Connecting, not abusing

1408: 

For the vegan to attack the non-vegan is a mistake.  We have to set the standard for any future interaction or discussion - the image of  vegans being attack-dogs has to change.  Communication between people of differing viewpoints is always going to be difficult.  It’s much easier to go on the attack.  It feels so justified.  Attack gives us the ‘sugar-hit’ we need to stave off the frustration of not being able to reach them, these unthinking and uncaring people.

But we need to have some sort of connection in order to get discussion going.  A passionate promotion of Animal Rights isn’t the only way to educate people who don’t want to listen.  What good does it do to win a few newspaper headlines one day only to have the attention evaporate when the news is stale by the next day?  Protests and demonstrations might tweak people’s consciences, but the slogans we use are one liners, and never address issues deeply enough to inspire or permanently touch the heart of people who have barely thought about the issues before. 

Big issues, perceived differently

1407:  

Vegans want to strike a blow for compassion.  We’re willing to deny ourselves lots of things for that.  We know where we stand on animal slavery (an opposite view to the majority) and we know why people don’t agree with us, because agreement logically leads one to ‘go vegan’, which to most people would be a scary idea.  And because of this, public attitude to animal slavery won’t change.  If you want to eat animals you can hardly show any interest in their welfare, since you are about to be their executioner.

The difference in our levels of concern cause vegans and non-vegans to part company.  And often it’s the reason we can’t sympathise with our omnivore friends who, apart from food items, are also buying clothing and other commodities that are animal-based or animal-tested. And again, there's great cruelty involved, be it in the production of milk, wool, leather or medicines. - always, consideration for the animal itself is of little concern to those making money from them. or indeed from the consumer who is benefitting from them.

When we try to discuss this subject with people we, not surprisingly, find that they prefer we didn’t.   And while we may think they’re just being obstinate, they think we’re just spoiling for a fight.

By getting caught up in an argument about using-animals, the omnivore thinks we want to cause them embarrassment.  They feel cornered.  They're on the defensive.  If we bring up the subject, how do we ensure  things won’t turn nasty?  On the one hand, you can’t blame a vegan for ‘speaking up’, on the other hand, you can’t blame the omnivore for thinking we want to spoil their dinner.

         

It’s a trap for all concerned.  For example, I visit someone’s house and food is offered, out of natural hospitality.  I refuse it and have to provide my reason.  Either the matter is brushed under the carpet or something is said in an attempt to appease.  It’s likely, each party underestimates the strength of opinion of the other.  In declaring myself to be vegan, I have no idea how offensive I’m being, as if I’m condemning what’s being offered.  In declaring themselves to be omnivore, they have no idea how they might seem to me, to be lacking moral fibre, for not making a stand against animal cruelty.

         

The problem is that, as vegans, we think deeply about something that non-vegans hardly ever think about.  Obviously the world is a very wicked place today, but there are so many conscience-pricking issues. Who can say which are most important issues to make a stand about?  How bad is air travel on our carbon footprint?  How obscene is a full stomach in a hungry world?

         

At the first whiff of negative value judgement, people usually dig their heels in and refuse to change.  No one likes to be criticised.  So, when someone is avoiding a vegan, out of a fear of confrontation, the vegan notices this, and wants to push forward with their arguments, assert themselves, force things, even hit back in some way.  And that’s surely one of the reasons why we seem to be getting nowhere in trying to talk to omnivores.  Because omnivores view animals as commodities, especially when they are turned into slabs of meat for cooking, they don't give this food any ethical consideration; it’s easy for them NOT to connect this food with a living, breathing, walking animal.  And it's of no interest to be reminded that it once was, just that.  In fact, we represent such a small minority view that they know we can't sound athoritative. They have the numbers, we don't. If we push, we'll be seen as being anything from vegan bores to vegan Nazis.

Energy maximising

1406: 

Maybe as vegans we’re convinced about our arguments concerning animal slavery, even though we know that arguing our case is going to be a long, drawn-out, David and Goliath affair.  The odds might seem stacked against us and the tide not turning our way as quickly as we’d like, but we mustn’t be afraid of energy loss from our efforts made.

         

We might spend time fretting over our ineffectiveness, so we might try to steal energy from other commitments. But then something else goes short – our relationships get stretched.  There’s never enough time to do anything else well.  We are torn between doing more for Animal Rights and spending less time with family and friends.

         

The original idea of Animal Rights is totally inspiring.  Too interesting.  Eventually it makes a call on our energies – doing whatever we can to get closer to solving the mystery of communicating this difficult subject.  We try to boost our energy by reading.  It serves to confirm how important this subject is, and from what we read we head off with renewed energy.  We look at video footage, listen to speakers, discuss with our fellow activists.  We do whatever it takes to keep up the passion and outrage.

But there’s a balance to be struck.  If we let Animal Rights work interfere with our personal life, things may start to go wrong with our energy balance.  Where is all this extra energy we need supposed to come from?  Certainly we’re well endowed with it from the vegan food we eat. We aren’t any longer sluggish from eating crap food and stodge.  But mostly, we need motive energy, and that comes from the sheer significance of what we are trying to achieve.  So, it’s crucial to maintain a balance between personal life and activist work but to get extra energy wherever we can find it.  And this isn’t always very easy.  The burn-out rate amongst animal activists is frightening.

If energy is a problem, maybe we have to re-think energy, as to what it is and what type of energy we are most in need of.  To start with, we need to consider energy not as a finite resource, like having so much petrol in the tank to run our machine, but more like a self perpetuating resource - energy out-put generating an in-put of energy.  Motivational energy, for such meaningful work, must become a type of energy that expands as it expends.

         

Let’s say that acts of usefulness or kindness, where there’s big investment on our part, may show little reward in terms of achievement but show surprisingly little energy depletion.  Perhaps activism uses the sort of energy where the more we use the more is replaced.

         

I find it works that way.  As soon as I let go self interest, the stronger the energy flow is.  Could it be that when energy is released for the ‘greater-good’ that we set off a chain reaction?   For instance, as soon as we begin to take an interest in a forest, an animal, a human or any important global issue, that the energy we need will appear, as if from nowhere?  Maybe the opposite happens too, where self-interest drains our energy.  Perhaps that’s the reason why the insatiable thirst of the greedy fits so well into the ‘more greed, more need’ pattern.

