Up against a wall

1124: 

The reason I get angry about this whole ‘animal thing’ is because people are so reluctant to change.  The disappointment and cringe I feel is not just because they’re oblivious to the suffering-of-animals, but for continually missing the opportunities afforded by change.  They continue to eat rubbish foods, continue to get ill, continue to hold violent attitudes … and it seems such a waste of personal potential.

Vegans who are active in Animal Rights invest their free time to fight for a great cause.  It’s a big investment.  So, when I think I’m getting somewhere and hit another disappointment, I never seem to get used to it.  I don’t see it coming.  Overall, the most depressing thing I experience is that no one is taking a blind bit of notice of what animal advocates are saying.  It’s not deafness, it’s reluctance.  There’s a reluctance to talk or discuss things like this, in case one rocks the boat - for why would good friends want to risk blowing it, by speaking their minds (notably, about my vegan views)?

Beyond all else, everyone values affection and friendship. Intimacy allows good friends to talk freely about anything … unless it’s ‘animals’.  Other that the cute-and-cuddly, ‘animals’ are not a topic of conversation.  This is a subject known for bringing up deep issues, and because ‘abolitionist’ arguments can be so razor sharp, people know there’s a risk of blowing a whole friendship ... over careless ‘animal talk’.  All it takes is one comment.

Which is why I prefer NOT to try converting friends – they know I won’t be able to resist a dig ... and if my timing is out or I don’t round things off properly it goes down badly, particularly badly with close friends who already know where I stand on ‘the animal-thing’.

Friends are a precious commodity - I try not to go around losing them.  Animal Rights is especially dangerous for that, in an ‘if-you’re-not-with-me-you’re-against-me’ sort of way.  So, I prefer to talk outside, in the public arena, where I can speak more freely, knowing that it’s okay for me to get knocked down by people who aren’t close friends.  My ego doesn’t bruise as badly ‘out there’, where it’s better for me for getting myself hardened-up.

Everything vegans stand for (the principle of plant-based diets, animal rights, non-violence) is purposely down-played by Society.  It’s given minimal press coverage.  If we try to bring issues to public attention we’re prevented.  We have to stand by, in silence, allowing blatant misinformation to mould even the minds of our best friends.  After forty years of substantial exposure to Animal Rights, I still can’t see much momentum building.  I don’t see any real sign of people questioning or challenging what they’ve been taught.  It seems zombie-ish to me.

Animal Rights has an important job to do.  We are compelled to speak up insistently about slavery, captivity, killing and in some cases animal torture.  We shouldn’t have to.  But it’s all happening so routinely that it is becoming the accepted norm.  It’s explained as ‘pragmatic reality’ - the Animal Industries do the deed, then, at one stage removed, the compliant consumer supports it.  Although affecting fewer total animals, it’s even worse in the vivisection laboratory, where animals are being used for experimentation.  Again, a blind-eyed compact exists, where the tick of approval is given by the consumer.

I think it’s likely people are so weighed down with food junk and so groggy with tiredness from eating too much of it, plus the subconscious guilt of it all, that they can’t any longer face-up to a major shift of consciousness, however beneficial it might seem to them.

Having said that, I realise that beyond the 99% of whacked-out consumers is the other 1% - the hands-on people, the most outrageous of whom profit from harming creatures.  They put it out that animals don’t really feel pain, which makes what they do to them not worth worrying about.  For example, someone who takes an immobilised and terrified rabbit and squirts corrosive chemicals into its eye, to test shampoos for eye safety.  This animal doesn’t stand a chance.  They can’t do anything to protect themselves from this sort of torture.

Whether the suffering takes place on a vivisector’s slab or on a farm or in the abattoirs, the coldness with which animals are treated is a frightening reflection on human nature.  What routinely happens to billions of them is something no sentient creature should have to experience, and no human should be capable of inflicting.  The perpetrator is not only insane to do it but dangerously insane for trying to influence ordinary people to think that what they do is acceptable.

The repair-quality of altruism

1123: 

Here’s an extreme thing to say – but perhaps it doesn’t have to be dismissed out of hand, at first glance. Altruism is the answer to almost every problem facing us. 

Perhaps this sounds too simplistic and too unrealistic, but that’s what is behind veganism – putting aside our own needs and wants and instead thinking about ‘the other’. As vegans, we aren’t giving in to our own cravings nor abusing the body, but instead we’re simply eating better food. We aren’t conforming with the mindless majority, or like children are forced to do, following the dictates of their elders. We are instead siding with the animal victims.

‘The other’ might not seem so important. It might not occur to us immediately, but ‘the other’ has to climb over all the more immediate, more obvious self interests, in order to reach the best part of us. ‘The other’ isn’t immediately appealing, but it serves to draw out the deeper, more intelligent self. This ‘self’ is more closely connected with the ‘soul’ of us. It lies in-waiting as life-experience ticks off the rights and wrongs of everyday behaviour. It confirms the more mature, emerging self.

This altruistic self is like a sleeping intelligence, fixed on finding the best way for all concerned, self, un-self and the other.

         

Put simply, we want to do our best, and be able to look ourselves in the eye. By resisting our society’s pressures which daily pull against this instinct, we can come to know how to avoid being corrupted. In this present context, we’re working to lessen the damage to the world we live in, and prove ourselves to be beneficial to things like animals and environment and human health.

The vegan diet can’t help but directly contribute to making us act more altruistically. If you’re vegan it’s very difficult not to act altruistically, and therefore act intelligently. Being vegan can’t help but make you more happy, simply by way of not being the cause of so much daily damage - the more people who are ‘vegan’, the more resources are saved, and particularly the more food (no longer reserved for animal fodder) which can be diverted to feeding underfed humans. If we aren’t breeding huge numbers of animals destined to be turned into human food, we can put more energy into growing plant foods which are so much more efficient for human-feeding. Then, these ‘food-animals’ aren’t taking up energy; and even if one can’t feel for the plight of these animals, one can still wish for human starvation to be lessened.

The exotic and excessive eating habits of mainly wealthy Westerners sit uncomfortably with the wretchedness of malnutrition in the ‘third world’. Our indulgent eating habits are an obscenity when put against their food shortage. How bizarre it is to think that overfed children in one society live alongside children who are starving in a neighbouring society. How bizarre for their parents to be working in the fields to produce exportable animal fodder instead of growing essential crops to feed their own families.

Iniquitous food habits probably stem from fear of starvation and that isn’t helped by today’s food-overindulgence. On many levels, this can be changed by adopting a plant-based diet - there are fewer seductive foods, less need to over-eat, better energy from the food we do eat and of course less guilt because we’re not animal-killers. As soon as a vegan lifestyle is taken up, an immediate recovery process has already started to take place.

Where did our hunger-fears spring from? Why are we in a constant state of agitation about food? How did it all get so bad with humans? How did we lose our moral compass regarding the exploitation of animals? Perhaps these questions are not as important as learning by what means things could get better and where the repair process should start. 

