Sunday, November 3, 2013

We’re vegans not ‘vague-ans’

884: 

Isn’t it boring, when people refer to us as ‘vay-gns’, when you know they know the word has a long ‘e’. It’s only a small matter, hardly worth mentioning, but I think it shows us how little they want to know about us, how unenthusiastic they are even to take this up as a subject, let alone take what we say seriously or to acknowledge vegan principle. In other words, they do not like our arguments.
Often, vegans are reckoned members of a cult group which is strict about what we can and can’t eat, dictating what we may or may not do. So, when people offer you food and ask, “Are you allowed to eat this?”, they imply the above, but also there’s often a hint of contempt for my having voluntarily given up normal lifestyle to abnormal. They can’t and won’t consider, in any seriousness, the giving up of any of their food choices based upon animal-concerns. I usually say rather testily “Yes, we can eat anything, it’s just my personal choice NOT to”. And of course that makes me sound rather precious, which I can be!
Behaving in this sort of way helps people ‘weird-ise’ us. And that helps them disregard what we say.
So, if you’re NOT vegan and reading this (brave person!) all I’d ask of you is pronunciation (vee,gn).
But, coming back to conversation - What happens when talking turns to fighting (with friends or with total strangers)? Even just one moment of locking horns could set you back endlessly; and of course, it’s always over ‘major issue-differences’.
Mostly, we just get mildly irritated by each other, which is usually enough to stay clear of serious controversy in the future, and that’s EXACTLY what we don’t want.
But serious talkers, all of us, should be living as we say others should live, in this seriously disturbed world. And, as far as I’m concerned, as long as we’re ‘clean’, then there’s nothing better than serious-talk with friends. (I’m including strangers here!)
Each talk or chat leaves its imprint. And the next time we’re discussing profound moral matters, we can virtually continue from where we left off. But by this time, hopefully we’ve done more work on our arguments. We’ve better defined our ethical position. We’re better prepared to defend.
But if you know you’re already on weak ground, you’ll see a skirmish ahead. In which case, it’s better to take a ‘bring-it-on’ style.
Therefore, vegan action is needed to keep these friends happy. Sometimes I just don’t talk animal-talk. A cop out? Here, as I see it, we have two problems, when advocating for animals - we can be identified too strongly with it and with nothing else, plus it’s difficult NOT to talk about it or ‘bring it in’ to a conversation, when so many other ideas are linked to it.
I’ve never been able to resolve these two - either I do NOT talk about farm animals, keeping my friends them sweet, or I never miss an opportunity to mention the animal-angle, and I end up on a stage in an empty theatre. And then, if there’s no one to hear what I’ve got to say, I get very rusty at talking, because I can’t find anyone to talk to. And that’s a very isolating thing for vegans.
The opposite side of this affects us more directly, like the silliest umbrage-taking, or getting irritated by mispronouncing “vegan”. There are many ways we feel the heat of the counter-message coming across – they’ll say we take life too seriously, that we can’t see the joke of ‘vaygans’ being somehow vague. Ironically, that’s the one thing we aren’t. Vegans aren’t vague about what we believe, in terms of the priorities-of-life.
And while I’m whingeing, another thing is (very-often, deliberately) misunderstood – the principles behind Animal Rights, so to spell it out, here and now, it means Right to a Life.

It’s because of this specific shift in consciousness, from eating them to protecting them, that we have two main, opposing interests, vying with each other, for the public vote. Our job is to marshal the protectors to fight a noble and violence-free argy-bargy with the other mob.

No comments: