Saturday 3rd July 2010
The Vegan advocate ultimately sets out to impress and inspire, without the use of emotional blackmail or clever persuasion.
The subtle process of influencing others (to get them to think more the way we think!!) involves acceptance on all fronts – at some stage we need to show our friends and family an acceptance of opposing views, views which are not in agreement with our own. This is ‘acceptance’ rather than approval (tricky area) –translating as a promise NEVER to get hostile over ANYthing. ‘The opposition’ need to be assured of an equality of status between us, before there’s any launching into the deep waters surrounding this subject of animals having rights – or ‘Animal Rights’.
If that assurance isn’t there, and reinforced frequently, there will always be a reluctance to start any sort of meaningful dialogue. If equality isn’t established we’re in a no-go zone - it’s a “shut-down” mode. Dialogue begins when the fear factor is reduced and when the subject is taken seriously – that’s an initial tacit agreement. The vegan may have well-thought-out positions and the omnivore probably has their own ‘position’ less well-thought-out, and this is why we should not get heavy about a subject others know relatively little about. All we ask of the omnivore is that they agree that ‘animal rights’ is a ‘serious subject’. If it isn’t I believe we have the right to ask why.
I believe it’s sensible, before any conversation starts, to agree that this isn’t a frivolous matter and that we won’t be wasting our time discussing the subject. But once that agreement is in place (and that we aren’t limiting the ‘subject’ to the food-diet-health issues alone, then something profound can come out of discussion. When talk starts people will come across because they will have been inspired and made their own decision, not because they’ve been cajoled by us.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Pushy vegans
Friday 2nd July 2010
We all use force. We use it to drive in a screw; we use it to stop the kids screaming all day. But on a far less benign level we use it unjustifiably. Whatever the circumstances, this force is always ugly and in the long term always ineffective.
Even if the polemic is justified, however deserving the animals are, the bottom line is that we can’t afford to be “pushy”; we live in a democracy, under law, and no one feels compelled to listen to us. In our protest against animal cruelty we want to be seen as confident and determined. But if we start to preach we lose the plot.
On this subject of animals having rights it seems to us, as vegans, so utterly logical and right. Of course we want others to know about it. But in defending the idea, if we get pushy (on the animals’ behalf) it doesn’t help them. Being forceful and making people feel uncomfortable, finger wagging and taking the moral high ground is a bit yesterday, and avoidable!
Whatever the reasoning behind using force, somehow the other way (convoluted though it seems sometimes) feels more genuine, seems friendlier as if we are approachable. Somehow we need to stop them running away as soon as they know we’re vegan. When you poke a bit of fun at yourself it’s a direct signal to anyone who is nervous, and you can tell it’s been picked up by the sense of relief on people’s faces when we start talking.
Once we launch into our ‘vegan’ what is SHOULDN’T look like is an ‘attack on the wicked omnivore’. What is SHOULD look like … impossible to say. How do you describe a whole manner? And each of us is different in our style. Perhaps it’s a gentleness of approach to this very difficult subject - we scream peacefulness. There’s something about this notion of “vegan harmlessness”. It has a nice ring to it. Maybe it’s a bit cheeky, yes, but it’s never pushy and most certainly never offensive.
One can only speak for oneself … my aim would be “not-confronting” – that’s selfish because I’m super uncomfortable with any confrontation, when it’s unfriendly I mean. I’d emphasise this approach, being about 50% of my whole ‘performance’ (because let’s face it, our spiel about animals, veganism, etc. is a rehearsed argument). I go IN very soft, very quickly, until I can gauge their real interest. Mainly I’m friendly because it’s what I expect from them, like when I’m with a sports fanatic and tell them I hate all sport!
We expect interesting but safe interactions with others. We all love a good fight, but a ‘good’ one not involving violence … any sort of violence. Most of us have grown up in relative peace, expecting no hostile attitude from who ever we meet. Here, advocating for animals, we’re representing a significantly important movement. It’s not really about us as activists but about liberating animals. We’re setting standards of behaviour as well as disseminating information. We’re self-appointed ambassadors for the voiceless. If they could speak would they contemplate violence? Perhaps not. They’d keep the peace. And even in the most heated exchanges with other people over the question of animal rights, why would we lose our cool, over anything? Why spoil your day?
