine. A chief interest for traditionalists however is to talk about their own ‘latest cuisine’. Both want to talk creativity, but each of a very different kind.
Looking at the psychology of things (why we go this way and not that way) we are sensitive to being criticised for taking the way we’ve gone. It’s the psychology of judgement, wanting to caste judgement and how it feels to be judged. Why do we react so hyper-sensitively to this sort of criticism? Why do we have to justify what we do? Why is it so hard for us to discuss … well, discuss this particular subject?
Surely it all boils down to fundamental attitude change, one that we advocate and omnivores resist. We believe our fellow humans should recognise that animals have rights, omnivores believe they have a right to NOT change, if they don’t want to.
For us though, we want a chance to say something. Not to lecture but talk about our particular interest that may include introducing another type of cuisine. A chief interest for traditionalists however is to talk about their own ‘latest cuisine’. Both want to talk creativity, but each of a very different kind.
Looking at the psychology of things (why we go this way and not that way) we are sensitive to being criticised for taking the way we’ve gone. It’s the psychology of judgement, wanting to caste judgement and how it feels to be judged. Why do we react so hyper-sensitively to this sort of criticism? Why do we have to justify what we do? Why is it so hard for us to discuss … well, discuss this particular subject?
Surely it all boils down to fundamental attitude change, one that we advocate and omnivores resist. We believe our fellow humans should recognise that animals have rights, omnivores believe they have a right to NOT change, if they don’t want to.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
A win for the (non-vegan) host
It isn’t surprising when a vegan opens your fridge and starts making comments that omnivores feel invaded.
At the table, here’s a vegan guest criticising the food. This is food lovingly prepared for the guests at the table, the host being very pissed off by the vegan’s comments. Making a dinner for guests is perhaps the most creative thing she does (cooking a lovely meal, inviting friends over to eat it, and then – WHAM – some unlovely person turns their nose up at it).
This is where vegans should be careful about accepting invitations and not spelling out our own food requirements first. We shouldn’t find ourselves in a situation where we feel the need to caste judgements like this. It always looks like a good opportunity at the time but inevitably causes big problems for vegans. A negative comment about the provenance of ‘the food’ can darkens the whole atmosphere - when the vegan guest says, “Yes, it may be creative cuisine but it’s not good food (in other words, not good enough for me)”. That amounts to a big slap in the face not only for the host but to everyone else enjoying the food. There’s nothing like a simple plate of food to cause a disturbance. Feelings get hurt, offence is caused, the vegan sees a golden opportunity to educate everyone at the table about vegan principle …
How often does something like this happen over the dinner table?
Vegans who ‘ride rough shod’ over people’s feelings, in this case giving the cook a big wake up call, might feel they’ve done a good job by speaking out. They’ve spoken up for the animals. But it’s likely to seem to the cook (and her dinner guests) as if we’re questioning her rights, as a cook, to cook the food she’s chosen. That’s not what the creative-cook needs to hear … although in a funny way it might well be: it may stimulate her friends to back her up and draw more praise than she’d normally get. Also the ‘incident with the vegan’ is likely to prove valuable, future table-talk. Each person there might embellish the incident to serve their own purpose; they’ll discuss the event with great relish (“when the vegan came round to dinner - the vegan who, incidentally, won’t be invited around again!”). “I nearly said to him …”.
Food fights always make good stories for retelling and exaggerating but can easily sour whole relationships. Vegans - beware dinner invitations!
At the table, here’s a vegan guest criticising the food. This is food lovingly prepared for the guests at the table, the host being very pissed off by the vegan’s comments. Making a dinner for guests is perhaps the most creative thing she does (cooking a lovely meal, inviting friends over to eat it, and then – WHAM – some unlovely person turns their nose up at it).
This is where vegans should be careful about accepting invitations and not spelling out our own food requirements first. We shouldn’t find ourselves in a situation where we feel the need to caste judgements like this. It always looks like a good opportunity at the time but inevitably causes big problems for vegans. A negative comment about the provenance of ‘the food’ can darkens the whole atmosphere - when the vegan guest says, “Yes, it may be creative cuisine but it’s not good food (in other words, not good enough for me)”. That amounts to a big slap in the face not only for the host but to everyone else enjoying the food. There’s nothing like a simple plate of food to cause a disturbance. Feelings get hurt, offence is caused, the vegan sees a golden opportunity to educate everyone at the table about vegan principle …
How often does something like this happen over the dinner table?
