Smile easy - you’re being watched

276:

Vegans are used to people trying to have a go at them. Usually it’s a very half-hearted attempt to make our ‘over sensitivity towards animals’ look foolish. In company an insulting comment is often enjoyed by everyone - all the more reason why I shouldn’t let myself be provoked. I don’t need to show outrage although I have to be sure my arguments can ride out these minor annoyances. At the very least I should be able to say something which sounds competent ... as any animal advocate should.
Meat eaters, from their safe, majority position, always like to put down the righteous. They want to show how easy it is to make us angry - I do the smile-easy to confound them. As it happens, they usually try to wind me up to get an excuse NOT to have to listen to what they don’t want to hear.
If I start to show anger at them it gives them the green light to shut the door in my face. When I do get some sort of a hearing then I suppose I must be prepared to be fair game for attack ... because I’ve dared to question their most private lifestyle habits. Most carnivores don’t care about animal suffering and don’t want to talk about it, and yet there are always those who do want to take us on. So, as vegans, we need to be ready for ‘dinner table attacking’.
When I find myself the butt of a carnivore’s joke I can put up a good fight but I don’t achieve much if it simply makes them more frightened than they already are. (I reckon it’s fear that urges them to make a joke of it in the first place). The aim of a sharp-edged joke is to attract attention and gather support ... and to overwhelm me ... so, if i take umbrage or withdraw in silence then it seems that I can’t come up with a sharp enough retort ... and that often makes them smell blood and go in for the kill.
These are still early days for Animal Rights. We’re building foundations and encouraging new attitudes towards animals. We’re outlining law reform that will illegalise abattoirs and animal farming. And that would include the keeping of birds in cages (whether they’re budgerigars or hens) and fish in bowls (or fish-farming tanks). What I’m proposing annoys people hugely. And I’ll be told so. My point here is that it’s futile to spend too much time fighting with everyone who disagrees with us.
For my part I don’t want to waste my life fighting every local skirmish. Maybe those who laugh at us do need to be ignored - ‘the lamb’ jibe needs to be let through - if only because jokers and ‘people with vested interests’ are still in the ascendancy. Many of them are just busting to put us down if they get the chance. Discretion might be the better part of ‘going in boots and all’.
My compassion for animals is right, of course it is, because it’s the logical outcome of this anti-slavery movement. Obviously it feels right to me. That I should get upset that so many don’t agree is a waste of my emotional energy. Having a sense of humour about it all is the healthiest and most logical response, even if I have to handle a heckle or two. It’s ridiculous for me to wage war over every puff of smoke. I don’t need to take on every red neck I meet, or parry every joke. I don’t even have to be intimidated by political corporations. In fact I don’t have to be afraid of any of them because none of them have ‘the bottle’ to take me or any of us on in serious debate.
The world’s at a funny stage at the moment. So much openness to so many issues and yet, on some matters there are still too many questions un-asked. For instance, how is it that some of us are passionate advocates for animals and others are indifferent or hostile? I’m always asking myself how come vegans are so relatively enlightened and meatheads so backward?
The fact is that our differences are specific and not general. Vegans are probably not that much brighter or kinder or healthier but we do have more self discipline because we are, in some ways, so much more fearless and we do so much more boycotting. We’re constantly investigating and thinking about ethical issues. We’re more used to questioning and arguing our case and that probably makes us somewhat frightening to our opponents. If I’m right about that then it follows that our adversaries might feel just a little nervous. We don’t need to wind them up. It’s their fears we should be trying to allay.

Only jokin’

275:

When I meet an adversary and discuss my opposite views, concerning the eating of animals, I’m at a disadvantage because I know that I hold such a minority view. It’s almost impossible to win the ‘animal argument’ if my opponent feels supported by the dominant culture.
For me, not blessed with a brilliant wit, if I try making a hasty response I usually blow it. I see the attack coming out of left-field, I see it has a distinctly personal tone and that it seems like a challenge. In other words I don’t see any signs of us heading into a fair-minded debate, quite the opposite in fact.
Maybe I detect a simple comment, couched as a joke, and that it’s meant to give a benign impression, whilst a sharp thrust is made, in and out in a flash ... and no room for any detailed discussion. The sharp comment, fired off at ‘joke- level’, is not meant to be shrugged off ... but it’s difficult to respond without firing back an aggressive reply … and in that split second, as I bite back, I know I’ve been trapped. I’ve been manipulated into the very thing they needed – my aggressive response is the coup de grace of the ‘joke’, and it’s this that ‘turns’ the atmosphere.
I’m made to look bad, as if I took things further than necessary. The joking carnivore is outraged at the thought that their comments could be taken so personally. “It was meant as a joke. Have you no sense of humour?”
By taking umbrage, by being hypersensitive to a bit of light hearted banter, I show how ready I am to quarrel over this issue. It’s proof (to my adversary) that I’m neither cool nor collected nor a compassionate person, nor as non-violent as I’d like to appear to be. I look like a loser who seems to have gentle views about animals but not about people.
They win!!

Defending oneself

274:

This friend, who is eating lamb, (yesterday’s blog: having a lamb dish at a restaurant) is wanting to justify it and put down anyone who disagrees with her right to eat what she wants. For her, this whole subject provokes a need to put-down-the-righteous (me). She wants to shift my view. She, trying to convince me to take up meat again and me, when I stop laughing, simply saying “NO WAY”. It’s easier to convince a carnivore to move on than a vegan to move back.
For me to persuade someone who’s set in their ways, to consider what I’m saying, isn’t easy, especially when they’re older people. At some point in their lives this whole matter has been settled (about eating animals). They’ve probably promised themselves, family, friends and colleagues, that it won’t happen, and that it isn’t something they want to talk about. That position is held firmly and underscored by making tasteless jokes about it.
To come out against it (or for it) throws up certain difficulties. If against, it shows a level of contempt which becomes stronger as one gets older because there’s more to lose if one changes sides. For those who do consider changing the problem is one of losing friends ... over these ‘issues’ ... and feeling obliges to take sides ... wondering whether to stay out of it or wade in.
To be for it, and saying so, is something most vegans have to face up to. Should I say what I want to say? If I spoke out could I control my language? And what happens if my words don’t flow smoothly, making me look foolish, as though I hadn’t thought things through? I’d be asking myself if I couldn’t put my ‘defence’ into more powerful words.
These situations crop up suddenly, when I find myself being put on the spot. If I respond by defending both myself and the issue at hand I might be tempted to bite back, to draw their fire ... and then there’s no end to it.
My friend ... the ‘lamb’ ... her making light of it - in this instance it was enough for me to decide that it was one of those times for withdrawing.

