Trialling at home

823: 

The omnivore, someone who isn’t concerned about any of the ethical background to the food they eat, will go about their daily life, trying to make things more comfortable for themself. In the kitchen or when out shopping, it’s food that’s on the mind.

You’ve just been listening to a most compelling radio discussion - ‘a very interesting talk with a vegan’. You’ve been impressed by their arguments, and perhaps you’re already unhappy about your own eating habits. But your main concern is to not rock the boat. Changing diets is a serious business not to be taken on lightly. You calculate that, since there’s enough going ‘on’ in your life already, that you can’t take-on this too. Soon enough you pull back to where you were before, before hearing that radio program. You return to the comfortable, to the familiar, to the feeling of normality and safety-in-numbers.

            Whatever a vegan’s best intention, it is getting others to agree that counts and, only then letting go. After that, it’s a private matter, where they must test the strength of their agreement and commitment. For them it comes down to practice, where only time and trialling a new diet at home is the only thing that will help get past the obstacles. These are the sorts of personal tests familiar to anyone who has been through major change, like a rehabilitation programme. You face the end of one regime and adopt a new one. If vegans try to force people to agree, there might be agreement for a while but it won’t last. 

            The only person who governs what one is eating is oneself. If I choose to comment or offer advice to you, I have to be ready to fail, and then not to criticise your decision. At this very early stage of Animal Rights awareness, if we place any pressure at all on others, we’re bound to be roundly ignored.

The weight of the collective consciousness shouldn’t be underestimated – an individual standing alone against the conventional lifestyle, diet and general attitude is still somewhat of a rarity.

            All we can do is sow seeds. Perhaps we can stir the conscience. But nothing is guaranteed since there is so much cynicism and suspicion around these days. All new ideas and causes are suspect today, so vegans have to try to be different. If we come on strongly we must be prepared to pull back strongly too. We have to allow space for people to find their own way, and not be over-advisory. It’s a delicate balance.

Don’t make them squirm

822: 

If you’re a vegan, have you ever looked inside someone’s fridge and found ‘evidence’, and noticed the look on their face when you shut the fridge door?

This very confronting subject of ours causes embarrassment and worse. They see us looking at them, taking note of things in their kitchen or what’s on their plate (or what they’re wearing), and you have to wonder how this makes them feel.

The shock comes when they are made to realise the connection between ordinary food or clothing and animal cruelty – for us vegans, we might think that this could be enough to jump-start a radical change in their life. But for most people it doesn’t. Does this mean they don’t care about the animals involved? Maybe, but like almost every human on the planet, they don’t care that much. They might be too self serving. Their concerns might be too species-specific.

If humans lose their sense of concern and try to forget what humans are doing to innocent animals which are used for food, then I’d say that there’s something much bigger at stake. Once we allow animals to be routinely exploited, we downplay the value of innocence itself – whether of children, of animals, or eventually of the innocence buried within ourselves.

By boycotting animal foods, we can restore much of the guiltlessness of our youth and, at the same time, shift away from anthropocentrism. If humans are in the process of making a major breakthrough in their own consciousness, then this single awareness-shift is an essential start.

Once we’ve started to make that move, in the privacy of our own lives (by becoming more discriminating about what we eat or wear), where do we go from there? It’s a big step away from majority behaviour, so we might need some encouragement, to keep it up. It is, after all, an unusual thing to do, so we’ll want our friends and family to notice and acknowledge what we’re doing.

Then we wait and wait, and it doesn’t happen. We ask why. We feel resentful. We judge people to be un-shockable, insensitive or too pragmatic, etc. We demand some sort of response, and if it doesn’t come spontaneously then we might be tempted to force it out of people. We decide to tell them to wake up to the whole sorry background of the food they eat, etc. They listen, amazed. They see us trying to make them feel uncomfortable, and bite back with, “If you want to live uncomfortably yourself, that’s up to you. But why do you want me to live miserably too?” They just refuse to see the point.

Vegans want to dig deeper into the truth. Non-vegans don’t want to.

            Perhaps we think the whole world ought to be on trial. What’s happening to ‘food’ animals is enough to make anyone feel pessimistic. I often feel both surprised and disappointed by people’s level of general unawareness. And so, for the millionth time, I ask myself what can be done to stop the whole sorry crime against animals? But then I think that, in the present climate, it won’t be stopped, not until we look much more carefully at our own approach to other people. All that pent up anger has to be dissolved first, and that will mean me being much more up-front about what is going on inside my own head. First, I need to re-examine why I so much need to win arguments, at all costs. In that respect, I’m suggesting an entirely different approach to the omnivore; even though it seems to go against the grain, I think we’ll only get somewhere with them when we appreciate the difficulties they find themselves in. It has to start with myself finding some sympathy for them, for their inability to defend their position, for their ever-growing fear of ill health, for their impotence in contributing towards a more compassionate human species. And, of course, I need to empathise with their utter helplessness in the face of their evident addiction to crap foods, leather footwear and all sorts of other ‘essential’ animal products. If I show intolerance of any or all of this, it only makes matters worse and entrenches their habit of turning-a-blind-eye.

Nasty vegan opens fridge door

821:

I’m round at your place. You’ve offered me a beer, “Get one from the fridge”.

            As I’m grabbing a beer, I also take a peek in your fridge. I see some horrible items there. But what right do I have to look?

I might know how farm animals suffer, and think you should know too, at least enough to avoid buying this stuff. But there’s something else at stake here. There is a question of your right to privacy. You may not want me prying, interfering and commenting. Beer in hand I say, “So, you’re still buying sausages, then”. It depends on the nature of our relationship whether I’m just being cheeky or outrageously rude or attacking.

However well I know someone, if I over-step the mark I could ruin any chance of ever having a real conversation with them on this subject. Perhaps I don’t care what you think of me. Perhaps I want to see you squirm, since I’m so angry at what’s happening to animals - you being a consumer of animals, perhaps I’ll say whatever I want to say. Maybe I just want revenge.

            For some vegans, judging others can feel quite satisfying. We say, “They won’t forget that in a hurry!”, but we judge others at our peril. By peeking into your fridge and then insulting you for choosing to eat meat, I lose your trust and wreck any chance of having a useful or reasonably friendly conversation.

            It’s possible that you might want to give me a chance. You might show some interest. The trouble is, when the chance arises (to talk Animal Rights or Veganism) perhaps I grab the chance a little too hard, and my enthusiasm overflows the bounds of normal conversation. And that’s your warning signal. If I think I can push the boundaries, because this subject is so urgent and universally important, I might even think you’ll be impressed by my passion. But any enthusiast, who knows their subject and loves to rave about it, once they are given any encouragement will bore you silly for the next half-hour. If you give a talkative vegan a chance to have their say, it could be quite interesting to hear what they have to say, but if it goes on too long or gets too deep, it’s going to be irritating.

            Okay, well I suppose it’s obvious where this is heading. When vegans are ‘at their best’ they can also be at their worst. This can be where the real damage is done. This is where we might at first sound most interesting but also most threatening, and where our ‘listener’ stops identifying with us. This is where they conclude that we are both righteous and predictable. And I think this is where they’re likely to shift across from a grudging acceptance to outright dislike, saying to themselves, “I’m not sure I like this person”.

            After this, and probably for ever after, this vegan (and by association all vegans) will ‘smell’ so badly that they’ll be avoided in future.

            So, passion-driven talking should not go on too long and commenting on the contents of other people’s fridges is definitely not on.

Human nature in microcosm

820: 

We have two opposing views in our society - there are vegans who see all the cruelty and barbarity in human nature and are trying to correct it, and we have those who accept or turn a blind eye to the barbarity of human nature. As a vegan I’d say that the worst, most routine cruelty is practised against animals. But vegans are so few in number that no one’s listening to us, yet. Non-vegans are so vast in number that even the rampant cruelty against animals is okayed by them, if only that they agree amongst themselves to ignore it, knowing that no one can touch them. No wonder vegans feel so impotent.