Vegans who ‘ride rough shod’ over people’s feelings, in this case giving the cook a big wake up call, might feel they’ve done a good job by speaking out. They’ve spoken up for the animals. But it’s likely to seem to the cook (and her dinner guests) as if we’re questioning her rights, as a cook, to cook the food she’s chosen. That’s not what the creative-cook needs to hear … although in a funny way it might well be: it may stimulate her friends to back her up and draw more praise than she’d normally get. Also the ‘incident with the vegan’ is likely to prove valuable, future table-talk. Each person there might embellish the incident to serve their own purpose; they’ll discuss the event with great relish (“when the vegan came round to dinner - the vegan who, incidentally, won’t be invited around again!”). “I nearly said to him …”.
Food fights always make good stories for retelling and exaggerating but can easily sour whole relationships. Vegans - beware dinner invitations!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Clumsy talk
Almost every single human of adult age is ‘doing it’ – that is, participating in some form or other of animal enslavement. For us then, does that mean, in our approach to all this, that we’d be justified in doing a lot of “rough-shod riding”, and hang the consequences? We might feel justified … but better, surely, we don’t start something we can’t finish.
To make a mountain out of a molehill, by creating communication problems where none are needed, is a trap. One unthought-out word or look can scythe down a whole relationship in moments. It can happen fast and create a permanent change in ‘vibration’. Friends can become non-friends overnight.
To make a mountain out of a molehill, by creating communication problems where none are needed, is a trap. One unthought-out word or look can scythe down a whole relationship in moments. It can happen fast and create a permanent change in ‘vibration’. Friends can become non-friends overnight.
Are we out-witters or healers?
Tuesday 8th February 2011
Here are two different approaches marching alongside each other, under the same banner. The rationale behind each approach might be very interesting - either mentally annihilate them or offer them a flower? But do we have time to contemplate such things? In a short space of time there’s a lot to do, and a lot to learn too – most of us are unrealistically ignorant of the forces we’re dealing with. Out there, promoting the opposite of veganism, are some very bright cookies. Challenging. And out there, there are a lot of healers advocating an entirely different basis for healing. Challenging too.
If vegans ever get round to firing volleys at ‘the enemy’, then let our shot land where it will, and if it misses its mark then we try again. We shouldn’t worry about missing our target because we pitched what we had to say at the wrong level – let’s not forget, apart from passing on information to the omnivore we are, at the same time, testing our main approach road with every omnivore we speak to. Communication can only work when we are happy that we’ve got the approach balanced just the way we want it.
Here are two different approaches marching alongside each other, under the same banner. The rationale behind each approach might be very interesting - either mentally annihilate them or offer them a flower? But do we have time to contemplate such things? In a short space of time there’s a lot to do, and a lot to learn too – most of us are unrealistically ignorant of the forces we’re dealing with. Out there, promoting the opposite of veganism, are some very bright cookies. Challenging. And out there, there are a lot of healers advocating an entirely different basis for healing. Challenging too.
If vegans ever get round to firing volleys at ‘the enemy’, then let our shot land where it will, and if it misses its mark then we try again. We shouldn’t worry about missing our target because we pitched what we had to say at the wrong level – let’s not forget, apart from passing on information to the omnivore we are, at the same time, testing our main approach road with every omnivore we speak to. Communication can only work when we are happy that we’ve got the approach balanced just the way we want it.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Consistency leads to fun
Our primary ‘consistency’ is vegan-living, obviously. You can’t be of much use to the animals if you are still abusing them! But the next consistency concerns our proselytising the cause. We need to design our own campaign if we’re going to take on the world, over this one thing.
“No using of animals” – having that as our central aim requires consistency, which means we try to do this important job properly, as thorough, intelligent and kind vegans, powerful advocates and consistent, reliable activists. Each has a mixture of approaches to test out. Here are two main ones:
Some vegans think Animal Rights will be achieved by outwitting the bastards, other vegans think we’d be better off if we healed our relationships (with said bastards). Joined together, both approaches are powerful … as long as neither one is emphasised at the expense of the other.
Outwitting them should be easy (since they aren’t good at justifying animal abuse) but reversing the image we already have, that’s more difficult. As vegans, almost by definition, we take ourselves too seriously and seem to need approval from others, which might have something to do us having fragile egos? But, I think waiting around for recognition from omnivores is probably a waste of time. Organising gigs is not, however, a waste of time.