Attacking me

272

Recently I was visiting an elderly friend of mine and her youngest and eldest daughters were visiting at the same time. The younger one ‘needed’ to joke with me about her choice of food at her sister’s recent birthday dinner in a restaurant. She wanted me to know that she had had ‘the lamb’. This was her way of saying “up yours” to me, a reminder of how much her views differed from mine.
I’ve known her since she was a child and have followed her views for over 30 years. As a kid she was sensitive to animals and familiar with vegetarianism. In later years she became interested in cuisine and now she’s enthusiastic for eating meat, hence her mischievous joke about ‘having the lamb’. Knowing me and knowing my stand, she was obviously making a point with her throw-away line. She meant to attract attention.
It rather changed the mood of our little tea party. Whatever I said in reply would escalate things between us. I’m always up for a stoush over such things but I don’t want to quarrel just to score a point. Maybe she wanted a fight. I didn’t hang around to find out. I don’t know her well enough, these days, to be sure of her.
I think she meant to make a joke at my expense. For her it was probably mandatory that she should joke to counter my stand on Animal Rights, as if whenever ‘animal-eating’ comes up in a conversation it needs to be joked about ... to show people like me how un-cool it is to get sniffy about traditional eating regimes.
My friend tells me she enjoys eating lamb (probably to provoke outrage in me) and as the ‘joke’ goes along it gets more serious and turns into a challenge. She makes a comment, I make a reply, and it goes on until someone ‘wins’, and that’s okay if there’s mutual respect but if there’s not ...
Perhaps it’s the meat-eater’s revenge, this sort of sniping attack, to bring about a vegan’s de-moralisation. She probably enjoys seeing the outrage on my face and me rising to her bait.
My friend’s daughter, having known me for the past thirty odd years, and knowing I defend animals, regards me as fair game. But for me it depends on who I’m talking to, as to whether I take up the challenge. Sometimes I’ll withdraw, at other times I’ll take them on ... but that’s why I’m writing about this incident, not to put her down and not to justify myself but out of interest to both sides of the debate.
Once, ethically, we tip one way or the other, we seem to be committed to making a stand - carnivores love to win an argument with vegans and vice versa. They usually make a joke about being a meat-eater to wind us up, as a show-off position. They intend to win, but more importantly it’s material for future conversations with friends - by having a real ‘head-on’ argument we can make a good story out of it. It’s something to talk about later. Vegans do it too. We make fun of meat eaters amongst ourselves - “These carnivores, what bastards they are … they’ll even eat a lamb!”

Heavy attitudes

271:

The two different attitudes surrounding the animal debate - on the one side the anger felt by vegans, towards people who brag about their meat eating and don’t give a damn about animals, on the other side are people who resent being forced to consider animals when they don’t want to. There’s a gulf between people over the subject of animals.
Animals are eaten by the million, the billion, not the cute, cuddly ones of course but the so called ‘edible’ ones. Until a couple of decades ago no one gave much thought to how animals were being treated on farms and abattoirs or that it might be possible to survive without using animals or that it was wrong to kill them for food. Then, in the early eighties, The Animals Film and the book Animal Liberation hit the scene. They shocked a lot of people.
I, for one, realised for the first time how much of our food relied on animals and was horrified by what I saw actually happening to them (and became vegan as a consequence). Slowly these home truths seeped into public consciousness and a momentum started to build ... then, surprisingly, it came to a standstill. At least it did in Australia. The general public were no longer as outraged, the media didn’t take up the stories (of routine animal abuse), and the meat trade continued to flourish. In the general community there was a reluctance to face up to animal issues - probably because people were feeling too guilty to think about it ... and they liked their animal foods too much to want to examine the subject too closely ... and were addicted to them (to thousands of food products on the market) ... and to discuss animal issues might endanger supply or increase their cost.
Public attitude is now set in concrete. Discussion is subdued and the situation for farm animals is even more dire than it was thirty years ago. Taking a heavy hammer to that concrete isn’t the answer, I’m sure of that, but I’m not so sure there is another obvious way to even bring the subject up let alone get people discussing it constructively.

I refuse to become vegan ...

269:
Meat is symbolic of rich living (despite the fact that most people in the West can afford to buy it) and, along with other rich and exotic animal foods, it is regarded as ‘quality food’. Animal products are attractive to our tastebuds and expensive enough to be associated with good living. They appeal to those who ‘appreciate the good things in life’.
In contrast vegans show how bad these foods are and seem to make people feel guilty for wanting them. Consequently people dislike vegans and the sort of foods they recommend, preferring to stick with what they know.
What stops you becoming vegan? Perhaps missing things you associate with pleasure and which also give you social acceptance. People may realise what they’re eating is not, in the long run, good for them but in the short term it’s what they want. They can’t face missing out on roast dinners and a whole lot more.
Vegans have taken the plunge in many ways (food and clothing especially). They’ve taken a big step and thus earned the cred to promote non-violent food. Some of us have taken it further, promoting non-violence as a modus operandi. We want to interest others in both the food and the ethics whereas, in contrast, non-vegans can’t subscribe to that - they can’t take it seriously (non-violence as a general response to life). Naturally, I for one think that’s pretty sad, that the human race seems to be held back in this way, always having to maintain the ‘hard nose’. Their biggest hurdle is obviously their unwillingness to change their daily food habits and their speciesist attitudes towards animals.
As a part of the ‘vast majority’, most people do what others do. They have lots of reasons why they wouldn’t take up a vegan diet. So I thought it might be useful to outline some of the main reasons why people do NOT go vegan, and then weigh that against all the advantages that a non-violent food regime might bring.
Since most people have never had to restrict themselves in diet, especially if it involves things they enjoy eating and which they’ve taken for granted all their lives, then the idea of taking on a vegan lifestyle would seem, at first sight, outrageously restrictive. And since people get very toey about losing their freedom of choice, especially when it comes to food, then the little things start to take on big proportions. It becomes immensely important NOT to be giving up their snacks, treats and food-favourites. A branch of this is the fear of losing the sophistication associated with ‘cuisine’ - one might like to eat ‘French’ or Chinese or Indian foods. The thought of being inhibited over a particular cuisine, confined to eating only their plant-based dishes, might seem limiting. The thought of not being able to experience the great dishes of certain countries would seem like a great loss.
But it isn’t just food, it’s clothing too. For example, for the fashion conscious there’s not much choice of footwear outside the leather range of shoes. And again, in entertainment ... how kids do love to see animals ... so there’s the zoo visit to think about. Imagine having to explain to kids why the idea of keeping lions in cages is wrong.
For teenagers who need work the difficulties are bad enough without being told that available work selling hamburgers at McDonalds is unethical. For young people wanting to train as a chef in a restaurant, they’ll inevitably need to cook animals, since virtually every popular dish uses them. For a vegan, that career path is out of the question, along with just about every other career associated with preparing food.
Here’s a common problem for the would-be vegan – one would normally associate being invited to eat at someone’s place with pleasure but of course not for us. When we’re invited to dinner or a wedding or meeting at the local cafe, at some stage food becomes a problem. We either don’t eat or have to ask for something ‘special’, and that’s just one big irritation to those providing the food.
There are other problems connected to being vegan. As a vegan, what do I do at Christmas when I’m given a woollen jumper? What do I say when invited to sit on a leather lounge? How far do I take it? (It’s sounding a bit obsessional isn’t it? ) A lover gives you a kiss, and it tastes of the last meal they ate. What do I do if I have to share a kitchen with someone who cooks meat? What’s it like to share a fridge full of bits of dead animal flesh and smelly cheeses ... and what about the stinky fish left-overs in the waste bin and the flies buzzing around in warm weather? And how does it feel to eat my food alongside others who eat things that disgust me?
If you are single and out there looking for a partner, how many suitable vegans are there to choose from? I know I couldn’t live with a carnivore. What about a vegetarian? Could I work with colleagues who make me the butt of their jokes? If you’re a student at school, does your canteen have anything vegetarian to eat, let alone vegan? What if I joined an environmental group or a peace movement dedicated to non-violence and found myself attending a typical, fund-raising sausage-sizzle? I think I’d want to run for my life. The environmentalists would probably excuse themselves with, “Veganism? We’ve got enough issues to handle, concerning forests and pollution and global warming without getting hot under the collar about animal farming”.
Still, you may be thinking of going vegan? But how will you keep your opinions to yourself when all you really feel like doing is expanding the consciousness of your fellows? Maybe you’d like to be involved in charity work – you’re helping to feed starving children ... and then you find out that milk and meat products are being donated, or live animals are being provided for animal farming. As a vegan, this sort of disapproving would seem like you wanting to see kids starve.
These are just some of the problems facing us when we go vegan.
I should let that sink in before regaling the reader of all the advantages of being vegan. I think I’ve pretty much covered that already, anyhow.

