‘Vee-ghn’

516:


Are you put off by holier-than-thou people? I bet you are. Vegans might seem so. It isn’t a nice-sounding name, ‘vee-ghn’. It sounds almost ugly. It’s too easy to mispronounce (often deliberately – getting it wrong to show how unimportant it is for you). But does it matter? By now, most people know what it’s about – animals, lifestyle, food, ethics. For some the idea of it is a thorn in their side. It stands like a brick wall between the old and the new, between a life-spoiling idea and a life-saving idea.

On first hearing about it, it doesn’t sound credible. The omnivore sees it as a threat to safety and happiness, whereas for an established vegan it’s probably been the best thing we’ve ever done for our self. Omnivores often feel hostile to us promoting it the way we do. Vegans have to get used to that. If we don’t we become bitter and enraged. And that brings up one of the most interesting features of any new-thinking.

It involves ideas and their application but, at the same time, deals with perspectives and patience . For us, veganism is a long term solution to many things. And there’s such a level of reluctance for anything long-term that short-term usually wins out. To push long-term solutions is seen to be confrontational (especially when it deals with a moral matter).

As soon as we confront we act defensively and then aggressively. No one wants to be on the losing side and yet no one wants to take risks. Vegans are often seen as hypocrites because we say we are peace-lovers but we’re quick to accuse and confront. Each side will resort to attack to win.

It’s a case of rebels versus suckers, or any opposing names we can think of, to create an atmosphere ripe for a quarrel. Whereas no one really wants a quarrel, no one wants to be marked down as ‘wrong’. Both sides are determined to be ‘right’.

A vegan’s radical and idealistic expectations are based on being right. We think that’s good enough for converting omnivores, to show we care for them more than they care for us. Perhaps it seems this way, that we care about something other than our selves. Veganism is about care, certainly, but the reason it doesn’t show up the other way round is that omnivores aren’t out there trying to convert us back to the fold. So they seem not to care for us as we do for them.

Since vegans are the initiators in this debate (over animal use) we have to learn how to handle the sluggishness of people. We need to develop patience in the face of short-term thinking. We need to be thinking long-term and fixing on how things are going to be. We certainly have motivational problems, in the absence of any sort of reward or recognition from our society. And then the conduct of our campaigns has to be right too. We’re the one initiating debate so we have to be the ones setting the standards. There’s a lot to deal with, being a peace-lover. And yet peace is at the heart of everything a vegan says, eats and thinks. If it isn’t we have no credibility at all.

Once the quarrelsome element is taken out of the picture then a proper, adult discussion is a possibility. When there’s no simmering threat on either side we can each trade theories and move towards some sort of consensus. Or at least show mutual respect for a difference of opinion, even when it’s as important as this particular difference of opinion.

The impact of what we say

515:



As an animal advocate, I try never to get nasty or insistent. The seriousness of the (animal) issue isn’t necessarily shared by everyone, so I keep the serious details tucked up my sleeve, in reserve. However, it’s the details that are important and it’s these details people don’t know about. Or say they don’t.

If I do get the chance to say something, what can I mention? There’s so much to say but it’s a matter of timing - the more impact we make the greater the risk of shocking, and then being totally rejected.

But if I ever do get to the details, here are three areas I think are worth expanding on:

Sentience - there’s a similarity between humans and animals, in the way we each feel and suffer pain. Even fish have a similar nervous system to ours, so when they are dragged out of their water-world and left to suffocate, they’re often crushed to death by the weight of other fish, piled on top of them. Ordinarily, fish suffocate in the air over a period of twenty minutes, a detail lost on most anglers. Whether creatures die on decks of boats or in abattoirs, every one of them suffers a terrible death. Each of us (who eat them) plays our part in these deaths. The ultimate detail is held in just one number – 250 – the number of animals each person consumes in one year.

The next set of details I’d mention would concern the long-term health effects of ingesting animal products. The foods and chemicals fed to farm animals together with the fatty, high protein content of the food itself, makes it unsafe, health-wise. The Animal Industries wouldn’t agree, of course.

The environmental impact of animal farming is the final matter to be spelt out in detail, with many compelling arguments for not farming animals, on this score alone.

For obvious reasons, none of this is talked about. My polished ‘details’ are usually surplus to requirement; clouds of obfuscation wash over this subject; none of the important details ever get discussed. And I think that all this reluctance represents something even worse, a social taboo. By not allowing free discussion and by pretending the problem doesn’t exist, we lose one of our most valued freedoms – free-speech. You and I might disagree about Animal Rights but if we can’t discuss it we have a much bigger problem on our hands. If we aren’t free to learn new things or talk about certain things what does that say about us? If we’re silent on this subject we are voiceless, just as the animals are. And that’s most embarrassing, to stay quiet when we should be exercising our freedom to speak out.

