Forcing you to agree - the judgement trap

1557: 

Most people know approximately how vegans see their world.  But are vegans out to convert others?  And are there other values a vegan has, which make them extra-civilised, as people.

           

If we think of ourselves as being (vegan) pretty much how everyone should be, and that we're RIGHT morally and health-wise, we might not necessarily see what else we must be, if we're going into the persuasion business.  If I’m ‘in the right’, then I have to be extra vigilant about seeing my own faults and watching for traps, especially the judgement trap.  Otherwise I can deservedly be accused of being righteous, as if I’m looking down on people, or as if I’m 'better-than'.  It’s a classic trap - I might feel that others are wrong when they disagree with me.  If I can’t get people to agree with me then, maybe, I'm entitled to use value judgements in an attempt to force them to think my way.  If I’m 'right', I can therefore use whatever means are available to get you to be 'right' too.

If I attempt to judge someone’s values, is it not a subtle form of violence?  Even though, on the one hand, I’m bravely defending animals from being exploited, I can still also be violating people’s space and their freedom of choice.  It’s a dangerous road to travel.  Because free-will and choice are regarded by almost everyone as sacrosanct, and any attempt to circumvent that appears like a violation.  Over the ages free-will has been fought for and won.  We (here in the West) believe ourselves to be a ‘free-willed’ society.  We don’t want to lose that.

But then, along comes a vegan who seems to want to take that away.  “You are wrong, I am right, so this is what you must do”.

From an outsider’s point of view, there’s something threatening about any holier-than-thou people. One usually wants to bring them ‘down to size’.  Anyone who puts themselves forward and thinks themselves better, cleverer, wealthier, better looking or more righteous, automatically appears unattractive.  No one likes the self-satisfied.  And, by which time, no one is listening to what they have to say.

But, once you come across vegans who aren’t judgemental, then everything changes.  A vegan who doesn’t appear to be pushy or too overly persuasive is assessed very differently.  Sure, we may still run the risk of seeming to be too passive and therefore too easily ignored, but at least we won't be aggressively attacked.  But it's a balance.  We must never find ourselves going onto the defensive.  We can even afford a little old fashioned humility, and in that approach appear more self confident, leastways, to the extent of not becoming strident.

         

The theory might go something like this: sit back and enjoy advocating Animal Rights.  Who can complain when we give no one an excuse to get heavy with us?  It’s like watching a movie which speaks its message, but passively.  It doesn’t leap out and judge its audience.  Similarly, books don’t judge us.  We can chuck them out of the window if needs be.  The book won’t be offended.  Likewise, as vegans, we might ask questions but no one needs to answer them nor should they feel compelled to by being judged badly if they don’t.

         

So, we put up our arguments.  They go into circulation.  Maybe what we say causes a disturbance.  Perhaps we attract attention.  But in our own minds, where it really counts, surely we must know that we are NOT forcing the issue.

Exploding myths

1556: 

Vegans will always have their work cut out, persuading people to change radically.  But for us it’s not just about persuading reluctant people, it’s also about being useful to them, without wishing to patronise them.

I like to think I take people as they are, even if they don’t want to listen to what I have to say.  I’m more interested in breaking down some over-comfortable myths, like it being okay to make use of animals just as long as we love them – sure, we love them before we kill them and eat them!!  All I’d like to do is help others see things as they could be (should be) and go on from there.  All I want to do is keep it simple and clear.

Some of our favourite ‘home truths’ may not be as true as we’d like them to be.  For example, many people still believe meat, and therefore animal farming, is essential for human survival, or that testing drugs on animals is the only way to have safe pharmaceuticals, or that having animals in the house prevents our becoming lonely. 

This last one is the least familiar viewpoint.  Take this myth about the value of having 'companion animals' - some say that the inter-relationship of man to animal is supposed to be special, "lighting up the amygdala as nothing else can”.  But this still puts the welfare of a human’s amygdala above the comfort of the animal, in order to justify our having an animal present in our human lives.  People are locked into these sorts of beliefs, which is why we need to balance such one-sided views, in order to show a different way of seeing human safety and survival.  Do we need meat, do we need drugs, do we need pets? If we say ‎’yes’ to any of these, we may be right up to a point (a selfish point) but each ‎‘yes’ means animals will suffer on our account.

In a nutshell, it’s the reliability of instinct that is our main safety, since it tells us what instinctively we should regard as right and wrong in the context of non-violence.  But the value is in self-discovery, not in the reliance on certain types of foods, drugs or pets.  The value is in arriving at conclusions of our own, and seeing for ourselves that we don't need food sensations, drug highs or lit-up amygdalas to smother our fears.  It seems that we'll do anything to divert the pain of the guilt of self-indulgence.

The principle of no-animal-use

1555: 

Here in our wealthy countries, many years ago, if a child came from a poor family that child would be sent to work to help feed the family.  Protest groups were set up to protect working children, but they didn’t necessarily argue that no kids should be put to work, because that would mean families would starve.  This exact same problem still exists in many parts of the world today, where kids are working as nothing more than slaves.  And that’s how it is for all domesticated animals.

Animals will continue to be slaves until people stand up for their right not to be.  Those who say they are ‘fighting for the animals’ are likely to be leading the way, setting the example, enough to fight for their true liberation and not just for better conditions.

What ‘no-animal-use’ means is doing without hundreds of commercial products, making ethical choices mainly about food, but including many other animal-derived products and 'services'.  The avoidance list is a long one, since it includes everything from horse racing and zoos to meat and cheese and tins of cat food.  That’s one huge shift away from today’s norms, but imagine the suffering we cause with even one decision to exclude any animal from that list.

The most difficult problem facing any animal rights group is a loss of financial support from its members.  If any group promotes a comprehensive no-use-animal policy, they’d be in danger of alienating their core support, simply because supporters would be unable to justify their own, albeit small, use of animals.  So these groups end up watering down their policies to satisfy the majority of their supporters, who anyway only represent a small fraction of the community in general.

Groups favour pragmatism.  By using the smoke screen of targeting the worst abuses, they can leave open the idea of non-use-of-animals.  They want to be seen to be doing something worthwhile, whilst not seeming to be total abolitionists.  And that, I suggest, is how easily and how dangerously we lose sight of ideals - when we engage in ‘sensible compromise’.

Our faith in our own abilities to transform Society is low, whilst our need for recognition from one another is high.  Whether we are liberationists or not, we don’t really show very much interest in the concept of true animal rights.  If indeed animals did have rights, the first ‘right’ would prevent their being used by humans, in any way whatsoever.  It’s difficult to imagine humans legislating to leave animals alone.  It would be hard enough, for example, for any of us to give up using paper to save the forests from being pulped, and that’s just paper.  When it comes to food and clothing it would be that much more difficult, since being vegan would seem to deny us so many conveniences.

So, it really boils down to lifestyle (the life we’re used to) being more important than establishing an ethical principle.  Moving towards liberating animals would be inconvenient, but freeing children from labouring or freeing slaves from their masters, is no different from liberating animals from humans - but it seems that we have a horror of the former but not of the latter.

Having said that, I acknowledge the danger of our being overrun by animals - we’ve bred vast herds and flocks of creatures and, for our own protection, we would have to curtail their breeding until numbers substantially diminished.  Then there’s a question of their safety.  These mutated and manipulated creatures would have to be protected from exposure to Nature and predation, against which they’d have no means of protecting themselves - they couldn’t survive in the wild.

But bearing that in mind, Animal Rights is a concept which animal advocates need to vigorously promote.  It’s the starting line, after which we can workout the logistical details.  If we trim the concept to make it more acceptable, there won’t be nearly enough momentum to achieve any sort of rights for animals, and inevitably the whole sorry business will only continue and get worse.