Vegan police

267a:

A friend of mine reckons I try to take over any conversation to put my case for veganism or animal rights, and she reckons I’m being like the ‘thought police’. “Leave me alone”, she says, “I feel okay about what I do, what I eat and what I wear”.
I can’t fight that! In her mind there’s no obvious damage being done - she’s only doing what others do … and it’s legal. More importantly she doesn’t want to discuss any of this. Leave me alone.
I go snooping, opening her fridge, disapproving of what I find inside. She says I’m no better than a peeping tom. I step over the line, or more importantly I show my fundamental misunderstanding of her freedom-of-choice … and understandably she reacts badly. Perhaps she’s too polite to object too strongly to my face but later, privately, she probably gets quite upset about me being a pushy vegan who tries to barge into her private life.
I wonder why she doesn’t invite me round to dinner any more?
For my friend, who is up-front about her omnivorous diet, her being offended by me is her favourite defence. She uses it to justify ‘not listening’. Other friends are listening however. They’re taking what I’m saying seriously, and they seem to have good intentions. They may be considering altering their food-buying habits, but for what reason? Are they trying to humour me? Are they changing because I’ve nudged them into it, or is it a true awakening for them? Compassion? Political correctness? Guilt? Wanting to win approval by doing the right thing?
Does today’s intention lead to a permanent state of things or, if it fails, does it weaken one’s belief in one’s good intention? Food is such a tempting business, like wanting to be thought of as a vegetarian but sneaking a sly hamburger when no one is watching, or, as kids, having a smoke behind the bicycle sheds. Is it just weakness or is it a reaction against someone who is pushing us around? Is there an element of the sweet taste of ‘stolen fruit’? Is there a refusal to give-in to the submissive side of one’s self?
There’s someone telling me all these good reasons why I shouldn’t do something I’m used to. Is that behind my decision to continue eating meat (or whatever). Does one become offended that one’s private space is being invaded?

Thinking harmless

266:

Vegan’s have rules concerning animals and eating habits but some of us don’t apply it to our relations with each other. I know I don’t always observe the rule ... of comprehensive non-violence. It’s easy to dislike uncaring people ... but then that probably includes almost the whole of the human race. My own moral judgement is a slippery slope, disapproving of customers for spending their money supporting the very people who directly attack animals. So the question is, am I capable of harmlessness (thinking-without-aggression) and being non-judgemental?
If I’m trying to set a standard for non-violence, I surely have to be more generous with my judgements, without being a Polly Anna. It means looking for the best in people, giving them the benefit of the doubt … whilst not necessarily okaying what they actually do.
I have to separate the deed from the person, investigate what makes people tick, ask myself why so many people aren’t concerned about ‘the animal problem’ and why they aren’t impatient to become vegan. I’d like to be putting my fellow humans under the microscope, to find out why they don’t protest at the routine killing of creatures, and why they are, in fact, enthusiastic supporters of it, or rather the end products of the killing. I realise that many people have never given it much thought, I realise many people don’t know what’s really going on, but I also realise that many people do know and won’t budge. Towards these people it’s easy to be judgemental, so they provide the best test for vegans who are trying to do some harmlessness-thinking.

Beneficial structure

265:

If killing animals to eat them is condoned by the majority, then as vegans we need to be upfront about our boycott - that we don’t condone violence and specifically violently-extracted foods and commodities. In that way it makes us different to almost all other people. Our decisions are coloured differently in so many ways, not just by the food and clothing we use but in the very way we see our world – we don’t relish the role of human-the-dominator but that of being of equal importance with other species.
Anyone who is part of a particular discipline, whether it’s in sport, religion, academic study or personal relationships, abides by their own self-imposed rules. We devise and adopt them not just to BE different or to make life more difficult for ourselves but because they provide a structure which could prove of benefit to others. So a ‘discipline’ is a show of strength, a proof that something can be done if it’s seen to be necessary.
Take the Quakers. They avoid war and don’t let themselves be conscripted. They believe disagreements can best be handled by dialogue rather than confrontation. For many years in the eighteenth century, in Pennsylvania, they maintained friendly relations with the indigenous Americans and governed a whole state on the basis of non-violence. Their government eventually collapsed, because the use of violence and force was more popular for solving problems … but maybe the Quakers were doomed by their own inconsistency. It wasn’t that they’d gone too far but that they hadn’t gone far enough. They didn’t embrace the idea of being non-violent towards animals, since they still killed and ate them. But they still represent today a precept of acting non-violently and perhaps also non-judgementally, and we can all take something from that and appreciate its value. I’d like to see them become vegan because of the valuable groundwork they’ve laid towards the idea of regarding all humans as being on an equal footing.
Vegans and Quakers each offer an important principle to the world. One discipline from one group could perhaps benefit the other group … in a sort of principle-exchange.