As vegans we need to be trusted on all sorts of levels, is our information correct? Are we nice people? Particularly we need to be trusted NOT to fly off the handle over sensitive issues. Vegans need to be trusted not to be boring. By being interesting and showing an interest in others’ views, we stand a better chance of a really spirited conversation. It won’t even get started if we can’t convince people we’re talking to that we do not want to hurt them. We can show that by the tone of our voice and the look of our body language.
For those of us who have violent tendencies we must swear three thousand promises NOT to set out to hurt. After all, if vegans call for harmlessness on one level they must respect it on all levels, surely. There’s so much hurt in the world, why add to it? It’s like a vasectomised man in an overpopulated world who might not want to add to ‘the mix’ …
In a nutshell, never get involved in emotionally attacking anyone, especially if they’ve asked us to talk to them about this issue.
We all use force. We use it to drive in a screw; we use it to stop the kids screaming all day. But on a far less benign level we use it unjustifiably. Whatever the circumstances, this force is always ugly and in the long term always ineffective.
Even if the polemic is justified, however deserving the animals are, the bottom line is that we can’t afford to be “pushy”; we live in a democracy, under law, and no one feels compelled to listen to us. In our protest against animal cruelty we want to be seen as confident and determined. But if we start to preach we lose the plot.
On this subject of animals having rights it seems to us, as vegans, so utterly logical and right. Of course we want others to know about it. But in defending the idea, if we get pushy (on the animals’ behalf) it doesn’t help them. Being forceful and making people feel uncomfortable, finger wagging and taking the moral high ground is a bit yesterday, and avoidable!
Whatever the reasoning behind using force, somehow the other way (convoluted though it seems sometimes) feels more genuine, seems friendlier as if we are approachable. Somehow we need to stop them running away as soon as they know we’re vegan. When you poke a bit of fun at yourself it’s a direct signal to anyone who is nervous, and you can tell it’s been picked up by the sense of relief on people’s faces when we start talking.
Once we launch into our ‘vegan’ what is SHOULDN’T look like is an ‘attack on the wicked omnivore’. What is SHOULD look like … impossible to say. How do you describe a whole manner? And each of us is different in our style. Perhaps it’s a gentleness of approach to this very difficult subject - we scream peacefulness. There’s something about this notion of “vegan harmlessness”. It has a nice ring to it. Maybe it’s a bit cheeky, yes, but it’s never pushy and most certainly never offensive.
One can only speak for oneself … my aim would be “not-confronting” – that’s selfish because I’m super uncomfortable with any confrontation, when it’s unfriendly I mean. I’d emphasise this approach, being about 50% of my whole ‘performance’ (because let’s face it, our spiel about animals, veganism, etc. is a rehearsed argument). I go IN very soft, very quickly, until I can gauge their real interest. Mainly I’m friendly because it’s what I expect from them, like when I’m with a sports fanatic and tell them I hate all sport!
We expect interesting but safe interactions with others. We all love a good fight, but a ‘good’ one not involving violence … any sort of violence. Most of us have grown up in relative peace, expecting no hostile attitude from who ever we meet. Here, advocating for animals, we’re representing a significantly important movement. It’s not really about us as activists but about liberating animals. We’re setting standards of behaviour as well as disseminating information. We’re self-appointed ambassadors for the voiceless. If they could speak would they contemplate violence? Perhaps not. They’d keep the peace. And even in the most heated exchanges with other people over the question of animal rights, why would we lose our cool, over anything? Why spoil your day?
As vegans we need to be trusted on all sorts of levels, is our information correct? Are we nice people? Particularly we need to be trusted NOT to fly off the handle over sensitive issues. Vegans need to be trusted not to be boring. By being interesting and showing an interest in others’ views, we stand a better chance of a really spirited conversation. It won’t even get started if we can’t convince people we’re talking to that we do not want to hurt them. We can show that by the tone of our voice and the look of our body language.
