Dealing with Opposition

1250: 

      

If we are ever in doubt we find some certainty in instinct.  Somewhere deep in our psyche, instinct confirms our decisions so that we feel safer.  In return we use instinct again to keep us on an even keel and avoid being violent.  We live in peace, but another force in us, that dares us forward, urges us to explore the unknown, to get into self-discovery.

Animal Rights and Animal Liberation is all about that.  Instinct tells us that we should be working on a central principle, the need for freedom, for ourselves and therefore for others too, human and non-human.  And because it’s so obviously right, that slavery is so obviously wrong, we draw strength from within to defend the need to liberate, to end slavery.  And if others don't agree, then that instinctive strength prevents our becoming hypersensitive to criticism.  However ugly people's responses are to what we say, we know that it never matches the ugliness of what we’ve seen, hidden, in the animal gulags.

But instinct also has a way of detaching us from the real world, and we need to keep our feet on the ground.  So, if I have found out something important, it doesn’t mean anyone else wants me preaching to them about it.  They have the right to be left in peace.  So, we need to find ways of respecting that before we ever get to the point of pushing our point of view.  If someone can arrive at the same conclusion as we have, of their own free will, then they can move on at their own pace, and not be held back by their resentment of being preached-at. 

Exploding some more Myths

1249: 

The myth that it is safe to eat meat is attractive.  In contrast, the vegan message isn’t so attractive.  But the capacity of younger people to make casual segues into what, to my generation, might be radical changes to  lifestyle, is remarkable.  But if the young are more able to swing into such changes, it doesn't always follow that they'll maintain that change.  They may not realise at the time just how much changing they might have to do.  Certainly, they need to know what vegan principle is all about, and find out what is true and what is myth.

Some favourite myths must be exploded. The first would be that meat, and therefore animal farming, is essential for human survival.  That statement is certainly worth talking about, and I'd cite nutritional studies which show that not to be the case.   

Another myth might concern the efficacy of prescription drugs and supplements, and their popularity as shown by the number of chemist shops on Main Street. This myth is fuelled by the number of people after a chemical cure-all, or their need for alleviation of chronic health conditions. Their focus on self-cure leads people to believe that it’s okay to test drugs on animals, because it’s the only way to have safe pharmaceuticals and therefore a safe life.  

Another myth might be that unless we have animals living as our dependents, that we’ll be lonely. Stemming from that myth, we find that we sentence dogs and cats to a life of social isolation and loneliness.  Dogs especially suffer, and I hear them yowling in houses in the city, imprisoned and lonely and often confined to the indoors, while their humans are away for many long hours. And this is all about human comfort - humans ‘lighting up’ when they feel simpatico with their dog or cat. (Does the animal have that same ‘light up’?  We’ll never know.  But the thrills of animal-human relationship are certainly experienced by humans).  ‘Pets’ are a great source of comfort to us.  But what is this?  Isn’t it really all about how we humans put our own welfare above the comfort of the animal?  We can't on any account allow ourselves to be lonely!

People are so locked into these sorts of beliefs, but they are based on myth.  Vegans show a different view of 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 win public support, but each ‎‘yes’ means animals will suffer because of that ‘exception’, that “yes”, that myth.

The Importance of Rights for Animals

1248: 

Human convenience is a powerful instinct.  How many of us could 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 seem to be a mighty strong principle one is espousing, that denies us so many wonderful conveniences.

         

It all comes back to lifestyle and what we’ve grown used to.  Moving towards liberating animals would be inconvenient, but freeing children or freeing any slave from their master was once thought to be unrealistic. Freeing humans from slavery is no different from liberating animals from humans.  It’s so typical of human bias and prejudice, that we have a horror of humans being slaves but not animals being slaves.  It’s a bit like our Western horror at eating dogs put up against our excitement at eating sheep.

         

Having said that, about freeing animals, I acknowledge the danger of our being overrun by them - we’ve bred vast herds and flocks of creatures, and for our own safety we would have to curtail their breeding until their numbers substantially diminished.  But there’s a question of their safety.  These are mutated creatures, warped by humans interfering in genes and immune systems. Domesticated animals, freed from farms, would have to be protected from Nature and predation - they couldn’t survive in the wild.

         

But bearing that in mind, and realising that when these changes are being made they’ll happen slowly, there’s still going to be money involved. There will be a sanctuary-building bill to pay.  But that’s some way off, and it comes when there’s been a substantial change of attitude towards animals in our care. What is appropriate, for these early days, is that the concept of Animal Rights needs to be promoted vigorously.  It’s the principle of the thing which people need to get their heads around.  If we trim it to make it more acceptable there won’t be nearly enough momentum to achieve any sort of rights for animals, and the whole horror story will only continue and get worse. 

The Principle of No-Animal-Use

1247:

Many years ago, if a child came from a poor family that child would be put to work, to help the family eat.  Later, there were protests, and laws were made to protect working children, arguing that children should not be working.  But if they didn’t, their families would starve.  This exact problem still exists in many parts of the world today, where kids are working as little more than slaves. 