Strategy

264:

Does Animal Rights need a communication upgrade? As a vegan I have my own weakness, judgementalism, and I think it applies to other advocates in the movement. This is a problem I admit I have and I think it needs to be addressed rigorously if only to keep it in check. I’d liken it to a weakness amongst the animal-eating masses, in their habit of condoning the killing and eating of animals, which also needs to be kept in check. It’s a weakness, and that’s all it is. My judgement habit is similarly a weakness, and I see it for that, but ONLY that.
I’d recommend to myself that I show no rancour, no disrespect and no value judgements. I won’t win anyone’s long term commitment by inducing guilt or fear in them. Only by showing I respect them and am interested in their welfare can I ever hope to keep them on side. Apart from my wanting to be warm with people, it’s to our strategic-advantage to do things this way round (i.e. without the finger-wagging).
Let’s say we are talking together, you and I. If you look at my face, you’ll pick up how I’m feeling – either I’m relating to you non-judgementally (I’ll be giving off signals that I like you or I accept you) or I’m being judgemental (I’ll be signalling disapproval and worse). I may not want to BE judgemental but that’s overridden by my insecure ego, or me wanting to show off my high standards. I may be prepared to risk our whole relationship, just for the sake of letting you know how ‘clean’ I am and how ‘dirty’ I think you are. I’ll gamble on this: that you’ll find my honesty trumps any attempt to deceive you about how I really feel.
If I’m being judgemental it’s all about values, mine and yours. It’s about me needing to establish my credentials, showing I have something to say and establishing my right to say it. If I express a moral judgement (aimed at you) it’s quite likely you’ll take offence.
Judgement: what is it? The hot flame touched by the child is judged hot – it’s evidence-based and to the older child self evident. Value-judging is different. When I assess your values, my subjective statement might be saying that my values are better than yours. Maybe I don’t exactly think that but since we’re all very sensitive about such things it’s likely it will come across that way.
My judging of you may not necessarily be fair or carefully researched, but I may feel compelled to show it, in order to make my position clear. In a clumsy way I’m hoping that the shock of showing the strength of my judgement (especially if I appear to be hiding it) will ‘wake you up’.
In the school playground the same thing happens. You insult me and I punch you in the face before I’ve thought it through. It’s a powerful moment. My judgement is quick, clear and almost primeval. I dislike what you did and I’m showing it before I’ve given myself time to make a more considered response ... which I quickly calculate will therefore be a less effective one.
When I’m judging you it might be almost that automatic. Each day we make decisions without taking the trouble to consider them more carefully. Perhaps that’s because we don’t have enough time or patience. I sometimes think and act almost simultaneously, instinctively liking or disliking, to suit the occasion. When it comes to straight-talking it might not be such a bad thing ... if my friends come to know me as a straight-speaker. But if I haven’t thought about it carefully enough, I may still be trying to use the shock-and-attack approach ... even not caring about others’ feelings … setting off a whole train of insensitivity, which adds up to one gigantic, strategic mistake.
So where does that leave me? Perhaps, strategically, needing to be very careful about straying into the mine field of making value judgements.

Being non-judgemental

263:

When I’m talking Animal Rights it’s impossible NOT to show my inner feelings. Try as I might, if judgement’s in my mind it’s going to be in my voice. My words may be carefully chosen, but if I harbour any negative personal feeling it’ll show up in my tone of voice and anyone listening will be thinking “Avoid, avoid”. So, for vegans talking Animal Rights, it’s almost impossible for us to win people’s hearts if we don’t seem to be on their side, to some extent.
If I wear the badge of the ‘animal liberationist’, owing to my general reputation I’m easily recognisable. How do I win people over in order to get them to stay with me long enough to listen to what I have to say? I would suggest by proving to them, first and foremost, that I’m not judgemental, and if necessary make a direct point of saying so (whether they’re likely to believe it or not).
To do that I first have to BE non-judgemental, truly so ... and be convinced of the futility of making moral judgements, whether it’s about the abuse of animals or about anything else I consider to be wrong. Instead I need to see it in much the same way as a doctor sees a disease, without rancour or disrespect but simply as a fault in the system, which needs fixing up. A good doctor won’t disparage the illness but simply look for a remedy to counter the destructive element, and therefore so should I.
They say there’s cancer in everyone’s body and that we’d be wise to stay healthy and keep our immune systems robust to lessen the chances for cancer to take hold. In much the same way we need to keep a healthy resolve ‘to avoid making judgements’ so as not to fall into all the classic trap of being too right for the taste of ordinary people .

The animals are for cooking?

262:

There’s little comfort for vegans when we read about animals in media stories and see that they are always the victims of human lifestyle. All we hear about is how conventional foods are being made more attractive, with cuisine making full use of animal foods. Cooking programmes are only ever about new taste experiences. TV cooks are oblivious of the animals whose body parts they use Their exotic dishes are made to look like the extravagance-we-all-deserve. “Don’t be so hard on yourself “, they imply. “Go on, spoil yourself”. There’s never a thought to the harm their new and exciting dishes, heavy with rich ingredients, do to human health … let alone the harm to the animals whose body parts they so liberally use. T.V. cooks may be good at entertaining us, even good for showing us different ways to use food, but they’re agents of indulgence. They’re agents of the Animal Industries too, who do very well out of these TV celebrities.
Our society is careful never to endanger this industry which enjoys all the backing it could ever want - it is entirely legal, acceptable and what it produces is said to be harmless to health. Because this vast animal-based food industry is such a vital part of our economy there’s barely a mention of animals, only the products taken from the animals. We are so used to the names given to the products, pork, veal, lamb, beef, that we’re hardly aware it has any association with a real live creature. The animal falls into the background, unseen, unmentioned and forgotten, and this is why most vegans are so intent on exposing this sly little piece of perfidy. However, there’s not much we can do to force a change of public attitude to these used-animals. We have nothing coercive to fight with.
But that’s to our advantage, as a movement. We have no physical power to stop this whole ghastly business – all we can do is expose it and make suggestions - we can teach but we can’t touch.
We are such a tiny minority against such a vast majority attitude, so confrontation is never going to get us anywhere. The odds are certainly against us ... but it forces us to take up only non-violent forms of persuasion. It might be frustrating for us but it’s good training in being non judgemental, pushing us to try out new attitudes towards those who disagree with us. It gives us an edge that wouldn’t occur to most people, and a strength which gives us some chance of impressing people.

Daggy judgements

261a:

My attitude to you as a meat eater: when I seem to show antipathy towards you, it’s guaranteed things will go badly wrong between us. As soon as you feel I’m judging your values, you go antithetical. You’ll probably neither like me nor what I’m saying, you probably won’t trust me and you’ll want to catch me out.
When I’m starting out (talking Animal Rights) I should fix up this trust thing before I open my mouth. I need to assess where you stand, and see if this is a volatile subject for you. I need to listen ... and you need to know if I’m an all round listener, a proper listener not just someone pretending to be interested, waiting for my turn to counter attack. It’s at this point where you and I may not know if we will jump down one another’s throats.
Whatever I think about your point of view I’ll try to hide it. But something is sure to give me away and that ends my chances of dialogue with you. I give myself away because I want to make you wrong and to make me right, probably it’s my need for revenge, my need to make you feel guilty. I’ll say to myself “There’s nothing else I can do to stop you doing what you do, but to impose my judgement on you”. But to you that wouldn’t make sense, since what you do is quite legal, “Everyone’s ‘exploiting animals’ in one way or another, so why pick on me?” So these two opposite judgements exist over this subject of ‘the use of animals’.
Perhaps the most extreme judgements are the most justified - here in Australia, a hot and dry land, bushfires are a constant threat especially because many of them are lit deliberately ... and so the arsonists are reviled. They act illegally and immorally ... everyone in the community can ‘come together on this one’, to condemn them. It’s a justified judgement, and because it’s so easily justified it brings out the worst judgements – “the arsonist should be locked up ... and throw away the key”. It shows our need to feel right or even righteous ... and I’d liken that to myself or to other vegans in search of any powerful argument to back up our judgements ... we judge but in doing so lose our compassion. When we hear about the latest coronary heart-disease statistics being associated with consuming large amounts of saturated fats (mainly from meat), we may be happy to hear this … because of the usefulness of these statistics, for backing up our arguments, concerning the need to avoid meat? We fall into the most obvious trap ... if we don’t express concern for those with heart disease we seem callous. Our very motives seem dodgy. We seem untrustworthy. Our judgement looks uglier than the thing we are judging.