For those of us who have violent tendencies we must swear three thousand promises NOT to set out to hurt. After all, if vegans call for harmlessness on one level they must respect it on all levels, surely. There’s so much hurt in the world, why add to it? It’s like a vasectomised man in an overpopulated world who might not want to add to ‘the mix’ …
In a nutshell, never get involved in emotionally attacking anyone, especially if they’ve asked us to talk to them about this issue.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Same-old, same-old
How can we ensure that, within the protest movement, we won’t become ‘forceful’, even violent? When we’re talking to people on this Most Important Subject, do we, as vegans, attempt to force people to agree with us? If we do, how do we justify that? Perhaps we use the animals as an excuse to be a bully. Do we do it this way to get our rocks off ? Do we have an overwhelming urge to vent our spleen?
It comes across as boring, same old-same old. If we have something to say let it be useful and sound original, as if it comes from the heart and not from the vegan text book.
It comes across as boring, same old-same old. If we have something to say let it be useful and sound original, as if it comes from the heart and not from the vegan text book.
Being “right”
Wednesday 30th June 2010
For vegans, we have such cast iron arguments we can’t believe they don’t have magical powers. Certainly our arguments are powerful but maybe not yet imbued with magic. That’s what vegans have to do. Bring them to life.
To animal-food-addicted omnivores our arguments don’t seem very magic, in fact they’re a blasted nuisance. Omnivores build cast iron barricades, to precisely guard them selves from vegan assault. To them we are The Heresy. That’s extreme of course, but almost opposite are vegans who think their arguments are ‘sent from God’. Perception to perception it’s omnivore outrage at vegan heresy against the authority vegans feel about their principles of harmlessness.
But of course delusion, belief, ego and all sorts of rights and wrongs muddy the waters. It comes down to perception here. Our arguments might as well have no weight at all if we, as ‘identifiable-with humans, seem like poor ambassadors.
We know omnivore logic is faulty but the trap for us, with our better arguments, is that we begin to feel we are “right”. Right about all sorts of things, and if we feel it we show it. And that’s what is so off-putting to omnivores. It’s our smugness that puts people off. We have a neat answer for people but it’s “look at me, how terrific I am, how healthy, guiltless …” etc. Vegans do it, we all do it. We all do it in our various ways and nothing’s more unattractive than this. It’s what they call here in Australia “big-noting oneself”.
I do it, I put others ‘off’ in this way and ultimately screw things for the Animal Rights Movement. Vegans like me have to control our passions and make sure we don’t give off the signal: that we’re willing to forfeit friendliness for the sake of making a point. What’s so hard for omnivores, when they meet a vegan, is that they don’t know if we’ll suddenly ‘turn’ on them.
We need to concentrate on our style of approach. Think court jester, think of the jester’s style - always respectful, always affectionate, always stirring.
For vegans, we have such cast iron arguments we can’t believe they don’t have magical powers. Certainly our arguments are powerful but maybe not yet imbued with magic. That’s what vegans have to do. Bring them to life.
To animal-food-addicted omnivores our arguments don’t seem very magic, in fact they’re a blasted nuisance. Omnivores build cast iron barricades, to precisely guard them selves from vegan assault. To them we are The Heresy. That’s extreme of course, but almost opposite are vegans who think their arguments are ‘sent from God’. Perception to perception it’s omnivore outrage at vegan heresy against the authority vegans feel about their principles of harmlessness.
But of course delusion, belief, ego and all sorts of rights and wrongs muddy the waters. It comes down to perception here. Our arguments might as well have no weight at all if we, as ‘identifiable-with humans, seem like poor ambassadors.
We know omnivore logic is faulty but the trap for us, with our better arguments, is that we begin to feel we are “right”. Right about all sorts of things, and if we feel it we show it. And that’s what is so off-putting to omnivores. It’s our smugness that puts people off. We have a neat answer for people but it’s “look at me, how terrific I am, how healthy, guiltless …” etc. Vegans do it, we all do it. We all do it in our various ways and nothing’s more unattractive than this. It’s what they call here in Australia “big-noting oneself”.
I do it, I put others ‘off’ in this way and ultimately screw things for the Animal Rights Movement. Vegans like me have to control our passions and make sure we don’t give off the signal: that we’re willing to forfeit friendliness for the sake of making a point. What’s so hard for omnivores, when they meet a vegan, is that they don’t know if we’ll suddenly ‘turn’ on them.