All animals are individual and irreplaceable

1554: 

There are many issues competing for public attention today - global warming, the environment, world hunger, animal welfare, human ethics - and each is significant and none should be sidelined.  But the key issue which impacts on all the others is the routine and unthinking way we make use of animals.  If that were fundamentally tackled, our most serious problems wouldn’t be so intractable - human health would be transformed, the environment far less damaged and greenhouse gas emissions greatly reduced.  And of course, the guilt most people suffer about the part they play in routine animal cruelty on farms and in abattoirs would be entirely reduced.

Our first priority, as animal advocates, should be to change people’s attitudes to animal-use.  As it stands at present, because we love animals and seem to need to have them close by, many activists become owners of animals, and place themselves in the position of not being able to promote ‘abolition’.  So when people look to the activist for a lead, only to find a watered down, compromised position, it has the effect of letting them off the hook.  No change.  Business as usual.

If you are still entangled with any part of the animal-killing business, you can only fiddle at the edges of the animal-use problem.  And from that position there can be nowhere near enough momentum created to bring about animal liberation.  There are plenty of gestures and speeches and rallies and protests, but they count for nothing if it’s partial, applying to some and not to others.  There isn’t any difference between keeping a goldfish in a bowl and transporting a sheep in the hold of an exporter ship - each creature is being denied its right to a life, for the sake of human convenience.  Protests are organised, literature printed, web sites created, a few animals are liberated from their hell-hole imprisonment, and it all looks good enough on the surface.  And in fairness, gradually the worst conditions are exposed and some welfare improvements are achieved.  But it’s never enough to swing the mass of people around to an abolitionist way of thinking, if only because so many of us are living by double standards – we save some and enslave others.  We save the chicken and then feed it to our cat.

We don’t mean to fail the animals.  In fact we try to do what we do as sincerely as possible, pulling out almost all the stops we can.  But maybe we're overwhelmed by the task of it, so we cut corners.  There’s so much to do and so few people doing it.  Considerable energy and talent is being used up in mainline 'animal work', leaving us far too little energy for shifting public attitude to animal use (and even our own attitude to ‘using’ animals).

Activists face a dilemma.  Animal liberation groups concentrate their efforts on a few main issues because they don’t want to spread themselves too thinly.  Their focus is on factory farming, because they reckon on the public being deeply moved when they see what’s happening in these places.  It’s radical enough, but perhaps the compassion in people and their willingness to think things out for themselves is being overestimated.  People are much more deeply brain-washed.  Maybe it’s a radical message the animal groups put out, but I don’t think it’s radical enough where it counts.

We should be heard more often speaking about animals, about their sovereignty, about never regarding them as our playthings or a source of food and clothing, about each animal being important as individuals and as such irreplaceable.  If we are to be seen to be protecting animals’ rights, those rights should apply to all animals, companion animals included, cat's, dogs, goldfish and lonely horses in paddocks.

Companion animals and animal groups

1553: 

It’s difficult writing about the issue of ‘not using animals for human convenience’, because it seems to attack almost everyone, not just the meat-eaters and the milk-drinking vegetarians, but those who themselves eat only a plant-based diet but who buy meat and milk for their companion animals.  Just about everybody is an animal-user, thus each one is encouraging the killing of animals.  This makes it impossible for them to support a ‘no-use’ principle, if only because they can’t justify their own position.

Look at the people who keep animals in their homes.  Some animals may have been rescued, but however well loved they are, they have no freedom and no natural life.  They are the property of a human.  They are owned as ‘pets’, and usually treated as playthings.  They’re often socially isolated, neutered, micro chipped, medicated and, of course, fed at the expense of farmed animals.  So whether we eat animals ourselves or feed ‘animals’ to dogs and cats, most people are making use of animals, and aren’t free to promote Animal Rights.  Some few refuse to feed their companion animals meat and use specially prepared plant-based supplements to provide nutrients essential to the animal’s health, but most companion animals are carnivores and to deny them meat is in its own way cruel – it isn’t, after all, their choice to abstain from meat.

As a member of an animal group, maybe you’re doing some really great work to help other animals, and in some ways the equation might feel morally balanced because of that.  But if you have animals at home, you're not in a position to strongly enough condemn the routine use of animals.  There might be some relief for your conscience, by not feeling so bad about continuing certain animal-habits.  And your fervent support of the work to stop battery farming, to ban live exports, to illegalise mulesing of sheep, etc, is extremely commendable, but there are so many other horrors which fall below the radar.  Any amount of exposing-of-the-worst-cruelty is useful and essential, but it seems to have little effect on the millions of customers who depend on the Animal Industries.  Most animal groups don’t speak out strongly enough against routine animal use, because they fear alienating even their own staunchest supporters.  Most of these groups do what they do very well.  Activists work hard and in a voluntary capacity, attempting to stop the worst abuses.  But the same groups neglect to address the bigger picture - the need to persuade the public not to use animals.  Even some vegan groups concentrate on health and food, and apart from the most radical groups, aren’t addressing the fundamental issue of an animal’s right to live its own life, whether the animal is a pig or horse or cat.  The good work some groups do, rescuing animals, exposing cruelty, promoting vegan food is great, if only it wasn’t just about that.  As much energy needs to be put into promoting the idea that animals are not here for human convenience.  One of the main jobs of any animal rights group is surely to set trends for the future.  To nudge public attitude away from the idea that humans have ‘dominion’ over animals, which is conveniently translated as ‘animals were put on Earth for us to use'.

Lambs to the Slaughter

1552: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Introduction to "Lambs to the Slaughter".  

I sent this blog to CJ for editing after we'd been talking about 'barbecues' and the new (sounds horrible) programme about to air on TV - 'Aussie Barbecue Heroes'.  CJ said something that struck me as very basic - but very powerful.  "HOW can people think animals are food?"  It seemed such an obvious thing to say, and yet I'd never thought about putting it in quite that way.  I think it explains in a nutshell the main message of Vegan/Animal Rights.

Lambs to the Slaughter

 Sheep meat is a popular item on the ubiquitous Australian BBQ and the meat of lambs seems to be the favourite.  Apparently, lots of people like lamb flesh because of its 'fuller flavour' and 'tenderness'.  Nobody considers this peculiar, nor even thinks about the cruel ritual of roasting a dead lamb on an open flame!  Everybody gets excited by the smell of it cooking.  And they enjoy eating it in spite of the fact that they would probably be incapable of taking a knife to a baby lamb's throat to end its life.  To you and I - surely - the very idea is disgusting!  

If lamb-killing were ever raised to any normal level of consciousness (let alone conscience) it surely wouldn't sit well with most people.  The example of a lamb being executed, then barbecued, for the pleasure of eating parts of its body, would certainly pit their conscience against pleasure, and denial against temptation.  So most people don't dare go there.  'Out of sight, out of mind', they think.  The habit forms in childhood with the act of eating baby sheep becoming habitual.  The 'crime' of it is forgotten so the experience of it can be enjoyed.  Lambs are cute, cuddly and playful.  Lambs symbolise innocence.  By way of their actions, therefore, humans must symbolise the very opposite.  They are not cute nor playful when it comes to the serious business of meat-eating.  Indeed, they are careless, vicious and cowardly. They employ 'other people' to take the young animal and slit its throat so that it can be butchered and made ready for their barbecues.  