Blunt instruments

260:

The idea of Animal Liberation rescuing and liberating animals is right, and what we’re trying to communicate, about the horrors of the animals’ lives in captivity, is right. And it may seem right to condemn those people who still continue supporting the animal industries ... but does it work? Just about everyone in the community is involved as customers of these industries, and for that reason alone not many of them will feel constrained to take ‘liberation’ too seriously.
We do have an added problem, in that we as a movement aren’t very consistent and I think in the future we will have to be. As I’ve already mentioned, many liberationists are carnivorous-animal owners so they’re visiting the meat counter just as do meat-eaters themselves. But that aside, what we condemn in others for disregarding farm animals we do because, to some extent, it makes us feel good ... for being ‘right’. And, whether we are consistent or not, condemnation and value judgement was never going to work anyway. The meat eating community will not to be bullied into giving up their meat and they might even enjoy the outrage of vegans.
Some vegans are like bullies, and even amongst each another there’s a tendency towards being vegan-police-types, criticising one another’s inconsistencies. Perhaps, at first sight, that’s how I might come across, for seeming to condemn inconsistencies amongst fellow vegans (who buy meat for their cats and dogs). But it’s not the detail of our various judgements but judgement in general which is so unproductive. None of us likes to be judged and most of us respond badly to it. So, overall, the blunt instrument of judgement, real or perceived, works against our best aims. If we make use of judgement we can’t, in my opinion, be effective advocates for animals.
I’ve found over the years that for all my judging and condemning it’s never worked. My point is that any amount of outrage, especially from a small group of people, is ineffective. It’s just too easy for (the big group of) people to ignore it and remain blissfully unscathed by their minority judges.
If we condemn the unethical use of animals, without the support of the law or the majority of ordinary people, our protests and judgements will appear to be simply the ravings of weirdos ... which are therefore ignorable. The best way to be effective is surely to encourage people to think and discuss, without insisting they agree with our views ... and never to become defensive about our views. Yes, we need to state our case clearly but then we need to stand back and see what happens, and try to understand why people are responding the way they do. Our movement needs more dispassionate research into attitude, and then we might be in a better position to realise what we’re up against and what will work in changing Society’s attitude.

Not letting our side down

258:

All of us are trained from childhood to make judgements of other people - if someone seems bad or stupid or weak our judging of them makes us feel better about ourselves. We like to feel superior. It’s a god-on-my-side sort of feeling. But by being vegan we are also trying to win recognition of an important principle, which should be bigger than the satisfaction of feeling better-than.
It’s the principle that counts. It should never be about me and my progress towards enlightenment but about the abolition of animal enslavement and the realisation of its importance. Therefore I shouldn’t be too quick to judge others, for fear of doing damage to the Animal Rights movement itself. I, as a vegan, represent other vegans and their reputation. By judging those who aren’t thinking like me, it’s guaranteed to turn them away from a particular way of thinking that they might have come round to, in time.
Memory plays tricks on us when we think we’ve always been on the right track. I wasn’t always vegan. I had another viewpoint once. Along the way I changed. It hit me that it was a good idea. Is it possible that I might NOT have become vegan if I’d met up with a judgemental vegan and found them too unattractive to identify with?
Feeling safe as a vegan should cancel out any need to be judgemental. The violence in our society stems from some people being thought of as inferior, and reacting accordingly. If I encourage that, I add to the problem of making others feel inferior, and why would I want to do that? Maybe somewhere in my past I was taught that a little violence kept others in their place or that it would force them to rise to a higher level, assuming of course that they needed to be improved.
Being in the right can, ironically, put us in the wrong when judgement, aggression and a disregard for the non-violent principle contradicts all the good that we believe in.

The judgement trap

257:

Most people know approximately how vegans see their world but they don’t know if they’ll try to convert others. They don’t know what other values a vegan has that makes be civilised people.
If I think being vegan is pretty much how everyone else should be and that I’m right, morally and health-wise, I might not necessarily see what else I must be if I’m going into the persuasion business. If I’m ‘in the right’ then I have to be extra vigilant about seeing my own faults and watching for traps, especially the judgement trap. Otherwise I can deservedly be accused of being righteous, as if I’m looking down on people ... as if I’m better than others. It’s a classic trap, me feeling entitled to judge others who disagree with me, and perhaps if I can’t get people to agree with me I use value judgement to force them my way - I’m right and therefore entitled to use whatever means are available to get you ‘right’ too.
If I attempt to judge someone’s values it’s a subtle form of violence. Even though on the one hand I’m bravely defending animals from being exploited I can still also be violating people’s space and their freedom of choice. It’s dangerous because free-will and choice are regarded by almost everyone as sacrosanct. Over the ages free-will has been fought for and won. We (here in the West) believe ourselves to be part of the dominant group, the ‘free-willed’ society. We don’t want to lose that.
Along comes a vegan who seems to want to take that away. “You are wrong, I am right, this is what you must do”.
From an outsider’s point of view there’s something threatening in holier-than-thou people. One usually wants to bring them ‘down to size’. Anyone who puts themselves forward and thinks themselves better, cleverer, wealthier, better looking or more righteous automatically appears unattractive. No one likes the self satisfied ... which is why I mustn’t come across that way.
Once you get vegans who aren’t judgemental everything changes. A vegan who doesn’t appear to be pushy or too overly persuasive is assessed on such qualities as being unlikely to be judgemental. Sure, I might run the risk of seeming to be too passive and therefore too easy to be ignored, but the advantage of that is I can’t be aggressively attacked and so I never find myself going onto the defensive. And then, perhaps, I can afford a little old fashioned humility ... and in that approach I can find my self confidence, leastways, to the extent that I never have to become strident.
The theory might go something like this: sit back and enjoy advocating Animal Rights. Who can complain? I give no one an excuse to get heavy with me.
It’s like watching a movie, the movie is speaking its message but passively. It doesn’t leap out and judge its audience. Similarly, books don’t judge us. We learn from them, that’s all. We can chuck them out of the window if needs be. The book won’t be offended. Likewise, as a vegan I might ask questions but no one needs to answer them nor should they feel compelled to by being judged badly if they don’t.
So, I put up my arguments. They go into circulation. Maybe what I say causes a disturbance, and perhaps I attract attention. But in my own mind I’m trying all the time to NOT force the issue.