If we respect others (all of whom are likely to be omnivores) then we can tease them mercilessly, in fact go in with guns blazing, because there’s fun advocating the animals’ case, if only in seeing the bewildered looks on people’s faces when we tell them about it all.
“No using of animals” – having that as our central aim requires consistency, which means we try to do this important job properly, as thorough, intelligent and kind vegans, powerful advocates and consistent, reliable activists. Each has a mixture of approaches to test out. Here are two main ones:
Some vegans think Animal Rights will be achieved by outwitting the bastards, other vegans think we’d be better off if we healed our relationships (with said bastards). Joined together, both approaches are powerful … as long as neither one is emphasised at the expense of the other.
Outwitting them should be easy (since they aren’t good at justifying animal abuse) but reversing the image we already have, that’s more difficult. As vegans, almost by definition, we take ourselves too seriously and seem to need approval from others, which might have something to do us having fragile egos? But, I think waiting around for recognition from omnivores is probably a waste of time. Organising gigs is not, however, a waste of time.
If we respect others (all of whom are likely to be omnivores) then we can tease them mercilessly, in fact go in with guns blazing, because there’s fun advocating the animals’ case, if only in seeing the bewildered looks on people’s faces when we tell them about it all.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Traps for vegans
For those who do become animal advocates, being creative as well as compassionate brings out the best in us, in that we are addressing one of the most important and difficult questions facing humanity today – human dependency on animal flesh. It plays havoc with human conscience and does terrible things to our bodies. A vegan is relieved of both by using only plant-based products. There’s satisfaction too in having something meaningful to devote one’s life to – campaigning - whilst ensuring a longer, healthier and more energy-filled life. But there are traps along the way.
At some stage vegans have to decide what sort of activist they are going to be. It’s a matter of not falling for the obvious; it’s tempting to go to war against everyone but much harder to keep our cool; it’s tempting to give up on people when we’re being so rebuffed by them; it’s difficult not to get touchy or get trapped by anger.
To avoid falling into the most obvious traps we need to first be convinced that any type of violent approach will fail. Protests that get violent are good fodder for the media, and will always be self-defeating.
Protest itself sows the seeds of truth in people’s minds, and we hope it takes root when the time is right. The raid on the factory farm, to take video footage of conditions, provides a powerful argument against these places. People switching on the 6 o’clock news and seeing for themselves what’s happening there can’t get away with a ‘no-one’s-noticing-so-what-the-hell’ attitude. And yet people who want to forget what they’ve seen will do so and go straight back to eating the very animals they’ve just seen horror footage of. Other forms of protest can be even more forgettable. Activists will try everything, appealing to logic, health, compassion, outrage, speaking up with passion and yet still fail to connect with the omnivore. Perhaps the trouble is that we don’t know how to communicate peaceful philosophy without sounding agitated. And ‘agitated’ is close to frustration which is close to anger ... which is ultimately unattractive.
There’s another little trap here for vegans. A personal factor, where we want to be motivated, want to continue with our enthusiasm, want to feel confident and not lose momentum ... so we go begging for encouragement only to find there is none. Amongst omnivores there must be none. Omnivores will do everything in their power to dis-spirit us - on no account must we get a foothold on public attention, for if we do then food fashion changes towards plant-based foods. That will cause hike in prices for those foods, which in turn sends people looking for lower cost, alternative foods – namely more plant-based products.
If that is the trend in future years wouldn’t the weak and defeated vegans of today feel silly, to have had so little confidence in the native intelligence of fellow humans (admittedly only when the chips were down). And wouldn’t the optimistic vegans of today have something to crow about, having been confident and supportive of those omnivores who were in the process of considering change.
The trap within that trap is in our own shaky self esteem – where we need recognition in order to keep pounding the public psyche. We need them to take us seriously (absurd though this is – wanting encouragement from people who are in no position to give it).
Vegan activists are annoyed by people not listening and let themselves down by getting too touchy too quickly. The trick for us would be to coordinate the public’s ‘need for information’ with our own ‘need to be noticed’. If we can’t balance these two needs we’ll fail and likely fall into disaffection, furious at the whole of humanity, for its obstinacy. (A bit like a three year old stamping their foot when they can’t get their own way).