If energy supply really does work like this (harmful sources like meat depleting energy, harmless sources like plant food are efficient energy suppliers) it puts a new spin on things - that however hard pressed we feel, there’s always going to be enough energy for any meaningful activities.

After the Debate

1405: 

After the talking is over, we might have to agree to disagree.  And then move on, since there’s work to be done.  It shows a lot about our character if we can rub along together and take up our positions, in opposition to one another, but still refuse to take umbrage.

         

If we always regard opposition as a positive challenge, then opposition won’t feel so much like an assault.  As long as we keep the focus on constructive repair, we can delve deeply into issues concerning food, animals, health, the planet’s future, non-violence, and so on, and still be able to come away with something newly learned.  It's better than adding even more heavy emotional baggage which eventually needs to be sorted out .

Debate

1404: 

It’s hard to get a debate going on Animal Rights.  We may be busting to tell people everything we know about the horrors of animal abuse, but others hold strong views too, so we need to respect the sovereignty of opinion, even when we reckon it’s wrong opinion.  All opinion-holders should feel free to say their piece, otherwise we’ll lose the privilege of having freedom of speech.

         

There should be clear channels for airing our views without fear of being attacked or cut down before we’ve finished speaking.  If, for example, we’re debating the use of animals, we’re bound to touch on the use of animal products, which will bring us to the use of eggs or milk and the cruelty behind their production.  Whether we’re discussing with friends or speaking to an audience of strangers, there’s no point in becoming defensive or aggressive as soon as we’re no longer on common ground.  If we get aggro about our views, we cause people to dig in their heels and argue against us, if only to save face.

Setting the stage

1403: 

There’s so much waste and cruelty and so much done against the greater good, that it makes some of us despair.  But it can also quicken the importance of the work that has to be done - giving urgency to the work of repairing rivers, forests and habitats, as well attitudes to animals.

         

Vegans, having somewhat cleaned up their act, by shaking off their ‘shadow’.  We can contribute to the transition to a peaceful future.  A vegan might see the beauty of animals and Nature, do them no harm, as well as try to come close to people who hold different views from us.

         

We have to lead by example, even if that means taking on a self discipline that keeps us separated from others whilst feeling no animosity towards them.  The last thing we need is that any person comes to dislike vegan principle because they dislike the vegan who introduces the idea.  We wouldn’t want the bathwater thrown out with the baby.

Our Culture's Shadow

1402: 

If we are going to talk about Animals Rights, we have to decide when to pull back and when to press forward.  We never know where someone’s breaking point is, so we can’t be sure if they’ll be stimulated by the challenge or want to avoid the whole subject for fear of being attacked.

         

Let's imagine that we're having a casual conversation about Animal Rights.  Since we know well enough that this is never a ‘casual’ subject, we might duck and dive around the issues, with nothing said quite directly, with feelings hidden in an attempt to avoid souring the atmosphere.

         

Here’s a quote from Will Tuttle’s book The World Peace Diet, where he refers to our cruelty and violence towards animals as our ‘shadow’.

         

"Children who are violated and abused will, when they become adults, tend to violate and abuse their children in a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that rolls through the generations.  We address it by trying to stop the child abuse, and fail to see the deeper dynamic.  This human cycle of violence will not stop until we stop the underlying violence, the remorseless violence we commit against animals for food.  We teach this behaviour and this insensitivity to all our children in a subtle, unintentional, but powerful form of culturally approved child abuse.  Our actions condition our consciousness; therefore forcing our children to eat animal foods wounds them deeply.  It requires them to disconnect from the food on their plates, from their feelings, from animals and nature, and sets up conditions of disease and psychological armouring.  The wounds persist and are passed on to the next generation.

         

"Compelling our children to eat animal foods gives birth to the “hurt people hurt people” syndrome.  Hurt people hurt animals without compunction in daily food rituals.  We will always be violent toward each other as long as we are violent toward animals – how could we not be?  We carry the violence, in our blood, and in our consciousness.  Covering it up and ignoring it doesn’t make it disappear.  The more we pretend to hide it, the more, like a shadow, it clings to us and haunts us.  The human cycle of violence is the ongoing projection of this shadow.

         

"In Jungian terms, our culture’s enormous, intractable, overriding shadow is the cruelty and violence towards animals it requires, practises, eats and meticulously hides and denies. … The shadow archetype represents those aspects of ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge, the part of ourselves that we have disowned.  To itself, the shadow is what the self is not, and in this case it is our own cruelty and violence that we deny and repress.  We tell ourselves that we are good, just, upright, kind and gentle people.  We just happen to enjoy eating animals, which is okay because they were put here for us to use and we need the protein.  Yet the extreme cruelty and violence underlying our meals is undeniable, and so our collective shadow looms larger and more menacing the more we deny its existence, sabotaging our efforts to grow spiritually and to collectively evolve a more awakened culture.

         

"As Jungian psychotherapy emphasizes, the shadow will be heard!  This is why we eventually do to ourselves what we do to animals.  The shadow is a vital and undeniable force that cannot, in the end, be repressed.  The tremendous psychological forces required to confine, mutilate, and kill millions of animals every day, and to keep the whole bloody slaughter repressed and invisible, work in two ways.  One way is to numb, desensitize, and armour us, which decreases our intelligence and ability to make connections.  The other is to force us to act out exactly what we are repressing.  This is done through projection.  We create an acceptable target to loathe for being violent, cruel, and tyrannical – the very qualities that we refuse to acknowledge in ourselves – and then we attack it.  With this understanding of the immense violence toward animals that we keep hidden and the implacable shadow this creates, the existence of 50,000 nuclear warheads becomes comprehensible.  Our “never-ending” war against terrorism becomes not just comprehensible but inevitable, as does our appalling destruction of ecosystems, the rampant exploitation of the world’s poor, and the suicide, addiction, and disease that ravage countless human lives.