Original thought

1122: 

Original thought is frightening because it clashes with our long-held beliefs.  If we can finally give up eating animals (and wearing them) a whole lot of other things will fall into place.  But we won’t know anything about that, first hand, unless we first give it up.  We can no more imagine the benefits of a plant-based diet than we can imagine it instigating a release of our inner fear.

The animal-question stirs up fear, and we always ask the same sort of question, “Where will it all end if animals are no longer there to provide us with food and clothing?”

Because an animal-free lifestyle is unimaginable, the omnivore can’t begin to consider having respect for these ‘food’ animals or regarding them as individuals.  They’ll ask the inevitable question, “What will happen if we give animals the same consideration, the same right-to-a-life, as we grant those of our own species?”

Once upon a time we enslaved humans, and once we beat children, and once women were regarded as property.  Now such ideas seem absurd, as soon enough will ideas about freeing animals.

By applying the same animal cruelty laws to farm animals as we apply to companion animals, we arrive at Animal Rights.  This can’t happen while the majority of people have good reason to attack animals, for the purpose of wanting them dead - with no reason to bring about their deaths unless they want to cannibalise them.  The records show that they’ve committed no crime, so it seems somewhat unfair that we should have such contempt for them.

Non-humans are probably the most peaceful beings we’ll ever know.  Killing them and then eating them makes no sense, especially since animal-based foods are no longer needed for good health and premium nutrition.

Animals are a benign presence in our world - we aren’t predated by them and there’s no other justification for hurting them, unless you live in a dessert, in the ice-lands, or on an island where growing food crops is not a realistic option.

The cow, chicken, pig, goat, duck, sheep, deer and fish are the most (but not the only) non-humans to be enslaved by us.  It’s not difficult to appreciate their inner beauty since they appear dignified, uncorrupted and guiltless.  Whereas, the same can’t be said of humans.

So, here’s a thought - is it possible that we can’t tolerate any other being that might show us in a bad light?  Could it be that we hate the idea of animals being more highly evolved than us?  That they understand in their own way the intelligence which underpins their own harmlessness, or rather how unintelligent we humans are, for attacking them because we can.  Is it possible that we attack and kill them for pleasure and not out of necessity?

The violence-intoxicated human will always  say, “Make war on them, then kill, and then eat them”.  That reinforces our physical superiority over them.  We are the dominators, they the defeated victim.

We abuse animals (so most of us believe) because we, as chief predators, want something out of them.  But it’s a warped form of predation, because we keep animals as slaves, ‘on tap’ and we’ve been doing it for a very long time.  We’ve stopped thinking about it in terms of right and wrong.  In fact we’ve done so much damage to animals that we can no longer bring ourselves to study them in order to learn from them.  Since we can’t attribute them with intelligence, we can’t appreciate what their non-violence could mean to us, and therefore won’t learn how to bring it to our own species as a pattern for our own lives.

Following on from this, we don’t see our failings originating in our violence towards them and can’t see the reason, now, to set up safe havens for those animals presently being kept captive.  Which is why, alongside today’s Animal Rights initiative, there is a need for people to not only go vegan but to take up an all-round peace-approach to life.

Me, taking the initiative

1121:

In one way particularly, we humans have lost our ‘moral compass’ – we always try to get what we want, despite anything.  That is the human way today.  It’s not as if we’re blind to the terrible suffering of animals on farms, it’s just that if we want to eat them, we will.  If we want to suck the milk out of cows’ udders, we will.  Killing, milking, caging – none of it is likely to be brought to mind if we want it enough - what animals can provide us with.

The relationship between animals and humans can prove to be a most beautiful interspecies friendship or it can show the human to be a most immoral and exploitative gaoler of animals.  Our track record says everything we humans are not to be trusted around animals; if any animal is useful it will certainly be exploited.

Veganism speaks of a no-touch-animals policy.  By ‘no-touch’ I mean ‘exploit’, in the same way that it’s applied to not-abusing children.  Harmlessness, as an ideal, is there to remind us that if we’re ever in doubt we must play safe - cut it out, hold back, do without, reject temptation at all costs.

The principle of harmlessness not only governs the food we eat but also the relationships we have with one another, and starting at home.  Our own personal standards of harmlessness are an insistence on greater harmony and good communication.  And it could be that these standards can then be applied to today’s global problems, sustainable practices, sharing one’s good fortune, rejection of war, etc.

The best practice grounds for harmlessness are at home, where this principle is the basis of a vegan lifestyle and all other constructive changes-for-the-future.   By avoiding corrupt foods we make a conscious attempt to steer clear of harm.  If things are to change, it will have to start by many individuals making their own choices.  We have to take the initiative for ourselves without waiting for others to do it first, or waiting for an inspired government to act.  We can’t rely on outside help or statesman-like leadership since it would be political suicide to merely suggest closing abattoirs or outlawing animal farms.  But it’s a Catch 22, because all the time these places stay open, humans will remain close-minded.

If we want to have an open and independent mind, if we want to be inspired by great new possibilities, we first have to stop believing what our politicians, academics, churches and media tell us about appropriate practice and acceptable behaviour. It’s likely they’re caught up in the same harm-making as everyone else, so are hardly going to advise people to do what they don’t do themselves.  As meat-eaters and therefore animal-abusers, their authority disappears when they preach peace but practise violence.  

Useful, Practical Help

1120:

Specifically vegans need to offer help, and our advice should be given with no strings attached.  We shouldn’t expect too much in return.

         

First up, we need to be concise and interesting, and never seeming to want to recruit.  Animal Rights doesn’t need followers, it needs individuals who have come to their own conclusions, who are able to be their own judge and jury.

         

In this regard, vegans need to be exemplars of non-violence.  When we get a chance to speak out for the animals we have to set the example of not trying to clobber our opponents, especially if it’s made easy for us.  We shouldn’t seem like bullies.  Even the most ardent opponent of Animal Rights should be regarded as a valuable challenge and a potential colleague.  Despite opposition, we should try to reach everybody.  We’re not merely after thousands of supporters but billions of them, so it’s best not to fall out with anyone, unnecessarily.  We might want quick results but it’s likely to be a long journey.

Check the talk

1119: 

In any conversation on serious issues such as Animal Rights I automatically check all the time, to be sure I’m not becoming too volatile, or that the conversation isn’t becoming too one sided (too much of my stuff, not enough of yours, or vice versa).  If a person is left out they’ll feel put out.  They’ll feel like they’re being lectured at.

         

I want a conversation to be interesting and worthwhile, disagreements notwithstanding.  I like it when we’re exploring pathways of thought and beliefs and, wherever our discussion takes us, in the end I’m aiming to leave on a positive note ... so, if necessary, we can resume at a later date.

         

For vegans, Animal Rights may be a deadly serious subject, and grim at times, but the up-side is in the satisfaction and meaning it helps to bring to our lives.  It makes me want to get good at it - ‘talking about it’.  No one can know everything pertaining to this subject, so animal advocates usually try to get versed in the most interesting aspects.  Sometimes it’s only our own interest in the details that keeps us from losing impetus.

         

A big part of animal advocacy is learning details, become knowledgeable, learning how to be informative.  If you get good at it you can, in theory, jolt whole attitudes.  But there’s a danger here.

         

As soon as I think I’m completely right I will certainly stub my toe. I get careless.  My arguments lean too heavily on moral imperatives.  I try to shock people into agreement.  I’ll fall back on ‘true stories’, involving the horrible conditions on animal farms and in slaughterhouses.  And sometimes it tips the scales and gets people thinking.  But it’s a ‘Will o’ the Wisp’ regard, soon enough giving way to an ingrained resistance to vegan ideas.  It’s a resistance to moral battering.

Perhaps it depends on how I say what I say.  It could be a mild mannered mention of milk, and what happens to cows and calves in the process of ‘making’ milk.  Or it could be a full-blown description of some grotesque animal torture.  I would need to be able to gauge the atmosphere, and know when it’s best to let it rest, to resist temptation of going in too hard, too soon.

         

The idea when talking to someone about all this is to live to fight another day.  By not becoming too rabid about this subject, by looking like a selfless advocate, I’m showing that I’m not trying to win personal kudos.  I’m looking more like a professional advocate, simply trying to protect my client’s (the animals’) interests.

         

As an ‘animal guardian’, I don’t stand a chance of being completely understood, but I can help win some respect for what the Animal Rights movement is trying to do. 

Embarrassments over dinner

1118:

What is the art of talking it’s tossing ideas about and keeping ideas interesting and entertaining?  Perhaps the problem with most Animal Rights ideas is that they don’t have much ‘toss’ in them and they aren’t entertaining - the very opposite of interesting, more like cringe-making.

         

I can get embarrassing when I turn the conversation back to animal slavery and the need for abolition – for me, it’s pretty much an absolute position.  I suppose people dislike me because there’s really no middle way.  It’s abolition or nothing.

         

The way I see it we’re, any of us, either involved and outraged or largely uninterested in this subject, the subject is so contentious that it’s personal.  If you’re a vegan you’re implacably on one side of the fence and non-vegans, by dint of what they eat every day, are on the other. 

         

Animal eaters don’t give the matter much thought.  It is so habitual - every time they go food shopping or eat a meal, they pointedly avoid thinking about ‘this subject’.  If pressed they’d believe that animals were not much worthy of consideration, which is more like a non-thought connected to a daily practice than a deeply held conviction.

         

If there’s a vegan present at dinner time it’s much more difficult to sustain this ‘non-thought’ when there’s pointedly different food being eaten.  The meat eater (the non-vegan) can be hypersensitive about being judged or literally be afraid of the vulnerability to attack ... and who wants that at dinnertime?

         

It’s thought to be outrageous bad manners if a vegan were to make an adverse comment about the food on the table.  The provenance of food is normally never thought about or spoken about, in order that the enjoyment of eating isn’t spoiled.  Whenever this subject is approached, whatever is said, especially the way it’s said, is probably going to be remembered until the next time we get together.  If there is a next time!

         

Meat eaters don’t like inviting vocal vegans to meals.  In fact there’s no time when the meat-eater wants to risk being assaulted by a vegan’s views.

If I get an invitation to dinner, and if I start discussing animals with omnivores, I have keep it lively but short and often make some self disparaging remark to soften the impact of what I’m saying and without getting personal or threatening.

My hope is that if or when we do meet again, we’ll still be on speaking terms.

Conversations

1117: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

If you're an omnivore and I say that you should stop eating animals, I am, in effect, proposing a major change in your lifestyle and eating habits.  I’m not only alluding to the wrongness of animal slavery, I’m also saying that animal food is dangerous for your health.  I realise you don’t necessarily want to hear this, but it's what I want to talk about.  I want to stimulate debate and encourage others to discuss 'Animal' issues.  But it might be a case of me-wanting, you-NOT-wanting.  I have a big job on my hands. I have to be careful that my motives appear genuine, that I’m not self-aggrandising or appearing to be trying to score 'clever points'.  All I want is to engage you on this subject, not necessarily have an argument with you.  I need to show I’m genuinely interested in what you have to say, especially because you might be able to add another dimension to the argument.  I’m not trying to get the first punch in and I don’t want to force a submission, quite the opposite.  I'm interested in listening to genuine concerns and discovering new ways of talking about 'Animal Matters' without stirring up too much high emotion.

But let’s be frank.  This is an emotional issue for me.  I want, more than anything, to have a free flow of ideas. Surely, any good conversation develops this way, each idea flowing on from a previous comment.  If we’re discussing Animal Rights, we’re all hopefully learning something new, comment by comment, and we’re also learning how to listen to each other.  We shouldn’t be ashamed if our opinions aren’t fully formed or if we feel vulnerable.  For my part, I don’t want to look too alert, in case you think I’m trying to trap you into making a mistake that I can then correct.  I don’t want to prove anyones' opinion is wrong and I certainly don’t want you to think I’m just waiting for my turn to jump in, to say what I want to say.

       

If I’m feeling personally marginalised, it could make a difference to the way I express my feelings. Vegans should be aware that they come across as minor players who hold strong views about minor issues, pressing their views onto an ocean of major players with equally strong, opposing views.  Even if I feel isolated and outgunned by the confidence that others draw from being in an absolute majority, I shouldn’t try to even things up by trying to crush opposing views.  For the majority, conformity feels 'safe' whilst the non-conformist vegan philosophy feels very 'unsafe' to them.  Vegans are up against an almost impenetrable wall of opinion and attitude.  We therefore have to be a bit 'canny' and certainly not be too pushy even when we have the floor or taste an advantage.  We have to be subtle enough to look after our image even when we’re talking to a friend who may already know where we stand.

I find in an ordinary, any-subject, everyday conversation, I’m largely unselfconscious when speaking.  I speak spontaneously. (When you think about it, it’s incredible that before the right words have been chosen, our reply has already left our mouths).  In less-ordinary conversations (say on a contentious subject like Animal Rights) whilst trying to appear more confident than I feel, I tend to get 'speedy' and then I come across as 'too heated'.  I need to appear very sure of my views, but if I express myself too hard and seem too passionate and definitive, there’s a danger of straining my relationship or friendship with you.  It works in the opposite way too.  Softening my words too much for fear of offending you, inhibits my freedom of speech.  Like walking on eggshells.  Either way, nothing useful is achieved.  I have to be wary of the trap of forgetting that I’m in a delicate position and defuse any difficult situation before it can flare up.

I only mention the above, because I know from firsthand experience that discussions regarding Animal Rights,  usually get out of hand quite quickly.

Not overplaying our hand

1116:

When we start to talk about Animal Rights we often get some extreme responses - people aren’t as delicate in their words about us as some of us try to be about them.  They’ll be less familiar with the arguments and be less practised in putting their view forward. But there’s something else.  They probably want to cling to their position, because they’ve got so much more to lose if they find anything at all to agree with us about.  They’re probably afraid we might say, “So, if you agree, why aren’t you vegan yet?”