Wish as we might that we could ride rough shod over all the people who hurt animals, we need to realise that any ‘rough’ approach by us will always fail – people won’t allow themselves to be persuaded by bullies who believe they’re right. They don’t need to be intimidated by us because there are just too many of them out there to let themselves be pushed around. At present we are a teeny, weeny, minority vegan movement, growing but slowly. We haven’t yet been recognised, either as a movement or as individuals (for our strength of character). There are no medals struck for vegan active service.
All I’m saying here is that no one knows how things will turn out in the future. But that things can change is something to hold onto during these difficult early days of animal rights consciousness. When things do change they will probably change quite rapidly. If we want particular changes to happen we need to inject optimism into what we do – that way we will seem to be actively ‘expecting’ change. For optimism to ‘work’ all we need to do is maintain consistency - the big trap is to be swayed by an idiot public and let them affect our own momentum.
At some stage vegans have to decide what sort of activist they are going to be. It’s a matter of not falling for the obvious; it’s tempting to go to war against everyone but much harder to keep our cool; it’s tempting to give up on people when we’re being so rebuffed by them; it’s difficult not to get touchy or get trapped by anger.
To avoid falling into the most obvious traps we need to first be convinced that any type of violent approach will fail. Protests that get violent are good fodder for the media, and will always be self-defeating.
Protest itself sows the seeds of truth in people’s minds, and we hope it takes root when the time is right. The raid on the factory farm, to take video footage of conditions, provides a powerful argument against these places. People switching on the 6 o’clock news and seeing for themselves what’s happening there can’t get away with a ‘no-one’s-noticing-so-what-the-hell’ attitude. And yet people who want to forget what they’ve seen will do so and go straight back to eating the very animals they’ve just seen horror footage of. Other forms of protest can be even more forgettable. Activists will try everything, appealing to logic, health, compassion, outrage, speaking up with passion and yet still fail to connect with the omnivore. Perhaps the trouble is that we don’t know how to communicate peaceful philosophy without sounding agitated. And ‘agitated’ is close to frustration which is close to anger ... which is ultimately unattractive.
There’s another little trap here for vegans. A personal factor, where we want to be motivated, want to continue with our enthusiasm, want to feel confident and not lose momentum ... so we go begging for encouragement only to find there is none. Amongst omnivores there must be none. Omnivores will do everything in their power to dis-spirit us - on no account must we get a foothold on public attention, for if we do then food fashion changes towards plant-based foods. That will cause hike in prices for those foods, which in turn sends people looking for lower cost, alternative foods – namely more plant-based products.
If that is the trend in future years wouldn’t the weak and defeated vegans of today feel silly, to have had so little confidence in the native intelligence of fellow humans (admittedly only when the chips were down). And wouldn’t the optimistic vegans of today have something to crow about, having been confident and supportive of those omnivores who were in the process of considering change.
The trap within that trap is in our own shaky self esteem – where we need recognition in order to keep pounding the public psyche. We need them to take us seriously (absurd though this is – wanting encouragement from people who are in no position to give it).
Vegan activists are annoyed by people not listening and let themselves down by getting too touchy too quickly. The trick for us would be to coordinate the public’s ‘need for information’ with our own ‘need to be noticed’. If we can’t balance these two needs we’ll fail and likely fall into disaffection, furious at the whole of humanity, for its obstinacy. (A bit like a three year old stamping their foot when they can’t get their own way).
Wish as we might that we could ride rough shod over all the people who hurt animals, we need to realise that any ‘rough’ approach by us will always fail – people won’t allow themselves to be persuaded by bullies who believe they’re right. They don’t need to be intimidated by us because there are just too many of them out there to let themselves be pushed around. At present we are a teeny, weeny, minority vegan movement, growing but slowly. We haven’t yet been recognised, either as a movement or as individuals (for our strength of character). There are no medals struck for vegan active service.
All I’m saying here is that no one knows how things will turn out in the future. But that things can change is something to hold onto during these difficult early days of animal rights consciousness. When things do change they will probably change quite rapidly. If we want particular changes to happen we need to inject optimism into what we do – that way we will seem to be actively ‘expecting’ change. For optimism to ‘work’ all we need to do is maintain consistency - the big trap is to be swayed by an idiot public and let them affect our own momentum.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The ultimate cause or just a story?
In many ways if the food thing can be handled, veganism has a lot to offer. Not only, but mainly, it attracts adventurous people who are looking to build a reputation for integrity and who want to become energetic activists.