         

"The shadow is the self that does the dirty work for us so we can remain good and acceptable in our own eyes.  The more we repress and disconnect, the more inner disturbance we will carry that we must project on an outer evil force, an enemy or scapegoat of some kind, against whom we can direct our denied violence.  We will see these enemies as the essence of evil and despise them, for they represent aspects of our self that we cannot face.  In our quest to eliminate them we are driven to build the most hideous weapons imaginable, developing them throughout the centuries so that today we have the capacity to destroy all of humanity hundreds of times over.  This is not just something in our past, like the generations of inquisitions, crusades, and wars.  We eat more animals, project more enemies, and create more weapons than ever before.  Every minute 20,000 land animals are killed in United States slaughterhouses and the Pentagon spends $760,000 (every minute).  This huge expenditure on maintaining and developing systems to harm and destroy other people is a particularly egregious manifestation of the tragic suppression of intelligence caused by eating animal foods".

Will Tuttle (reprinted with permission)

Vegan

1401:

‘Vegan’ sounds difficult. Not hard to understand but hard to carry out.  It’s based on a theory that a small child could understand but an adult will inevitably find hard to practice; habits are entrenched, addictions established, and diet-change will always be daunting.  Becoming vegan doesn’t only mean altering attitudes, discarding leather shoes or replacing our woollen jumpers, it mostly comes down to giving-up many of our favourite foods.  And that’s not appealing.

By adjusting our food, clothing, footwear, entertainments and cosmetics because of their animal connections, we feel like we’ve become social misfits.  Our motives will probably be misunderstood, because no one will bother to find out why we are making life so difficult for ourselves.  It’s enough to put anyone off.

         

But to put it all in perspective, this is one mighty principle that vegans are trying to defend.  It’s so mighty that we must be prepared to be misunderstood.  Our own integrity is on the line here, not to mention our carbon footprint, and the chance to solve the world food shortage in ‘hungry’ countries. 

Being a vegan may be difficult, but the clincher is in our disassociation from involvement with animal cruelty.  Whatever hardships we endure as vegans living in a non-vegan society, nothing’s really that hard compared to what animals have to put up with.  The thought of the suffering they go through makes boycotting their ‘products’ a small price to pay.

         

No, going vegan isn’t a breeze.  On a personal level there’s addiction to certain favourite foods to deal with, and then being up against a popular belief that a plant-based diet might be inadequate.  But once all that is ironed out, something else begins to happen.  There’s a wish to bring others across.  There’s a need to start talking to others about it.  And then a new frustration begins, when one realises that the scale of ignorance is far greater than had been realised, and it’s combined with a level of obstinacy, where people don’t know, don’t care or refuse to listen.  Then the big difficulties begin.

         

The hurdles of actually becoming vegan, once overcome, make way for fresh obstacles where the vegan who wants to talk Animal Rights meets a brick wall, and feel so frustrated by this that they have nothing to lose by stirring people up.  A huge divide opens up.  A belief forms that the only way to ‘get people to listen’ is to shock them.  You wear a badge with the slogan “Meat is Murder”, knowing that it’s really saying “You are a murderer”.  Nothing could be more insulting than to call a person a murderer.  So the battle lines are drawn. 

         

From it being a personal project, with difficulties now overcome, we might never have taken into account how important recognition might be.  To be NOT recognised for what we’ve achieved, for our gesture NOT to be taken seriously, that's enough to make the blood boil. It is enough, indeed, to make war on all those who downgrade what we’ve done.

         

And that’s roughly where many of us who are vegan now find ourselves, unsupported and disliked because of the importance we’ve given to our ‘going vegan’.  How vegans deal with this is the great challenge.

Targeting the consumers

1400: 

A young vegan woman once told me that people should think of their beloved cats and dogs at home while they strolled down the aisles of the supermarket – it would help them remember similar animals who are not so well loved, notably the ones living on farms.

         

As vegans, we must try to touch consumers’ hearts, in order to help them make a transition from animal-eating to plant-eating.  If we try to remain aloof, we’ll be seen as too righteous.  They won’t grasp why we are advocating for animals to have a right to a life.  They won’t want to know what the Animal Industry is up to.  And they’ll find it easy to slip back into ignorance and believe we are too different from them.

Instead, they’ll be content to identify with other people, like their fellow omnivores who collectively accept the breeders, rearers, killers, packers, processors, producers and retailers of the food and clothing they themselves use.

By having no role models for whom they can feel respect, they’ll continue to be indifferent towards the feelings of the animals.  They’ll see them as objects and have no more empathetic thoughts for them than wood chippers will think of sparing the forests they are cutting down.  If we are equated with impossible expectations or if we sell vegan ethics as some sort of restriction, then ethics will be sidelined and everything will continue as it is at the moment.

And to make the eating of animals doubly secure for the Industry, the truth is kept from the consumer - the Animal Industry keeps the farm doors firmly shut to the public gaze. Since animal farming is still legal, the industry is secure and made more so by scientists who say “we must eat meat” and spiritual leaders who say, "Go ahead. It’s all okay". Consequently 95% of all adults in every country of the world, have been sucked in. This is why consumer re-education is such a high priority.

Sympatico

1399: 

If we expect others to respect our views, we should respect their freedom to express theirs.  The sort of changes we want to see happen can only come about when free-willed individuals decide for themselves that it’s time for them to change.  I believe that change can happens when a good idea sparks excitement rather than guilt.  Guilt may shift us at first but it usually dissipates, whereas inspiration resonates with something much deeper, and continues to fire up with new thoughts and fresh feelings.  Aside from that, someone who is beginning to ‘get it’ may identify with the person who is introducing the ‘new idea’. 

For that reason alone, vegans have to be careful not to come across as people with good arguments but ugly personality.  We must, first and foremost, be seen to have a sense of fairness.  If the zealot appears or if we have any sort of ugliness, it stops people identifying with us, and therefore with what we say.  We have to try to hold their interest and leave them with something to think about when we’ve disappeared.   If we achieve that, then we’re half way to winning them over.

Dialogue between grown ups

1398: 

Any serious dialogue between people of opposite views needs a few rules. Otherwise it won’t flow. There must be a mutual respect for each person to hold their view, whether we agree with it or not.