Could there be an uglier outcome for this sweet creature’s life, than being taken from its mother, transported to the slaughterhouse and, once dead, its little body taken to the butcher's bandsaw to be cut up into pieces to be made ready for the roasting spit? There's a cartoon which sums things up: The sheep dog is holding up a placard in front of a flock of sheep being herded into a pen. It says: "DO NOT TRUST THE HUMANS! THEY WILL EAT YOUR BABIES". Two farmers are looking on. One says to the other, "That dog's worrying the sheep again". Humans are violent creatures.  We take what we can get and aren’t used to being denied what we want.  If it’s available, the human will give into temptation and show an incredible lack of self-discipline in order to get satisfaction - even if they know they're going to be eating a baby lamb!   Surely, no one who knows what the animal has been put through, could remain unaffected by such a terrible act of cruelty.

Stepping out - Second step

1551: 

Vegans act at first out of raw outrage, then it moves towards being attracted to the lifestyle and the meaningfulness of vegan principle.  Vegans take something from an unfamiliar dimension (solely plant-based foods and clothing, etc) and install it, as a routine, into their own daily lives.  Our boycotting and examination of the details of ingredients in products is ridiculed and often causes friction with family and friends.  Tough!  But when the instinct is strong enough, when we believe something is so fundamentally wrong (about the way we've been brought up to do things, the way everyone else does things) there’s an overwhelming urge to act. 

         

As time goes by, as a vegan diet is installed, as animal advocacy strengthens, then non-violence itself shows the key to so many of our problems.  Yes, it's a simple enough answer; by applying the principle of avoiding gratuitous violence, it’s likely we’ll experience the law of just returns - in that, what goes around comes around.  What you give it out you get back.  Or, put another way, if you don’t play with devils, they can’t touch you.

 Non-vegans, who by their very eating habits alone, invite the ‘horribles’ into their lives, haven’t looked at non-violence as something significant enough to install.  Probably, like betting on the outsider, it doesn't seem worth the gamble. It's likely to cause inconvenience. It's not likely to be effective enough.  And some will say, “Life is too short to worry about such details.  Why be bothered with the sort of trivia vegans seem to worry about"?

So, the answer always comes back to the most convincing arguments, probably not about the poor penned up animals, probably not about the possibilities of heart attacks and chronic illness, but possibly about the future sustainability of the planet.  But there are those who don't care even about that.  They say, "I won't be around when the planet goes pear-shaped, so why not live now and pay later ... at some distant point in the future".  And at this point there's little point trying to talk sense into them.  To them, nothing horrible has happened to them - nothing has been transformed - no one principle seems capable of making a transformative change, so they stick with what they know.  But in doing so, they help to perpetuate the very violence which is killing the human spirit.   Their apathy is a key ingredient of the problems we all have to suffer for.

Vegan arguments emphasise the importance of not being cruel to weaker beings, not to be destructive of beautiful things and not to be wasteful of Earthly bounties.  If vegans are going to influence others, it's not enough for us simply to glow.  Not to show off as being ‘better-than’.  We have to argue our case hard and show by our own behaviour and our anti-bullying approach, that we have something important we want to say and are taking the trouble to do what it takes to be convincing.

Stepping out - First step

1550: 

I’m always reminded of Alice’s (in Wonderland) surprise when she steps into another world inhabited by strange beings, and she notices that they don’t respond to her as she expects - it reminds me of the human obstinacy to what you'd expect to be happy learning about.  In this 'other world' there are so many people suffering unnecessarily, and refusing to change out of loyalty to a habit.  It's almost as if they keep to their habits in order to convince themselves of the rightness of them.

         

The obvious answer to all this suffering seems to be staring us in the face.  But people refuse to look because they're afraid of change - people don’t want to risk doing something new which they don’t fully understand.  And the main reason for not understanding is that it all seems too ridiculously simple to work.  So what solutions are we talking about here?  They aren't the sorts of solutions people en masse take up to create societal change.  These answers aren't about global economic change which we leave to governments to tackle.  And they aren't answers that push us towards private martyrdoms, either.  They're just the simplest of all kitchen answers, shopping answers, eating and clothing answers - the simplest things we can do at home, which nobody else may even notice.  Simple, but not necessarily easy.  But they are answers that could not only transform our own lives but eventually set off a global trend, and provide an answer for whole populations of people.

But is this just about grasping the nettle?  Is this a simple, effective alteration of intellectual approach?  No, I don't think it is, because the spark needed to take on such an answer must initially be attractive enough for us to experiment with.  Strong enough to try, despite the advice of those who advise us not to.  The attraction comes from two distinctly different directions.  Firstly, we'd be attracted by the prospect of developing greater self-awareness.  Secondly there'd be an altruistic driver that accepts a narrowing of choices for the sake of the greater good - by becoming vegan we accept putting some strain on an unselfconsciousness of daily activity for our own greater good and for the good of the selves of 'animals'.  And it's important to note here that we aren't focusing on a known being but ones that we would have no personal acquaintance with at all.

If that spark is missing or too faint to take notice of, we might say, "Why should anyone be worried about the foods they eat when health seems okay, or is at least not frightening?  Why should we be bothered about some pigs and sheep and chooks"?

These are seminal questions.  They touch some and not others.  Obviously, for those who take care of the health of their body and who love animals, there's no hesitation - they head towards becoming vegan, and that's it.  For others, on the cusp of these concerns, there might be great hesitation and therefore no movement.

Empathy

1549: 

Lamb: look at it now from the consumer’s point of view - when it comes to self gratification, this favourite meat isn’t easy to give up.  It’s like smoking or drinking or any other uncontrolled habit - indulging in it is all we’ve ever known.  We like the taste.  And even though we may know that there’s nothing self improving about eating lambs, we do it all the same.  For pleasure.  

Probably everyone looks for self-improvement in life, but it doesn't apply to improving our ethics concerning our food choices.  As far as the consumer thinks at all, about the rights and wrongs of their food choices, the thought is brief.  Our habits have been long in the forming. The habit of meat-eating is so automatic that there's no reason to waste time on the discipline of not-eating-animals.  Most people would consider it unnecessary, since abstaining from eating meat will neither make them richer or better thought of?  If social success is our main aim, then saving lambs from the slaughter isn’t relevant.

However, to feel successful we first need to develop self-esteem.  Our attitudes must be convincing to ourselves.  It might start out with personal self-development, we might be on our own ‘road to enlightenment’, but at some stage we might see that as rather self-indulgent.  It isn’t just about our own journey through life but our place in the lives of others, and that includes our place in the world we live in.

Perhaps that’s what veganism tries to point out.  To be fully rounded, to see beyond self-improvement, to see beyond the enlightened ‘good person’ in us, we need some solid compassion directed at those who have so much less than ourselves.  If we can empathise with another person’s difficult life-situation, we can use self discipline to start ‘thinking about others before thinking about ourself’.  And this is not so very unusual, anyway.  It might seem a bit idealistic, but most of us do exactly that, and do it often.  That’s far from self indulgence and giving in to temptation.  Which brings us to a point where vegans are suggesting that our empathy can extend to wherever it's most needed, and to include animals in that.

This brings us back to the terrified lamb, at the point where its throat is about to be cut.  Which is why we need to consider NOT helping to finance such acts of barbarity.  Which is exactly what vegan principles are about.  If and when we ever decide to become vegan, it's apparent that it's not so much about food restriction as self-liberation.  Food-wise it certainly means a healthier lifestyle but importantly, ethics-wise, it means we are now connecting with our compassionate self.  The liberation comes with simply doing the right thing, and knowing that in doing it we are generating enough energy to keep up the discipline.  The great advantage of being vegan is that, with some good nutrition and a much clearer conscience, we'll be able to keep our resolutions; to say to ourselves that we'd like to do something, then to do it, then know we've carried a difficult plan - and that 'carry-through' make us feel better about ourselves in a very important,  'self-esteem' way.