         

In terms of arguments, vegans hold the best hand.  We can play things to our best advantage by way of logic, if nothing else.  We don’t need to rub it in their face.  It’s not about having a clever win-strategy.  They probably know their arguments are a bit leaky.  They know that today eating animals is a bit on the nose (the cruelty involved, the health dangers, environmental concerns, etc).  For them it’s important that they continue to disagree with us about the need for animals to have rights.  Disagreement is mandatory since they’re still animal eaters.

However, if they were to listen to us, willingly, I think they’re likely to listen most carefully if our concern is also for them, as well as for the animals.  It’s out of this concern that we want to talk things through.  We reckon we can add quality to life.

The reason we need to go easy on the omnivore, apart from not wanting to scare them off, is that their input to any discussion is especially valuable for us too.  If we can encourage them to speak freely, by listening to what they have to say, it helps us better understand the omnivore mind.  But it also reminds us how not so long ago we weren’t so very different.  Many of us enjoyed meaty meals.  Back whenever it was, we probably also had our own reasoning, all of which has now been easily forgotten.

I don’t think people want to allow themselves to join the Sympathy-For-Animals Club.  Consequences!  It would upset your social network, on which you might have spent considerable time and effort building.

You might not want to think about it, certainly not the gory bits, so the strategy is to avoid it, especially speaking about it.  This is not a popular subject for discussion with omnivores, and since almost every human is omnivorous, discussion partners are thin on the ground.  Which is all the more reason why, if we do find someone willing to talk with, we should treat them with great trust and respect.

Communicating with a gentle touch

1115: 

When advocating Animal Rights, we need to speak up as strongly as we can, but with a soft enough body language, so as not to frighten anyone off.  One hint of a sneer from me and I’m done for!

         

I want you to see in my face and hear in the tone of my voice that I definitely don’t want to win arguments, at any cost.  I just want to engage.  (Doesn’t sound too patronising does it?)  By establishing this preliminary, I won’t come across looking like an evangelist.

         

I’m not into winning converts, I simply want to come across as a nice person who anyone in the World could talk freely with, just as I’d expect anyone else to so come across. We should, all of us, feel free to say almost anything we want to, knowing we won’t cause any discomfort in the person we’re speaking with. From me, no one should get ‘threatening’ or humiliating.  I want to seem sensitive to the subject, but only because I want everyone to be sensitive to it too. Sensitive is sensitive. However, I also want to come across as confident. Confident enough to make my point and accept the consequences (whatever they might be), to make you sure that any or all differences WILL be dealt with calmly. (I daren’t use the slushy word ‘kindly’!!)

Animal Rights: I suspect, these days, this is probably the most super-sensitive of all subjects. No wonder some people associate ‘vegan’ with a certain sort of ineffable fear.

         

Animal Rights is the most difficult subject in the world - it makes people feel edgy.  When we’re talking about it, we’re not talking about the weather, but a potential dividing point, between otherwise similar people. Vegans dare to touch the taboo of “morality” on its most tender anthropocentric spot. Obviously, almost all of what ethical vegans are talking about alludes to moral code. Our society operates by way of a commonly recognised moral standard.

If we can ever define that standard (or its origin) then, just as long as it doesn’t involve any value judgements, we’ve gotten ourselves something really worth talking about!

Non-judgement

1114: 

I find it comes out of the blue usually ... you and I are talking together about something or other and suddenly up comes this question of animals - using them, eating them, cruelty issues, etc. Instead of plunging into the usual rhetoric I try to establish a non-judgemental ‘space’ before discussing any specifics of animal-use. It’s such an emotive issue. To discuss anything about animals, it’s important to first get close enough to trust each other, so that in the event of disagreeing our mutually affectionate natures won’t alter, even when provoked. That above anything will stop disagreement turning into a quarrel.

          If I’m taking the initiative, then I might  show some good manners, which sets the standard of mutual regard. I find it’s as good a way as any to ease any tension - it’s a sufficiently powerful persuasion in itself. If I’m sounding powerful, outrageous or daring, I should always be affectionate, always insist on mutual respect … because if I’m representing Animal Rights I’m also representing the ultimate peace movement. I have a responsibility to establish the idea that both humans and non-humans deserve respect. As vegans we are in an ideal position to show how peace works, on all levels. 

Treading carefully

1113: 

The principle of harmlessness is inspiring - great ideals and great ethical principles.  There are drawbacks of course, like the reality of being vegan in a non-vegan world, and becoming aware of the hardness of people.

The biggest mistake vegans make is assuming others will appreciate having their eyes opened to this.  It’s a shock to find out how badly many people react to what we tell them.  And then there’s a tendency for us to resent them for reacting badly ... which leads to making value judgements of them.  Once this ball is rolling it keeps on rolling.  It leads on to attacking them, even when we knows how that puts people’s backs up.  We often don’t realise how easily we can lose any advantage we might have had, and it often happens precisely at the moment we choose to ‘talk Animal Rights’ to someone who is not too keen to listen.

So, maybe I shouldn’t be trying to change anyone’s mind.  That’s something they must do for themselves, in their own good time.  If I have anything to offer it will be to get a little useful information across, and preferably to be quick about it and to the point, before their attention and interest wanders.

Any talking I do must include listening and waiting till it’s my turn to speak.  And then not to take umbrage if I don’t like what I hear -  I say something ‘vegan-inspired’ and they rubbish it.  My ego gets  bruised, and I get offended. 

         

What I have to say might seem important and a potential changing-point in anyone’s life.  However, others might not see it that way.  They might not realise why I’m getting excited over this animal thing or why I’m ‘being urgent’ about it, both on the animals’ behalf and theirs too.

Perhaps there’s a need for subtlety, since the logic behind vegan principle might not sink in straight away.  It might be thought about when alone, in the privacy of one’s own thoughts.  If we try to come on too strong we’ll seem to be getting too confrontational or personal or even unfriendly.  If you disagree with me, you might think I’ll withdraw my affection for you.  It might bring on my nasty side, and that more than anything will stop people listening. 

Taking on some initial inconvenience

1112: 

Going vegan might seem like a big step to take but, unexpectedly, taking the first step might not be too hard at all.  What I think probably happens for most people is that there’s such a feeling of relief, to be no longer part of the ‘system’, that food take on a new meaning in trialling new dishes.  Our choices come down to experimenting with new ways of preparing food, making plant-based meals, trying new recipes and thereby experiencing a personal metamorphosis.

Initially, the hardest part of such a radical change of diet is finding new ways of meal-making.  Without the huge variety of quick-to-cook or ready-to-eat foods, we have to get used to bringing things up from raw-ingredients, and that brings out our creativity (although today, at least here in Sydney, there are a lot of vegan ‘ready-mades’ available, and they’re not too costly.  It’s even better for vegans in UK, Europe and USA, although even there, vegans have nowhere near the same variety and choices that omnivores generally enjoy).     