Before we can be taken seriously as advocates (for the right of animals to have a life other than being the slaves of humans) something must be made clear. Our so called ‘adversaries’ need to be sure that we’re fair minded. They need to know we’ll give them a chance to have their say. Once that has been established, they’ll respect us as people, and then more likely to let us put our arguments.

On our part, if there’s any personal disapproval showing, it will get in the way of everything. If we can keep our arguments non-personal, we’ll show we aren’t afraid of opposition. If we can get to debate this subject without any hint of aggro, we’ll have achieved a lot for making the case for animal rights.

         

But for quite different reasons, debate is not easy for vegans. Most of us have a lot of bottled up anger. It needs to be kept under control. Not a trace of it needs to show.

Since we, as vegans, are the ones who want the dialogue in the first place, it’s our job to set the standard for any discussion of the subject. For many omnivores, this is the most sensitive subject to talk about – they know we know that they do what we don’t. They guess we want to make them feel ashamed of themselves.

For that reason alone, we must be sure that we aren’t trying to be ‘better-than’. We are NOT trying to hold a conversation to prove how great WE are. We aren’t boasting of our superior capacity for compassion. We aren’t parading our passion. We’re simply trying to find a way of discussing an important subject so that everyone involved learns something new. They from us, we from them.

Whether you became vegan yesterday or fifty years ago, it's important to remember that conversion to veganism should be a voluntary choice.  It's an internal agreement between our 'inner-machineries' - our highly developed senses and our more profound

decision-making machine.

Listening to opposite views

1397: 

By adopting an overall non-violent approach to life, we don’t damage our connection with people or weaken our fight on behalf of the animals.  The underlying principle of non-violence is guardianship, a care for the least defensible.  If it’s animals who are most in need of protection, then it means we must encourage a feeling of responsibility towards them.  But there’s another strand to consider - our harmlessness requires us to be patient with the die-hard omnivore.  Patient enough to allow people to change at their own rate and within their own capacity.  Their change won’t be quickened by being prodded by our own value-judgments.

         

Certainly change is urgent, certainly the horrors of animal farming must be stopped as quickly as possible, but nothing may be hurried when we are dealing with free-willed people with firmly held opinions.  One’s freedom to choose is what humans have fought so hard to win, along with one’s freedom to think for oneself.  Today we can celebrate these hard-won freedoms.  But we’ve slipped into a disregard of our responsibilities, especially those of protecting the lives of certain animals.

         

If vegans want to alter people’s views about animals, we certainly have a hard fight on our hands, but it isn’t the sort of fight that calls for aggression.  Our fight is one which connects us with people, in order to persuade them to change their attitude, but without rushing them.  We even have to listen to opposite views; listen to why someone might believe it is right to eat animals, and why they are within ‘their rights’ to do so.

Our biggest test is to show we can listen without reacting aggressively or violently.  Only then can we go that extra step - by not simply defending what we believe, but putting our point of view gently.

It’s up to us to lay out the ground rules for any discussion of these matters, in order to emphasise how we operate, and how we aim to bring about change in the true spirit of reform.  If we stray away from this code of conduct, we lose even those who are inclined to be reasonable.

Do vegans become bores?

1396: 

      

I know we vegans seem to go on and on about the same old thing, but it’s not because we’re showing off or trying to make everyone feel guilty, it’s more to do with the entrenched habits which are keeping animals in slavery.  And if this enslavement of animals is to end, we need your support.  We need to get you on board.

         

If we animal liberationists can inspire change, we want them to be permanent changes.  Our arguments have to be introduced as carefully as you’d plant any seed in reasonably good ground - to achieve strong growth.  The formative period is critical, the way things are introduced, the support of those who are ready to make changes, the establishment of codes of conduct that reflect our core principles.  We must take care to argue non-violently and non-accusingly – hurrying nothing, dealing with each stage, issue by issue.  We have to try reaching your sense of sympathy, so that what you hear from us will stick in your memory, just like any great message you might pick up from a powerful movie or book.

Our job is to promote liberation philosophy for what it is, not just welfare reforms or incremental stages of granting privileges to animals or fiddling with omnivorous diets.  We must head for out and out abolition; that is to convince you of the need for no more use of animals.

         

Abolition is such a big thing.  And it’s from abolition that all else flows, as it did with the abolition of human-slavery.  A great opinion-change had to take place first, before slavery could be ended.  By the time slaves were freed, only then did people see why it always had to be about outright abolition, so there'd be no back-sliding later, when things got a little tough.

I suppose I’m edging towards the ultimate question then - to the best reason why we must no longer use animals.  During wartime conditions, in the 1940s, when there was a shortage of food, a great fear was born – real hunger from lack of food availability.  Perhaps it came down to either killing an animal for food or dying of hunger.  But that was then.  Today we lucky ones, living in the wealthy West, no longer suffer such conditions.  Now, we have plentiful food.  There is plenty of affordable, nutritious, plant-based food.  There’s no reason for NOT becoming vegan.

Is it easy to become a vegan?

1395:

Up in the clouds, we vegans can easily forget how we got up here; we end up thinking the change we made (going vegan) was all quite easy, and we go around telling everyone that it will be just as easy for them.  "Going vegan is simple and quick", but it’s not for everyone.  For some of us it’s more like an alcoholic giving up the drink.  For some of us it means making a massive decision about ourselves, perhaps triggered by a realisation which might have been brewing for some time.  Our own journey, stage by stage, might have been sparked by compassion, and that is what we try to hold onto, while we’re mixing with the day-to-day world.  But it’s easy to slip back into our old ways.

It’s rather like coming out of a movie, feeling pumped by the whole emotional impact of what we’ve just been through, and then later on, as we walk home, the details fade.  And we can’t remember quite why, only a half-hour ago, we got so carried away.  It’s much the same with making such a bold decision, to become vegan.

         

With new ideas, attitudes and opinions, if we don’t examine and digest them thoroughly at the time, then the power of them fades too quickly, and nothing consolidates deeply enough.  And then we don’t get around to making the big changes suggested by the big idea.  We revert back to our safe-old, lifestyle habits and attitudes.