There are a lot of good causes to get involved with but none more widespread and universal than the plight of food-animals. The food industry uses and abuses so many animals in every country of the world, and almost every single human on the planet buys their produce and is therefore implicated in the abuse of animals. There couldn’t be a more pressing cause to be involved with.
No other crime is committed against so many and so coldly. No other crime is so hushed up. Animal Rights is the last great crime to go virtually unreported … to the extent that people can still plead ignorance of it and get away with it. For most people showing any sensitivity to the plight of food animals has never been considered – it just isn’t discussed or thought about let alone acted on - animals are there, we farm then, we eat them, end of story.
There are a lot of good causes to get involved with but none more widespread and universal than the plight of food-animals. The food industry uses and abuses so many animals in every country of the world, and almost every single human on the planet buys their produce and is therefore implicated in the abuse of animals. There couldn’t be a more pressing cause to be involved with.
No other crime is committed against so many and so coldly. No other crime is so hushed up. Animal Rights is the last great crime to go virtually unreported … to the extent that people can still plead ignorance of it and get away with it. For most people showing any sensitivity to the plight of food animals has never been considered – it just isn’t discussed or thought about let alone acted on - animals are there, we farm then, we eat them, end of story.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Non-omnivore bliss
It may be true that some people are embarrassed by how amateur we seem to be as a lobby group. It’s likely the time has come for us to develop a more sophisticated presentation of our arguments.
Our subject gets some mass media coverage but not much. But we do have our own media and it’s accessible - books, DVDs, web sites, blogs and magazines. We are told all we need. It leads to ‘going vegan’, doing without about 40% of all food items on the supermarket shelf (because they contain animal products). We may seem like amateurs but at least we know what we stand for, and that’s a strong lobbying position to be in. By giving the exploiters no encouragement there’s a completeness in us. It makes us feel good to be exercising some self-discipline for such a worthy cause. It may seem like a handicap, our no-touch-animal principles but we know about the benefits. They’re obvious to non-omnivores but not obvious to those who aren’t.
Our subject gets some mass media coverage but not much. But we do have our own media and it’s accessible - books, DVDs, web sites, blogs and magazines. We are told all we need. It leads to ‘going vegan’, doing without about 40% of all food items on the supermarket shelf (because they contain animal products). We may seem like amateurs but at least we know what we stand for, and that’s a strong lobbying position to be in. By giving the exploiters no encouragement there’s a completeness in us. It makes us feel good to be exercising some self-discipline for such a worthy cause. It may seem like a handicap, our no-touch-animal principles but we know about the benefits. They’re obvious to non-omnivores but not obvious to those who aren’t.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Caution when approaching the omnivore
Being non-violent isn’t the same as passive acceptance or asking the animal industry if it wouldn’t mind please going out of business. This is not a world of polite entreaty. Force is the way of the world, and all of our systems are kept in place by force. As animal activist vegans we can’t fight force with force. We have to be more subtle than that.
If enough activists are committed to other approaches, considering and trying them, we’ll see how powerful non-violent action can be.
If there are ways to approach this awful problem (omnivorousness), using less ‘in-yer-face’ methods, the theory is surely that as soon as these methods are seen to work they’ll catch on. There will be a snowballing effect.
By accepting that violence, in any form, is ineffective when dealing with the general public majority, we bow to a largely untried force. It’s a long shot I admit, to put all our effort into altering attitude rather than people’s eating habits. However it’s taking a punt on ‘truth-force’, backing the after-my-own-lifetime selflessness over the short sharp burst satisfaction of ‘being aggressive’. Using ‘truth-force’ to do our work for us, it may be slower but it will be truer. It will more honestly reflect the genuinely matured adult. By ‘going non-violent’ we respect timing and placing; we respect the reality, that we’re a tiny minority dealing with a vast majority who are not yet sympathetic to our cause.
What can we do? Set fire to fur-farms or be a consistent source of subtle pressure?
If enough activists are committed to other approaches, considering and trying them, we’ll see how powerful non-violent action can be.
If there are ways to approach this awful problem (omnivorousness), using less ‘in-yer-face’ methods, the theory is surely that as soon as these methods are seen to work they’ll catch on. There will be a snowballing effect.