         

Going vegan costs time, effort and convenience.  It means missing out on many heretofore-available treats.  But then, why is it that most vegans never consider that ‘going back to being non-vegan’?  It’s not because they’re extra nice people or extremely disciplined but because a plant-based-food diet is just too good to be true.

For a start, one is experiencing plant-driven energy, not the heavy, short-lived energy associated with rich, animal-protein foods.  And it isn’t just about food and physical energy either, it’s the thought process that goes with it.  It’s what Jeffrey Masson calls “a somersaulting-forward process”, opening up to an entirely new experience of your world ... and that’s just on the personal side.  It’s a feeling of helping to construct good health and not acting against the interests of the world.

Vegan principle

1111:

Vegan principle is obviously to do with meaning no harm to animals.  The reason we don’t buy, eat or use what comes from animals is that they are ALL slaves of humans.  The ongoing harm done to them is mostly hidden behind the doors of farms and abattoirs.

Their captive state, the slum conditions in which they are held and the terror they undergo when executed, is hardly ever mentioned in the media.  What gets a lot of coverage, however, are the wonderful things that can be done with their body parts and various secretions.  The foods from animals are always extolled.  Everything the animal ‘produces’ for us is continually pushed on TV, is very available in supermarkets, and is served in most restaurants and in most homes.  There’s never the slightest thought given to the suffering of the animals who produce it.  And despite the harmful effects of eating so much animal protein, no warnings are given, and indeed the market is awash with the stuff.

You would think the daily holocaust of animal-killing would weigh heavily of people’s minds, but with it all being so much a routine part of daily life, we’ve become capable of smothering our thoughts.  If one is an eater of animals then thought-smothering will have to take place many times a day.

If one wants to keep one’s thoughts unsmothered, there’s a price to pay.  Probably the first consequence would be to give up one’s favourite breakfast.  And then forgo the main part of each meal, each snack and each comforting treat, where animal produce is involved.  So, the idea of going vegan might appeal on one level but in practice it puts one’s self-discipline to the test.  It seems like a huge step to take.

The 'All-Important' Human

1110: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Humans are the most important beings on earth, don't you know!!  That’s why we have dominion over all the rest and why we can do what we like with animals!  We can put them in cages, mutilate them and generally keep them under our control.  It’s to our advantage to do so in the highly competitive animal-food market. It makes economic sense to keep animals in low-cost, slum conditions, then kill them with speed and efficiency without considering their feelings.

How do we justify it?  By thinking that animals lack self-awareness.  By thinking they can’t foresee their coming execution so they don’t suffer until the very moment of their death.

How do we handle it?  By never getting to see them actually dying.  If we don't see it, we don’t have to experience their reactions.  We aren’t haunted by what happens.  It leaves the way clear for us to enjoy eating them.

For those on the frontline, there’s another factor making it easier to keep them and kill them.  It's all legal! The animals can’t fight back, so there'll be no repercussions.

 

On a smaller scale, we’ve probably all experienced a similar detachment and desensitisation when we drown ants in the kitchen sink or crush a cockroach under foot.  There’s no danger of being troubled by this because we don’t really experience the dying.  The creatures show no sign of suffering because they’re small and make no audible noise.  Conversely, one never gets to hear or see the killings of larger and more vocal animals killed for food, because the killing goes on behind the closed doors of the abattoir.

So, without even thinking about it, we destroy the small, irritating 'pest'.  Like we destroy the "no-longer-economically-viable" dairy cow at the end of her services.   Separation neutralises any empathy that we might feel.

  

It’s the same when we separate from fellow humans, in order to treat them in a way that benefits us.  Racism helps us separate from our coloured neighbours.  By regarding them as 'pests', 'illegals' or 'asylum seekers',

we confirm our feelings of superiority over them.  We don’t have to be too obvious about it either because they’ve probably experienced racism before in their lives.  All we have to do is not be too friendly.  By showing we’re not interested in them as individuals, we can maintain an advantage over them.

Whether it concerns animals or humans, by making them feel inferior or frightened of us, they can be handled more easily and made more useful to us. The first rule of racism is to never treat our 'inferiors' as social equals.

 

Vegans, who refuse to enjoy taking advantage of exploited animals, act more sensitively towards them.  We may also have a similar attitude when we see forests as things of beauty rather than a collection of  'logable trees'.  With people from other cultures, or with trees or animals or children, it comes down to respecting their differences to us, marvelling at their innocence and beauty, and never intending them any harm.

Contrast this with the destructive, careless attitude of those who either can’t tolerate difference or want to take advantage of the undefended.

Sanctuary

1109: 

What most people refuse to see about the plight of food-animals becomes patently clear as soon as one stops eating them.  So, the next logical step, after becoming vegan, is to encourage others to do likewise, and then to lobby to provide these animals with sanctuary.  In most people’s eyes, this would be seem like a departure from reality.

The cost would be prohibitive, which is what slave-owners two hundred years ago said about freeing their slaves.  And yet it would be a short lived cost since there would be no need to breed more animals, if they were no longer going to be useful to the human.  The kindest result would be that those domesticated animals would die out.  But in the short term these animals would be retired into a safe environment. It’s the very least we owe them.

The idea of ‘farm sanctuaries’ is already being considered.  Some in USA have been in operation for two decades.

If we don’t consider this, we’ll be caught up in an endless cycle of barbaric, polluting and wasteful activities, resulting in the destruction of everything we hold dear.  By avoiding this issue in order to maintain the personal comfort animals afford us, we hand big problems on to future generations.

What would it mean to establish animal sanctuaries?  Initially, they’d be expensive to set up because there are still so many animals alive who need taking care of, but as vegetarianism increases, so the ‘domestic’ animal population decreases.  And by operating a deliberate non-breeding programme there will soon enough be a reduction in the numbers of animals.

Sanctuaries may be the only way to provide safety for animals, but it presupposes great altruistic intention from a lot of people.  And initially that will be shown by the numbers of people becoming vegan and choosing a more altruistic outlook on life; they’ll adopt a non-speciesist attitude, moving their support for animal farming to creating sanctuary for them; a switch from killing to caring.

Thanks for the Abattoirs

1108: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

 [This is a copy of a letter that Doris Hardman sent to Transnational Processors. It was addressed to the Chairman, Mr. Allheart]

                                                                                                       As the managing director of Transnational Processors, Mr. Allheart, you have always observed the highest standards of animal processing. We have a lot to be grateful to you for.

Some of the most beautiful foods and fabrics come from your abattoirs and I know that plant workers don’t always have an easy job - or a clean one.  But you’ve always held that hygiene is paramount.  You bring grubby-looking animals in at one end and turn out quality ‘food’ at the other.  Now that’s what I call provisioning!

Mr. Allheart, I think you deserve an award!  You manage the production end so well and produce many wonderful goods which suit my lifestyle perfectly.