            A while ago, we saw on TV, here in Australia, footage of the most outrageous treatment of animals ever filmed. Workers, at a Pakistan meatworks, using their mobile phones, recorded the massacre of thousands of sheep (exported from Australia), and not just a massacre but the half-killing of the animals and their being thrown alive and wounded into a pit. One animal was later pulled from the pit and ‘brought back to life’, just to prove that what the viewer could see, the twitching and shallow movements of some of these bodies, meant that they had been thrown into the pit alive. There was blood everywhere. Panic was obvious. There was no audio but the noise of thousands of terrorised animals forced to watch the massacre could be guessed at.

            I’ve no doubt the men attacking these sheep were ordered to dispose of as many animals as possible before anyone could witness what was going on. Thank god for mobile phones with cameras. It was all filmed and shown to Australian television audiences. However, the economic imperative rules for, as it turns out, the lucrative trade in the live export of animals is too valuable. It won’t be stopped because too many vested interests have too much power and the Australian government is too weak and unprincipled to stop it.

            We know this sort of barbaric treatment of animals happens, and we know it’s bound to happen again. And it reflects that part of our human nature which must have what it wants, at any cost. In modern abattoirs the killing and terrorising of animals isn’t as obviously barbaric as the massacre in Pakistan but it takes place nevertheless. Animals experience terror as they go for execution. We say they are killed humanely. When we enjoy our lamb cutlets we think of it as ‘happy meat’, believing what we are told - “The animals do not suffer”. But this is said out of convenience, so that we can continue to fill the fridge with our favourite bits of animals’ bodies, without our feeling too badly about it.

Animal Rights is a fascinating subject if only because what we do to animals, whether ‘cleanly’ in the modern slaughterhouse or ‘uncleanly’ at meatworks in Pakistan, shows the worst of human nature in microcosm. We gather together and agree that nothing should be said about attacking innocent animals, so that we can have our meat and eggs and milk. The animals, from which these products are taken, each suffer in life and each die horrible deaths.

            This is why, when I see inside people’s fridges, I know they have tacitly agreed to go along with the worst part of their nature, to ensure the supply of their favourite foods. They go along with the cruelty and barbarism of the animal industries which supply them. 

Vegans going in for the kill

819: 

Vegans who remark upon the ethics of a food usually cause consternation but when we make a value judgement about an omnivore’s diet it usually provokes anger. Provocation is a blunt instrument to get people to change. How else will it happen? It seems the most obvious way.

But I think provocation is a trap. Most omnivores aren’t stupid. They know precisely what we’re up to when we try to provoke them. If they aren’t ready to defend themselves straight away, they’ll surely be next time we try to stir them up.

            These days it’s unlikely the average Western-educated person is unaware of veganism, or at least that there is an ‘animal-rights’ perspective to consider, when dealing with certain foods. If we vegans come along and spring a heavy message on a person, yes, we’ll have an impact. But we mightn’t get away with it a second time. People will wise up to us (as you do with Jehovah Witnesses knocking at the front door). They’ll be prepared and shut off.

            A kindly, non-quarrelsome omnivore might put up with what we’re saying, but only for so long. They may encourage us by saying a few nice things (perhaps just to shut us up). They may even think of us as caring and compassionate people, even tell us we’re kind or wise. They might come across as polite, friendly and interested. But inside their heads, what are they really thinking?

            When we point out something important - “Do you know that the meat you’re eating, it was once  …”, we don’t always realise how we provoke not only anger but fear. “You know it will destroy your health?”

            It’s so easy for a vegan, even with average public-speaking skills, to say what needs to be said and, in effect, make fools of people. And then, it’s not so difficult to go that one step further and corner them, during an discussion over issues. If we try to force agreement the omnivore will try to wriggle out of it, by saying something indefensible, untrue or just plain foolish. And then we’ve got them ... or so we reckon.

            It’s similar to any attack, so there’s no surprise if a strong defence is mounted. The omnivore sees the vegan as ‘right’ (read obnoxious). They tell their friends, “If a vegan comes along and has a chat with you, watch out! Don’t say something really stupid. Beware. They can be nasty. They always go in for the kill!”

Going in for the ‘kill’

818: 

Judgements shock, especially when we judge someone’s values - “You’re wrong in doing what you do, eating what you eat”. It’s a criticism of the mindlessness behind every ham sandwich or chocolate bar we eat. It’s eaten simply because it tastes good.

            We tell people, “You are wrong ...” and that, of course, is intended to undermine a person’s sense of being right. And it’s possible that, before this, no one has ever criticised what they eat, not from a moral point of view anyway.

            Along the way, most people have met vegetarians advocating healthier food and better animal welfare. We’ve all heard of battery eggs and the need to switch to free range eggs. But maybe never before have we been confronted about the wrongness of ALL foods connected with animals, including by-products (and that goes for buying clothing made from animal body parts, leather goods in particular).

            To almost everybody, eating is like breathing fresh air, it’s not something we think about. We’re brought up to ethically question many things, but not food. The foods we eat are what Mum and Dad fed us. It’s all just ‘normal food’. How can food be ‘wrong’? How can almost every meal our parents provided for us be ‘wrong’? How can the traditions of every community on Earth (over countless previous generations) be wrong? If meat and milk is so poisonous why aren’t we all dead?

            Perhaps over a long period we have worn down not only our immune systems but also our greatest potential, and it being so incremental we just haven’t noticed it. It’s rather the same as getting used to war and hatred and lingering illnesses, as if it were part of normal life, as if it were unavoidable. It’s possible even today that we can go through life never encountering anyone who advocates on behalf of animals, and so we continue using animals without ever being challenged about it.

Soft we are, and not judging

817: 

The truly hard-bastard is not a typical human; we are mostly softies. None of us, vegan or omnivore, would deliberately hurt anything. People are NOT violent by nature, and don’t deliberately set out to hurt for the fun of it unless we’re psychopathically disturbed. It’s impossible for a sane person to inflict suffering on a sentient life form (animal or human). What ever could make us do such a thing?

            But this is where the meat-eater is torn. We don’t actually do the deed ourselves, we get others to do it for us - out of sight, out of mind. Most people will say it’s not nice but we are pragmatic about it. We think we have to inflict hurt in order to eat (obviously we have to kill an animal if we intend eating it). We ameliorate our feelings of guilt by allowing a proxy to do the killing for us.

            The ability to avoid our own responsibility here leads me to wonder what it was that set human nature on this course. It must have started maybe a couple of million years ago, when we started to hunt animals, but the taking of unfair advantage of animals, the corralling of them, the enslaving and eventual cold-blooded slaughtering of them, that came more recently. At some stage we manipulated our nature so that we could do any number of soul-crushing things to the animals we eat. And it was only made worse by our letting others do the dirty work (of rearing and killing) for us. We now have the best of both worlds - we have the body parts of the animal for our use, and we don’t have to look at an animal’s frightened eyes as it heads towards its execution. So deep is our addiction to eating the flesh and by-products of animals that we allow our soft-hearted natures to be squashed.

            Most people are softies at heart. And just as we can’t hurt creatures neither would we hurt people (unless in self-defence). Hunters do it and find pleasure in it, but these days, where it’s not done to avoid hunger it’s done for the rush the hunter gets from the kill. You and I wouldn’t be able to find any pleasure in this.

Most of us have some level of violence in us but at heart we’re soft, we’re wired up that way. Violence is appropriate to thunderstorms and earthquakes, but not to human behaviour.

Advertising dead animals

816: 

If we condone what the Animal Industries are doing, then perhaps we deserve some self-inflicted guilt, for doing what we do. But in a weird way all this can be quite a perverse turn-on, as if we are being regular humans, giving ourselves the green light for our ‘few little weaknesses’. The sub text of so many ads says, “Go on. Spoil yourself. You deserve it”. It’s the same as the overweight person giggling at the naughtiness of eating another slice of chocolate cake.