Open Letter

1394:

Dear Omnivore,

We hope you don’t resent us for not eating as you do and for campaigning for animals.  We only want to do the right thing by them and earn enough respect from you so that you’ll trust us with our ideas.  Sometimes we do some tub-thumping and admittedly, that’s a bad habit.  You see, we’re used to thinking up-ahead and we want to warn you of the ethical dangers you might not have thought about before.  Hopefully we don’t play the prophet or come across as being judgemental.

Some of us have a lot to learn - we’re not selling soap powder after all.  We’re attempting to sell an idea, and make it inspiring enough to interest you.  What we don’t want to appear to be is preachy.  No one likes being told what to do.  It makes people want to dig their heels in. It reminds people of the phoney Bible-bashers, and once that image sticks, it turns people off.

Having a conversation about why not to use animals will always sound a bit accusatory.  If we happen to press that particular button we shouldn’t be surprised if you accuse us of fanaticism.  And then you'll probably find yourself so opposed to our arguments, and we to yours, that it’s a long climb back uphill, to get back to where we started.

If we vegans are going to instigate discussion of this subject, we must shoulder the responsibility of conducting matters in a civilised way.  And it can only lead somewhere worthwhile if we don’t blow it, by pushing things too hard, or cornering you into saying something stupid.

A robust debate is all well and good, but it’s up to us to watch for subtle signs both in ourselves and in our adversaries.  We mustn’t get into value-judging knowing just how sensitive people are about the food they eat and how vulnerable they are to having their ethics attacked.

         

How I feel will show on my face – perhaps it’s just a matter of smiling at you when I speak, in such a way that you’ll be convinced how friendly I’m trying to be. I’d be wanting you to think I am friendly and non-judgemental, but it won’t work if my smile is masking any disapproval of you.

We vegans, who think we know a lot about food, should realise that some omnivores know about food too, in as much as they know what they like and what seems to be good for them.  We must try not to underestimate you.  And at the same time go easy on the ethics - we need to bend over backwards, to show we realise how difficult animal issues are and be willing, no, enthusiastic to have our arguments critically assessed by you.  We aren’t asking you to agree with us, we just want you to think about issues and arrive at your own conclusions. 

Animal Rights via Non-Violence

1393: 

Vegans accuse omnivores of having double standards - “You say you love animals but you eat them”.  Obviously this sort of statement isn't a crowd-pleaser; it doesn’t go down too well at the dinner table.  In fact you might as well say “You eat meat?  Wow!  That’s so uncool”.  An obviously hostile statement.

         

Personally, I wouldn’t be so up front.  I’d rather say, “It’s your choice”, implying that it's none of my business.  But what a cowardly response! It's better to be hostile than slimy with just enough judgement in my voice to show disapproval.

           

With the animal-eater, we can go two ways: if we speak too softly we’re not heard.  If we speak more loudly we offend people.  But if we ever get into conversation on this subject, whatever we might say, it is almost certainly going to offend, shock or irritate.  Unless it's completely ignored.  If it is taken up, our comments will be counterattacked, and then both sides have been offended, and it all potentially developing into an unwinnable fight.  There are no winners or losers in this sort of fight, so if we want to be constructive, it depends on how carefully we put things.

How do we say something strongly without inviting overreaction, which then makes further discussion impossible?  I find it’s best to use understatement – “you might consider this: eat predominantly plant-based foods for a week and see how it feels”, or “imagine a world without abattoirs, where you’d have to do your own killing”.  And if we do want to point out some horrible fact, it’s best to deliver our ‘shocking message’ without hammering it home too hard.

         

The whole process of changing a person’s mind over animal-use isn’t simple, quick or easy.  Inevitably, ego rises up to defend a position which one has always held.  When it comes to an omnivore's diet, it has formed over perhaps decades.  So, our attempts to effect a mind-change won’t be achieved by using any kind of force.  Persuading is a delicate art.  Sensitive animal issues should be packaged as non-judgementally as possible (easier said than done!) and delivered so as NOT to corner people.

By becoming vegan, we must avoid becoming the ‘vegan Nazi’, who might have a reputation to live down.  Others might have given ‘vegan’ that sort of image, and we have to undo that image in some way, before we deliver any message.  A good start is to de-anger our voice.  Perhaps all we need to do at first is to state our regard for animals – “They are our friends and we don’t eat our friends”.  And see how that goes down.  A sense of humour helps.  It shows we don't take ourselves too seriously and want to interact with our so called ‘adversaries’ in a completely non-violent way. 

Shopping

1392: 

Humans are by nature kind people.  Most of us would be completely incapable of deliberately making an animal suffer.  But we’re duplicitous enough to let a proxy imprison them and kill them, for us, and we still come out smelling like roses.

This is the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ syndrome - ‘what our eyes don’t see our heart won’t grieve over’.  The mind of most people cooperates with their own interests, so ethical decisions are rarely made when shopping.  We shop without there being any ‘heart or mind’ factor involved.  We find food, we buy it, we eat it; we see familiar packaging on the shelf, we reach for it (as we’ve done a thousand times before), drop it in the basket, and take ownership of it at the check-out.  Then, it’s as good as eaten, and once used, once eaten, we needn’t worry that it’s gone, because there's plenty more where that came from.

If we buy a hen’s egg or a lamb’s leg, we buy it because we want it.  We don't need to know about how it was produced.  We buy it because the thought of eating it is irresistible.  No one is in favour of cruelty to animals but keeping things the way they are is to our advantage; whenever animal welfare reforms are made, prices go up.  Economics supersede ethics.  When we want something, we’ll buy it despite ethical reasons not to.

Animals must not matter

1391:

Everyone says they want a peaceful world but few link peace with food choices.  Even amongst the most educated, very few believe Animal Rights represents a start to the end of violence in our world.

         

To vegans, however, it seems obvious that the only way to bring about lasting peace is to admit food comforts are linked to human violence.  It’s a tough call for meat eaters who’ve accepted that “animals must not matter” - their brutal killing (done by proxy) underlines this belief.  And if animals don’t matter, and killing them doesn’t matter then we ourselves are enslaved by this single belief.  That’s all it needs to weaken our ability to change ourselves and rescue our world we live in.