Exploding myths

256:

Vegans will always have their work cut out, persuading people to change radically. But for us it’s not just about persuading reluctant people, it’s also about being useful to them. (I hope that doesn’t sound too patronising!)
I like to think I take people as they are, even if they don’t want to listen to what I have to say. These last three blogs might have made me seem angry (one person mentioned “a crabby critique of some flawed fellow animal lovers ...”) and certainly there is anger and frustration ... even perhaps a few aggressive thoughts towards some adversaries, but not many. I’m more interested in breaking down some over-comfortable myths, like it being okay to make use of animals just as long as we love them. All I’d like to do is help others see things as they could be (or perhaps should be) … and go on from there. All I want to do is keep it simple and clear.
Like any nag I like to stress the same things till the penny drops - that some of our favourite ‘home truths’ may not be as true as we’d like them to be. For example, many people still believe meat (and therefore animal farming) is essential for human survival, or that testing drugs on animals is the only way to have safe pharmaceuticals or that having animals in the house prevents our becoming lonely. A respondent to these latest blogs, concerning companion animals, mentioned the “inter-relationship of man to animal is supposed to be special and to light up the amygdala as nothing else can”. But this still puts the welfare of a human’s amygdala above the comfort of the animal, in order to justify our having an animal present in the human life. People are so locked into these sorts of beliefs that I am moved to explode the myth in order to show a different view of human safety and survival. Do we need meat, do we need drugs, do we need pets? If we say ‎’yes’ to any of these we may be right up to a point but each ‎‘yes’ means animals will suffer on our account.
In a nutshell, it’s the reliability of instinct that is our main safety, since it tells us what instinctively we should be doing (right and wrong, within the context of non-violence). But I’m conscious that whatever I do get across should emphasise the value of self-discovery, because everyone is hypersensitive to being criticised or being judged. Whereas if someone can arrive at a conclusion of their own, they can move on at their own pace and not be held back by their resentment of being preached at.

The principle of no-animal-use

255b

Many years ago if a child came from a poor family that child would be sent to work to help the family eat. Protest groups were set up to protect working children, but they didn’t necessarily argue that no kids should be put to work, because that would mean families would starve. This exact same problem still exists in many parts of the world today, where kids are working as little more than slaves. That’s how it is for domesticated animals. Animals will continue to be slaves until people stand up to their right not to be. It’s reasonable to expect those who say they are ‘fighting for the animals’ to be leading the way, setting the example and respecting them enough to fight for their true liberation and not just for better conditions.
What does ‘no-animal-use’ mean? To most people it means doing without hundreds of commercial products, making ethical choices mainly about the food they eat. The avoidance list is a long one and includes everything from horse racing and zoos to meat and cheese and tins of cat food. That’s one huge shift away from today’s norms, but imagine the suffering we cause with even one decision to exclude anything from that list.
If any group promotes a comprehensive avoidance policy they’d reckon on alienating just about everybody and end up without support from their members or the community in general. So they favour being pragmatic. They target instead the worst abuses and leave ‘the preposterous idea’ of no-use-of-animals well alone. They want to be seen to be doing something worthwhile whilst not being radical abolitionists. How easily we lose sight of ideals when we engage in ‘sensible compromise’.
Our faith in our own abilities to transform Society is low, whilst our need for recognition from one another is high. Whether we are liberationists or not, we don’t really show very much interest in the concept of true animal rights. If indeed animals did have rights, the first ‘right’ would prevent their being used by humans ... in any way whatsoever. Can you imagine humans legislating that we leave animals alone? How many of us could give up using paper to save the forests from being pulped ... and that’s just paper? When it comes to food and clothing it’s a mighty strong principle one would be espousing, one that would deny us so many conveniences.
It really boils down to lifestyle (what we’ve got used to) - it’s so dear to our hearts that it’s always more important than principle. Moving towards liberating animals would be inconvenient, but freeing children from labouring or slaves from their masters is no different from liberating animals from humans. But we have a horror of the former but not of the latter.
Having said that, I acknowledge the danger of our being overrun by animals - we’ve bred vast herds and flocks of creatures, and for our own protection we would have to curtail their breeding until numbers substantially diminished. Then there’s a question of their safety. These mutated creatures would have to be protected from exposure to Nature and predation, against which they’d have no means of protecting themselves - they couldn’t survive in the wild.
But bearing that in mind, Animal Rights is a concept which animal advocates need to vigorously promote. It’s the principle of the thing. If we trim it to make it more acceptable there won’t be nearly enough momentum to achieve any sort of rights for animals ... and the whole horror will only continue or get worse.

All animals are individual and irreplaceable

255a

There are many issues competing for public attention today - global warming, the environment, world hunger, animal welfare, human ethics - and each is significant and none should be sidelined, but the key issue which impacts on all the others is the routine and unthinking way we make use of animals. If that were fundamentally tackled our most serious problems wouldn’t be so intractable - human health would be transformed, the environment far less damaged and greenhouse gas emissions greatly reduced.
I think animal advocates should have, as their first priority, the goal of changing people’s attitude-to-animal-use. As it stands at present, because we love animals and seem to need to have them close by, many activists become owners of animals ... and so aren’t ready to promote abolition of use ... and when people look to the activist for a lead in this and find none it lets them off the hook, so it’s business as usual. Because activists fiddle at the edges of the animal-use problem, surprise, surprise, no significant change of attitude in the community takes place.
There’s nowhere near enough momentum being created by the Animal Rights / Animal Liberation movement - we fail the animals because we won’t make a loud enough noise about animal-use. Protests are organised, literature printed, web sites created, a few animals are liberated from their hell-hole imprisonment, and it all looks good on the surface. And in fairness, gradually the worst conditions are exposed and some welfare improvements are achieved. But never enough to swing the mass of people around to our way of thinking.
We don’t mean to fail the animals, we try sincerely, we pull out all the stops we can, but there’s so much to do and so few people doing it ... so the considerable energy and talent of activists is being used up with nothing left over for shifting public attitude to animal use.
I think activists face a dilemma. When I joined Animal Liberation in the early eighties we tried to cover many issues, today liberation groups concentrate their efforts on a few main issues only - they don’t want to spread themselves too thinly. They’re heartbroken (as I am) at the conditions on factory farms and they think the public will be deeply moved if they can show them what’s happening. But perhaps the compassion in people and their willingness to think things out for themselves is overestimated. People are much more brain-washed than one likes to think.
The activist wants reform and I admire their radical action and outspokenness, and their daring rescue raids on factory farms in the dead of night ... but I don’t think it’s radical where it counts.
We should be heard more often speaking about animals, about their sovereignty, about never regarding them as our playthings or a source of food and clothing, about each animal being important, individual and irreplaceable. If we are to be seen to be protecting animals’ rights, those rights should apply to all animals, companion animals included.