            Rich foods, especially those made mainly from animal products, are tempting. We ogle them when shopping. They are something to look forward to. They are short term satisfactions. And yet we know well enough that in the long term they will harm us. Now, it wouldn’t be so bad if we were told the truth and it was down to us to take responsibility for using them, but that never happens. The truth is never told about the health consequences of eating animal protein nor the extent to which the foods we love to eat involve animal misery. Imagine if, just for a start, ads told the truth about the animal-origins of the ingredients:

            “Doughnuts are delicious, inexpensive and available from your nearest store; on the downside, consider the hens who laid the eggs that make your doughnut so fluffy and rich tasting”. 

            Advertising depends on our human weakness for certain foods or fashions, and whether we’re buying fur or cashmere or whether it’s meat or milk, the consumer is part of the all-important support team; each buyer of goods is supporting the Animal Industry whose methods of production one normally wouldn’t approve of. Customers, in deciding to buy animal products, help to deny animals the support they so desperately need.

            We probably buy most food products without a second thought. In the Church of Convention the TV message shows us how to behave like ‘normal people’. In the TV ads, the actor is always good-looking and speaks in high praise of the product, which we duly go out and buy. We might wonder how a professional actor could help to sell stuff like this, and yet they do. In Australia everyone’s familiar with a certain local movie actor who is, these days, best known for dancing (literally) hand in hand with an ape, in praise of red meat. It’s incredible to see him doing it night after night, but he gets paid to do it and, presumably, many consumers enjoy the ad. I suppose they like him for the approval he shows for the products he’s advertising.

Meat is good because the TV tells us so.

815: 

What can we do about it? It’s everywhere you look. We see it all the time on the ads on TV. It comes at you in your living room. The okay-ness of eating or using animals creeps into our lives until we hardly even notice it. And the normality of it is reinforced by its regular appearance in films, soaps and cooking shows. Beyond the home it’s everywhere too, being advertised on the streets, in shops and playing centre stage at the ubiquitous sausage sizzle at every community event.

Take the ads - there are good looking actors who appear as friends, telling us ‘meat-is-okay’ and talking about animal-based foods as if they were nothing to do with living animals themselves. Meat acceptability seeps into our psyche and into our habits, and actually contributes to our sense of normality. Only ‘good’ is ever spoken of the items advertised -  the drawbacks aren’t mentioned.

But the consumer isn’t entirely gullible. We are all much more aware that we’re not being given the whole truth. And yet, even the most ‘telly-wise’ people will go along with what they want to believe about their favourite foods. They want to find it all acceptable. The consumer may not necessarily believe what they’re being told, but they take it in rather gratefully.

Ads work on a subtle level, getting us to engage with what’s happening on the screen, if only to make the ads pass quicker, so that we can get back to the programme we’re watching. We’re half tempted by what we see or are being told and generously accept even the most obvious lies. That’s just television. Even kids ignore the insult of them. 

Anger

814: 

Vegans might privately feel angry, feel judgemental, believe all omnivores are stupid, etc. … but we must stop right there. We don’t need to show any of this just to prove we feel passionate about what we are saying - it’s just too easy to knock someone down with anger. At the time, it might feel good - it’s like letting off steam.  But it works against us in the end. The only thing that really works with omnivores is good natured exchange. (Don’t forget, we’re not trying to get people to sign the pledge here, just get them to see the animals they eat or use differently).

Our views, when being expressed, should be peppered with statements of tolerance and non-judgement. We should always be aware of not being a pain in the arse, evangelical-wise. Veganism is heavy medicine, and needs to be dispensed in small doses, at first.

As soon as we launch our case, we can expect suspicion, dismissiveness and even hostility. So, obviously, as advocates for animals’ rights or as representatives of vegan principle, we shouldn’t get hostile. We are supposed to be peace-lovers.

Probably every vegan today, at one time in their life, disliked what veganism stood for, even though at the time we might not have been fully aware of what the idea meant (apart from its meaning of abstaining from ALL animal-based foods). For me it was like that. “Vegans are weird, spoilers, self righteous ...”. I distinctly remember that it was the same before I admitted to myself that I was gay. I was revolted by other gays. How strange! Of course, I don’t feel that way now! But I did then. How, when you get the full picture, perceptions can change.

As vegans we mustn’t ever act hostilely towards ‘non-vegan people’ if only because we were that way ourselves, once. (Almost all of us, excluding those who were brought up as vegans). We need to keep a sense of proportion here. However good our arguments, we can still seem as if we’re up-our-selves. We can easily forget how we come across as being righteous, being right, being highly self-disciplined, etc. We get a reputation for looking down on those who can’t cut it or who don’t agree with us. To shake that image (unfair though it might be) we need to get rid of that ‘shocked-surprise-raised-eyebrow’ look. We need to drop the anger too, even though anger can be okay, but it’s like the salt and pepper in food, it’s good for dramatic effect but too much spoils everything.

I doubt if animals use anger. And while we’re on the subject, it’s the same with judgement. I doubt if animals ‘do’ judgement either. Vegans think they can get away with showing anger because they have so much to be angry about – we being self-appointed ambassadors for animals (and there being so many animals being put through so much unimaginable torture). Surely, we say, that’s worthy of getting-angry-about? But, why waste all that emotional energy on anger. Why spoil good relationships by imposing our value judgements? It might make us feel good at the time but it’s not helpful for communicating our point of view. And it’s surely a reputation-killer.

The Australian stoush

813: 

If we do get the ‘go-ahead,’ from someone were speaking to, to put our case forward, it implies they’re willing to listen. We may have their attention, but we might not have it for long. If we bore them, however much initial goodwill there is, we’ll soon enough be cut off. Permission and holding someone’s attention amounts to much the same thing.

            It’s different if they WANT to go through the issues, if their ear is willingly open or they signal that they’re ready for a full-on argument. Then we can talk. And if we both enjoy the struggle over the details, then we can both enter into the spirit of the thing, and be ready to get as good as we give. This is fighting without personal aggro, and yes, there’s tension and disagreement, but without any danger of personal disapproval or any dislike creeping in. Then there’s nothing wrong with showing anger, as long as we’re acting it out, as parents sometimes do with kids when the kids know the anger means nothing personal.

We can show, by our freedom of expression, a trust in the other person’s feelings towards us. It’s about mutual respect. It’s about having a well established egalitarian starting point, without which nothing can work.

In a good stoush there may be shouting and screaming, interrupting, conceding, ferocious points-of-principle hammered home, and all kept in balance by both parties; the purpose of a stoush is that we show we are sincerely searching out a point of common empathy or agreement.

To make progress in the face of disagreement we must never allow our stoush to deteriorate into quarrelling. Throughout, we continually confirm our mutual regard, as fellow travellers who are not wanting to score points off the other. We must continually emphasise the bond between us, leaving no room to get personal or become value-judging.

Unless we’re in control of a conversation in this way (on this difficult subject) it won’t get anywhere. Even with anger, if I don’t control it, it will control me. The Australian stoush is truly something to behold! It shows that below the rough exterior of one type of behaviour lies another that is sensitive to the feelings of the other. I’d go so far as to suggest this is one big contribution Australians can make to the world!

Permission withheld

812: 

If there are no questions asked, no “Please explain what vegan means”, then why volunteer anything if it’s likely to be seen as an intrusion? In truth, I suppose, vegans are always looking for an excuse to ‘bring it on’. To shock. (How can you tell if someone’s a vegan? – wait ten minutes and they’ll tell you).

But for omnivores, when they notice the conversation veering around to this difficult subject, there’s ALARM. There’s a fight or flight response.

            Some vegans welcome a fight, having a devil-may-care attitude, not caring if their ‘bring-it-on’ damages an otherwise friendly exchange. They calculate that with one win it will be enough to bring about a full change of attitude.