You’d think if there were even a slim chance to save our world by reducing such a routine violence, that we’d do whatever was necessary.  If it took bravery or a strong-will, we’d surely rise to the occasion.  But we are convinced we’ve gone too far, that we are too hooked on our favourite foods and the daily routines of our lifestyle.  By considering animals, by going vegan, that would seem to be beyond our strength to carry off.  It would mean too much of a personal sacrifice, dropping so many items of food from our shopping list.

         

Humans could be the planet’s greatest asset, but to date we’re its greatest curse.  We are softened by our little comforts and unwilling to forgo them.  Indeed, we’re not willing to question our role in the routine animal violence which carries across to our attitudes to almost everything and everyone we are in contact with.  Our obstinacy dooms us to inevitable self-destruction.  All the time we see animals as property, all the time we keep slaughter houses open, we debase life and can’t find peace.  Humans will never find ways to repair the damage we’ve caused, until we drop our casual attitude to violence. 

Unlike any other predator, whose food supplies are limited, for us there’s abundant choice, but only because we entertain violence, by imprisoning animals, breeding them and killing them.

“We tell ourselves that we are good, just, upright, kind and gentle people.  We just happen to enjoy eating animals, which is okay because they were put here for us to use and we need the protein.  Yet the extreme cruelty and violence underlying our meals is undeniable, and so our collective shadow looms larger and more menacing the more we deny its existence, sabotaging our efforts to grow spiritually and to collectively evolve a more awakened culture”.

“We will always be violent toward each other as long as we are violent toward animals – how could we not be?”

Will Tuttle The World Peace Diet

Holding out till it's too late

1390: 

Animals are getting killed in their billions whilst the consumer is misinformed into believing that animal products are somehow good for health.  Advertising and product promotion still work to make things as easy as possible for the consumer - but consumers aren’t completely blind.  There’s a sense that the tide is turning.  It’s clear that meat-eating is becoming unfashionable.  And the rich by-products are making people fat.  Perhaps this indicates a beginning of the end of the speciesist-era.

To date, most consumers haven’t seriously considered this.  Most people haven’t even thought about radically changing their eating habits.  Maybe they’ll hold out till the eleventh hour, until they’re personally so afraid of death or afraid for their kids’ health, or even for the future of the planet, that change is the only option left to them.  And if it’s not from fear of ill health then they’ll feel it when their conscience pricks too painfully.  To switch away from conventional foods is hard for young people, but it’s even harder for older omnivores, who have spent most of their lives eating animals and are still nowhere near being vegetarian let alone vegan. 

First cracks appearing

1389: 

Compassion-philosophy has seeped in through the cracks and made us think twice about eating murdered animals.  Imagine if this view caught on.  The damage it would do to businesses which use animals would be incalculable.  The authorities will always do everything possible to suppress this view, denounce it, ridicule it, but mainly sideline it, by giving it no oxygen.  Society will always encourage people to ignore it.

Animal groups have worked hard these past few years showing the media the horror of what’s happening on farms.  The media are caught between a rock and a hard place.  They want to tell the stories but they are governed by the network of animal industry-related advertisers, who don’t like these stories.  So the media is reluctant to publish.

However, media is changing.  Thankfully everything that's being discovered about animal exploitation is now finding its way onto the Internet, making conventional media somewhat redundant.  However, ‘On-line’ has no headlines.  If you want to know what's happening you have to go looking for it.

         

Without there being any need to consider advertising revenues, the on-line information-providers are entirely free to publish their findings.  This spells danger to those with a vested interest in businesses using animals.  With an increasingly toothless media, the Animal Industries now see how a vegetarian culture could spread.  (It’s more evident in Europe and USA but less so here in Australia).  Animals have been being brutalised on a mass scale for a long time.  And with so much more information coming to light these days, there’s a change in the cultural consciousness, especially amongst young people.  They’re beginning to find out that their world is extremely unfriendly towards certain animals.  In fact for farm animals especially, things have become so bad that it’s impossible to keep it all under wraps.  Not only are the ghetto conditions on farms a cause for concern but too often animal products are being linked with the big killer-diseases of the day.  And as it worsens for the victims, be they animals or farmers, it seems that shareholders are getting nervous - the Animal Industries can now see the writing on the wall.

Vegans take things too far

1388: 

Because most people are still grappling with their feelings about those humans who are different, when it manifests as classism, racism, homophobia, etc, it's taking things too far if we then have to consider our kinship with other species.  Most people don’t consider animals as if they mattered at all.  We are led to believe that they are as separate from humans as chalk from cheese.  Most humans take it as read that we are superior, and that entitles us to do what we like to the ‘sub-species’.  We imprison them, breed them, enslave them, kill them and eat them.  If we didn’t feel superior, we’d choke on every mouthful of meat we ate.

         

This is why vegan principle is potentially so threatening, because it proposes an egalitarian and respecting attitude towards all sentient animals. 

In human society we can be friendly to our differently-coloured neighbours living next door, but being nice to cattle and pigs?  Isn’t that taking things too far?  If on one level what vegans are saying seems logical, the only way to knock us off our perch is to portray vegans as uncool, weird and extremist.  In most people's minds, it would be preferable if vegans kept quiet, and maybe, even, forcibly quietened!

Don’t believe the convenient untruths of vegans

1387: 

In our culture, when specialists tell us to eat foods derived from animals, we listen and take note of what they say.  We want to believe them, especially if our favourite, yummy foods are made with animal ingredients.  Just think of the wide range of delicious, tempting, animal-based food products there are in shops.

         

The advice we are all given is that meat and dairy make us strong.  Everyone’s happy to accept this, especially if they have no particular nutritional education.  From there it’s just a small step to accepting that it’s okay to kill animals, since it has to be done for our own survival, health, strength, etc.