We, where this sort of slavery isn’t evident, can’t understand how it could be.  But we need to understand what enslavement signifies.  In the West, it’s not so much a problem of human slavery or child slavery but the enslavement of domesticated animals that’s so ugly.  But, we’re safe to do this, since animals don’t rebel.  They’ve been made so docile that liberation-wise they don’t stand a chance.  Animals are helpless to fight their situation, and they’ll continue to be slaves until enough of the enslavers change their attitudes.  But is it likely?  Will enough humans stand up for them?  Will we protect domesticated animals and give them sanctuary, with the aim of returning their species to the wild?  Animal liberationists want animals to be free.  But freedom is not welfare.  While the idea of ‘animal welfare’ looks good, it’s usually a feel-good, partial respect for animals.  Now, vegans might be particularly sensitive to freedom, so our ‘fighting for the animals’ means more than just campaigning for better prison conditions for them.

         

What does ‘no-animal-use’ mean?  To most of us, it means doing without hundreds of commercial products and constantly making ethical choices about what food we'll eat, clothing we’ll wear and toiletries we'll use.  The avoidance-list is a long one, and includes everything from not patronising horse racing, not visiting zoos, and avoiding buying meat, cheese and fish.  That’s one huge shift away from an omnivore lifestyle product list, but imagine the suffering we cause, with even one decision to exclude anything from that list.

If any group dared to promote a comprehensive avoidance policy, they could reckon on alienating just about everybody, and ending up with no support at all.  So animal groups tend to favour a more pragmatic course.  They target the worst abuses and leave ‘the preposterous idea of no-use-of-animals’ well alone.  They want to be seen to be doing something worthwhile.  They don’t want to be mistaken for radical abolitionists.

How easily we lose sight of ideals when we engage in ‘sensible compromise’.

         

Amongst animal activists and environmentalists, faith in our own abilities to transform Society is low.  Set this against our own great need for recognition from one another, and there’ll have to be a fair bit of watering-down done.  And that’s probably why so few people support true animal rights. 

If indeed the animals themselves had a voice and could vote on what rights they most wanted, number one would be for protection from being used by humans, in any way whatsoever.  Thank goodness animals are voiceless!

Those people who don’t advocate for animals, who eat and wear animal body parts without a second thought, can’t be expected to legislate to protect the animals, since they are so useful.  Humans won’t pass laws forcing ourselves to leave animals alone, for at the end of the day, we look after our own interests.  With docile domesticated animals we’re safe, since they can’t stand up for themselves.

This is why vegans are their advocates, and why only vegans can BE their advocates.

Exploding myths

256: 

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.  (Doesn’t sound too patronising?)

I like to think I take people as they are, even if they don’t want to listen to what I have to say.  So, for vegans, whatever it IS that we want to say mustn’t be full of anger and frustration.  Nor can we afford to be thinking aggressive thoughts towards someone who's being speciesist, or even being plain offensive.  This is not an ego dance we’re engaged in here, but a performance which must accept whatever the audience offers.

That performance, the script, the words I use point to one main thing – the breaking of myths.  We need to show people the extent to which they’ve been mind-manipulated.  There are so many comfortable myths, wrapped in morals, like this one: That it is okay to make use of animals just as long as we love them. Put this way it looks like nonsense, but it is attractive nonsense.   And it becomes a myth.

Self-Confidence

1245: Posted Friday 2nd January

Edited by CJ Tointon

Each one of us, who is free to follow the Abolitionist approach and who lives according to the "non-use-of-animals" rule, must build a certain sort of self-confidence.  When addressing others on this tricky subject, we must be knowledgable and show a determination to educate, but we must also enjoy ourselves while doing it. 

This is the sort of confidence abolitionists must have and it's probably only possible if we know the other person is comfortable with the discussion.  Good communication skills are needed.  However much you and I disagree on these serious matters, we must still be able to pass muster with each other and maintain mutual respect without any hint of hectoring.

If you know exactly where you stand on such matters as the "non-use-of-animals", then your manner can remain calm and unthreatening.  You’d use the same manner if you were teaching a child to read.   By doing it softly.  Perhaps slowly.  With endless patience.  But with the assurance that they’ll get it - eventually.

With the concept of "Animal Rights", we are bringing others around to an entirely new attitude in which there is no using-of-animals.  We are letting them into a world that’s obvious to us, but very foreign to them.

The big difference between teacher and child is that one can read and the other can't - yet.  It's not much different for seasoned vegans.  We can 'read' already and they can’t - yet.  They might never have given  much thought to the connection between ethics and animals.  For most people, veganism is nothing more than a health issue.