            If only it were that easy!

The much longer route is not as destructive or as risky but it offers no guarantee of good results either. But if, in a conversation, there’s trust and open-ended permission, then at least we can get into a gloves-off discussion.

Permission to talk boldly about this subject must be mutual. There are subtle signals given during a conversation, and if they are there they must be sensed by the robustness of each person’s approach.

Vegans always hope to engineer a conversation on this rarely touched-on subject, and they do sometimes get it to happen, but usually only when everyone is sure it won’t get out of hand. It’s more difficult to build enough mutual trust when talking with strangers. But by the same token it’s too easy for close friends or family to back away from taking ‘conversational risks’. You have to ask yourself if there is any point in getting into these sorts of discussions when no one is willing to take a few risks. Why embark on a difficult discussion if there is zero chance of making a breakthrough? A discussion about Animal Rights issues has to be approached on an equal footing. It can never be an evangelical exercise for an enthusiastic vegan.

There’s a slogan which says: “Risk: Take calculated risks ... that’s quite different from being rash”.

            Being rash, as in forcing you, against your will, to listen to me talking about this subject, is about my not caring how you might react. It’s like the bible-basher’s foot in the door, to stop it being shut against them. Everything changes when we’re given the go-ahead to speak freely. Then I have a much better chance of being listened to and me listening to what you have to say in return. If there’s no go-ahead, we get the opposite - “Don’t be ridiculous. Why listen to what you’ve got to say when others tell a different story”.

I always think it’s quite understandable when people find it difficult to agree with me, since the general experience has always been the opposite view, coming from almost ALL recognised authorities, like science, schools or churches. When most people hear what vegans have to say their inevitable comment is, "Why should anyone listen to you?” 

Don’t tell the kids

811: 

For almost everybody, the quiche they eat, the biscuit with their coffee, the many thousands of items containing animal ingredients, none of these food items are considered wrong. They all seem quite benign. But each one connects back to animal abuse because of what they contain. The connection between that eggy-quiche and the creature who laid the egg is obvious. A three year old could comprehend it; they’d know the food was ‘wrong’ because of the way hens are treated.

            Making the connection isn’t the problem, it’s ignoring it that’s problematic. We aren’t used to examining the ethics of the food we eat or applying those ethics to daily life. It’s easier to continue eating whatever is delicious and avoiding these connections. By refusing to eat something (eg. a quiche) on principle means some level of self-denial, and for the sake of what? A chicken? A creature whose body we eat anyway, on a regular basis?

            To think it through, from egg to quiche, from imprisoned animal to dinning table, is a process any child could understand IF they were told. Most kids would have nightmares at the very thought of being involved with the entombing of hens in wire cages; they’d see that it couldn’t be justified by any need to have cheap eggs to eat.

Children might object strongly, if it were explained to them, but that would mean one huge hassle for parents when making the kids’ breakfasts. If children got wind of what was really happening to farm animals, and for instance refused to eat eggs, it could be the thin end of the wedge; it might lead to their refusing other foods. So, parents use ‘a small deception’, by withholding certain information from them. This is one farmyard story they don’t tell.

            “Please understand, it’s not lying, it’s just omitting certain crucial facts, and thereby moulding the way we want our kids to think”.

            Children are virtually powerless when it comes to food. They can’t ask a simple question and expect a truthful answer, not when it comes to asking where their food comes from. Keeping kids in the dark, over this matter anyway, is convenient for parents and teachers and the food retail industry.

When children start applying ethics to food, life gets complicated. Parents fill their fridges with handy, ready-to-go foods which work well with kids. Take eggs, for instance. They are used as ingredients for many items of foods. The egg works wonders, as do most meat and milk products. The foods made with these products are especially popular with kids.

            Most kids have a very natural sense of right and wrong, and so it’s likely that they’d have a natural sympathy with the aims of the animal advocate, and reject the very idea of harm being done to animals. But as they grow older they realise just how many of their favourite foods are made with animal ingredients and how cruelty is endemic to all animal farming. But they also realise that by standing up for animals they will have to give up many of their favourite foods, on principle. And that principle is not recognised in the adult world, where such things as eggs are still legal AND where it is also legal to conceal certain facts from children!! Most kids will cave in and conform to animal-based diets since they have no choice. But later in life, when they gain their independence, they’ll be faced with making a decision about whether to support or boycott unethical foods. Having had a grounding in the facts of life, about animal husbandry methods, will stand them in good stead for making their food-decisions later in life.

Standing aside

810: 

For vegans, one enquiry can be seen as highly valuable, but the enquiry could be largely unnecessary, since everything is already understood, on a deeper level – the fundamentals of animal rights, in relation to leading a non-violent life, are understood by most people.

If you take an up-close look at a farm animal, it’s like looking into the eyes of a child or at the unassuming beauty of almost any feature in Nature. You might never have regarded farm animals this way before, having only seen them as grunting, ugly, stupid units of potential food for humans. But as soon as you see them ‘come alive’ as individual beings, it’s likely that you couldn’t bear to see them hurt in any way, any more than you could stand by and watch a child being hurt. It’s like coming across a pristine stream and drinking from it. You immediately know it when you taste pure water, even if you’ve never tasted it before. It’s a eureka moment - “This is how water really should taste”.

That pristine inner nature is obvious in any animal, since what stands out most is that it hasn’t been adulterated by the experience of being human, and so it seems precious and untouchable, as something one shouldn’t hurt or ever want to. It’s this, about animals, that on some level we already know, especially in the light of them undergoing the worst possible treatment at the hands of humans who think they own them. We don’t have to visit an animal farm or an abattoir to understand this.

            Since this basic injustice is generally known, perhaps we vegans can leave people to discover the fine details for themselves. It’s only a matter of time before sensitive humans put two and two together; the information, concerning ‘farm animals’, is widely available and accessible for those who want it (and our job is certainly to make that information as accessible as possible). Perhaps, by our letting people work the essentials out for themselves, we can butt out of their business. It’s always far better to discover a truth for ourselves rather than be directed towards it, with the danger of defying the expectation that we should agree obediently.

For our part we just need faith-in-people, that when they are ready they will go looking. Perhaps our problem is that we think others are incapable of finding out for themselves. Certainly, an omnivore who is moving-towards-being-vegan may need some encouragement from us, but our main role is surely to stay out of the way while they go discovering. We can be on standby, ready with the first-aid kit in case the slope is too slippery. We can be there assisting and understanding, especially if people don’t know what to do, but the full experience of discovering something for oneself is invaluable. During the process of discovery they might hit some uncomfortable feelings as they premeditate details (of what a plant-based diet is all about, the implications of a vegan lifestyle, etc), as they experience the whole unfolding process. But as soon as they realise what they’ve been involved with all their lives, and as they realise how their past may now seem like a personal catastrophe, so the new possibilities will open up chances for a fresh start.

As the prospect of major-lifestyle-change is considered, so it might feel like one is being doomed for ever, just by having thought it, just by letting the possibility nag at the conscience. But if we, who’ve largely forgotten the process we went through, try to ‘guilt’ them into change, they might just step back and say it’s too hard, and not want to go through with it. And with that they might lose their best chance of taking up this particular challenge.

The water at the well

809: 

Vegans live in a world where few people take much interest in a subject which we take a very great interest in, namely the prospect of a non-violent human community. No one even asks why we’ve taken the decisions we have. So, one ‘thirsty’ enquiry is all I need to make my day. In a desert, it’s like being asked, “Can you point me in the direction of the well?”. “Can you explain what ‘vegan’ is?”

            A genuine show of interest is worth a million. But I’ve rarely heard that actual question put, because, unless someone is naive, it would be like inviting me to describe what they are not, like telling them what they don’t want to hear. In their own mind, they’d also be inviting me to big note myself.