Our animal slaves on the farms have no freedom. I think that needs to be talked about, objected to and protested. We’ve taken their lives away from them so they have no purpose for living.

While animals can’t do anything about their loss of freedom, we humans can, since we have freedom of thought. But even for a free-thinking vegan, how much right do I have to speak freely? As yet, not much right since this subject is off-limits. I’m expected to skim over the surface but never to touch on any significant details. I can’t get ‘down to it’ with omnivores because I know how touchy this whole matter is for them.

Out of interest

514:



Aggressive vegans like me, don’t do ourselves or the Animal Rights Movement any favours, by force-feeding facts to people who don’t want them. You can never be sure if it’s necessary anyway. Most people are aware, essentially, of ‘animal issues’. However, they choose not to let on; or they do realise but still eat animal-based foods anyway; or they get irritated by being lectured at (because they think that I don’t know what I’m talking about). Because I’ve lit fires under tender spots their irritation is in the form of non-recognition of me, as any sort of authority. I say, “Meat will kill you”. And “Oh yes?” they say.

We vegans often do adopt an authoritativeness in our voices. How do we know we’re right? For me that’s not such a serious question, but often I don’t get as far as that anyway, to explain anything in detail, because I’m not allowed. And that triggers maybe aggression in me. I’m rebuffed. So I step over the politeness-boundary and try to persuade. At this point a hand is raised, “Stop. I’ve heard it all before”. They forestall me, afraid I’ll become emotional. Or irrational. Or predictable.

With people I know, it’s often not the first time I’ve brought up the subject. And it’s not the first time I’ve seemed to be an authority or rubbed guilt in like an emotional blackmailer. You have every right to stop me speaking.

If you do let me speak, maybe you aren’t wanting to discourage me, or you’re trying to show respect for where I’m coming from, by not belittling my beliefs? In this interplay of human-to-human I’ll take my chances where I can find them.

All I can do is try NOT to be predictable. And not to go for the jugular. What I can do is show an easy familiarity with my subject.

I was thinking today about this. I wondered about the least unfriendly way to open up this subject, knowing that discussing it wouldn’t be a first choice for most people.

Say we were discussing another subject - ‘the kids’ recent bad behaviour. How easy I could relate almost any bad behaviour back to overeating, violence or frustration on the part of the child ... and then to bring up the matter of ‘giving kids the best opportunities in life’; giving them something to work for; giving them the best energy; giving them a great body image. All of this, I can suggest, is in vegan food and vegan philosophy. I can drive almost any conversation around to these entry points. But should I?

I probably have done this. And because I have then I’m probably predictable. Your defences go up when I show my face. Quite frankly, if I were you mine would too. I’d avoid me.

So what can any of us (Animal Rights advocates) do to sidestep the predictability of our persona, always steering things towards this pet subject?

I don’t know if it works but I attempt to be half entertaining and half educating. I think most people respond quite well to that. I attempt to be useful but most of all interesting. But even so, this subject is automatically a killer-of-interest. Anything predictable is a dud, interest-wise.

But if I can somehow seduce you into interest, then I can best hold it by keeping you on the edge of your seat, keeping you guessing what’s coming next, or rather what question you might be thinking of asking me next.

I’m very conscious of you hoping for an escape clause, to stem the guilt factor. You know I know you’re poisoning yourself and hurting animals in the process, and for that you’ll guess I’ll want to attack you. So this is where I head, first up - “Please don’t turn information into accusation”. “Take the bare facts on board. Take them away and think about them”. My only aim is to be clear. And I hope on that score that I’m never unclear about where I’m coming from.

Presentation – I try to keep a quietened-down face and keep all shrill tones out of my voice. If you see I mean no harm, it’s likely you’ll feel free to be yourself.

To me there’s no difference between cats and humans, I act like this with a cat in the hope of winning its trust and affection (it’s the same with humans showing their feelings), and when I do, it’s at this point where true dialogue begins.

This is what I want to do. I want to light up the truth. (And, don’t we all?) I especially want to discover what interests you. And that’s not going to be easy, necessarily, especially if it doesn’t seem relevant to this ‘animal’ subject. I’ve no talent for this, so when you like football I can’t connect that to the ‘compassionate arts’,. And I can’t chat on about inconsequentialities anyway or spend time luring you towards that which is of zero interest, when there are so many profound things to talk through.

But if I can catch your interest, then it’s down to me to hold your interest (and very, very importantly, to notice if it wanes). And then talk about anything but this subject.