My life would be empty without you.  For a start, it would be empty to the tune of one dog!  My dog.  He doesn’t like vegetables, but he loves your minced lamb.  He won’t eat anything else.  And Puss is crazy for your fish. They’re spoilt, the pair of them, but we love them and try to give them the very best.

I heard the other day that you might have to close-down because of the trouble terrorists and animal activists are causing.  We shall miss you. The thought occurred to me that my life without you would be unimaginable!  There’d be no decent shoes to wear, no Christmas turkey and only ice cream made from beans!  There’d be no ham for sandwiches, no eggs for breakfast and no beluga for my daughter’s wedding next week!

Speaking of weddings, I’m stocked up. The fridge is bursting. We’re preparing The Trough, so to speak.

If it wasn’t for you, Mr. Allheart, we’d miss out on a lot of the good things of life, things which make life worth living.  For a start, without you there’d be no Dairy.  Those delicious, milky-rich, yummy things; all-tempting but not costing the Earth. You are one heck of a producer!  Just having so much milk on hand makes a lot of difference.  It can be put into almost anything and it’s available everywhere.  I must say I’m glad you’re not wasting it by giving it to the calves.  There, I’ve said it!!  The dear calves.  Admittedly, they’ve played their part and I’m pleased about that.  So, thank you for all the milk.  I love milk, Mr. Allheart.

If we are all grateful to you, then the animals probably are too.  They’re grateful to us all.   Grateful and proud to be a part of our lives.

On some level, I’m sure the animals realise that they give themselves completely to us for our use.  I'm sure they’re glad to.  One can imagine the calf accepting its love for us as stoically ‘seeing-it-through’ - through to term - and jigging up Mum's milk supply (lactation-wise) in the process.  Even these little calves are willing to give up their Mother’s milk so we can use it. That is their service to us and if good milk is the result,  it can’t be all bad, can it?  Because there must always be plenty of milk available, for all sorts of reasons, but especially for my ice cream.  I love ice cream, I mean, real ice cream!

It’s because you run such an efficient breeding scheme that we have so many animals to choose from.  It’s always a wonder to me that there is such diversity in what you make from raw materials - transmute is the word I think - all turned into such useful items and enjoyable elements of excellent nutrition!  Whether it’s sweet or savoury, so much of our food is produced by you, for us all to enjoy.  Apart from those steaks of delicious mammalian muscle tissue, there’s an ocean of seafoods, and what do you always say? - “There’s plenty of fish in the sea”.

For the wedding, I’m doing paella, one of my favourite seafood savouries.  And for appetizers, I’m hoping for Plenty Beluga!!

You know, I have a little theory of my own here, that the animals want to feel part of our celebrations.  I think they enjoy saying  “Yes” to the idea of serving us and being part of our lifestyle - and our meals.  It’s all about them coming closer to us.  We honour them/ they honour us.  Using their bits and pieces (like secretions, skins, hair) is all grist to the mill for them.  If we can use them, then we should. They’re proud to be useful and I’m sure, in their generosity, they’d never begrudge us our shoes and blankets.  They’d want to see us well shod and warmly rugged up.

Yes - We have a lot to be grateful for.  Most particularly your leadership, Mr. Allheart.  It does you credit that you don’t push yourself forward.

I would say this to you: Don’t skulk on the outskirts of our towns as if you’ve got something to hide.  Come amongst us.  Bring your ‘temples’ and ‘altars’ closer in.  You have nothing to be ashamed of after all.  You only do what we bid you provide for us.  Imagine how hungry the world would be if we didn’t have someone like you, turning chickens, cows, pigs, lambs and fish into food?

Perhaps in a perfect world they’d be allowed a sort of Union of their own for complaints, if they had any.  They’d probably have a little moan about it all being a bit one-sided, being of more benefit to humans than animals - but that’s it!  So with nothing much to whinge about, I guarantee those cows grazing in the paddock down the road are quite happy.  More particularly, they’re proud to be there, here with us, bred and reared with a sense of purpose and destiny.  AND I might add (on behalf of the Downtrodden-Man-on-the-Land) it’s always been on the house, free board and lodging -  for life.  All at the farmer’s expense!

I know animals, and I know they always want to give back.  It’s in their giving nature. They want to give in the only way they can.  They give their lives!  They know their lives are not wasted, and I can almost hear young and old saying, “Thank you Mr. Allheart”  and “Thank you to everyone who cared for us when we were with you”.  From the same generous nature they’ll add,  “Thank you for making the best use of ALL of us”.

The animals, by following your example Mr. Allheart, in turn love us.  We sense they care for us in their own way providing means whereby we, their humans, need never go hungry or cold.

I’m encouraging my children to write to you to say how much they appreciate what you do for us. I’m speaking on behalf of others when I say how much we all appreciate the wonderful things you give us and, in a funny sort of way, you have become my church!   One day I hope all the church-doors of your bio-secure operations will be open for all to see and via the videocam make it all visible. Imagine: streaming live pictures of dear animals frolicking and playing in the farmyards throughout this country!  And these happy scenes, viewed by all, will prove wrong all those jabbering Animal People going on about cruelty on farms.  All charges scotched!  You can imagine, Mr. Allheart, what a kick in the teeth this would be for the ‘farm-terrorists’.  Hopefully they’ll get long prison stretches and have to find somewhere else to spit their poison.

Just think - Any time, Any day, Anywhere - Streaming Live - Worldwide accountability for you. The in-house pictures will prove there’s nothing to get upset about.  I can imagine Open Days on the farms with everyone dressed in their bio-secure disposables, walking amongst the animals.  By being one-on-one with them we show faith with the farmer.  On those same farms there will be rooms set-aside for reflection, for giving thanks to the Transnational Processing staff for their work and their loyalty to you, Mr. Allheart.  In my own contemplations, I imagine myself whispering to you, “Thank You Mr. Allheart” for what is nothing short of a miracle, a transubstantiative turning of raw materials into the glory of kitchen cuisine.  This is your gift to us, it’s your Art, Mr. Allheart.

As a Memorial to you, my future hope is that my daughter and her husband raise young ones to attend your apprenticeship programmes in Animal Processing.  It’s a solid job for them and they’d be doing something important for their country, like joining the army or the priesthood.  As committed workers in the Industry, they would also be our ears and eyes and a voice for the future.

Where there were once meat-works and slaughterhouses, there could be Temples in praise of Your service to us.

For my grandchildren to have the opportunity to be in your service is the noblest vocation I think they could aspire to.  If, as we hear, you are about to be closed-down, you must know my dream.  That in time, Your ranks will swell again. Your day will come again and love of You will return with the respect and trust You deserve.

Know this from me, Mr. Allheart - We ’d be nowhere without You!

Symbiosis essential for mutual survival

1107: 

Holding onto the egalitarian ideal is never going to be easy but here in Australia, with our natural flair for rethinking everything, we’ve made certain break-throughs, one of which seems to be our healthy relationships with each other.  Snobbery doesn’t exist here.  We’re more inclined to build mutually-benefiting and symbiotic connections.