            As vegans, we are well aware how sensible and noble vegan principle is. It’s tempting to shout about it. Perhaps this is why we’re given so few opportunities to do so, and why people avoid talking to us about this ‘animal’ subject.

            But you never know. There might be an itch, a curiosity, and for me, that would be enough to break out the champagne. But would I then, too quickly, want to get to the heart of things; if there were any sort of interest would I try to convert it into a much bigger interest than it was originally?

            Perhaps it would be like kids being sent to collect water from the well, and suddenly being confronted by a fierce giant, who steps out onto the path, sending the children running away in tears, buckets empty, screaming of a horrible bully they’d encountered.

            Vegans shouldn’t be jumping out on people. We shouldn’t be overwhelming the questioner or swamping them with too much information all at once. Perhaps we have an altogether different job. We’re merely the bucket-providers, the conduits, the keepers of principle; we should be ready for enquiries, ready to understand people’s feelings, but we should never spruik. 

No insistence

808: 

By upping our awareness of the world about us, there’s a logical progression towards vegan principle. It seems unavoidable. Sensitivity to beauty ends up with leaving something ugly behind, in order to seek out the best there is.

            What is more beautiful and innocent than an animal, untouched by the cleverness of the human brain, uncorrupted by greed, etc? And so it follows that nothing could be uglier than trying to destroy such a thing of great beauty. This is a familiar theme of The Vegan Story. It isn’t the stuff of a child’s bedtime fairytale nor dry facts in a dull tome. It’s a story about discovering something significant and unexpected. It seems to me that our lives are stories of exploration and discovery, and they’re sometimes unsafe stories but they move towards resolving problems by experimenting with the unknown.

            Our vegan story isn’t an entertainment any more than a sacred text is, but it’s likely to relate to people’s lives and therefore be of universal interest. It’s a story for telling, but also for scrutinising. And if you and I are tellers of a story we need to be answerable for it, which is why we don’t need to be seen as weirdos or fanatics, but simply as conveyors of the story-line and willing to take on any questions concerning it.

            I believe a good story teller considers the feelings and interests of anyone listening, in order to capture and hold their attention. It might not be an easy story to listen to, especially since it requires some little concentration from the listener, but that’s outweighed by the importance of the story - alongside the main story theme are the unfamiliar details concerning cover-ups, cruelties and human frailty. But essentially this is a story about animal farming.

            If we want people to break through all the food myths and health misconceptions, the details of which can be quite complex, we do need to encourage them to engage their brains and use some concentration, so that what we have to say can sink in. The way we tell this story is important. I doubt it can be achieved by a frowning face and a too-serious tone of voice, because that would warn them of a heavy lecture. We can’t be light hearted either since we are talking about serious matters. But, we do need to engage the listener and I think that’s best done by peppering what we say with questions and by encouraging listeners to ask the most difficult questions they can think of. Mainly though, we need to find a way to lighten up so we won’t scare people away.

            If you were walking down the street, approaching a small frightened animal that didn’t know what this huge approaching human was about to do, mainly you’d want to seem safe to them. It’s the same with our potentially heavy subject - our approach as vegans may have to be much more ‘slowly-slowly’. We are, after all, facing fixed mind-sets. If we can be seen as people who aren’t brittle and who aren’t insistent, then we’re more likely to be allowed to approach and be given the go-ahead.

            We shouldn’t use emotional bullying to get people’s attention. We need to come across as access points for information, and not much more than that.

            In the ideal world we’d surely want people to be approaching us in order to ‘find out’ something. In the real world though, we are in the business of attracting customers. Let us imagine that we have a ‘For Sale’ sign up in our shop window - ‘New and Useful Information’. That’s how it should look on our face. People are invited into our ‘shop’ to see what’s on sale and to pick up what they want. They wouldn’t put one foot in our shop if we seemed threatening.

A sovereign story

807: 

Some people think vegans have tickets on themselves. They condemn us for being proud of our compassionate natures. But, in truth, we don’t ONLY feel compassion for exploited animals. We also want to protect the people who eat them, especially kids who have no real say in their choice of foods or clothing. In a more ideal world, kids would be given the facts and be allowed to make up their own minds about such crucial matters as to what foods they put into their bodies and how they relate to animal-killing. As soon as they are old enough to understand, they should be allowed to refuse animal foods if they don’t want to eat them. But of course that would upset the apple cart. I’m sure that if they did refuse, it would become highly inconvenient for unsympathetic parents.

            This brings us back to the adults who parent children and their responsibility to the overall welfare of their kids. To encourage a sensitive, kind child to participate in the enslaving and killing of animals would surely amounts to child abuse. But we can’t say that too publicly without too many people feeling affronted and coming down on us like a bag of bricks.

             Making confrontational statements is usually counter productive. But what we can do is make what we have to say interesting enough to ignite people’s curiosity, and lead them to see how their children could develop so much better on plant foods. If we need to take the heat off parents, for not considering their children’s feelings, then perhaps we can put it this way: For the adult who takes on a vegan diet, it will be great for their health, for their kids, for the planet, etc, but it will also be the beginning of a most important stage in their own self-development. If they can bring themselves to listen to our story they might be nudged towards acknowledging the sovereignty of animals, and then probably be able to see that as an essential part of the upbringing of their children and in recognising their sovereignty too.

The importance of innocence

806: 

Vegans are preparing for the future. We see a society whose food and clothing is entirely plant-based. But I have to keep reminding myself that it isn’t just a private matter; if vegans are meant to do nothing else, we can display our public role of highlighting the plight of voiceless animals.

            How do we present ourselves ‘as vegans’? How do we come across, bearing in mind that everything we do or say reflects on every other vegan and indeed the whole cause? Donald Watson’s original concept, in 1944, was based on compassion, non-violence and herbivorous living. If we represent that ethic today we promote it best by keeping our message clear and simple, so that even children will have no difficulty grasping the good sense of it.

And speaking of children, vegans are acting on behalf of the voiceless, whether they are children (who have no say in what they eat) or animals (who are imprisoned to make food for us). It’s the aim of vegans to protect these innocents from the clutches of the exploiters, and it’s that protective spirit in us that drives us to bring the whole issue to the attention of other adults.

We can all see innocence when we look into the eyes of an animal. In their innocence, animals are at-peace-within-themselves, and children have a level of that same true innocence too. That’s why our chief job is to protect it.

The importance of innocence has usually been drowned out by the time we reach adulthood, but it can be restored to some extent, simply by experiencing the sensitivity and empathy of leading a vegan lifestyle. It can never be restored if we’re still condoning the killing of animals or the desensitisation of children.

Instead of attacking animals we should learn from them. Instead of ignoring their peaceful natures we could be emulating them. When we attack and kill animals, it’s as if we’re trying to belittle their innocent natures. It’s as if we want to bring them down to our level. Take any farm animal – there are no possible reasons to hurt it let alone end its life, let alone eat it. Psychologically-speaking there’s no reason either for hurting them or for stealing their babies or sucking secretions out of their bodies. It’s just so shameful that humans do this when we no longer have any need to, especially as we have known for half a century now, that animal protein is not necessary for our survival. How humiliating all this unnecessary violence is, for us as a species.

I don’t want to go there

805:

If we vegans make it known that we think of omnivores are fools, we fuel a fire which is already burning hot. We don’t need more heat. We can stir them up, sure. We can get their juices flowing. But what risks are there disputing the issues with them? It’s a delicate balance we have to strike here. There’s no place for the ‘I’m right, you’re wrong, so listen to me’ argument.

            On this particular, unlevel playing field our arguments can seem unrealistic. If we’re to have any sort of exchange on this subject it’s good not to get too cocky with our answers; there’s not much excuse needed to pull down the shutters. The one thing non-vegans know is that they’re backed up by a huge majority opinion. They can get away with saying, “I just don’t want to go there”. And, once that has been made clear, there’s not much we can do to make them change their mind.