By accepting that violence, in any form, is ineffective when dealing with the general public majority, we bow to a largely untried force. It’s a long shot I admit, to put all our effort into altering attitude rather than people’s eating habits. However it’s taking a punt on ‘truth-force’, backing the after-my-own-lifetime selflessness over the short sharp burst satisfaction of ‘being aggressive’. Using ‘truth-force’ to do our work for us, it may be slower but it will be truer. It will more honestly reflect the genuinely matured adult. By ‘going non-violent’ we respect timing and placing; we respect the reality, that we’re a tiny minority dealing with a vast majority who are not yet sympathetic to our cause.
What can we do? Set fire to fur-farms or be a consistent source of subtle pressure?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The failure of push
If our own self-development is directly connected with our work for Animal Rights, we’ll want to see some evidence we haven’t been wasting our time. We’ve developed, hopefully. But what results? What has happened? is it that nothing seems to work. Progress slow?
Nobody yet knows the clue to communication (on this subject). We are, all of us, floundering or struggling to find a way of saying what we want to say, to others. So, how can we be convincing, how can we shake the sleepy omnivores out of their complacency?
The question comes up: can we achieve anything by way of non-violent protest? That is Ghandi’s idea of truth-force, Satyagraha, based on the power of protest with truth on your side. We might find it hard to disagree, that vegans do have truth on their side but the ‘power’ of our particular truth is a bit on the thin side.
Some doubt the strength of that ‘truth’, especially when it’s dress up as “non-violence”. It all sounds a bit religious. But ironically, in a different sort of way, it boils down to an act of faith - vegans recognising a truth and promising “no-quarrel-stuff” in exchange for ... the reward ... and we all have to find out what it is for ourselves.
But what happens when we aren’t so sure, when we think it’s okay to use a little bit of force, to show ‘the enemy’ we’re serious?
From our own point of view, as vegans, we might say “if they commit such an outrageous crime they will just have to cop some opposition”. That’s a challenge.
If we want to be engaged in ‘a bit of a fight’, if we’re doing something a little bit daring, it always makes us feel stronger, better. Maybe we decide to super glue the butchers shop’s locks or we graffiti the vivisector’s house.
The line between violence and non-violent resistance is a thin one. If we seem too passive, people find it easy to ignore us and so nothing changes. If we decide to go in a bit rough (“hey guys, this is serious”) it seems, at first, a better option. It’s more popular amongst activists because it seems braver (and in truth, sometimes it’s very brave), and being part of a dedicated direct action group is exciting. It’s especially so if the group breaks into a factory farm with a video camera and then gets footage out to schools or onto TV news. At least we give people a chance to see what’s really going on, kids especially. Our reasoning here: (and this is, I reckon, where a mistake is made by moat vegans) we think like fundamentalists. Black and white. People all the same, they’ll have to act. People can’t possibly ignore what they see. Soon they’ll act!!
In theory, being a bit up-front about Animal Rights, the ‘pushy’ approach, direct action, etc., is more effective. It shakes people. And anyone shaken is a sign ... here’s the feeling that we’re making some progress. People reaction. We’re in the news ... but in practice, even if people see the most convincing footage and hear the most convincing arguments, they forget quickly. And forget completely. It’s a trick of survival - it’s mind over matter. “Be gone”, and it’s gone!
Whatever a vegan says, whatever the omnivore learns fro us at the time, it goes in one ear and out the other (and visually, in one eye and out … etc). I think the mistake we make, as animal activists, is to believe that once cruelty has been proved it will be stopped ... and from there we make steady progress towards animal liberation. We refuse to believe that other people are so different to ourselves that they could ignore it all, ever so easily ... in order to continue eating the sorts of foods they eat ... we may not be all like this but the vast majority are, who are living right now. I think direct pushing fails. Our approach to people needs to be much more subtle than that. We do have truth on our side and you’ve got to admit that potentially it simply oozes power. Best not be seen to be aggressive in our pushiness then.
Nobody yet knows the clue to communication (on this subject). We are, all of us, floundering or struggling to find a way of saying what we want to say, to others. So, how can we be convincing, how can we shake the sleepy omnivores out of their complacency?
The question comes up: can we achieve anything by way of non-violent protest? That is Ghandi’s idea of truth-force, Satyagraha, based on the power of protest with truth on your side. We might find it hard to disagree, that vegans do have truth on their side but the ‘power’ of our particular truth is a bit on the thin side.