If it doesn't make you stronger, it will probably kill you

1548: 

The trouble with the 'health-talk approach' or the 'fear-of-personal-illness approach' is that we sell our philosophy short.  We succeed only in making them want to doubt our authority, and then run away.

Today many young people still have their health.  We call it 'youth'.  They have a cavalier attitude to food and might not be afraid of ill health.  But also, they won't yet be so consumed with guilt about animals (having made fewer food-buying decisions for themselves).  If they simply see us as being 'into health' they'll probably see us as wowsers.  With that image, vegans may seem not so cool.  And that is confirmed if the animal activist is a grim-looking type.  Which is why we mustn't be seen as frustrated, assertive or preaching gloom.  We mustn’t give anyone an excuse to typecast us and then walk away.  By keeping things light and on friendly terms, we might be able to get up close, and drop in a well placed comment.  And whether there’s flak or no flak, there’s a chance we can say what we want to say and get away with it.  And hopefully it sinks in.

However, amongst any group of people, anywhere, at any age, meat eating is pretty much the norm.  Almost every person who uses animal food is able to switch off their sense of compassion when dinner’s on the table.  Animal Rights is a tabooed subject for table-talk because it deals with ethics and values and self-disciplines concerning food choices.  And free-willed people don’t like being lectured about what they should and should not eat.  So, although it may seem like a good opportunity to make comments when food’s about, it’s also the time when we can expect our comments to be most deeply resented. 

However, some young people might be very pleased that we dare to make comments, if only because they can't but might have liked to, themselves, but don't have either the experience or the confidence to put their point strongly enough.

When eyes glaze over

1547: 

When I start talking about animals I’m familiar with ‘that look’, when eyes glaze over, as if to say, “We don’t have to listen to this crap”.  The situation - I’m socialising, perhaps offered some food, and the time has come for me to say what I have to say.  But is this the best time to bring up the subject?  It might be, but there again, it might not be, since the matter of approach is very tricky.  I suggest we might be direct, up-front and risk being intrusive.  Or if we go the other way, be subtle, careful and risk never getting near enough to be heard.

I might say something like, “…but should we be eating animals?”  It’s strange how sometimes the door isn’t quite shut in my face, because people are often wanting to ‘bring it on’, fascinated to hear what my next line of 'crap' will be.  Usually they want to see if they can match it and, with the support of others being guaranteed, they hope to squash whatever I say.  But, by participating at all, they often have something else up their sleeve; they’re trawling for material.  There's nothing like a good story to tell sympathetic friends - what we might have said on the subject could be good for recycling, as a story round the dinner table.  “This ‘vaygn’ came to dinner the other night and do you know what he said”?

It’s a story that can be exaggerated for effect, no one actually being interested to hear what the screwball vegan was saying about eating animal foods.  The story is never going to stray anywhere near what was being said seriously - it's just a story meant for laughs.

So if I don’t want to be ignored or be the butt of jokes, perhaps I have to take the initiative.  At the outset, I can pre-empt or participate in the joke to defuse it. I can disparage all animal-based foods, just as a dentist advises children not to eat sweets, without disparaging the people themselves.  If there's going to be jokes told, why not take the initiative?  When offered some ‘animal’ food, we can mock our alarm with, “I don’t think so”, implying some dreadful social blunder on their part.  

They can't help but laugh.  If a joke is to be made, then why not ask mock our question with, “It’s dead animal isn’t it?”, but with just enough tone in the voice to keep it humorous.  We don't need to start a quarrel, just be a little provocative.  And pre-emptive.

Each situation is different, each is judged as to how far we reckon we can go and still get away with it.  By being pro-active, we never feel offended.  If we come across as a bit edgy, it will be obvious that we’re testing the waters, to get a bit of spirited repartee going, whilst leaving enough room so they can bite back.  Then we’ll have our own stories to tell over a round of drinks, using their comments and reactions as material for a good laugh, just as they will with ours.

If we're given the bum’s rush, at least we'll know we’ve tried to challenge them but done it with some HUMOUR.  Somehow, we have to scotch that dour, over-serious image. It's not as if we are making light of a serious matter but simply defusing the piss-taking, and giving them back as good as they give us.

In reality though, we do have to come to terms with something difficult, for us.  We have to find our own way of dealing with the emotional impact of being rejected.  It’s infuriating.  And when there’s no chance to make humour, because it's all too deadly serious, then we must be prepared for what happens next.  Eyes stare back blindly at us.  Nothing is taken up, no reactions made, no insults passed, no comments made.  They simply tune out.  We can see we're having zero impact on them.

Of course, they may be quite happy to be as they are.  We're the ones wanting to bring up the subject of ‘animals’ and the need for change.  So it's they who have every right to slam the door in our face.  We are, after all, trying to invade their private world.  So, if we become exasperated and try to barge into their world, throw a few insulting remarks at them, comment on what they eat, ignite guilt and provoke fear, we can expect something nasty to be thrown back.  It will simply be a due response to an unprovoked attack.  And as we fail to bring them around we perhaps, also, lose them entirely.

1546: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

I think there’s support for veganism - but it's in theory, not practice.  Ideally, our arguments are attractive, but most omnivores hate the idea of giving up any of the 'animal-derived' things they have come to like. 

Within the 'vegan principle', we have the inspiration of non-violence, in the food we eat and our avoidance of any products from abused animals.  Vegans eat ethically at every meal.  Non-vegans don't.  They eat what they like because they don't consider animals (or their welfare) very important.  Most people think this way about food and clothing.  Many 'vegetarians' wear leather shoes!!  It isn't important enough for them to break with convention.

It's not just the stubborn mob of hedonistic meat-heads intent on enjoying life that poses the difficulty most people see in front of them when considering a change to a vegan lifestyle.  They don't believe that changing the habits of a lifetime is possible!  And yet, they do know that much of the food they eat is ethically and nutritionally unsound.  One thousand meals a year for every year they've lived spells a lot of damage to both body and conscience.  And who wants to admit they've been damaging themselves for that long?

To restore the balance - to make things right - doesn't involve merely making small token changes to the shopping list.  That won’t anywhere near address the problem!  It’s a matter of forgoing one's 'favourite' foods (as well as other commodities) for the sake of a higher principle and moving on to a new way of thinking.  Moving to a world of plant-based foods and non-animal clothing.

For some people, this may seem like a massive undertaking.  But the principles that vegans suggest not only make a lot of sense, they can overturn addictions to dangerous substances - namely animal-derived food!   This type of change can be both exciting and daunting.   As with any addictive substance, getting 'clean' is hard and people usually take the easy way out by just sticking with what they know.  They follow the advice of their elders, they comply with the media and advertising messages, they go along with the displays in food shops and the nutritional advice from so-called 'experts'.  The common usage of animal foods and commodities today prevents your standard omnivore from taking any notice of negative information concerning animal foods or farm animal treatment.  

One of the worst aspects of all this is that our so-called 'leaders' are no use to us at all.  In fact, almost every person with any influence in our society (be they spiritual or educational leaders) remains silent on these 'animal issues' - because they're 'users' themselves!  They are aware (as is everyone else) of the general popularity of commodities with animal origin.  For 'leaders' to speak out against any of this would lose them support.  It would ruin their position in Society and make for great personal inconvenience.  So much for those leaders of our society who tell us that they live by 'higher principles'!  In the end, it comes down to the individual in consultation with his/her own conscience.  No other guide is quite as reliable. 

Testing the waters

1545: 

When vegans say, “Change to plant-based food”, it’s about the most troubling suggestion anyone could hear because, on the one hand it sounds right but on the other it sounds painful.  Veganism touches the most sensitive nerve in our body concerning personal survival and peace of mind.  We’d rather live the life we know than risk a journey into the unknown.