            Vegans intend to solve other people’s ‘problems’, but if there’s no perceived problem in the first place (“I’ve got no problem with the food I eat”), if there’s no questioning going on, there’s no opening for dialogue, and no need for any solutions. We might want to put it this way, suggesting ‘problems’ and ‘solutions’ (connected with animal-usage), because we see no other way of ‘bringing the matter up’.

            Animal Rights, as a subject, is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest taboo in our society - most people observe the rule that ‘animal-usage’ isn’t to be spoken about; they see nothing wrong with using them because they believe they are treated and killed humanely OR that humans have the right to use them.

            Like street traders, vegans have a good stock of very fine answers on display. We stand around, waiting for a sale, waiting for customers to show some interest in what we’re selling. But what if the passing omnivore shows no interest in either the problem or the solution?

            If we try to draw people into unwilling dialogue, we’ll find the welcome-mat whisked from under our feet. For most omnivores this isn’t even a valid topic of discussion. They don’t acknowledge the presence of any danger let alone see their food choices as the basis of ethical debate.

They can’t see any ‘writing on the wall’, whereas, of course, we can!

The big misperception

804: 

Becoming ‘vegan’ is a prospect that horrifies most people. It sounds as if one wants to starve oneself to death or commit social suicide, or both. And who needs that? When you first find out about ‘vegan food choices’ you might crack up into fits of hysterical laughter; the usual knee-jerk reaction is to go to the opposite extreme - you promising yourself a life-long-loyalty to eating animals. 

            Meanwhile, someone like me shakes his head in despair, “Huh, and you think it’s just about food choices? And then some!” and I go away realising how important it is that these initial misperceptions are fixed up. Until they are, no sensible dialogue can take place, and none of the biggest dangers facing omnivores can be avoided. 

Why trust a vegan?

803: 

Vegans try to mop up some of the damage they see about them. They try to dig everyone out of their ruts. But try as they might, they’re seldom trusted enough to be listened to. They’re seen as killjoys or they’re thought to be ridiculous or at least unrealistic. Be that as it may, as a vegan, I like to think that we aren’t so easily put off.

            We so much want to let people reach their potential, to stay out of trouble, and of course to save the animals, that we say what we have to say, regardless. But most of all, we want others to start to believe in their own ability to change. It’s because vegans have been through this type of change themselves that they want others to try it. A good enough intention. So, what goes wrong? I suspect it’s concreted mind-set, obstinacy and lack of imagination.

            I’d suggest that the rot sets in early in our lives, when all the attractions seduce us and we chase after them fearlessly, with all the best intentions. We do search for lifestyle improvements. We do search for self-improvement, and we achieve lots but it’s not comprehensive. It’s inconsistent. In certain areas it’s the disappointments that undermine personal confidence to make necessary changes. The most corrosive beliefs bring us to believe that no good will come from any life-changing decisions we make. Perhaps that’s why we reject ‘solutions’ because they seem unlikely to do us any good. Is this why we avoid seeing the value of adopting such ideas as vegan principle, when on paper they are rather hard to deny?

The short term logic might follow this line: “Life’s hard enough as it is without some vegan person telling me what I can and can’t eat, based on some animal-defending moral principle”. And then there’s doubt about the toxicity of animal-based foods, until one overall attitude stops people considering the move away from what they are familiar with. Which means they deny the sense of what vegans say and therefore avoid the best opportunity that will ever come their way. 

And now that the damage is done ...

802: 

One of the biggest mistakes of our wealthy Western lifestyle is that, in our quest for life-improvement, we’ve let ourselves be seduced by those who push products from the animal food and clothing industry. We give our hard-earned money to Society’s most violent people.

From as early as childhood seduction starts, leading us to believe that we need to improve on what we already have. And somewhere along the line, we fall prey to those who tell us, “We have your best interests at heart”. We start to believe what they tell us, not all of course but what we want to believe. They sell their products proudly, as if they are good for us or at least produced humanely. And we can’t entirely disbelieve them since we can’t accept that they could be lying on such a grand scale. Over the years we follow their advice, and we’re going along just fine, until, in an eleventh-hour realisation, we see what danger we are in, because we’ve let others make our decisions for us, losing the ability to choose for ourselves. To think for ourselves. While clothing is unethical, animal-derived foods are both unethical and dangerous.

By the time we see a crash coming it’s too late. We tot up the amount of flesh we’ve consumed and therefore aren’t surprised that our arteries are clogged. We see how much chocolate cake we’ve consumed and can’t be surprised that we’re overweight. And later, when we’re lying in a hospital bed, we get to wondering how we could have been so stupid to have been so taken in.

It’s possible though that we have seen the light, earlier rather than later. But if we’ve gone with the flow, we’ve also decided not to make any radical dietary changes and certainly NOT speak out about what we’ve realised; we don’t want to be thought too different. It’s also possible that we do learn to change our eating habits, but a certain amount of damage has already been done. We make changes but avoid the most difficult changes. We fear throwing the baby out with the bath water. We fear listening to the dire warnings of busy-body, interfering vegans, for example.

Something fundamental has happened to our receptors. Our trust has been shaken. We look twice at advice; we no longer trust ANY advice - once bitten twice shy. We can’t be sure vegan advice is any different to all that other advice which has been leading us astray for so many years; we lose confidence in our own instincts, so we can no longer discriminate between sense and nonsense.

I think most omnivores, of a certain age, find themselves in this position. They are too cynical, suspicious and habit-ridden to even contemplate making major life-saving changes. They lose control of their decision-making abilities and don’t dare listen to any suggestions that sound even slightly radical.

The mirror and the video cam

801: 

This point of this blog might not seem obvious but, on balance, I think it might be worth making, because self-change is governed so strongly by perception.

            We’re all the product of our own perceptions - what I see in the mirror is what I believe about myself and what I presume others see when they look at me. Maybe I don’t see an evil face staring back at me, I see what is familiar and what I want to see. I like to think it’s okay, and like most of us when mirror-gazing, I probably like most of what I see. Most of us (sort of) like ourselves, and if truth were known we are our own biggest fan. If anyone else loves us it’s their attraction to this likeable image, the one we can see in the mirror.

Perhaps there are many sentient creatures who can recognise their own image in the pool’s reflection. It confirms the “I am” ... that is, until a distortion appears. Perhaps a breeze breaks up the flat surface of the pool and self-perception becomes disturbed. Or maybe there’s a crack in the mirror distorting our image. At that point we question what we see and go on to suspect that our self-perception isn’t as reliable as we thought. “Perhaps there’s an uglier side to me than I thought”.

In our culture we believe that the human is the grandest being. We let the mirror tell us that, until we see a nasty side come up, something we can’t deny. On a superficial level, it’s a surprise when we see ourselves on video cam. It’s not the same as the mirror. We see another ‘me’. It’s unfamiliar. It’s what others actually see. It’s the reverse of what we know (from the bathroom mirror).

The first thing I thought, when I first saw myself on video was that my own vanity had hoodwinked me. At that point, everything we see on screen is up for grabs; we may start to see the connection between our own vanity and the violence in our personality, which we never saw before. We see how we really look (to others) and how it might be a good thing to take another look at our own public image. And this mightn’t be important were it not for the fact that one mistaken image throws light on another. And perhaps for the first time we see our previously-unnoticed mistakes. I’m trying to set up an introspection here, a reason why we don’t see that other side of ourselves, where we might have made some fundamental mistake, because everyone else is making the same mistake; we’ve always used others as the mirror to assess ourselves.

It takes just one surprise, one shock, to bring us to re-examine what, up until then, we have taken for granted - to realise that perceptions aren’t as reliable as we thought. Vanity shields us from seeing our mistakes. We see that these are often mistakes of arrogance, and it becomes clear that we are composed of attitudes which are held in place by this vanity.

As humans we have violent and violating attitudes, and spend our lives not realising it. We either knowingly or unknowingly create self-delusion to comfort and cushion our lives, and we’re so cushioned that we preserve our credibility in aspic.