We need to concentrate on our style of approach. Think court jester, think of the jester’s style - always respectful, always affectionate, always stirring.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Turning nasty
In public some vegans protest in the streets or in the media for Animal Rights. In our fierce fight for ‘rights’ we mightn’t have any room for fancy ideas, like “having all-round-respect for animals and humans alike”.
In our daily interactions with people, it’s this one small weakness amongst ourselves that screws animal advocacy. It’s one of the main contested issues within the Animal Rights and Vegan movements - how we appear to the general public, how our words are couched, how we deal with contentious issues sensitively. Same say “go in soft”, others like to throw their moral fists about. The whole process of communicating effectively is what ‘we’ are surely all about?
Here’s an omnivore listening to us. Hearing all about our interest in Animal Rights. The question may well revolve around listeners’ reactions to our initial impact, our image, around the question of whether we are people other people can identify with. It comes down to gut reaction – about vegans – and whether they are violent or non-violent in nature. Every adult omnivore (I can only speak of ‘Western’ countries) is surely familiar with the standard line of animal rights ‘emotional blackmail’. It is connected to that old school idea in conversation and debate, trying to prove someone is WRONG. That’s all very well for something mathematical but not useful for moral reason – for this very reason. To be wrong, to be right, scored debating points, competition, and when the debate turns to such a touchy subject as this one is, we remember the conversations. We remember those cringeings and humiliations of being proved wrong or foolish.
An omnivore listening to a vegan never knows if being with a vegan who may threaten to bring up Animal Rights isn’t like being thrown up over by a drunk. How does any omnivore know that ‘our views’ will be expressed in a reasonable way. As vegans, if we come across as fierce, we may reinforce that old familiar evangelical image. “Outraged and vegan” or “outraged at …” whatever the subject we get steamed up about, it’s the outrage that sounds so ugly and ridiculous. Oh yes, when Gough Whitlam said in 1975, “Maintain your rage” that was valid enough. At the time we were all outraged that Gough had been sacked. But our outrage dissolved, and if we as activists only do ‘outrage’ that won’t be enough. Vegan shouts: listener cringes. What the listener does NOT do, I believe, is say “that is so true, from this moment on I join you in your outrage, not if they have a ham sandwich in their lunch pack! So, okay if outrage isn’t the cool image, then what is?
I’m not sure personally that we can even attempt to answer that question because we aren’t in control of our emotions. I won’t flinch at watching footage of animal cruelty. I hate to see it but I’ve seen so much of it, and I know it underlines the rotten core of some humans, I know it reminds me to kep my focus on the ‘outrage against animals’ but I also know it’s a trap. That it interferes in our speaking about this subject. All important is how we seem, how forgiving we are, how creatinvel intelligent we are and how much and how deeply we respect other humans. It isn’t just animals. So, we speak so we create great waves of trust and promise no pouncing. It comes naturally to the truly peaceful person but for old warring natures like mine we have to learn this lesson the hard way. Preferably just drop the aggro attitude. That’s if we want to advocate. Communication is going to be a long an patient processs. This is whye delivery is so important.
But vegans are natural talkers (!!!). And do a lot of emailing, writing, telephoning, speak through art and any number of ways, to connect this vegan message to people. But hell, face to face communication is hard enough, over any other medium this delicate message is even harder – how do we protect people from fearing us as preachy-threatening-evangelical? How do we avoid that image? Even when face to face it’s almost impossible so in any other situation, in letters-to-the-editor, in radio interview, a few sentences recorded for the news, there’s just too few signals getting across, to make it ‘safe’, for omnivores to listen to us. They can’t protect themselves from us except by running away. Does the listener really need to confront vegan ‘violence’ in the tradition of the slogan, ‘Meat is murder’? Omnivores need to trust us, that we won’t ‘turn’ on them, crush them or make fools of them.
In our daily interactions with people, it’s this one small weakness amongst ourselves that screws animal advocacy. It’s one of the main contested issues within the Animal Rights and Vegan movements - how we appear to the general public, how our words are couched, how we deal with contentious issues sensitively. Same say “go in soft”, others like to throw their moral fists about. The whole process of communicating effectively is what ‘we’ are surely all about?