If it were me listening to you talking, about Animal Rights, veganism, liberation, etc, my suspicions are there by my side. I am always waiting for your barb. So, if I’m talking to you about this subject, my first aim is to assure you I HAVE NO BARB.

But that aside, and back to YOU talking to me, chucking the vegan spiel at me, and with me listening. I know you’re going to embarrass me. You’ll launch into ‘virtuous diets’ and ‘the guiltless conscience’. Whilst I’ll be saying, “Hang on” and “Watch your manners”. I first want to know who you are, and who this person is who’s talking to me about all this heavy stuff.

My own pretence to hail-fellow-well-met is seen through easily. Religious zealots do it. They start off in soft chat and then, out of the blue, they introduce ‘The Lord’. Suddenly casual has turned into ‘deep and meaningful’. Do I want to be here? Listening to a vegan talking Animal Rights, you’ll at least be wonder if you can handle this.

First up then, if I’m conversing with you, I want it to be known that I’m not a shyster, that you’ll be wasting your time listening to me. If you think I’m fair dinkum there’s a better chance you’ll listen. Out of interest.

The vegan facilitator

513:



I want to know how I’m seen by others and I want to know, from me, if others are seen by me in a non-judgemental way. If a vegan is to be a role model they must set pretty high standards. It’s because we’re setting the example (over food and clothing) and because we’re the ones wanting to initiate debate, then it’s entirely down to us to take intelligent initiatives.

First-up I know for myself I have to get over the superiority thing - I mustn’t, even for one instant, consider myself better than anyone else. If I do, it shows.

Life is not a competition, I’m sure of that. I’m a vegan, that’s all. Big deal. In many ways each of us shines and we all have lists of embarrassing faults. Our virtues and faults roughly match anyone else’s. When all’s said and done (and when all the brownie points have been added up) none of us can afford to feel ‘above’ anyone else.

Even with the best arguments in the world (and of course vegans have the Rolls Royce of all arguments!) we shouldn’t flaunt any advantage. Shouldn’t it all be an egalitarian business, not being competitive, life not having to be ME versus YOU.

I certainly know everything is not about ‘me’. Nor about me persuading you or provoking fights. For my part I’d only ever want to try to encourage you to crank up your brain cells. I might even like to touch your heart. Everything is really about you. My concern for you is confined to a wish that you begin to take ‘animal-issues’ seriously. I personally only want to facilitate discussion not to convert.

You do it, so shall I

512:


In the face of greatly differing views, we each seem implacable; vegans are ‘in judgement’ of non-vegans and they are in judgement of us, for whatever reasons. We have fixed views of each other and, today, perception rules, so views stay fixed.

In all matters of food, omnivores support the status quo, and more or less have to; they fear stepping into the dangerous waters of boycotting things … which leads to a huge daily inconvenience. “Where does it all stop?”

Omnivores are not far wrong – it is inconvenient trying to be consistent all the time, about what and what-not to boycott. But of course it gets easier as time goes on. But that’s not how it’s perceived by non-vegans. For them it all sounds too difficult to even contemplate.

By the time we’re adults we’re used to life and decision-making; we know life’s a matter of fitting-in; if we don’t fit in with the way others do things we’re soon enough cast out by them (often, in the nicest possible way). We’re benignly regarded as being slightly too whacky to be taken seriously. “They take things too far”

It’s evident, to most people, that vegans want to alter things in a quite incredible way. It’s likely we’re people who deny others the simple pleasures of life. “You can’t talk to a vegan”. We’re seen to be obstinate to common sense. To non-vegans we’re the ones who “just don’t get it” – “I mean, how can you object to cheese, when it’s something so familiar to daily life? What’s so wrong about a cheesy pizza or a quiche?”

That’s the accepted line, and it’s based on a flimsy perception!

So, for starters, vegans need to point out (if we ever get the chance to open our mouths) that the collective consciousness, regarding animal food, is based on an ill-informed or misinformed perception of vegan-thing and the herbivorous-diet. Ultimately, it’s down to us, as vegans, to better inform people.

But not to frighten them. That’s the tricky bit. It’s always my intention to research the connection between animal products and ill health. If any questions are going to be asked, this is where they’ll start. But not to dwell too long here - it’s so easy for people like me to scare the bejesus out of people, to get them to go vegan. My telling my friends they’re all going to die horrible deaths isn’t such a good idea. However I know I must know the vital stuff, about ‘the connections’ and about basic nutrition, even if I don’t actually get to mention it.

This connection between eating animal protein and contracting heart disease, cancer, diabetes, poor circulation, loss of leg power and (with the worry of all this) dementia, is the nuclear arsenal of our arguments. I think we should lock it safely in a cupboard and use the material sparingly.