I’m suggesting that today there are many people who want to settle accounts with their mirror. The mirror has shown us nothing true about ourselves. The truer visual recording of our attitudes shows us that we can’t go any further down the road of self-delusion and cushion-comforts. That’s surely one healthy step towards self-development.

Creaturely

800: 

Welcome to Cloud Cuckoo Land. I ask the question - “Could a society of herbivores ever exist?” Your answer, “Ya gotta be dreaming”. But perhaps the dream has to become reality since the present reality is a nightmare.

A friend sent me “Peace”, from Old MacDonald’s (Factory) Farm today:

PEACE

Isn’t man an amazing Animal? he kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, beavers, mice, foxes and dingoes - by the million in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed.

Then he kills domestic animals by the billion and eats them. This in turn kills many people by the million, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative - and fatal - health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases.

Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals.

It’s enough to put you off isn’t it. There’s no excuse for doing nothing. But what?

‘Going vegan’ is still an unusual thing to do, but I doubt it will always be that way because the idea will eventually be irresistible, solving so many of the world’s problems at one stroke. No-use-of-animals will lead to better human health, repair of unsustainable farming practices, repair of planet, a more equable system of feeding people, etc. Who could possibly disagree that we’d be better people if we closed down the abattoirs?

Even though abolition looks difficult, if we handle it right we can emphasise the positive aspects; we can take our cue from the Theatre which performs outrageous dramas but can have the power to change the culture. What we say might be somewhat confronting but it can be made interesting enough to hold people’s attention.

Lights dim, the audience is seated and they’re ready to see something new. Disbelief is suspended. New ideas are introduced. And who knows, we might even make them laugh when the joke is on them. In this way, they come to see what we have to say, and on some level accept it, even though at first it seems quite preposterous.

We speak about non-violence and how great changes can come about by one small shift of attitude, about violence being NOT necessary and killing or keeping animals also not necessary.

But realising this might be a slow process, which is why perhaps we need to present our ideas in the form of Theatre. Our radical ideas must be drip-fed into the general consciousness. It’s a little like the slow power of attrition, when water makes small indentations in hard rock, eventually gouging out valleys to clear a path for the water to flow down to the sea.

My friend sent me another piece, by that wonderful cartoonist and poet Leunig:

I want to be sub-human

And be a lesser man

Humans are too much for me

Too much to understand

They’re too much for each other

And too much for the earth

They’re too much for themselves as well

Much more than what they’re worth.

They want too much, they do too much;

Too much, too much for me

I want to be less human now

And be more creaturely.

Slowly, we have to wear down opposition to non-violence, first with plant-based diets (which end animal exploitation), then with the idea of consistency and then by ending the habit of turning a blind eye. And then becoming more ‘creaturely’.

On the outside

799:

Here’s the central idea - that the one, generally accepted mainstay of lifestyle, our dependence on animals, is not necessary. To most people it is a preposterous idea. How can we do without animal foods? Or leather? Or pets? Or having animals performing to entertain us?

            But behind this idea, that animals are available to be used by humans, is the free-go, nothing-can-stop-us attitude. It’s the wrongness of that attitude which could stop us, simply because they have no say in the matter. This is the basis of all slavery where the weak can’t fight back; humans, being the dominant species, know that animals are a convenience and not a necessity, and that makes their use unjustifiable.

Following on naturally from this is that we could become the guardians of the animals instead of their oppressors. If we humans have upset the balance of our relationship with them, then vegans seek to redress that balance, by not taking advantage of powerless animals.

Others, who stand up for other great causes, might also disassociate from certain lifestyle habits. And, in consequence, they too might feel marginalised by the stand they take. But the difference is that they enjoy some support from the majority, whereas we enjoy almost none … because we touch on the most popular habit of all, food. We stand at the farthest extreme of minority-view, pointing towards a future beyond the reach of most peoples’ imagination.

By living as vegans, we try to act beyond self-interest, and live and work on behalf of (at any one time) up to fifteen billion abused animals.

Why do we adopt a cross-species empathy? Perhaps because this is a frontier that people in the past have never ventured past. All great causes before this have been human-centred, whereas this one deals with our shared sentience with animals; to hurt animals on the scale we do serves only to hurt our own advancement as a species.

Some of us now define our lives by our non-speciesism. Since most people haven’t ever thought too deeply about this we often receive bewildered looks from them. Perhaps it’s true to say that people do not actually condemn us but think of us as being far too weird to be taken seriously.

Vegans have to be able to handle this. We live on ‘the fringes’. We are the messengers from Outsiderdom. Being socially outcast is unavoidable. But on the up-side, vegans are virtually immune from hubris and are therefore likely to succeed in the end, with what we are saying; we will eventually make sense and animals will be freed as a result of what we say today.

Having consistency in our philosophy

798:

To be consistent in our basic philosophy (harmlessness-wherever -possible) we have to become open books, so that anyone can pick up, look into what we say and what we believe and how we should behave. And whatever that is, it must be evident in the way we conduct our own lives. Our lifestyle reflects our philosophy. Our attitude (in the West) concerning animals-being-used (whether they should or shouldn’t be used) is the central testing ground of  any vegan proposal.

            The astounding thing is that vegans hurry off into details about cruelty and human health before they establish the fundamentals concerning the rightness or wrongness of animal-use. In fact across the broad spectrum of opinion, animal-use is not being discussed very much at all. Perhaps none of us dares to start here. It’s almost as if we’re all in the middle of a cover up. The media won’t show interest in what might seem a too-radical starting point. In fact they don’t even want to cover this subject at all, unless it homes in on diets and recipes.

Vegans won’t start their arguments from this point for fear of alienating too many meat eaters, vegetarians and pet-lovers, because of course it embraces ALL uses of animals, from killing them to any sort of convenience-use. If vegans won’t go there it’s not surprising that the media won’t, especially when you consider how tightly the media is controlled by their advertisers and their public. In addition, the issue of animal-use is not likely to be picked up since there are very few maverick journalists, let alone vegan journalists. 

            So it’s down to us. Amateur writers. The few vegan advocates, activists, writers and teachers are all that stands between the possibility of a beautiful future and the continuing laissez-faire of animal-use. If we do our best to edge this subject into the limelight and promote animal rights and veganism, then that’s all we can do. From our point of view it might look like an uphill battle, and that might not be something for the faint hearted. But there is light at the end of the tunnel - once the ball starts rolling, the arguments will start to be discussed more fully and logic will lead the way until the taboo is broken. And then the whole subject will become a part of our everyday conversation. Imagine where that might lead us! 

Amateur advocates

797:

It’s possible two people who disagree on what we should or should not eat can agree on some things, concerning food. The vegan argument starts out with the essentials of survival based on the premise that we can be exclusively plant-eaters and survive happily and healthily. From this we can build the rest of our argument – there has been damage done (by using animals) and that can be repaired. We can expand on the need for repair on various levels - repair of ethics, repair of physical damage to ourselves, repair of the planet. Each of these can be expanded upon, almost endlessly. If there’s disagreement on any of these fundamental points then, until each fundamental has been agreed to there is no point in expanding into detail.

Open discussion

533: 

When omnivores finds themselves up against a vegan, they don’t like being shown up by better argument. So, they’ll defend their position any way they can. Same goes for vegans who can’t hold their own. If all else fails, any of us might fall back on the old standby - hostility.

            Hostility looks ridiculous today, but in the last resort the option of becoming ‘unfriendly’ is the only way some people think they can fight back.

            I’d like to look at the omnivore, in this case, up against vegan argument - they starting the rot, seeing a vegan having the capability to annihilate their arguments, yet being unwilling to allow this. Perhaps they think they are defending the views of ‘the vast majority’, so they put forward anything to kill the discussion. In this way they play dirty.