However much vegans promise good times ahead, however fit and energetic and calm-minded we may seem, basic survival-instinct is the stronger persuader.  It overrides logic, compassion, imagination, the lot.  At a crucial point, between considering it and actually doing it, comes a dread of leaving behind a big part of our present life.  People do hear what we say to them but they don’t always process it, fearing how it might affect them.  When they purposely forget what they hear, it’s like tuning out of the voice on the radio or closing a book we don’t like - we avoid unpleasant information.  And it’s not that difficult to tune out of ‘vegan talk’ because most other people are doing just that, knowing they don’t HAVE to listen to us.

When I’m talking to someone about all this, because a lot of the information I’m passing on is to do with animal suffering, the whole experience of listening to me is unpleasant.  I reckon it’s my job to gauge how much unpleasant stuff I let out and how much uplifting stuff I use to sugar the pill.  Veganism isn’t only all about giving things up, it’s a lot to do with feeling better about ourselves, feeling more energetic and conscientious, and being able to feel more mentally alert and agile.  Dropping habits we’ve been feeling bad about, perhaps for a long time, is compensated by the new habits which take their place, and their many advantages.  But you won’t be convinced about this unless you’ve tried it out and found out for yourself.  At the edge of the water my toe tests the temperature.  My friend, already swimming, shouts to come in. “It’s really warm”.

Oh yes?

Transitional stages

1544: 

Being part of the Animal Rights Movement is an advantage, not just for the vegan lifestyle it suggests but for developing a certain lightness-of-being.  If ever we can achieve that, we’ll find we make people feel less afraid of us.  On some level, people will always be able to recognise a non-violent person, and see in them someone they can trust, or at least not fear, or who’d be unable to even inadvertently do anything hurtful to others.

It’s hard to talk about this without seeming cute, but there are some distinct advantages in being non-threatening.  For a start, it lets us speak more freely, particularly about the subjects we want to talk about, without all the shutters going up at the outset.

Being Animal Rights-oriented, we might fail to appreciate how delicate the balance is between their refusing to know and their wanting to learn.  If we can see just how difficult this subject is for people to talk about, we might be less impatient, especially when people are obstinate or they don’t seem to understand what we’re on about.

In the end, we do have to care where others find themselves over all this, because we're all of us aware of the global problems to which we all contribute, just by the lifestyle we’ve chosen.  The one indisputable truth behind veganism and animal rights, apart from our access to robust health, is that it fosters working with Nature rather than against it.

The human race has been struggling to dominate Nature for a long time, and that’s probably the main cause of the global problems plaguing us today.  If we can find a way to use present systems harmlessly, we'll be in a far better position to consider others before embarking on harmful action; we'll make a break-through for ourselves and go on to want, more than anything else, to communicate to others what we’ve found.

Passion, enthusiasm and what sounds like altruism requires morale, good mood and a genial disposition.  And, in turn, that means we’ve got to be able to overcome the odds against us, including the lack of support from friends, family and even fellow vegans.  If we ever get disappointed by people, there might be value in that disappointment.  As others draw away, we become less reliant on encouragement from those we’re closest to.  Morale has to be largely self-generated.  And if we’re going to be promoting Animal Rights, morale is going to be important.  The biggest challenge, after all, is to take whatever comes our way and feel the link to other vegans who’re facing the same sort of challenge.

         

Vegans are still very few in number and pro-active vegans even fewer.  As rather lonely advocates for animals, vegans may feel unsupported, vulnerable and at times depressed by the lack of interest.  But if we get affected too badly by that, we won’t be able to maintain momentum - and that means we aren’t much help to the imprisoned animals.  And it means we’ll have less chance to inspire others, or encourage or inform them.

Animal Rights is not like a contemplative religious order.  It isn’t based on prayer or wishful thinking but on the trialling of ideas.  It starts out as a break-through of old attitudes - helping animals, converting people to vegan food, etc.  But also it’s about making our hard work enjoyable.  If we can do that, we won’t be pulled down by how others think, and then our own motivation won’t then be an issue.

Vegans are up against a huge barrier of resistance.  It’s not easy to be part of such a tiny minority.  What we don’t need is being dragged-down.  What we DO need is solo flight, where exploration takes on a momentum of its own.  Then discovery is its own reward, after which the transitional stage can be completed.

Passionate talk

1543: 

If vegan activists are in the business of talking about animals, it might be a great personal challenge, eventually becoming a main reason-to-be.  It involves our diet, our conscience, our very intelligence, but not least it allows us to talk about matters of great importance and relevance to the future.

The whole Animal Rights thing has to be one of the greatest challenges we face, whether we’re struggling to change our own eating habits or struggling to get the vegan message across.  Unless we can deal with these struggles and find them meaningful, we’ll never be able to get anywhere with people who are still largely oblivious to it.  That in itself will be a great source of frustration for us.

The subject is broad, its implications touch every branch of life, if only because the human condition is always darkened by that one terrible habit so many have - resorting to violence to solve our problems.  There’s hardly anything we do (that involves others) that is not in some way improved by considering violence.  Even in mild cases, we can find ourselves using some sort of force to bring about the outcome which will be to our own benefit. But the 'drug' wears off, and we find that the solutions (that we thought we had) evaporate, leaving us back where we started.

If we try to make Animal Rights/Veganism just an ethics or health issue we sell it cheap.  It IS that, but so much more.  It gives us peace-of-mind, opens up our compassionate instincts, and brings us to daily actions which harmonise with our very soul.  Now, if you find that a bit hard to swallow, then you might settle for something a little less grandiose.  Perhaps it’s just more interesting to be a vegan. The principle of non-violence offers solutions that are inaccessible to those who are still eating violence-based animal foods, or make use of abused animals in any other way.  And these solutions start out as discussions about the strengths of non-violence, as they pertain to ethics and the reform of the human condition.  But they go on to effect our attitudes towards nutrition and therefore health, towards the environment, and lots more.  By simply being vegan, many optimistic possibilities open up to us.  Our thoughts can fly free, our considerations broaden and our conversations become so much more meaningful than discussing house prices.  Once we can consider a life without the enslaving and killing of animals for food and clothing, a whole range of possibilities tumble out of the clouds like rain.  One's only regret might be that none of these possibilities were understood earlier, whilst one was still an eater and user of our animal slaves.

Hurting animals

1542: 

When representing Animal Rights, it's good to steer clear of sounding ‘right’.  Despite having no doubts about that, we might avoid being too dogmatic about animal cruelty and animal food, if only because there’s something else important to establish - the need for empathy between each other.  It’s this idea of doing unto others what you would have done to yourself. With that in mind, we have a chance to ignite empathy for animals.  If we can apply that principle to each other then why not to animals too?

By taking the emphasis off ourselves (the 'follow me, and aren't I wonderful' line) we can introduce the importance of empathy. The most obvious and widespread practice of empathising is seen with our dog at home.   By comparing and contrasting the empathy shown to our dog with our lack of empathy for other animals, we can illustrate the obvious contradiction in values.  The last thing we’d want to do to our companions at home is hurt them, because we know them as individuals.  Just because we don't know the pig or the lamb as an individual animal, doesn't mean that we don't need to show empathy.  It’s the same with other people’s dogs - we don’t have to know them, because each dog has its own personality and we can feel that, and empathise with them, and we can be duly proud of ourselves for being able to do that.

Animal Rights emphasises these strong empathetic bonds that we have between ourselves and ‘creatures’, and it’s likely none of us could purposely de-individualise any animal in order to put it into a special category whereby we feel free to inflict pain on it.  For most of us it would be absurd to try.  Nor could we help to end its life when not for compassionate reasons.  But that’s exactly what animal farmers force themselves to do and we, as customers, condone.  This, after all, is how they make their living.  This is what we expect of them, as we do of many others connected to the ‘Animal Industries’, so that we can benefit from their actions.