Those who have seriously addressed the science of nutrition and by-passed the Industry propaganda, know that plant-based foods are healthy and animal-based foods far less so – the debate over this will go on for ever, and be confusing to everyone with an interest in either camp - omnivores will go one way, vegans the other.  But vegan principle is something else.  It addresses ethics.  It condemns both slavery and killing.  There's no confusion here, that there's great cruelty in all animal farming; lots of slavery and killing.  Those of us who advocate for the rights of animals might well be a thorn in the side of almost every animal-eater.  We tell people who really don't want to know, what’s happening.  And there’s no one denying the truth of what we are saying, because if we were lying we'd be publically outed, and this never seems to happen.

All the authorities can do is spread malicious inexactitudes - they warn people that vegans want to subvert Society.  But they don’t exactly put it that way.  If they did they’d draw attention to an issue that they’d rather people ignored.  They simply advise people, for their own good and safety, to disbelieve what we say.  There's no need for them to back up their accusation, because they know it will go down surprisingly well, since it fits very nicely into what people want to believe.

Kinship

1386: 

Although adults have more life experience than children they nevertheless, in one particular way, don’t differ from kids, since both adult and child, especially when related, have an innate sense of kinship and usually enjoy each other’s company.  They have a sense of guardianship for each other, the elder for the younger and, especially when elders are elderly, vice versa.

         

In the same way, each child and adult has a strong sense of kinship with companion animals - the family dog is like one of the kids in the family.  It’s just natural for humans to want to protect vulnerable ones from being hurt or exploited.  But most of us are able to turn that ‘protective-switch’ off when it suits us, especially when entertaining murderous thoughts towards especially strangers or non-humans.

We like to think of ourselves as loving and yet we still have a yen to be brutish.  We let ourselves be persuaded to give vent to hard feelings, when needs be.  When it comes to naked self-interest or self-protection we can be brutal.  But when it’s about food the same thing can apply - we abandon the protective urge and give in to a brutish sanctioning of murder or harsh treatment, as we do when we want to eat them, and as we do when we let others do the murdering and brutalising for us.

In this way, and at that point, we follow the violence creed of our society.  Perhaps this hardness is embedded so deeply in our culture, that in certain circumstances our softness is the first luxury we forgo.  It feels almost natural to switch across.  We accept that we’re  programmed this way and that compassion-oriented behaviour can be sidelined.  Even if we prefer the soft side of ourselves, what we can’t resist is the temptation to validate violence, when it brings us what we want.  Ironically, violence brings us a quiet life.  It helps us fit in, when we're doing as others are doing. Most commonly, we don't see the violence in animal farming, so we eat the animals that others eat, and think nothing of it.  We like to see ourselves as ‘realistically pragmatic’ about the place of animals and animal products in our daily life.

This dispassionate hardness doesn’t always sit convincingly with our own more sophisticated gentler natures.  And in time, of course, we realise that it’s too late to do anything about this disparity in our nature, since too many bad habits have become ingrained.  Violence becomes so much part of our daily lives, that we hardly notice it, and hardly notice that we’ve settled for compromise.  We say, “Yes.  It’s okay to exploit animals if you enjoy eating them”.  Or even more unconvincingly, “Yes, they may be killed but if I do eat them then I believe we should make the fullest use of their bodies", (in the hope that this will exonerate us, somewhat).

Any old proposition will do in our attempts to divert us away from our softer, more compassionate side.  But all this is a greatly magnified for people who are making their living out of animals.

If you are an employee of the Animal Industry, exploiting animals to make your money, it’s unlikely you’ll have developed any ‘guardian instinct’ for animals.  You might be an animal farmer, who might care for ‘your’ animals but since you are exploiting them for profit, you'll have had to squash any hint of being their guardian.  It’s not that much different for consumers, except that theirs is one stage removed from actually dealing with the animals they eventually get to eat.  On the one hand they feel tender towards the animals ("sweet little lambs, darling piglets", etc.) and on the other hand they choose to remain fairly ignorant of what's going on behind the scenes.  

It is little wonder then, that Society is not keen to discuss animal welfare issues, let alone ‘rights’- issues.  State-sponsored education never mentions having kinship with these sorts of animals, only a need for kindness and respect towards certain other animals, be they fellow human (animals) or the wild or companion variety.  Most education revolves around the need for humans to eat meat, milk and eggs, and it emphasises the serious danger to our health if we don’t.  This is misinformation on a grand scale, and it's what vegans are up against.

Separation

1385:

To really keep separate, to really control people, whether low caste, uneducated or vulnerable, all we need to do is keep our distance from them. The necessary distance-of-separation depends on how far we want to make use of them.

A whole range of exploitative attitudes are passed on from generation to generation till they become ‘normal’ attitudes. 'Separation-ists', learning how to put a person ‘in their place’, and find it convenient to show unrelenting dislike, distain or disapproval of them. And that is similarly applied to domesticated animals. By withholding any sign of friendship or respect from them, one is better justified in doing what we want with them.

We’re primarily talking here about resource animals, of whom there’s a vast population on the planet. Farmers say they love their animals. I don’t think that’s true, for by actively disliking them,  they can more readily justify their exploitation. 

         

On farms, any amount of heartless treatment is seen to be fair game, and the more routine it is the more it is barely-thought-about. This emotional separation becomes an essential skill for those who are hands-on with farm animals.

If you aren’t a ‘separation-ist’, if you are more inclined to be an egalitarian, it’s likely you hold the minority view of liking differences, whether between other people or other species. If you are a non-separationist, you’ll surely be in favour of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt and giving the best treatment possible to the marginalised.

         

But separation-ists are still in the ascendant. It serves their interests to keep others ‘in their place’, which means that any culture-discrimination between us as humans will more easily transpose to a species-discrimination, essential for animal farmers.

Most humans rate animals, as well as ‘lesser-people’, as being lower than themselves, allowing them to be treated badly whilst not feeling bad for doing so.

         

Humans do terrible things to animals and can still smile at the prospect of a roast dinner waiting for them on the table at home. Cooked-animal - what could be better?

And it’s always been like this down through the ages – meals containing ‘animal’ have always been thought to make for delicious food and strong healthy bodies. There was no other way of regarding our meat-predominated diet, until, in the nineteen forties, it was questioned. It was proposed that a plant-based diet was healthier and ethically sound.