Instead of a fear-impelled change I’d rather see some energy going into perception-eering. I prefer to see myself (and my fellow vegans) looking for useful clues on how our omnivore friends perceive things; how we trick ourselves into seeing what isn’t there; and how we appease our taste buds to ease our addiction-worries. I want to understand how some humans take up great ideas which others push away. And instead of speaking with ‘vegan fire’, I want first to learn why some people with brains think for themselves and why others with equally good brains hardly think at all, about important issues; nor act at all.

I imagine the more insecure one is the more one wants to fit in. It’s almost primal complying with fashion - “Because you do it, so shall I”.

Food

512a
Food comes from supermarkets – grapes, potatoes, apples, lemons, oranges, excellent. The trolley is filling already. In the next aisle are the cheese-ball crisps, to keep the kids happy. And in the next aisle is the rich food, to keep the grown-ups happy. Especially welcome is the time-saver, the ready-to-go cardboard dinner.

I’m over in England at the moment, and I was in a supermarket the other day, which had about fifty metres of coolers ranged down the whole side of one wall. They were full of every conceivable combination of meaty, shove-‘em-in-the-microwave‘ meals. They obviously sell well.

You’d think humans would be after the best fuel, not the very worst. The food most people eat seems like a death wish. And you’d think we’d look after our magnificent machinery, and feed it the lightest, most easily digestible foods, not heavy stomach-fillers full of sugar and fat. Fast food is surely slowing-down food.

The Animal Industry produces all this heavy, clunking fuel, full of animal protein. Am I going too far to suggest ‘conspiracy’ here? Is it a plan to poison people whilst, at the same time, taking money from their pockets? Isn’t this like the dairy-farmer’s attitude to dairy cows – humans being subjected to a keep-em-alive, -milk-em-dry and -keep-em-dull policy?

Everyday we’re bombarded with junk food – we can’t avoid it. We accept the situation because shops have little else to offer. We stay silent. No one acknowledges that animal foods are dangerous or, by extension, acknowledges the holocaust of cruelty inflicted on them every day: and it all happens so that we can consume junk food whilst feeling no shame for the animals going under the knife.

That’s what humans do today, en masse. They kill. It’s happening all the time, now, yesterday, tomorrow, all day, every day, everywhere in the world. In a nutshell, as long as ethics are threadbare and our minds remain weakened (bodies poisoned, etc), the Animal Industries will continue to have a field day. They are not devoted to our welfare but to the making of profit and the poisoning of everything they touch.

So, what to do about it?

My life’s busy. I’m always in a hurry. I’m wasteful. Life’s stressful. I haven’t got time to contemplate ethics. It’s much easier to comply with A.I.

But vegans won’t comply. They look first to ethics. They don’t like what they see. They decide to eat ethically, thence to live ethgically.

Now, you might see ethics as a threadbare garment, unlikely to keep you warm. I regard ethics as a contract I sign, as a condition for entry into human existence. Maybe signing contracts is beyond me when I start life, so I have to wear my elders’ threadbare coat. It’s all I have for survival. But as I grew up I acquired my own coat, a new ‘inner wrapping’, to keep me warm. Almost warm but, in a way, much warmer than I’ve been before. So, the question is - warm enough in what way?

As a vegan I need plenty of motivation, just to survive in a cold, hard omnivore world. So, plenty of warmth I need. And that’s where ethics and passion and resolve combine, to keep me warm in a violence-addicted world (I mean, in human society).

For those who aren’t yet vegan, perhaps ‘warmth’ means something else. Anyway, your temperatures are already quite comfortable – there’s no disassociation to deal with, or any ‘fighting of Society’s values’. The moral values of our society might be taken for granted, and so ‘warmth’ might mean something different. Probably, for most people, it means getting more personal satisfaction. Dysfunctionally, it means wanting ever more warmth to satisfy raging greed, discontent and insecurity - if my life isn’t satisfying enough I’ll want more of everything, insatiably. I won’t want to be questioning the propriety of things either. I’m a grown up now. As an independent cashed-up adult I can afford to have the stuff I’ve always wanted. If a few ethics stand in my way I’ll brush them aside. Not think twice, for if I did my ethics might start asking awkward questions. What we love about morality is that it doesn’t even bother to try to answer the curly questions.

Out of personal convenience we humans have invented an anthropocentric values system. It just about governs all of our daily lives. The downside is that it incorporates double-think. It says, on the one hand, that murder and stealing and lying are wrong but that in certain circumstances they’re okay. A double standard is applied to our fellow sentients in the animal kingdom. Every country in the world promotes this logic-shift, in order to guarantee food supply. (To a vegan a supply of un-essential food).