When I was young, I was hiking in the country overnight.  In the evening I found a pigeon which had eaten poisoned bait.  I looked after it overnight but it was in such obvious pain the next day I took a knife to its throat.  I often think of that bird.  I always hoped that, at the moment when I had to end its life, that it understood the reason I did it.  But for an animal to face the knife without that sort of reason, that’s quite a thought!  And yet billions of animals face just that.  They experience no kindness and no sedative to ease the terror, nor any anaesthetic to ease the pain.  When they are about to be executed there’s the smell of death all around them.  There's the machinery of death along with the all too familiar ‘ubiquitous human’ who is forcing them towards it.  To think of just one animal suffering like this is haunting, let alone billions of them.

Humans, who love animals (as they do their own children) have a strong sense of empathy.  But even a felled tree is empathised with more than a farm animal.  Humans are good at pretending.  They pretend they can feel empathy because they love their dogs and cats (and children).  They’re able to empathise, and they feel rightly proud of that.  But then, having won a few points in their favour, they then go on to afford themselves ‘special circumstances’ applied to farm animals, for the sake of ‘essential food’.  So, by providing a market for animals, they connive in the terrible treatment of them, and their even more terrible deaths.

Explosive material

1541: 

What we say must, in part, be attractive.  And then the punter will be able to bear the weight of all the other important things we’re telling them.  Maybe this is the first time Animal Rights has ever entered their heads – the possibility of a totally plant-based food regime involving no meats or by-products and therefore no cruelty to animals.  Whatever business we have with other people, kids or adults, we are but ghosts in their thinking, until they're ready – it’s they who eventually decide to join the growing number of impassioned animal activists, BUT only when they are ready.

This subject is so emotionally charged, so deeply connected with daily habits, that any talk of ‘animals’ and ‘cruelty’ can make people feel immediately embarrassed, for being in the wrong.  Although they may feel proud of being sensitive, cool, intelligent and likeable, what vegans are saying can explode their self image, by alluding to double standards.  “Ouch”.

As vegans, we need to show that we understand about this particular vulnerability. We need to take it into consideration every time we try to provide information.  Vegans aren’t supposed to be shame-merchants. 

Winning the un-convinced

1540: 

It’s relatively easy to get a person to listen who is ready to admit that Animal Rights is a serious issue, but the vast majority are stubborn.  They’re nowhere near addressing their deep set prejudices about animals.  They want to believe that animals were ‘put here’ for humans to use.

         

If we, as vegans, are asked a question we may have our answer off pat, and be quite sure it’s accurate.  But for them it’s not enough.  They really want to know, by the way we answer questions, what we are like - they want to know about us as much as they want to know the answer to their question.  They need to know whether we're nut-cases or not.  So, for our part, to straight-answer a question is not enough, since we have to remember how our answer might sound to the questioner.

Before we answer questions, we have to ask ourselves how someone is going to feel when we tell them what they've asked about, but which they’ll probably not want to hear about?  In answering, it’s easy to twist the knife, to remonstrate, to garnish our answers with a little barb of guilt.  And that usually works in our favour for about two seconds, until they realise they’re being lectured at, at which time they react - it's not what they expect and it's not what they want.  They kick back, not just to protect the little luxuries of their lifestyle but the other things which affect their relationships, opinions and beliefs.

This is why whatever we want to say should be at least halved.  Surely the trick in talking Animal Rights is not only remembering NOT to twist the knife but to tread carefully over the red hot coals we’ve slipped under their feet.  If they feel offended then we must be able to sniff that out so quickly that we take that into consideration; saying less than we intend, even to the extent of ‘throwing away’ a line or two, just to keep things on an even keel.  I think the best way to hold people’s attention and keep them on-side is to deliver some of what we want to say, and then pull back in time to avoid them turning-off, first.  If that means putting our case more casually than we’d like, then it might in the end be more effective that way.

We can’t afford to forget how justified people want to feel, how much they want to disagree with our basic premise and how much they want to stop listening.  We’re trying to inhibit each of these reactions at the same time as passing across useful information.

Ambassadors for animals

1539: 

For me, being vegan and going public is a bit like how a legal advocate must feel, representing a client.  I like to think I’m following the instructions of the animals themselves, acting with their approval.  Only, I have to guess at that since they are 'voiceless'.

As animals themselves aren’t gratuitously violent, I imagine they wouldn’t encourage me to be hostile with my adversaries.  I like to think animals know the human better than humans know themselves, since they’ve seen the very worst of human behaviour and learnt how to survive it.  I like to think they’d advise me to work on my fellow humans in a slow and steady way.  To win them over with my demeanour rather than my smart arguments.  

Without our going to the extremes of Animalitarianism, which assumes that animals are endowed with superior moral qualities to human beings, I think we can learn a lot from animals.  They don’t draw attention to themselves so neither should I, especially when I’m dealing with hardened meat-eaters.  I would try to wait, as animals do.  I'd prefer to encourage dialogue by letting others have their say first, if only because I need to learn how they see things, and then earn their go-ahead to have my say.

Why be so indulgent?  I’d say, because they constitute 99% of our population, most of whom need to be brought on-side, as soon as possible.  Most of them still love their animal foods, and their leather shoes and many other animal-based goods and services.  Omnivores aren’t going to roll over easily, and are even less likely to if we try to corner them.

It’s easy to forget just how aggressive otherwise-peaceful people can be when it comes to this subject.  But it’s understandable.  None of us likes being placed ‘in the wrong’, which is precisely what we are doing, however careful we are with the words we choose.  I find myself doing just that whenever I’m trying not to, when talking to non-vegans about using animals.  I feel I have no other option, although to be absolutely truthful, ‘putting people right’ is partly me showing off, implying that, in this one way, I do consider myself ‘superior’. 

Even though I’m sure I have watertight arguments, it’s so easy to speak too fluently, too intelligently, too passionately, and therefore to put peoples’ backs up.  It’s likely they’ve never even heard of ‘abolition-ism’ before.  When I explain, it takes them about two seconds for the penny to drop and for them to feel uneasy. Inevitably, they react negatively, as a first line of defence.  I have to understand why this is, and get past the shock of this, and try to understand the insult they feel - we are, after all, turning what has been, up to now, an accepted part of their life.  We are turning a large part of their lifestyle into something wrong.  Their reaction shouldn’t surprise us, since for them there’s nowhere else to go.  They can’t get past the ugly facts, and there are very few good arguments with which they can defend their position.  So, they feel uncomfortable and cornered, and often they take umbrage and storm off.

If this happens, we might think we’ve won the day, but in truth we've done the greatest damage, and added to the likelihood of losing them altogether. 

Being well informed

1538: 

Animal Rights is a broad subject to learn about.  It touches on so many things including ethics, nutrition, environmental concerns and modern husbandry.  Animal advocates are expected to be knowledgeable about all of this if they want to speak intelligently on the subject, well, at least have a working knowledge anyway.  It isn’t enough to cite cruelty to animals as the one reason to be vegan, although that’s likely to be the primary reason.  There are in fact so many other reasons, and it’s good to be able to speak about each of them.

         

But, however many arguments we put up and however many details we might offer, we always have difficulties overcoming the initial shock of what we suggest - “What, no more animal products at all, food, clothes, shoes, zoos?”.

         

It’s a long list of 'don’ts'.  It makes boycotting all things with animal content sound too much to take on.  At first you think you'll never manage to do it, because it's obvious that becoming vegan is one huge decision and not to be taken lightly.