That was the beginning of a transformatory change of diet and attitude towards animals that has taken a long time to take root. And it will continue its slow progress, gradually influencing us, until a new fashion takes over which not only sees animal-based foods to be unhealthy but shames us for what we have done to animals over the millennia.

The Use-By Date for Animals

1384: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Once we humans feel safe exploiting animals, the essential separation has already taken place.  It's all that’s needed if we want to farm animals.  The same type of separation can be used on people.  If we want to 'use' people, we must first practice separation on them.  That's how we get them where we want them!

Once we’ve made up our minds that 'we're superior' and 'they're inferior', all we have to do is withhold friendly feelings and everything becomes easier.  An employer, for instance, coming from a superior power base, doesn't have to befriend a dependent employee (in fear of losing her job) because he has the power to push her to her limits. 

Much the same thing happens on farms with animals - only it's much worse!  A farmer, by having biological control over the animals, can feed and breed them at will.  Animals produce by-products (eggs, milk, wool).  They're fattened.  They’re made to reproduce and they’re made to endure mutilations.  And eventually they suffer the agonies of transportation to the abattoir and the terror of a brutal execution.  And it's all in order to make money!  It’s often the same story (but maybe less horrific) with companion animals.  They’re imprisoned, kept apart from their own kind, constantly under the orders of their human jailers and can be 'put to sleep' eventually when the vet bills get too high to maintain them in good health or longer life.

Determining the fate of animals is what humans are good at.  What we do to them underlines our superiority and emphasises their inferiority.  There is no requirement to reward the animal at the end of his productive life for all that he has provided the human.   He's just disposed of.  It’s as simple as that.  In days gone by, unproductive human slaves were never allowed to slip into retirement.   They were left to die or were directly extinguished like redundant property.  It’s exactly the same with animal slaves today; except that money is made out of their dead bodies.

'Food animals' are owned - they’re the property of someone.  They’re objects.  They’re not seen as irreplaceable, sovereign, individual living beings.  They're just slaves.  They are ‘put here’ for us to do with as we please.  They’re the victims of a species war, the victor’s spoils duly accruing to the dominant species. 

Take a dairy cow, for example.  She is the victim of her own biology.  She's artificially inseminated to produce a foetus in the womb.  This triggers high levels of lactation, so that she will produce large quantities of highly profitable MILK.  The cow is as powerless over her pregnancy as she is in stopping her calf being born or in affecting any other of her biological functions.  At the hands of her human masters, she is made into a milk-producing machine and her motherhood is denied since her calf is taken from her so that she can concentrate on her main function - producing milk.   She lactates and gives birth all her life, a life which should last 20 years but is foreshortened to half that age, since she has been used up by a constant series of pregnancies and milkings.   When she’s no longer economically viable, when she can no longer earn her keep, she warrants no more life.

That’s the human for you!  That’s the human consumer of milk too, who lends support for this whole system to flourish.  And this example of exploitation is just one of many.  Other farm-animals suffer simply because they produce good income for farmers and the many other branches of the Animal Industries.  And their treatment is tolerated by the whole of the human population because of the benefits their products bring.  Whether certain animals are valued for their carcasses, for their ‘co-products’ (like leather) or their by-products (like milk and eggs) these animals make ideal slaves.  They have no defences against human attack.  They don’t complain.  They can’t fight back.  And they need be given no respect or gratitude.

Humans have learnt how to ‘do’ separation.  We do it so routinely with animals.  The care we show for one another or for our companion animals is thought to be unnecessary for farm animals.

The Art of Being Superior

1383: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Human beings have always been 'advantage takers' and 'inferior bashers' whether in the name of racism, speciesism, snobbery or cruelty.  We are hardwired in favour of being against equality.  It's little wonder then that we treat animals as inferior to us.  It makes it that much easier to exploit them.

    

If we want to understand this attitude (especially with regard to animals) we only need to look at the way most of us treat people who are different to ourselves.  We practise separation on them.  We avoid becoming too close in case we have to 'go in hard' on them later.  We don't admit to this of course.  In fact, we might even appear benevolent towards them if only to mask our contempt.  Perhaps it's because we don’t trust people who are different to us.  We consider them not worthy of getting to know and this allows us to dislike them.  It brings us round the circle of letting us think of them as 'non-equals' which brings us back to separation from them.  We 'half-heartedly' get to know strangers.  We endeavour to help them, but not in too generous a way.  They feel this withheld approach and consequently feel patronised.  They feel they're being kept at arm's length, so they apply the same treatment to us until we feel rejected by them!   This lets us complete the circle where we feel justified in separating from them.  And so it goes on!        

In our cocoons of separation, it’s more comfortable not to integrate. We’re so used to ‘practising separation’ on other human beings when it suits us, that we have no trouble doing the same thing with animals.  We believe them to be 'brutes' and therefore less sensitive to pain, which allows us to exploit them or feel no pity for them.


Separation beliefs are integral to hierarchical systems.  The ones on top see those below them as inferiors.  And all humans (but for a very few) see animals as inferiors.  With anything (or anybody) inferior, we apply  different treatment from that lavished on our 'nearest and dearest'.  We do so because of the unlikelihood of there being any negative repercussions.

Leaving Others Behind

1382:

If we denigrate and then abandon certain aspects of traditional lifestyle (in our case the non-use of animals) it doesn’t mean we have to argue with our friends about it, or make it a condition of our friendship that they agree with us.  We are not a recruiting agency.  Vegans set certain ethical standards here.  We’re the ones wanting to change others by way of discussing these important matters, but, we can’t assume others have our own same thoroughness of analysis.  We might participate in a discussion of ‘animal issues’, but it serves no one’s interest to put pressure on friends or to quarrel with them or trash their feelings, as if this subject is important enough to ignore how others feel about it.

If we ever get into a discussion about the animals’ place in a human-centred world, we should be attempting to draw a balance between uncovering a truth and being non-judgemental about it.  The trick here is surely to not separate ourselves from others, to not give the impression that we are leaving them behind, but at the same time not pretending we accept something we personally find unacceptable.