Companion animals and animal groups

255:

It’s terrible for me, writing about the issue of ‘not using animals for human convenience’, because it seems I’m attacking almost everyone, not just the meat eaters and the milk-drinking vegetarians but those who themselves eat only a plant-based diet but who buy meat for their companion animals. Just about everybody is an animal-user making it difficult to support the ‘no-use’ principle, if only because they’ll want to justify their own position.
Look at the people who keep animals in their homes. Some animals may have been rescued, but however well loved they are they have no freedom and no natural life. They are the property of a human, owned as ‘pets’, and treated like playthings. They’re often socially isolated, neutered, micro chipped, medicated and fed at the expense of farmed animals. So whether we eat animals ourselves or feed ‘animal’ to dogs and cats, most of us are making use of animals ... which means we aren’t free to promote a ‘non-use’ principle. Some (very few) don’t feed their animals meat and use specially prepared plant-based supplements to provide essential nutrients, but most companion animals are carnivores and to deny them meat ...
By writing this I’ve probably offended you, especially if you have animals at home, and as a member of an animal group maybe you’re doing some really great work to help other animals, and in some ways the equation can be morally balanced. But my whinge goes a bit deeper.
Most animal rights groups are doing brave work on behalf of those animals who are the worst abused - say, factory farmed hens and pigs - but in my opinion they aren’t strongly enough condemning the routine use of animals, and that makes it easier for people to continue their animal-habits. I have to admit that I’m no longer a paid up member of any animal groups, so I’m not assisting their good work and some would say I’m not in any position to voice my opinion. In my heart though I’m a fervent supporter of their work to stop battery farming, to ban live exports, to illegalise mulesing of sheep ... but there are so many other horrors which fall below the radar, and any amount of exposing-of-the-worst-cruelty seems to be having little effect on the millions of customers of the Animal Industries. In my opinion most animal groups don’t seem to be speaking strongly enough against routine animal use. Is that because they fear alienating too many people, even their own supporters?
Most animal rights groups do what they do very well. Activists work hard, voluntarily, attempting to stop the worst abuses, but the groups seem to neglect the bigger picture - the need to persuade the public not to use animals. Even vegan groups concentrate on health and food, and apart from the most radical groups, aren’t addressing the fundamental issue of an animal’s right to live its own life, whether a pig or horse or cat. It’s great, the good work some groups do, rescuing animals, exposing cruelty, promoting vegan food, if only it wasn’t just about that. I’d like to see them doing what they already do for fifty percent of the time and the other fifty percent spent on promoting the idea that animals are not there for human convenience. I think they should come out really strongly on that even though it will, at first, be seen by people as too extreme. One of the main jobs of any animal rights group is surely to set trends for the future. To nudge public attitude.

Stepping out

254:

I’m always reminded of Alice’s (in Wonderland) surprise when she steps into another world inhabited by strange beings and they don’t respond to her as she expects - it reminds me of the general human obstinacy to obvious answers. It reminds me of people suffering unnecessarily just to preserve the rightness of what they do.
In our world all the obvious answers seem to be staring us in the face but most people refuse to see them because they’re afraid of change. They don’t want to risk something they don’t fully understand, which even seems too ridiculously simple to work. I don’t mean economic problems which governments have to solve or huge global problems that can only be solved when everyone acts together. And I don’t mean standing up to danger and martyring ourselves for a principle. I mean something we can do at home which will transform our own lives and eventually set a global trend.
Vegans, acting at first out of raw outrage, take something from an unfamiliar dimension and install it as a routine in their own lives. The boycott a vegan installs is ridiculed and often causes friction with family and friends, but when the instinct is strong (and, for most vegans, it’s a gut feeling we have), when something is fundamentally wrong, there’s an overwhelming urge to act.
In the great lucky-dip of life, the luckiest one is becoming convinced of the truth of non-violence. By applying that principle (avoiding gratuitous violence) it’s likely we’ll start to get lucky, according to the law of just returns - that what goes around comes around, good karma, etc. I’m superstitious about violence and dishonesty, so I believe that if you give it out you get it back, and if you don’t do it, it can’t touch you. It appeals to my simple view of life, that I can tailor my life so the unnecessary ‘horribles’ aren’t invited in.
To non-vegans, who haven’t looked at things this way, it mightn’t seem significant enough, or not likely to be effective enough. So they blunder on and get rough treatment back - you can invest in a peace-deal or allow chaos to take a hold.
Some say “life is too short to worry about such details”. Why be bothered with the trivial details vegans worry about ... which is why vegans themselves need to explain why vegan principle is so central to the future sustainability of the planet. And it’s why I think that ‘holding firmly to the truth’ (or Ghandi’s idea of the “force which is born of truth and love or non-violence”) is so important. It has certainly transformed many people’s lives for the better, mine included. But the obstinacy ‘out there’, amongst most people who do what they’ve always done, for them nothing like this has happened to them - nothing has been transformed and so no one principle is capable of making a transformative change ... so they stick with what they know and help to perpetuate the very violence which is killing the human spirit.
Vegan arguments emphasise the importance of not being cruel to weak beings or destructive of beautiful things or wasteful of earthly bounties. If vegans are going to influence others we can’t just glow and be beheld, we have to argue our case hard and show by our own behaviour and an anti-bullying, anti-exploitative approach, that we have the tools to convince with.

Afraid of the radical

253a:

Dr Neal Barnard, President of the US group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, is advising on how to reverse diabetes. He’s written a book of that title. This is one ambitious plan. It’s seen as radical. But all he’s suggesting is that you can reverse this terrible health condition by way of food.
Now that proposition is almost laughable to most people and especially to diabetics. Perhaps food might alleviate the symptoms but to reverse the whole condition?
He suggests reversing diabetes is as simple as a three week experiment in using vegan food. But because this is such a serious condition, one needs to find vegan foods that are also low in oil and low-down on the glycemic index (see: www.pcrm.org/newsletter/jan07/diabetes). The fact is that he’s had great results, which speak for themselves.
In much the same way, vegans in general have had great results (mainly amongst less ill people) advocating a change to plant-based foods. The vegan diet which vegans ‘practise’ isn’t necessarily so very radical because we aren’t necessarily addressing a remedy for reversing a major health condition, we’re simply suggesting a diet for people who want to stay in reasonable health and who don’t want to exacerbate any ill-health condition they may have.
A radical change in diet, for whatever reason, involves a great leap of faith. This is where, in the considering-stage people usually envision the ‘change’ to be quite radical. Later, once into it, it doesn’t seem radical at all.