Here’s an omnivore listening to us. Hearing all about our interest in Animal Rights. The question may well revolve around listeners’ reactions to our initial impact, our image, around the question of whether we are people other people can identify with. It comes down to gut reaction – about vegans – and whether they are violent or non-violent in nature. Every adult omnivore (I can only speak of ‘Western’ countries) is surely familiar with the standard line of animal rights ‘emotional blackmail’. It is connected to that old school idea in conversation and debate, trying to prove someone is WRONG. That’s all very well for something mathematical but not useful for moral reason – for this very reason. To be wrong, to be right, scored debating points, competition, and when the debate turns to such a touchy subject as this one is, we remember the conversations. We remember those cringeings and humiliations of being proved wrong or foolish.
An omnivore listening to a vegan never knows if being with a vegan who may threaten to bring up Animal Rights isn’t like being thrown up over by a drunk. How does any omnivore know that ‘our views’ will be expressed in a reasonable way. As vegans, if we come across as fierce, we may reinforce that old familiar evangelical image. “Outraged and vegan” or “outraged at …” whatever the subject we get steamed up about, it’s the outrage that sounds so ugly and ridiculous. Oh yes, when Gough Whitlam said in 1975, “Maintain your rage” that was valid enough. At the time we were all outraged that Gough had been sacked. But our outrage dissolved, and if we as activists only do ‘outrage’ that won’t be enough. Vegan shouts: listener cringes. What the listener does NOT do, I believe, is say “that is so true, from this moment on I join you in your outrage, not if they have a ham sandwich in their lunch pack! So, okay if outrage isn’t the cool image, then what is?
I’m not sure personally that we can even attempt to answer that question because we aren’t in control of our emotions. I won’t flinch at watching footage of animal cruelty. I hate to see it but I’ve seen so much of it, and I know it underlines the rotten core of some humans, I know it reminds me to kep my focus on the ‘outrage against animals’ but I also know it’s a trap. That it interferes in our speaking about this subject. All important is how we seem, how forgiving we are, how creatinvel intelligent we are and how much and how deeply we respect other humans. It isn’t just animals. So, we speak so we create great waves of trust and promise no pouncing. It comes naturally to the truly peaceful person but for old warring natures like mine we have to learn this lesson the hard way. Preferably just drop the aggro attitude. That’s if we want to advocate. Communication is going to be a long an patient processs. This is whye delivery is so important.
But vegans are natural talkers (!!!). And do a lot of emailing, writing, telephoning, speak through art and any number of ways, to connect this vegan message to people. But hell, face to face communication is hard enough, over any other medium this delicate message is even harder – how do we protect people from fearing us as preachy-threatening-evangelical? How do we avoid that image? Even when face to face it’s almost impossible so in any other situation, in letters-to-the-editor, in radio interview, a few sentences recorded for the news, there’s just too few signals getting across, to make it ‘safe’, for omnivores to listen to us. They can’t protect themselves from us except by running away. Does the listener really need to confront vegan ‘violence’ in the tradition of the slogan, ‘Meat is murder’? Omnivores need to trust us, that we won’t ‘turn’ on them, crush them or make fools of them.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Protests looking ugly
As vegans we may be convinced of our own non-violence, and then we ‘do’ an angry protest. To people who see us are we off-putting? The high moral platform gives us confidence … we are so obviously right!! We may not see how, drip by drip, our protest is sounding too harsh, even violent.
To be non-violent I think we activists (so-called!) do need to consider developing a level of control, where words are strong but not frightening and where voices are loud but not screaming or disapproving. Collectively we can get too big for our boots, and seem over confident or brash. The vegan public face is sometimes off-putting.
…Whereas, at home it isn’t like that at all. Here we’re okay, since we aren’t trying to impress anyone but our self. Lifestyle-wise vegans are pretty much fine examples of non-violence, and in many valuable and important ways. It seems a great shame if we wear our dark side in public, even when it’s just a one on one.
Privately of course, a more wonderful ‘at-peace’ spirit you’ll never find. That’s because vegans have low levels of “spending-violence”, i.e. buying, say, animal-stuff or guns or something supporting crime. At home vegans are cool and it’s only when we’re trying to be effective, outside home, we hit trouble. Like when we want to be ‘hot’ (passionate) and something goes askew.