Some doubt the strength of that ‘truth’, especially when it’s dress up as “non-violence”. It all sounds a bit religious. But ironically, in a different sort of way, it boils down to an act of faith - vegans recognising a truth and promising “no-quarrel-stuff” in exchange for ... the reward ... and we all have to find out what it is for ourselves.
But what happens when we aren’t so sure, when we think it’s okay to use a little bit of force, to show ‘the enemy’ we’re serious?
From our own point of view, as vegans, we might say “if they commit such an outrageous crime they will just have to cop some opposition”. That’s a challenge.
If we want to be engaged in ‘a bit of a fight’, if we’re doing something a little bit daring, it always makes us feel stronger, better. Maybe we decide to super glue the butchers shop’s locks or we graffiti the vivisector’s house.
The line between violence and non-violent resistance is a thin one. If we seem too passive, people find it easy to ignore us and so nothing changes. If we decide to go in a bit rough (“hey guys, this is serious”) it seems, at first, a better option. It’s more popular amongst activists because it seems braver (and in truth, sometimes it’s very brave), and being part of a dedicated direct action group is exciting. It’s especially so if the group breaks into a factory farm with a video camera and then gets footage out to schools or onto TV news. At least we give people a chance to see what’s really going on, kids especially. Our reasoning here: (and this is, I reckon, where a mistake is made by moat vegans) we think like fundamentalists. Black and white. People all the same, they’ll have to act. People can’t possibly ignore what they see. Soon they’ll act!!
In theory, being a bit up-front about Animal Rights, the ‘pushy’ approach, direct action, etc., is more effective. It shakes people. And anyone shaken is a sign ... here’s the feeling that we’re making some progress. People reaction. We’re in the news ... but in practice, even if people see the most convincing footage and hear the most convincing arguments, they forget quickly. And forget completely. It’s a trick of survival - it’s mind over matter. “Be gone”, and it’s gone!
Whatever a vegan says, whatever the omnivore learns fro us at the time, it goes in one ear and out the other (and visually, in one eye and out … etc). I think the mistake we make, as animal activists, is to believe that once cruelty has been proved it will be stopped ... and from there we make steady progress towards animal liberation. We refuse to believe that other people are so different to ourselves that they could ignore it all, ever so easily ... in order to continue eating the sorts of foods they eat ... we may not be all like this but the vast majority are, who are living right now. I think direct pushing fails. Our approach to people needs to be much more subtle than that. We do have truth on our side and you’ve got to admit that potentially it simply oozes power. Best not be seen to be aggressive in our pushiness then.
Scrumping
Tuesday 1st February
Can I take what isn’t mine? As kids we lived near orchards and at the end of summer the trees were laden with apples. The idea behind ‘scrumping’ is, of course, theft.
Kids scrumping apples from orchards is the benign end of theft. It’s not the crime itself but the way it’s seen – our society is outraged at some crimes and not others. We aren’t consistent in the way we regard crime but quite apart from moralising about theft, we can look at it simply in terms of ‘getting away with it’, weighing the pros and cons - to steal or not to steal. We like a bargain and stealing is better than a bargain, it’s free. You can’t pass up opportunity ... so, cycling past an orchard, all those apples just lying around waiting to rot.
It could be apples or stealing food from the animals - it’s too easy. The animal is there, docile, imprison-able, biologically impelled to produce useful products for humans - they’re an investment opportunity because they always produce what people want.
Humanity, down the centuries, benefit at the animals’ expense. Stealing from animals is legal and profitable. Why on earth wouldn’t we use animals?
Can I take what isn’t mine? As kids we lived near orchards and at the end of summer the trees were laden with apples. The idea behind ‘scrumping’ is, of course, theft.
Kids scrumping apples from orchards is the benign end of theft. It’s not the crime itself but the way it’s seen – our society is outraged at some crimes and not others. We aren’t consistent in the way we regard crime but quite apart from moralising about theft, we can look at it simply in terms of ‘getting away with it’, weighing the pros and cons - to steal or not to steal. We like a bargain and stealing is better than a bargain, it’s free. You can’t pass up opportunity ... so, cycling past an orchard, all those apples just lying around waiting to rot.
It could be apples or stealing food from the animals - it’s too easy. The animal is there, docile, imprison-able, biologically impelled to produce useful products for humans - they’re an investment opportunity because they always produce what people want.
Humanity, down the centuries, benefit at the animals’ expense. Stealing from animals is legal and profitable. Why on earth wouldn’t we use animals?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)