A supply of all this attractive-but-violent food which is animal-derived is the make or break of Society. Every society in the world ignores ethics when it comes to food. Every country has their own code of moral conduct and all are corrupted by double-think. Morals - these useful little chaps - have allowed people everywhere in the world, to do whatever they want to do, to animals. Everyone knows animals can’t fight back – it’s just too easy for gun-toting humans to exploit them. Each society issues ‘animal-harm licenses’, so that farmers and scientists won’t be afraid of prosecution under their Cruelty-to-Animals laws (if they have any). Each society formulates its own anthropocentric code, embodied in ‘The Establishment’. Bishops, imams, rabbis and elders enforce it. We ordinary people let these people ‘look after’ our morals, in order that we can forget our inborn ethical codes of conduct.

Blind obedience is a worry, less so in children, more so in adults. Our lame compliance with our Poisoning Compliancy Laws is sad enough, but it holds humans in passive sway. We stay weakened and let our outrage fade. People are so hooked on such little (material) things, that addiction and temptation ensures that everyone stays compliant. Specifically, it stops us wanting to protect the animals, who are currently on Death Row.

Animal Rights is urgent and radical, and it has to be because, now, our leaders are greedy, fat, ugly and duplicitous. Not all, of course, just too many.

The protection of animals has to start with a new moral understanding: that humans aren’t to be trusted near animals, any more than paedophiles near school playgrounds. We’ve sunk to these depths because we’ve been persuaded, by established moral codes, and complied. You must agree, surely, that we all deserve the reputation we’ve made for ourselves – the most dangerous animal on earth, the poisoners of the planet. And when it comes to those fellow sentient beings we like to eat, it seems we’ve reached an end-point in self-degradation, and we eat now mainly for psychological reasons. For pacification. And in consequence we’re getting fatter and older quicker. And still satisfaction isn’t reached.

And then perhaps we have to face up to something really nasty in all of us – our insatiable urge to experience every sort of satisfaction possible, in a vain quest for contentment. As violence-addicted humans, we aren’t content with killing animals and eating them, we set out to drive them insane before we eat them. And then we do lots of others things to ourselves and, in consequence, eventually drive ourselves crazy.

Of course the big fear, amongst the most well-informed and educated people is their own march towards eating more vegan food in the future. They reluctantly see the writing on the wall, and hopefully not too late.

67:

The toxic human

Humans are the great poisoners; We poison the land, the water, the animals and plenty more. We take without constraint, and always by force. So what’s new?

I would like to see vegan principle applied to animal farming, to end it altogether. There’s food aplenty from plants. It’s what humans are doing to ‘food’ animals, and all the waste of energy in producing food from animals that is so tragic. It has been estimated that by efficient farming of crops we could feed twice the population of this planet, and with no animals involved at all. That’s the route, as far as I can see, to a happy planet.

By becoming vegan we harm no animals – that attracted me completely. I found that once a plant-based food-regime was up and running I could see more clearly what I’d been doing; I realised how I’d been poisoning myself and, by extension, the land; I ate poor food made with poor food-production methods. I was gung ho about it all, and eventually the animal cruelty thing got to me. I acted, as other vegans have done, and the older I get the more thankful I am, that I didn’t stay on the poisoned road.

Once upon a time, I couldn’t go past a cake shop. And so, hundreds of products which, as a cashed-up adult, I could now indulge in, all had to go. In consequence I hope I still enjoy relatively good health.

Epidemiological studies show that ill health is closely linked to animal-based diets, especially when animal protein is indulged in. Today, there’s a high incidence of deadly diseases. Obesity is rampant, as is loss of mobility and heart problems. In fact many people live in fear of illness linked with their poor diet.

The attraction or addiction to so many animal-based foods is a worry – we all worry about what we stuff into our mouths each day. Most of us think about early death, and we fret about our weight and wrinkles. On top of that, there’s that ‘other weight’ on our mind: fear that we aren’t in control of our lives. Perhaps I know I must “give up things”, but I’m afraid I can’t.

Vegans generally don’t have to worry about putting on weight or ingesting too much junk. Thank-god it’s all off limits – I always pass cake shops now - maybe with a slight nostalgic glance at the window?

Vegan food is far lighter than omnivore food, but so what? If I look chunky or thin it’s just body image. And who cares, relatively speaking? I suggest that the real killer isn’t body but conscience. With shaky ethics there’s stress and guilt, and worry about overall mental health.

We have this brilliant machine, complex, subtle, sturdy, made to last a hundred years, and we do our best to break it down.



To be continued … next blog