It’s our appearance that lets us down. Vegans should of course feel utterly safe - why be nervous in ‘outside interactions? When we go up against the ‘big-bad-world’, face some opposition, face some curly questions, how do we handle it? How do we come across? Maybe we’re happy just to come across as peace-niks. Yes, even when that sounds a bit 1950s. ‘Peace’, afterall, is a timeless tag which never goes out of fashion.
In this one (obvious) way this is what veganism is about - a simple non-violent boycott and highly effective if many join in. Commodity-wise, the greatest act of violence is where we exert power – where we spend our money. Imagine, in the grocery, no one is watching, we can spend on whatever we please. If that support violence then our decision, at that ‘private point’, needs to be changed.
Certainly vegans can’t be accused of violence at this point; our stance here, mainly in regard to food, is that where there’s no replacement product we do without. For vegans that ‘do-without’ decision (rather than compromise our no-touch-animal principle) relates mainly to animal foods. We don’t do them. But it’s to do with other commodities too, because of what they contain.
I know an 18 years old (very attractive female), very into only vegan food, but she’s stuck on shoes. She loves shoes. What woman doesn’t? But there isn’t any alternative to leather fashion shoes. Here’s where she may want to NOT touch but touch them she does, by buying leather shoes (referred to as an ‘animal co-product’ since it is economically on a par with the food part of the animals).
Why does my ‘vegan’ friend wear leather on her feet? Maybe it’s the fear of social suicide - a beautiful dress, a magnificent everything else and it all falls to pieces if she wears canvas foot apparel.
Of course this usually isn’t so much of a problem for men, well not for me certainly but then I’m not 18 and not dating. And of course it doesn’t matter eventually because as soon as business opportunities appear for a different line of shoe, then a whole range of magnificent plant-based footwear will suddenly appear … and at competitive prices. The Chinese might be doing it already and can do not just because of lower labour costs but because plant fabric is cheaper. The world is moving towards cutting unnecessary costs by ‘going-plant’. It’s going that way and fashion will shift towards both non-animal foods and fabrics. However it all depends where we spend our money. If you join the boycott and sponsor alternatives, fashion changes. And it’s the fashion market which determines whether we get shoes, namely a switch over to the plant-based variety.
But back to my friend. She’s facing the compromise and tying her hands. It must be annoying to her that she can’t actively promote vegan principle or Animal Rights. Therefore, it has to be said, the peace initiative is in everything we eat or wear or think and a central tenet of vegan lifestyle and attitude.
To be non-violent I think we activists (so-called!) do need to consider developing a level of control, where words are strong but not frightening and where voices are loud but not screaming or disapproving. Collectively we can get too big for our boots, and seem over confident or brash. The vegan public face is sometimes off-putting.
…Whereas, at home it isn’t like that at all. Here we’re okay, since we aren’t trying to impress anyone but our self. Lifestyle-wise vegans are pretty much fine examples of non-violence, and in many valuable and important ways. It seems a great shame if we wear our dark side in public, even when it’s just a one on one.
Privately of course, a more wonderful ‘at-peace’ spirit you’ll never find. That’s because vegans have low levels of “spending-violence”, i.e. buying, say, animal-stuff or guns or something supporting crime. At home vegans are cool and it’s only when we’re trying to be effective, outside home, we hit trouble. Like when we want to be ‘hot’ (passionate) and something goes askew.
It’s our appearance that lets us down. Vegans should of course feel utterly safe - why be nervous in ‘outside interactions? When we go up against the ‘big-bad-world’, face some opposition, face some curly questions, how do we handle it? How do we come across? Maybe we’re happy just to come across as peace-niks. Yes, even when that sounds a bit 1950s. ‘Peace’, afterall, is a timeless tag which never goes out of fashion.
In this one (obvious) way this is what veganism is about - a simple non-violent boycott and highly effective if many join in. Commodity-wise, the greatest act of violence is where we exert power – where we spend our money. Imagine, in the grocery, no one is watching, we can spend on whatever we please. If that support violence then our decision, at that ‘private point’, needs to be changed.
Certainly vegans can’t be accused of violence at this point; our stance here, mainly in regard to food, is that where there’s no replacement product we do without. For vegans that ‘do-without’ decision (rather than compromise our no-touch-animal principle) relates mainly to animal foods. We don’t do them. But it’s to do with other commodities too, because of what they contain.