Enter the 'ethics' mob.  As a vegan, I must appear as just an ordinary person who you might casually get to know.   I must be known to you as 'OK' (reasonable, fair minded, not likely be the hectoring type) and then I stand a chance.  The omnivore might listen, perhaps out of politeness, perhaps out of curiosity, but hopefully without any fear.  My aim (before I even open my mouth) would be to try to establish that I am this sort of person.  And then (if I get the chance) I need to be clear about where I stand so, my arguments can be fully and freely discussed.  First and foremost, vegans must be believable. Others must know that we speak from experience and perhaps with some authority.  This means that what we say must be spoken truly and confidently, otherwise we'll just make them nervous and they'll want to walk away.

What if a person looks to animal advocates/activists for a lead but finds that no one can pass muster?   

What if every vegan they meet is a hector?  Then they wouldn't feel comfortable talking to any Vegans.  This leaves them out in the cold, but it also lets them off the hook, making it easier for them to return to business-as-usual. 

In this unfair world, perhaps it’s not very fair on us. Nevertheless, as activists, we have to be squeaky clean.  No dodgy areas, otherwise we crumble or we’re 'seen through'.  Now, you might say that if we have any double standards at all (and we all have our own double standards) we must be prepared to own up to them or justify them.  If we don’t, we may be shown up.  In other words, if we won't do this properly, we can't expect others to.

Admittedly, the principles of veganism are very high, but they need to be.  They have to withstand a whole society that's into a massive routine of  "animal attack"!  Veganism seems to adopt high principles if only because our species has stooped so low.  We have, over many generations, become nothing short of 'slave-masters'.  Perhaps in the earlier stages of human development there was some justification for corralling and killing animals, because they were thought to be nutritionally essential for our survival.  But for a long time, Science has upended that idea.  We are more knowledgeable today.  But the purpose of knowledge is to act on it, not ignore it.  We now know that the high animal protein content of our food in the majority diet, is not only non-essential but positively harmful to human health.

Before anything else can move on for us as a species, we have to admit that we're a mutated species, prone to violence.  If we want to restore our true nature, if we want to develop, we must face up to the inconvenience of living according to the non-violent principle. That means living as ethically as possible.  And vegan living is the obvious start.  Every other way involves violence.  There are no caveats or exceptions available.  There's just no other way around the ethical mess we've created for ourselves;  not to mention the ill health everywhere.  In the bigger picture, projected ahead, we can surely see our own amazingly intelligent species transforming, adapting to being less cruel and callous.  But for that to happen, there needs to be consensus.  We minorities have to be strong and romantic, for in the end, the majority must be wooed.  We must aim at a lot of people 'falling in love' with the idea, or at least becoming convinced about the no-use-animal principle.

Without this 'love affair', there won't be enough momentum for the message of non-violence to be heard over the din of speciesism and racism and a thousand other 'isms'. 
There's really only ONE attitude to be changed!  Put simply:  Address the problem of animal-use as if you're seeing them as co-sentient, sovereign individuals, as irreplaceable as we are.

All Animals are Individual and Irreplaceable

1244: 

There are many issues competing for public attention today - global warming, environment, hunger, ethics - and each is significant, and any one of them shouldn’t be sidelined.  But it’s because ‘animal rights’ HAS been sidelined, things need evening-up.

There is this key attitude, affecting all of us - the routine way we make use of animals and think it's all-okay.  As soon as we make that a central attitude change, we’ll stop being brutes and start being civilised.  And with that transition, problems will start to appear far less intractable.  Even the Goliath of animal-abuse is approachable when you're with others and can work with them for repair.  Being around sensitive people with our consciences in sync, aligned similarly.  It's optimism-producing.

Apart from knocking around with much more gently-disposed animal activists, there’s a personal bonus, of relatively good health - allowing us to work hard without suffering all those tedious chronic conditions that plague omnivores.  With good company and moderately healthy bodies, we can enjoy helping to transform our total environment back to its less damaged state.

I think animal advocates should, as their first priority, aim at attitude - if that doesn't change nothing else can.  Attitudes concerning animals lock one into impossible confusion.  As it stands at present, there are many (even vegan)‘simpaticos’ who, nevertheless, find themselves between a rock and a hard place.  They love animals, and show it by the way they treat their dogs and cats.  They show it by not-eating animals.  But their love of animals leads them to becoming rescuers and then ‘owners’ of animals and therefore purchasers of meat.  If not for themselves, then at their behest, they are unwilling supporters of the Animal Industry.  In other words, they can’t support the idea of abolition.

 Unless we address ALL the issues concerning animal-use and abuse, there are too many inconsistencies.  We look almost-sure of our arguments, but never completely convincing because there are too many double standards.  The Animal Rights Movement doesn’t seem to be picking up speed.  Perhaps we are fiddling at the edges of the animal-use problem, for fear of it showing us something too deep to handle.  We know about ‘abolition’ but aren’t yet sure if there can be any exceptions.  In other words, most people, vegan or not, are not free enough to stand behind the Abolitionist cause.