If they’re the ones who ‘start the rot’, then we might think we can do worse, by making moral judgements about them … and so it goes on. If we allow such a conversation to be pushed towards the precipice, we can expect a bun fight. Their aggressive response might be something like … “So, that’s what you reckon, do you?”

            Aggro can flare up so quickly; it’s all smiles one minute and World War Three the next. The one who feels attacked is pushed over the edge because they are left with nowhere else to go.

            By NOT attacking, by using a little subterfuge instead, we might avoid a blow-out. I would try inscrutability, keeping them guessing as to exactly where I’m coming from, and if I encounter any ‘hostility’ my first instinct is to restore balance, not attack back.

In any ‘talk-together’, I would keep focused on the idea of our being the planet’s guardians, each of us aiming at the same thing but perhaps by different routes. Everyone’s interested in finding a common purpose, surely. If we can agree to that, there’s a chance that further agreements about details and strategies can be explored, always coming back to the point at which we agreed, and as many times as necessary, setting out from that place to see at what point we actually differ.

The charging rhinoceros

795: 

When things begin to get out of hand for the vegan activist, when we go into the discomfort zone and the omnivore’s un-interest is made obvious, that’s when we’re liable to make our worst mistakes. Just before blowing our top, at some silly or provocative remark, we should let it sink in. We should use it, to tell us roughly where that person is coming from.

            In most cases I’ll jump in too quickly to defend animals. I’m reckoning that a small show of anger will help stimulate my adrenalin and prime me for a smart response. But it’s seen merely as a cheap shot. I know I shouldn’t go in for that sort of knee-jerk reaction? If I were more constructive I’d do it another way, to show I’m more emotionally under control. Nothing’s gained by aiming my remarks personally. I’m supposed to be trying to be helpful and well intentioned. Any anger I show would be seen clearly as part of my ‘act’.

            In a school I worked in once, I had a colleague who was always acting as if angry, and yet she was the most loved teacher amongst the kids. She was always honest, consistent and trusted. You knew where you stood with her ... and her anger was measured carefully, to be effective, to show her real sense of caring for her students’ welfare. She was a brilliant teacher, needless to say. It was all part of her craft of being the good communicator. Mind you, you can get away with that, with kids, less so with adults.

            A poor communicator uses anger but doesn’t know how to control it. It erupts faster than we see it coming - it’s supposed to have a shock effect. But it makes people wary and suspicious. If we feel that sort of knee-jerk anger arising, then it’s best to conceal it.

            If we are an animal advocate, we’ve usually got enough on our hands just getting a chance to speak at all about animal issues. The last thing we need is to show anger. Ours is a highly charged subject at the best of times and, once out, anger is hard to retract. It sours the atmosphere. It’s a give-away when it appears. The voice screeches and the body language looks ugly. To the onlooker it’s like watching a rhinoceros about to charge. 

Boasting about being vegan

794: 

Vegans often want to make a big deal out of the fact that they’re ‘vegan’. It’s worn like a badge of honour. Sadly the motive for doing this is mixed - on the one hand I might want to appear brave and ridicule-proof. On the other hand I might be fishing for admiration, for being vegan.

            Boasting might be a big problem. Like bullying, no one likes it. In my opinion, being vegan isn’t about being ‘who I am’, it’s about examining my own values, and then feeling confident enough to talk about them, if and when the occasion arises. It’s as if animal advocates have this vast untapped subject, and we like talking about it, especially if we can break through the taboo surrounding these matters. It’s significant when this happens, since very often this is a subject which the omnivore might not have had challenged before.

            We obviously like to reach people about this ‘animal thing’, and we will eventually reach many people. But we may not do our cause much good if we try to use Animal Rights as a platform for bragging about our ‘advanced thinking’. So, how do we make contact with people when we get onto this subject? Whew! That’s the BIG one.

            How do omnivores see us (whether as vegans or generally as representatives for Animal Rights)? They’re either hostile or blasé. If the subject arises, as it might do, first reactions are very noticeable. In the mind of the omnivore what they definitely are NOT is vegan; on this matter they are clear where they stand. They accept the status quo, supporting the animal industries, enjoying all foods and having no ethical constraints about what foods they eat. However, in the back of their minds they may NOT accept how things are and yet, despite the notorious cruelty of animal farming, they might prefer not to talk about it. And no one will voluntarily get onto the subject, until some interfering vegan brings it up.

Say I meet someone who seems aware of social-justice issues and who knows why I’m vegan. That might be enough for them to never want to eat food with me, for it only needs a short time for what they eat to be noticeable. If I am watching you eat a ham sandwich I’m already aware of what core attitudes you hold, from the food you’re eating.

I might try to convert you to a vegan diet. But it might be better at first, to by-pass food and instead emphasise the attractiveness of vegan thinking and the ethic of ‘working for the greater good’. If I can get some sort of agreement about general ethical responsibility I then might feel better about getting into specifics. Obviously I can’t talk to people if they don’t want to engage with me. But if they are willing, then I owe it to them to be concise: tell them clearly how I think and what vegan principle is. If they are interested I’ll go further. To say that:

Being vegan is about Society’s need to liberate animals and to not-tolerate the imprisoning of animals. I’ll suggest that ‘vegan’ will never catch on until the horror of enslaving animals is understood, and initially that might need some careful explanation.   

If I get this far then I need to try to find out if a person is anti or just-not-yet-ready (and there’s no way of knowing this, initially). My rule is that if I’m not sure, then making premature value judgements about a person is dangerous and unfair. I’d rather give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and give them every chance to step up to the plate.

The first stage of my careful explanation, my first point about a vegetarian or vegan diet, is to point out that it ISN’T just about one’s stomach or about how we appear in the mirror. It’s more about the difference between vegan and the sort of vegetarian who eats animal produce. The reason behind the vegan ethic, of not using animals at all for anything, usually has to be clarified, after which I try to encourage thinking about these matters for oneself; at present almost every omnivore is a long way from wanting to think about it.

Veganism is not widely understood and vegans are generally seen as social-pariahs, but our ‘outsiderdom’ might have to get worse before it can get better. We’ve a long way to go yet before the masses are even approaching the issues or considering the attractions of their dinners being meatless and their sandwiches being cheese-less. We are still only at the very beginning of a global Animal Rights Consciousness.

Don’t waste your breath

793: 

I’m an advocate for animals being given rights (obviously!) but I wouldn’t necessarily tell anyone that gratuitously. This subject is as off-limits as atheism might be for those with religion, so I’m cautious about opening it up, and anyway, why do I need others to know my strong views about this? I don’t need them to approve my stand. But it’s not as easy as this. By leading a life (self-) governed by vegan principles, and that still being regarded as unusual, it’s likely I might want their approval of me as a person. So, I want them to see me as the sort of person they might admire, or at least to be thought well-of, for my being willing to talk about it, even when they don’t agree with me.

            From my point of view, I like to know how open another person is. I’m not very interested in grudging toleration or polite approval of me, especially if I know they have a closed mind on this matter of animal-use.

            Vegans need to be less interested in others’ “knowing that I’m a vegan” and more interested in their knowing that I have empathy; that I am, on all fronts, interested in how others feel. What I really, mostly want  to get across is something about me, not at first about what views I hold. I want others to know how I feel, in order to let them feel safe enough to show their feelings  too, whether or not they coincide with mine. My main interest is in strong views, whether they be similar or opposite views. With strong views we at least avoid indifference. I’d rather know what others are feeling, whether hostility or affection, than not know.

            If you meet an open soul on your travels, ‘this subject’ might come up. It might be one of many things you talk about. I can tell a lot about a person who is willing to talk about these matters, especially when they already know where I stand on them. If they know that I know where they stand, and are still willing to talk, I respect that.

            If I meet a person who is adamantly closed-off on this subject then I can pick that up almost straight away, and I know that talking about it with them would be like pushing rocks up hill - the more talking I do, the more antagonism will be shown by them and, for my part, that would amount to so much wasted breath.