I know an 18 years old (very attractive female), very into only vegan food, but she’s stuck on shoes. She loves shoes. What woman doesn’t? But there isn’t any alternative to leather fashion shoes. Here’s where she may want to NOT touch but touch them she does, by buying leather shoes (referred to as an ‘animal co-product’ since it is economically on a par with the food part of the animals).
Why does my ‘vegan’ friend wear leather on her feet? Maybe it’s the fear of social suicide - a beautiful dress, a magnificent everything else and it all falls to pieces if she wears canvas foot apparel.
Of course this usually isn’t so much of a problem for men, well not for me certainly but then I’m not 18 and not dating. And of course it doesn’t matter eventually because as soon as business opportunities appear for a different line of shoe, then a whole range of magnificent plant-based footwear will suddenly appear … and at competitive prices. The Chinese might be doing it already and can do not just because of lower labour costs but because plant fabric is cheaper. The world is moving towards cutting unnecessary costs by ‘going-plant’. It’s going that way and fashion will shift towards both non-animal foods and fabrics. However it all depends where we spend our money. If you join the boycott and sponsor alternatives, fashion changes. And it’s the fashion market which determines whether we get shoes, namely a switch over to the plant-based variety.
But back to my friend. She’s facing the compromise and tying her hands. It must be annoying to her that she can’t actively promote vegan principle or Animal Rights. Therefore, it has to be said, the peace initiative is in everything we eat or wear or think and a central tenet of vegan lifestyle and attitude.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Force
Experimenting with the use of force – we’ve all done it - experimenting with advantage-taking. But once we take out the ‘force factor’ in what we do, what are we left with? Perhaps we’re nicer for it if only because we’ve decided to try to free ourselves from the grip of violence-based habits.
As humans we’re capable of wonderful things, not the least of which is our ability to ‘act on principle’ rather than from ‘me-first’. One such principle is non-violence. We can weigh the pros and cons and decide: the weighing process looks at the obvious disadvantages and benefits. And it sees, as one of the most attractive aspects of non-violence, that people who are seem to be more tolerant and more accepting, without being too passive. Within non-violence is a provocateur spirit.
This element of rebellion or provoking or questioning is needs to use no violence other than gently taking the piss out of omnivores for being … well, omnivore. Surely this approach must be about the healthiest element in Society, “keeping the bastards honest”. Vegans are most effective, I think, when they are being simultaneously passive and pro-active, just as they are when they boycott.
The boycott is a withdrawal from a world-that-need-not-be. Our pressure as vegans brings this world into focus. It looks seditious, rebellious and almost outrageous. The vegan act of rebellion needs no other energy than in the fun of being rebellious.
So, morality to one side for a moment, this active acceptance attitude that many vegans consciously try to practise, is basically proving to the world that force is ugly and compassion is the new fashion; you can live very happily being a boycotter of violence. Omnivores believe it’s probably too hard to do, to become vegan, but then that has been planted as part of the conspiracy of misinformation put out by The Animal Industries.
As humans we’re capable of wonderful things, not the least of which is our ability to ‘act on principle’ rather than from ‘me-first’. One such principle is non-violence. We can weigh the pros and cons and decide: the weighing process looks at the obvious disadvantages and benefits. And it sees, as one of the most attractive aspects of non-violence, that people who are seem to be more tolerant and more accepting, without being too passive. Within non-violence is a provocateur spirit.
This element of rebellion or provoking or questioning is needs to use no violence other than gently taking the piss out of omnivores for being … well, omnivore. Surely this approach must be about the healthiest element in Society, “keeping the bastards honest”. Vegans are most effective, I think, when they are being simultaneously passive and pro-active, just as they are when they boycott.
The boycott is a withdrawal from a world-that-need-not-be. Our pressure as vegans brings this world into focus. It looks seditious, rebellious and almost outrageous. The vegan act of rebellion needs no other energy than in the fun of being rebellious.
So, morality to one side for a moment, this active acceptance attitude that many vegans consciously try to practise, is basically proving to the world that force is ugly and compassion is the new fashion; you can live very happily being a boycotter of violence. Omnivores believe it’s probably too hard to do, to become vegan, but then that has been planted as part of the conspiracy of misinformation put out by The Animal Industries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)