Understanding this mind barrier helps us not to become too self-righteous.  On the one hand, for most vegans who are 'there', it’s seems so simple - we don’t use anything with animal connections and we're by now used to that.  But to others, contemplating it, it’s daunting.  And because of that, it is also embarrassing to be confronted with something that seems too difficult, when normally brainpower or willpower will let us take on almost any reasonable challenge.  So this matter of ‘becoming vegan’ has to be thought of as UNreasonable.  It calls for some means, any means, of putting this challenge down as being anything but real.  The proposition to 'be vegan' has to be opposed at all costs, if only to defuse the embarrassment of being shown to be in the wrong or too frightened to try 'doing it'.

When we encounter this sort of opposition, it’s rather obvious that it’s an emotional response rather than a well thought-out intellectual position being taken up.  So we have to be confident about what we’re saying and not get too easily rattled.  We have to be able to deal with being put on the spot.

Whatever we feel inside, whether it be passion, anger, well-informed, frustrated or a failure, we need to take care not to show it, especially if we’re talking with red necked, vegan-haters.  Or even with people who are used to being able to win their philosophical arguments, and who don’t take kindly to anyone who can make them look less-than-clever.

Whatever we think about the person we’re with, if we can maintain a neutral exterior and listen without reacting, and keep our own talk calm, we’ll maybe win some grudging respect.  And that is all that’s needed for us then to be given the go-ahead, to speak more openly and more fully.  Once we’re allowed to voice our opinion and flesh out our arguments, we’ll have a better chance to reach people.

I think the trick is not to too obviously win the argument.  In many of these sorts of encounters, understatement is our best  friend.

Socking It To 'Em!

1537: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Animal Rights/Veganism is a subject non-vegans discuss amongst themselves in order to disparage it and to work out resistant arguments to it  The stock response is usually that vegan activists are 'dangerous extremists';  which means we're 'bagged' and doors are closed to us.

But not everyone has a closed mind, especially younger people.  Having made fewer independent food choices, they aren't as likely to be so defensive.  But can they rely on the information they find about plant-based diets?

First and foremost, vegans must come across as well informed and concerned about peoples' safety, as well as having high personal standards and a friendly sensitivity.  But we don't have to be too self-effacing or backward in coming forward.  If we are affable enough, some chutzpah can get us by, as long as we maintain a sense of humour and some friendly familiarity.  Personally, I don't try to be a 'best buddy', but I do try to be open and accepting of any views, thus proving that I'm ready to 'take it' as well as 'dish it out'.

People often want to know what vegans eat and the favourite question is: "Where do you get your protein from?"  The answer has to be at our fingertips, otherwise we can't carry on past this health concern.  The Answer is:  Legumes, nuts, seeds, beans, chickpeas, tempeh, tofu, soy products, leafy greens, seeds, non-dairy milks, wheat gluten!!  Whew!!  Having rattled this list off, we can then progress to other important and more delicate matters - the rights and wrongs of using animals.  Most people are prepared to put up with a bit of cheek from us here, even to the point where we can send them up for eating 'dead animals'.  But there’s a hairsbreadth of difference between friendly joshing and hitting them with a value-judgement.

Out of loyalty to the animals, I sometimes feel that I should be deadly serious and confront people wherever and whenever I can, to show just how deeply I feel about this subject.  But I notice that as soon as I start 'getting heavy', they stop smiling!  They immediately feel threatened and no longer find it easy to identify with me.  In other words, they go on the defensive.

Passing on information (with a subtext of judgement) is not productive.  Use of too many statistics is dull.  Slogans are irritating.  It's all very confronting.  Being bombarded with facts and figures is the equivalent of carpet-bombing and inevitably any connection we might have had is broken. Even if we get into high disagreement, I would still try to maintain equality and show respect for any personal view (even if I know they're misinformed!).  However far apart our views may be, our feelings for each other shouldn’t be compromised.  The human-to-human connection should be kept open.  We’re never anything else but two individuals chatting about the possibility of reassessing our attitudes (regarding the use of animals).

If we're speaking to a roomful of strangers and some level of mutual good feeling is maintained, there’s a fair chance of constructive, lively interaction.  Keep sparring - but keep it warm.  We are, after all, representing the good name of an important cause.  As soon as we forget this, communication dies and the reputation of our fellow advocates is damaged by association. 

The best teachers I had at school never lost sight of their students.  They had an eye for trouble and saw everything, even when they pretended not to.  They stood no nonsense, but never withdrew their affection.  They were always 'onside' with the students.  And I think that’s how we vegans should come across.  Not let anyone get away with incorrect information or rudeness, but not allow ourselves to slip into zealotry either.   No cowardly tactics either!  If I’m asked to explain something and try to hide my lack of knowledge behind an emotional rave about animal cruelty - it's just too obvious.  It immediately destroys my credibility.  

On some levels, people are very well informed.  Most adults know (more or less) what’s going on with animal usage and animal cruelty these days, but they don't necessarily know all the details. Presumably, we vegans do, otherwise we wouldn’t be so keen to talk about it!  With this tricky subject, our strength is in having useful information to impart, so that we can fill in the gaps.  If we can’t answer a question and we have the guts to admit it, that can be impressive.  We shouldn’t be afraid to lose a skirmish or two.  It’s the long term (mainly psychological) battle we’ve got ahead of us, so we come out at the end as a person with whom other people can identify.

Early Approaches

1536: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

As self-appointed advocates for animals, vegans find themselves in a tricky position.  We assume that we have the right to talk about them (on their behalf) because we no longer eat them.  Maybe we are in a strong position, but it still doesn’t give us the right to tell people what to eat or to expect them to agree with us.  We need to be 'invited' to speak on this subject and for that we need to earn the listener’s respect and interest.  We have to be convincing whilst going easy on the moralising.  Perhaps ask a few questions (just to keep the conversation going) in order to encourage them to also ask questions.

         

Sure, we may want to be activists, communicators and educators, but we also need to be sensitive to peoples' problems regarding their food addictions.  There are some practising vegans who don’t aim to be activists at all;  they're happy just to do their own thing.  Others, however, aim to persuade people to protest, demonstrate or get into direct action regarding Animal Rights.  They believe the cause is worth promoting, despite the seeming lack of interest amongst most people.  We need to be optimistic that peoples' attitudes will eventually change. 

Unfortunately, attitudes aren't changing radically enough to bring about the sort of chain reaction needed to alter today's fashion and make veganism the 'new way';  the spark that sets everything else off.  Environmental causes, health matters, even the problems of world hunger are always so 'humans' orientated that no room is left to emphasise the main issues concerning animals.  And if animals aren't targeted, we remain a species concerned only with our own interests.  We'll never go that essential further step, to see the ramifications of condoning animal slavery.  In fact, the root of most problems is Human Nature being too human-centred and unless we have the courage to deal with that aspect of our nature, nothing else can change thoroughly enough to secure the future of either our species or the planet itself.

Returning to the nuts and bolts of this 'tricky position' we vegans find ourselves in, we need to face a few initial blockages, in order to move past them.  Firstly, we keep our feet on the ground by realising just how unaware 99% of people still are about the level of animal cruelty involved in producing 'animal-derived foods' and the health problems associated with eating these foods.   We face apathy.  "The sun's hot, the water's cool, the beach is inviting.  Who gives a stuff about animals"?  And we face those who might feel compassion for animals but aren't ready to commit. "I admit it's a serious issue.  I'm listening.  I'm ready to consider.  I'll hear you out.  I'll try a plant-based diet - but I won't become an activist"!   There are many stages of acceptance which are still a long way from the sort of single-mindedness of the entirely convinced.  That is, being convinced that the vegan principle is the key to unblocking the path to greater things.  And unless we arrive at 'greater things', we are always going nowhere.

