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.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
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.
Standing upright in a me-first world
Saturday 26th June 2010
When we look into the “me-first” world, obviously food features. When it comes to food we are controlled largely by it. Our food habits haven’t been changed , maybe since childhood, because it might never have occurred to us to change them. Maybe it has occurred to us and we’ve turned away. Or maybe we did change, but not enough. Or maybe you’re vegan. The vital changes were made. You’re currently on track. In terms of food maybe you have sacrificed some of your me-first world to become vegan.
For vegans things do move on quickly. Once the food is established, you’re happy with it, feeling good, etc then maybe it’s time to move on. The cross roads are where veganism remains food-oriented or it branches off into activism. And then, if we actively advocate for animals, is our activism driven by the no-force principle?
Maybe, to take this matter up, is offensive not only to animal eaters but to many vegans as well. Because if our food is non-violent so should the thoughts our food helps to generate.
So, if we are NOT advocating non-violence how can vegans be useful to non-violent animals. It might sound bizzar but are the animals not in a superior state of mind and itn’t it our job to aspire to their incredible levels of peace and harmlessness?
So, if our veganism doesn’t aspire to non-violence then the question is why not?
To routinely practise non-violence in this violent world is quite a challenge. If we don’t attempt to be non-violent our bank balance might improve but our self-esteem won’t.
Probably most vegans feel on the outer sometimes, but they do have power in the form of a powerful feeling that comes from daring to defy authority. Vegans risk the danger of making a stand, on principle, even though it could be the hardest principle to stand up for.
When we look into the “me-first” world, obviously food features. When it comes to food we are controlled largely by it. Our food habits haven’t been changed , maybe since childhood, because it might never have occurred to us to change them. Maybe it has occurred to us and we’ve turned away. Or maybe we did change, but not enough. Or maybe you’re vegan. The vital changes were made. You’re currently on track. In terms of food maybe you have sacrificed some of your me-first world to become vegan.
For vegans things do move on quickly. Once the food is established, you’re happy with it, feeling good, etc then maybe it’s time to move on. The cross roads are where veganism remains food-oriented or it branches off into activism. And then, if we actively advocate for animals, is our activism driven by the no-force principle?
Maybe, to take this matter up, is offensive not only to animal eaters but to many vegans as well. Because if our food is non-violent so should the thoughts our food helps to generate.
So, if we are NOT advocating non-violence how can vegans be useful to non-violent animals. It might sound bizzar but are the animals not in a superior state of mind and itn’t it our job to aspire to their incredible levels of peace and harmlessness?
So, if our veganism doesn’t aspire to non-violence then the question is why not?
To routinely practise non-violence in this violent world is quite a challenge. If we don’t attempt to be non-violent our bank balance might improve but our self-esteem won’t.
Probably most vegans feel on the outer sometimes, but they do have power in the form of a powerful feeling that comes from daring to defy authority. Vegans risk the danger of making a stand, on principle, even though it could be the hardest principle to stand up for.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Hoodlum omnivores
Imagine the embarrassment in years to come, when we remember how we stood by for so long, participating in enslavement. This is no casual, accidentally picked up habit, this is daily repetition of the guilt and shame and loss we feel, not only in complicity to murder but, for heavens sake, in the eating of the poor creatures we have so sadly abused.
Today, when plant-based foods are known to be so perfect for us, the whole thing of farming and killing animals seems so obviously crazy. Vegans probably feel that the worst trouble for us is in reminding ourselves we live as fearlessly as we do amongst such a big bunch of hoodlums. These ‘hoodlum’, weird-habited humans comprise around 99% of all humans on the planet. They are locked into the ‘me-first’ attitude in so many important ways, the most dangerous of which is in their inability to see things from any other vantage point than their own.
Today, when plant-based foods are known to be so perfect for us, the whole thing of farming and killing animals seems so obviously crazy. Vegans probably feel that the worst trouble for us is in reminding ourselves we live as fearlessly as we do amongst such a big bunch of hoodlums. These ‘hoodlum’, weird-habited humans comprise around 99% of all humans on the planet. They are locked into the ‘me-first’ attitude in so many important ways, the most dangerous of which is in their inability to see things from any other vantage point than their own.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Breeding controls
Existing animals should have their lives restored by us. But certainly, we can’t allow the billions alive today to breed indiscriminately, since we need to have their numbers (whole populations in fact) drastically reduced and as quickly as possible. If we keep large numbers of animals alive and then let them breed without fertility control the cost would be enormous and ever increasing … and we know what happens … the more the number of ‘useful animals’ increases the more their dollar-earning potential will tempt the unscrupulous human. It’s always going to be a temptation for meat addicts to go back to animal farming, at a later date – most humans are not to be trusted around ‘useful’-animals any more than paedophiles can be trusted around ‘useful’ kids.
Without fertility control the animal-liberation-solution is absurd or at least untenable. Even as it is, the cost of caring for the present-existing, remaining animals could be an intolerable drain on society. But retiring the animals still alive today is probably a relatively minor problem in the greater scheme of things, since people do love being around animals. Any government would find many ‘potential animal refuge workers’ ready and willing (and probably for low wages) to volunteer to work at these animal retirement centres. The whereabouts of sanctuaries would fit in where animal farms left off, on land no longer used to farm animals.
The details, however, concerning reproduction, must include the possibility of denying the animals reproduction rights or in some way controlling birth rates. This is probably a difficult issue.
Free them we must. Our energy can’t be better used than in the work of dis-enslaving these presently farmed animals.
Without fertility control the animal-liberation-solution is absurd or at least untenable. Even as it is, the cost of caring for the present-existing, remaining animals could be an intolerable drain on society. But retiring the animals still alive today is probably a relatively minor problem in the greater scheme of things, since people do love being around animals. Any government would find many ‘potential animal refuge workers’ ready and willing (and probably for low wages) to volunteer to work at these animal retirement centres. The whereabouts of sanctuaries would fit in where animal farms left off, on land no longer used to farm animals.
The details, however, concerning reproduction, must include the possibility of denying the animals reproduction rights or in some way controlling birth rates. This is probably a difficult issue.
Free them we must. Our energy can’t be better used than in the work of dis-enslaving these presently farmed animals.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Animal Rights by law
Animals, especially when they’re around humans, certainly need their rights to be legislated. The story of domesticated animals and their offspring is all about loss, loss of dignity and loss of life. The only change they need is to win the right to live outside slavery. Needless to say, out of respect for them, we should atone, or at least leave them alone … but, as it happens we’ve done so much damage to them over the generations that we can’t simply liberate them. Now we also need to protect them. Domesticated animals wouldn’t be able to survive on their own. Importantly we owe them ‘safe passage’, to live out their lives in a sanctuary or refuge … retired in other words. At the very least they are entitled to an unmolested life.
Since we know that neither animal muscle tissue or animal by products are essential for a healthy life, there are no arguments left to support non-vegan living.
Since we know that neither animal muscle tissue or animal by products are essential for a healthy life, there are no arguments left to support non-vegan living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)