It’s somewhat different when animals are brought into the picture.  They are simply part of an exploitation culture - there’s not much ‘symbiosis’ there, and in this respect Australians are the same as other nationalities.  In theory, animals and humans could be mutually beneficial, but that’s a million miles from what we have today - we exploit them and we allow them no privileges.  Even the apiarist, who transports his hives of bees to good feeding grounds doesn’t do it for the bees’ sake but in order to get them making even more honey ... to steal from them.

Even after the animal has been exploited and used up there’s no thought for the animal itself.  They’re sent for slaughter - the last vestiges of usefulness are drained from the body.  Nothing of them is wasted, and that’s considered to be ‘virtuous efficiency’.  As for retiring the poor exhausted animal in a sanctuary - ya gotta be jokin’!! 

The Egalitarian Principle

1106: 

In Australia there’s fertile ground for egalitarianism.  Ever since the beginning of Western occupation (our treatment of indigenous people notwithstanding) there’s been a strong unifying thread amongst new arrivals to this country.  As émigrés and refugees, often from harsh regimes, most of us or our forebears have pulled together to develop a national identity that is, at heart, egalitarian.  We’ve developed attitudes of giving one another a ‘fair go’, of tolerating minorities and of accepting new attitudes.

But across the species barrier, can there be any sort of equality?

In Australia we’re in a prime position to show the rest of the world how it can be done, amongst people of different cultural backgrounds.  It isn’t just a matter of tolerating differences, but actually appreciating those differences, to the extent of developing a humanitarianism based on respect for each other.  We’ve been able to drop the class system, and to a large extent we’ve dumped the intellectual stratification in our society.  That might place us in a good position to extend that same ‘fair-go’  principle to animals, for why would we arbitrarily exclude other sentient species from an equality that we advocate amongst ourselves?  It is, after all, based on a principle of showing goodwill towards the disadvantaged and standing up for the oppressed. 

Is it too risky to back veganism?

1105: 

The big break-through on Animal Rights will probably come when vegan principle is taken as seriously as global warming and world hunger - when people can connect Animal Rights with global solutions.

Thus far, there are many people willing to concede that cruelty exists in animal farming, and that some welfare reform is necessary.  But to complete the picture, where the ultimate ethic is one of not-touching-animals at all, that may still be a long way off.  And yet, from our point of view, this central ethic is impossible to water down.  If veganism is going to be attractive, it will be for the way it represents the bigger picture and not because it gives us an easy answer or represents a satisfactory compromise. 

Public speaking events

1104: 

   

Having a one-on-one conversation about animal issues requires a subtle touch.  But we can use a different approach when public speaking, where we have a whole block of time to speak.  The idea here is to inform and have a few visuals to help get our information across.  But our talk needs to be edgy, so we set ourselves up to be knocked down, in order to encourage questions that put us on the spot.

If we’re addressing a group, speaking on invitation, airing a whole raft of ideas on the subject we’ve been asked to speak about, we’ll be attempting to reach two types.  There will be those who want to hear and those who don’t.  Some will want to agree, others to disagree.  We owe the first group the best we can offer, but our main challenge is the second group.  They want to catch us out, so we have to know what we’re talking about.

These listeners will keep us on our toes.  They’re the ones we have to work hardest for, to do our research so that we say nothing we’re not sure about.  If our detractors can show us up, they’ll make us seem unreliable.  They’ll undermine our credibility.

If we have done our homework, once we’re confident, then we can concentrate on making our talk interesting.  Our job is to spark imagination and bring people a little closer.

If we want to paint a picture of ‘the bright future ahead’, where animals aren’t being exploited, we must first be able to show how to enjoy a plant-based diet.  Otherwise it will all sound like idle speculation.  Certainly, we should spend some time talking food, but we should always come back to the main arguments concerning ethics.

We should be trying to up-lift not confront, and promote our arguments optimistically by having useful facts at hand.  We should aim at talking with some authority about health issues, ethics, farming, environment, world hunger and vivisection.  Vegan argument covers each of these areas.

Where there’s a need for more detail, we should be able to give directions to useful web sites, u-tube footage, leaflets and books.

The point of this exercise is to avoid letting anyone accuse us of being too emotional or uninformed or unprofessional … or indeed uninteresting.  A talk on this subject should be worth the amount of time being given up to attend it.

This is a heavy subject, so a talk shouldn’t last more than 30 minutes, leaving time for questions and comments from the floor.  It’s useful to keep a timer at hand, to stop running over time.

Buying cruelty-free items

1103: 

If you’ve ever felt at peace with pigs and cows, you’ve probably felt ashamed on behalf of your fellow humans.  At least vegans feel no personal shame, so that when we see a beautiful hen pecking on the ground we don’t have to feel guilty - we aren’t going to steal her eggs or eat her.  We’re probably going to feel angry that people still have such animals on their dinner plates.

One can’t take on the guilt of others nor dismiss the whole of humanity or get angry with all our friends, but we can put forward some suggestions - to do some cruelty-free shopping, because this is where it all starts.

By way of incremental change, we may suggest they step away from animal produce; make one small gesture each day, make the gradual transition.  That sounds reasonable enough, but how do we go about suggesting this?

Perhaps we make it seem like an attractive thing to do.  We can try to reach people’s hearts, appeal to their higher instincts, let them feel the change happening.  We can encourage people to see for themselves that this new change of direction is ultimately attractive, on its own account.

If we can talk through the issues without coming on too strong or going on about it too long, it will be obvious that we’re not out to convert.  We just want them to make up their own minds, let them come to their own conclusions, and be their own judge and jury.

Veganism as a new idea

1102: 

Vegans seem preposterous.  Even to family and friends our ‘behaviour’ seems either like bad manners or a play for attention.  People both rubbish vegan lifestyle in general or cite negative health consequences, “Our reason to think vegans take things too far: farm animals are just less important than maintaining traditional life - the life of our forefathers, who never had any scruples about eating them”.

         

‘Animal advocates’ hold the opposite view.  We feel so sure that we are right about all this that it’s enough to create a certain sense of superiority, like me saying, “I’m better than you because I’m vegan”, or “I’m better than you because I’m environmentally responsible”.  We can be hubristic, and bring about separation.  A them-and-us, a ‘de-kin-ing’ is established and it takes a long time for each person to come close again.  Without some sort of kinship or closeness nothing can happen; without some level of mutual respect and trust, there can be no useful communication, especially on a serious subject like ‘making this world a better place’.

         

If we are all going to contribute what we can, to make things better for our world, then separation-attitudes have got to be dumped.  Once we’re thinking of others as equals, never looking down on anyone and never letting them look down on us, we can talk about almost anything, do anything just so long as we never leave anyone behind.

The difference between a vegan and an omnivore is that we take equality further, for fellow humans and on to other species.  We consider animals to be no less worthy of respect than fellow humans.  But this respect is tinged with compassion for all the suffering they’ve experienced - we’ve a fair bit of reparation and repair to make.

Let’s hope the animals haven’t been collecting evidence of human malpractice over the years!!  Presumably they don’t keep books.  Presumably they’re beyond such things!!