People have to first break down their mistrust and dislike of vegans.  If we can show an interest in them, trust grows and dislike diminishes.  If there's a spark of interest, or even a question, then we’re almost in business (unless they’re just being polite).  If they do provide us with an unguarded, intelligent question, it opens up the communication channels like nothing else.  It makes it no longer necessary for us to walk on eggshells.  If they take the initiative in asking, it makes our job that much easier.  No more needs to be done.  It's down to them to chew over (no pun intended) what we've been able to tell them.  

What we DON'T want in the early stages, is for the door to be closed in our faces as the result of our clumsy way of approaching people over animal-related issues.  "Once bitten twice shy" and the door may be closed on us for ever. 

Guarded curiosity

1535: 

I’d like to stand on a soap box, with microphone in hand, in front of a crowd of eager listeners, and speak my heart out.  But those days of soap box oratory are dead.  Today, we need to communicate in a more intimate way, in one-to-one conversations, about a whole range of related issues.  So, when talking casually-almost, when this subject of animal-use comes up (not necessarily introduced by us) our first words will probably set the tone of the whole conversation.

It’s obvious that vegans do significant things that others don’t do. That might provoke an interest.  I’m in luck if it does.  The conversation might go something like this:

“You’re a vegan then?”

“Yes”

“Why?”

“It’s something I feel passionately about”

         

If ever I get this far I’m usually tempted to go into too much detail, but that isn’t necessarily what anyone wants to hear, especially if it sounds as though I’m using their enquiry to start big-noting myself, bragging about my superior ethics.  As soon as ‘my passion’ is mentioned, I look like an animal-liberationist whose epithets they've heard so many times before.  In future, they’ll regret asking for fear of being bored witless.  Maybe they try to change the subject.  And soon enough we're talking about the weather, and then climate change, and then ... anything but the animal issues I'd hoped to start talking about.  This is the reason for not showing our hand too soon.

The conversation could go another way, where we meet provocation, first up:

“You’re what?” (said with mock surprise, implying madness, and meant to put me on the defensive).

Or, it could go another way, in a show of guarded interest:

“y….e .. s.  Go on” (hoping to pounce on my first foolish statement, so they can then go in for the kill).

So I'd prefer a more 'negative pitch' (sales lingo) and try to coax them into thinking I'm a bit vulnerable or a bit innocent - if I don’t seem too eager, then it’s not hard to lure almost anyone into asking me to explain myself.  And that is the original why-are-you-vegan question I really wanted to answer in the first place.

It often clear that there are curiosity and protection strategies going on here.  We see it all the time when it comes to animal-eating - people's need to justify themselves.  We also notice how people want to put a dampener on our righteousness, whilst at the same time wanting to find out things.  They’re curious.  But guarded.  We can never tell how curious people might be, or how genuine their curiosity, nor can we afford to waste any opportunity.

         

We need to be prepared to say what we stand for, and why, saying what we want to say confidently yet casually, informingly yet non-confrontationally – answering in such a way that leaves the other person interested and better informed, but not put off and NOT out-manoeuvred.

Going Public

1534: 

"All meatheads are murderers" - when we start hurling abuse in public it works wonders, in the short term.  At the time, it unifies fellow protesters and makes us all feel good, because it sounds brave and aims to strike fear into people’s hearts.  But unless we’re willing to continually escalate that approach, it loses its power and eventually fizzles out.  With any big- talk and threats, we make a rod for our own back.

The aim of any Animal Rights protest should be to win people over.  It should start with setting a good example, the same as we expect of others.  If we want to ‘go public’, we must be prepared to be cold shouldered.  We shouldn’t be upset if everyone ignores what we say. Most people are products of a powerful culture, imprinted from an early age, which tells us that animals are meant to be used - and following on from this, that the usable ones may be kept captive, killed and eaten. In the light of that culture, all animal-friendly arguments will appear ridiculous.

It’s possible for us to just push through, to keep talking past the silent treatment.  But perhaps that’s not the point.  Gone are the days when we casually bump into people on the street corner and converse with them on serious matters. Today's new ideas don’t circulate like that.  We could possibly find new ideas in the media, but that is too tightly controlled when it comes to this subject.  Social networks and the Internet are more informative, but on this subject no one wants the extra aggravation in their life - if it’s Animal Rights or veganism it spells something highly inconvenient, so any available information is often by-passed.  For us it’s always going to be a long haul for which we need the patient, step by step approach.  And the first step is the most important one - attempting to make that initial connection.

We need to show that we’re genuine.  Establish that and we're half way to making a connection.  Then we have to be ready to answer any question.  Then, if there are differences of opinion, we need to deal with that in a non-threatening way.  We need to come across as being interested in helping improve others’ lives, whilst at the same time wanting to liberate animals.  We should be seen to have no other agenda.

Awake

1533: 

As a vegan I sometimes feel like an alarm clock, resented for making an unwanted wake-up call, but later appreciated for the jolt given to the new day, for putting forward a new way of seeing things.

But there again, I often feel as if I’ve been thrown against the wall, so my bell no longer works and my timer’s stopped, and that’s because I haven’t learnt how NOT to make myself sound unpopular.  I often wonder whether we vegans are trying to wake people or alarm them.

As potential 'persuaders', vegans can sometimes be a bit heavy booted.  We always hope others will understand our good intentions, but we can come across like old time preachers.  The fact is that we don’t really know how to get hardened omnivores to like eating vegan food or like animals enough to make a few personal sacrifices.  We resort to finger wagging or disapproving or making value judgements, none of which have the intended effect.  We even give them the old “look-at-me-look-at-my-health-aren’t-I-the-clever-one” treatment, but that just seems like big noting ourselves.  All we can know for sure is that we must keep trying to break through, even though we keep failing.

Perhaps we need to kill off the strict, clean-living image.  We have to squash the idea that we are eaters of dull-but-nutritious food.  If it has to be about food, then we’ll get further by letting our friends taste what we eat, and get them to want to eat that way themselves.  Then let them see an attractive lifestyle.  And include in the mix that spark of pleasure we get, for having such strong arguments to hold on to, and finding it ridiculous to think any other way.  Ultimately we're aiming for something like a plan for Earth’s brilliant future, aiming as high as you can get, knowing it will happen that way, as in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To carry that off, we need to be happy within ourselves, for the stand we’ve taken and the habits we’ve mastered, and the conventions we’ve overturned.  We shouldn’t need to push our point or seem desperate when arguing our case.  If we're already there, feeling safe and sure, then we can express ourselves best by showing a different sort of sensitivity.  We don’t need to draw attention to ourselves, especially by seeming better than anybody else.

But we do need to be seen as experimenters.  In that role, we might have to show off a bit, but only to better present some important life-saving ideas, as part of a grand plan.  And if this Grand Plan seems whacky (this preposterous idea of not using animals for anything) all we have to do is simply wait.  Show patience while we let the penny to drop.  Let the idea work for itself.

We don’t need to rush anyone (we'll only achieve the opposite).  No need to prove we’re different. No need to give anyone an excuse to stamp us as ‘crazy’.  Instead we can be like a radio station that's tuned into and out of, at will; we're simply presenting a good idea for improving the quality of life.  And if we're seen to be telling a good story, then it should be an integral part of social justice, about living harmlessly and respectfully.  From that reference point we can let people draw their own conclusions.

As an advocate for both animal and human welfare, our message should be simple, subtle and soft.  It should be about non-violent progress presented in subtle, persuasive ways without the use of sledge-hammer tactics or resorting to negative slogans, such as ‘meat is murder’.