Lambs to the slaughter

252:

A popular victim of the ubiquitous Australian BBQ is the sheep (usually it’s a lamb, executed young for its tender flesh). Nobody thinks twice about this back-to-Nature fire ritual, of roasting a dead lamb on an open flame. Everybody gets excited by the smell of it cooking, and eating it, in spite of the fact that they wouldn’t be capable of taking a knife to that baby lamb’s throat to end its life. That idea would be disgusting.
The example of a lamb being executed, then barbequed, for the pleasure of eating it might not sit well in people’s conscience - it pits conscience against pleasure, denial against temptation. And yet ‘out of sight, out of mind’, the eating and indulging have merged into habit. The crime of the act is forgotten and the experience enjoyed.
The lamb is the symbol of innocence, it’s cute, cuddly and playful. The human symbolises the very opposite. Humans are not only careless and vicious but cowardly too since they employ someone else to take this young animal and slit its throat, so that it can be butchered and made ready for barbequing. Could there be an uglier outcome for this sweet creature’s life than being taken from its mother to the slaughterer, to the butcher and then to the roasting spit?
Humans aren’t used to being denied what they want - if it’s available the human will be tempted, and in this case, giving into temptation showing an incredible lack of self-discipline. There can surely be no excuse for someone who knows what this animal has gone through (on its journey from its home to its extermination) because they’ve connived at a terrible act of cruelty.
But look at it now from the consumer’s point of view - when it comes to self gratification, this favourite meat isn’t easy to give up. It’s like smoking or drinking or any other uncontrolled habit, indulging it is all we’ve ever known. There’s nothing self improving about eating lambs, quite the opposite.
Probably everyone looks for some sort of self-improvement in life ... but not by applying ethics to food. Why waste time on being disciplined in not-eating-animals if it doesn’t make us richer or better thought of? If social success is our main aim, then saving lambs from the slaughter isn’t relevant.
However, to feel successful I must at least have attitudes that are convincing to myself. I might start with personal self-development on ‘my road to enlightenment’ or my ‘quest for happiness’, but surely there’s a further dimension to it – it isn’t just about my journey through life but my place in the lives of others. And that includes my place in the world I live in, otherwise it all becomes just a little too self indulgent.
Perhaps that’s what veganism tries to point out. To be fully rounded, to see beyond self-improvement, to see beyond the enlightened ‘do-gooder’ I need to have a solid dimension of compassion in me. If I can empathise with another person’s situation I can then go beyond self discipline and start ‘thinking about others before thinking about myself’.
Although this might sounds idealistic, most of us do just that, and sometimes often. That’s far from self indulging and giving in to temptation, and of course to practise this vegans are suggesting our empathy ought to include animals, if only because there is so great a need today for us to empathise with them. Which brings us to the terrified lamb at the point where its throat is about to be cut ... which brings us back to vegan principles.
When I decide to be vegan I have to see it not as a restriction but as a liberation, not an abstention but a taking up of something better ... being better for more than just my interests. Food-wise it means healthier food, ethics-wise it means connecting with my compassionate self.
Surely, if I want to improve myself it comes down to simply doing the right thing, and knowing that in doing it I’ll generate enough energy to keep it up. The great advantage of being vegan is that, with good nutrition and clear conscience, I know I can start to make resolutions which will be kept, and I’ll feel all the better for that.

When eyes glaze over

251:

When I start talking about animals I’m familiar with ‘that look’, when their eyes glaze over, as if to say, “we don’t have to listen to this crap”. The situation where I’m socialising, eating, perhaps offered some food, and the time has come for me to say what I have to say - is this the best time to bring up the subject? There’s no right or wrong answer to this, which is why the approach is so very tricky.
As I edge around to it, often not too subtly, I might say something like, “…But should we be eating animals?” Here I am, about to launch into my spiel and it’s strange how the door isn’t quite shut in my face, because people are often wanting to ‘bring it on’, they’re fascinated to hear what my next line of crap will be, to see if they can match it. Also, they’re trawling for material; they’re interested that what I say might be good for recycling, as a story with mates over a round of drinks: “this ‘vaygn’ came to dinner the other night and do you know what he said? ...”. It’s a story that can be exaggerated for effect (no one being actually interested to hear the serious reason why this screwball is speaking up about eating animal foods).
So if I don’t want to be ignored or be the butt of jokes perhaps I have to take the initiative, get the joke warmed up by being cheeky, light hearted and disparaging of the food ... but never the people themselves. My most effective reaction, when offered something ‘animal’, is a downturned mouth and “I don’t think so”, as if they’ve made a bit of a social blunder, or to mention, “it’s dead animal isn’t it?” ... but with just enough tone in the voice to keep it humorous. I’m not out to start a quarrel just being a little provocative and pre-emptive.
Each situation is different, each is judged as to how far I reckon I can go and still get away with it. I like to be pro-active, never offended ... and always a bit edgy. I like to test the waters to see if I can get a bit of spirited repartee going with people, leaving them with enough room so they can bite back. That’s healthy. And then I’ll have no trouble using their comments as a springboard for one of my favourite nuggets of information.
If I’m given the bum’s rush I know at least I’ve tried to test the waters and done it as well as possible and, for chrissakes, with some HUMOUR.
In reality though, seriously, I have to come to terms with the emotional impact of being rejected. For me, of course, rejection is infuriating. Sometimes all I can see in front of me is a blank look, a resistance, even a maddening smirk. And when there’s no chance to make humour and it’s all deadly serious I get prepared for what happens next. Eyes don’t glaze over they stare blindly. I know I’m having zero impact on people. I can see they’re simply tuning out. And they have every right to slam the door in my face if I’m trying to invade their privacy. If I become exasperated and try to barge past their defences, dig right into their guilts and fears, surely I’ll fail to bring them around. And perhaps lose them entirely.
That’s the trouble with the health-talk approach, the fear-of-personal-illness approach (which often alienates people from taking us seriously and from respecting vegan principle or the principles behind animal liberation) because we’re selling our philosophy short. Here I am, trying to change people’s attitudes by making them feel guilty or afraid, and of course I succeed only in making them run away. I don’t believe this is a tactic that can work unless we’re only trying to flog the health angle.
Today many young people still have the health of youth and aren’t yet so consumed with guilt about animals. They identify with their peers, and especially those with attractive personalities. Wowsers, including vegans, may not be seen to be cool, especially so if the animal activist is in a bad temper ... which is why I don’t want to be seen as frustrated, assertive or preaching gloom. I don’t want to give anyone a chance to avoid me. Then, if I can get up close, drop in a well placed comment, whether there’s flak or no flak, there’s a chance I can say what I want to say and hopefully it sinks in.
However, amongst any group of people, anywhere, any age, meat eating is pretty much the norm. Almost every person who uses animal food is able to switch off their sense of compassion when dinner’s on the table. Animal Rights is tabooed because it deals with ethics and values and self-disciplines … and free-willed people don’t take to discussing this and don’t like being told what to eat. So, although when food’s about it may seem like a good opportunity to make comments it’s also the time when our comments will be most resented.