So why can’t we give it a go?  Why can’t we treat them as irreplaceable, sovereign creatures as we do our own babies?  If we can think of them that way, we’ll be unable to condone their killing.  And in addition, how can anyone argue that one is less entitled to enjoy a whole un-foreshortened life without violation than another?

There’s no valid reason to treat farm animals any differently to dogs and cats.  So, why is there no love for them?  Easy question, a three year old could spot it straight away - ‘charity starts at home’.  Love is given to kin, not kine.

Most omnivores do not respect the idea of equality, amongst their own species let alone across the species barrier.  And yet this is the starting point to every repair that has to be made - if it’s not obviously equality it is respecting differences, and not grading them.

There must be equality, either between humans and non-humans, or between members of our own species. 

The superficial consumer

1101: 

We are going shopping, spending up, emulating the carefree hedonism of the rich, buying almost anything that takes our fancy.  This is the nearest we get to living ‘life to the full’, as we do sometimes when on holiday.

Spending-up gives no thought to ethics, environment or health; this is care-free shopping.  And today, we are buying ‘animal’.  On the shopping list we include chicken wings, yoghurt, a new blanket, some work-shoes, and much else besides.  Today we’re going shopping.  Going shopping is a favourite sport. It’s fun.

Hold that feeling.

         

And now contrast that feeling with another, from seventy years ago - here are people, not dissimilar from us, who are meat and two veg people, and sometimes people who loved to buy big, for grand occasions, where tables would be laden with food.  Same as we do today.

And yet there were differences.  They would have been horrified at the thought of putting hens in tiny cages for their whole life in order to produce eggs.  They couldn’t imagine encasing a pig in a sow stall or cutting into the raw flesh of a sheep to prevent fly-strike.  To treat an animal in this way would have been considered diabolical, unthinkable.  And yet today we accept it as ‘essential’.

What happened during those seventy years?  Perhaps the competition for market share became more cut throat.  The consumers, demanding low prices, turned a blind eye.  The farmer gradually began to regard animals as objects.  Cruelty became acceptable.  Farming was done behind closed doors.  The public asked no questions.

Out of all this came a generation of protesters who were willing to forego the pleasures of care-free eating, and boycott the whole shebang.  Animal-derived foods were cruelty foods.  The Animal Rights Movement emerged.  The term ‘speciesism’ came to be used to describe those who didn’t care about the non-human.  Those who did care were prepared to observe vegan principles.

But that became a springboard to a much deeper principle that could be applied to much more than food and animals – it was the principle of non-violence.  Those who don’t care enough, who are the non-thinking consumer of whatever they want, will have nothing to do with this ridiculous notion of non-violence.  They’ll continue to subscribe to the ‘hard’ code of behaviour, adopted by animal farmers and the Animal Industry in general.  These ‘un-thinkers’ will continue to eat eggs and products containing eggs, and think nothing of the conditions under which hens are forced to live.  If the ‘un-thinker’ thought about the ‘rights of animals’, they would have to question their own humanity, and the prospect of that is never going to be attractive.

Most of us have been brought up with the idea that we have rights - that if we want something badly enough, and it’s available, and if we can afford it, then we have the right to buy it - no questions asked.  Those of us who have broken away from that rather selfish mind-set have chosen to voluntarily restrict our choices.  We are raising some important questions-to-be-asked.

As soon as we’re clear about these questions (and can live according to our principles) we need to get the consumer to enquire what these questions might be.  Then they can decide for themselves whether to put those questions to themselves.

Break-out and persuasion

1100:

We all do what people have always done; we’ve no need to think about such basic things as to what food to eat.  The pattern has been set long ago.  But now, perhaps, there emerges a break-away generation, no longer willing to accept what others do just because they do it.  They aren’t content to eat fast food, and meet an early death, nor identify with the stereotypical, non-thinking person.  The very act of breaking away has something rewarding about it, despite becoming part of a minority. Vegans experience the buzz of a clear conscience and the energy-giving, healthy quality of a plant-based diet.

Now enter the persuader, someone who has broken away and is wanting others to join, to change the minority into a majority. In considering how to be an effective persuader (to help build our numbers whilst sticking to the no-use-animal principle) we have to make a stand; but, in doing this we often opt for an aggressive-look, a strong look. We say that look is legitimate, because people have chosen to relate to their ‘hard’ side; we can match their lack of compassion with forthrightness. We reckon to shock them into submission, to make them see more clearly what they’re condoning, by being meat eaters.  “The gloves are off”, we say. “We’re angry. We must take it out on the meat-eaters”. That might be courageous, confronting and clear, but it doesn’t help the animals. It just polarises enemies.

What we really need is more connection.

         

A passionate promotion of Animal Rights isn’t the only way to educate people who don’t want to listen. Doing something to shock people, by being outspoken, will attract the Media, and give prominence to our arguments.  And that’s exactly what will happen, but only for a very short while.  What good does it do to win a few newspaper headlines one day only to have it all evaporate when the news is stale by the next?  Protests and demonstrations might tweak people’s conscience but they never address issues deeply enough to inspire or permanently touch the heart.  If we do connect with people we might get them to want to hear things from our point of view.

The hold animal-derived foods have

1099: 

The fear associated with food starts with a fear of starvation.  We need strength-giving food plus a guarantee of supply.  If food is in doubt we go crazy worrying about starvation.  But now, for those of us living in the wealthier world, all this has changed. Food is no longer scarce.  It’s available and affordable.  The supply of food is guaranteed, and there is no fear of starvation.  But the fear has merely transferred from the earlier fear to a fear of losing out on the pleasure food brings us.

The hold food has on people is of central concern for vegans. The ‘hold’ grows stronger the more interested we become when certain food items become attractive.  The habit of choosing what foods to eat, based almost entirely on the prospect of personal satisfaction, rules out or downplays every other consideration:  “I like chicken, I buy it, I eat it.  And if chickens suffer whilst being reared, then that’s a shame, but it doesn’t make me want chicken any the less, knowing how they were treated”.  The food and the animal are not linked, the food is of great interest, the animal is of very little interest, since it has been transformed from a living-breathing animal to a tempting nugget.

This temptation is what we are UP against here.  Chicken, for example, appeals to most people’s taste in whatever part of the world they live.  Most people don’t spend any time actually thinking about the origins of their food, they just concentrate on bringing the raw foodstuff to an edible state.  If they were to think about the rights and wrongs of food at all it’s likely they’d follow the crowd and not think about it for themselves at all.  Their food choices are virtually made for them by the marketeers, and their involvement in the buying, cooking and eating it is deeply embedded in habits, which are the bridge to their world of plenty (of yummy food).

Things have changed over the last sixty odd years, during this long period of plenty, mainly at the expense of animals, most delicious foods are full of animal-derived ingredients and are available to anyone.  These are the foods which have the strongest pull on people.  That is the hold these foods have those who haven’t yet questioned the ethics of the food they eat.