blog ending

BLOG ENDS (OR SPASMODIC) HERE TEMPORARILY, OVERSEAS TILL JULY

Chatting about animal rights

497: It’s a great privilege to have something original and significant to say, that others mightn’t have heard before. It’s also our responsibility not to be censorious since everything we might say can all too easily frighten people off. We need to weigh our words and not let them fall too heavily. It’s not necessary to speak in high, piercing tones or get hysterical about ‘saying it as we feel it’. Maybe under-stating our own feelings, being a little inscrutable, holding ourselves in the background as it were, makes it more difficult to be written off too soon. We need to keep them guessing, to keep them focused on what we’re saying. Getting ‘the message’ across successfully may mean that we have to downplay our own emotional involvement in the subject. Talking ‘vegan’ isn’t about converting omnivores, it’s surely about opening up discussion. It’s like a parent explaining the facts of life to a teenager - it’s a delicate matter, it’s potentially embarrassing … but the aim is surely to make sex easy to discuss. If Mum or Dad are easy to talk to then kids feel comfortable discussing the details that they’re actually interested in finding out about. It’s the same with Animal Rights, once there’s ease-of-talking then details can be dealt with along the way. If I’m ever allowed to speak by someone who is unafraid of being embarrassed, I know that they may listen … at least for a while. I don’t try to say everything, there and then, as if there’ll never be another chance. I don’t have to play all my best cards at once ... and it follows that there is a time to talk and a time not to talk. If I’m sensitive enough I can tell when someone’s had enough. If I respect their bravery for asking me some potentially embarrassing questions I don’t want to rub salt into any wounds, but most of all I want them to maintain their bravery and their curiosity.

Information-day

496: Regarding the enslaved animals, those we eat and make use of - as long as people place them in this ‘special category’, of being not like our pets at home, they can maintain a cut-off point ‘regarding certain animals’. Vegan information inevitably falls on deaf ears. How frustrating! What can we do about that? I realise that my getting angry about it is the LAST thing I need to do. I doubt if anger and shouting-at-people is an effective protest tool or teaching aid, not with this issue anyway. At this stage there are just far too many people who put farm animals in this special category. (And while I’m on the subject … I do try NOT to waive the Vegan Flag at people all the time, especially when they feel like making stupid remarks. Often it’s their only line of defence). You might think that anger indicates feeling passionate about something or having strong opinions. But isn’t it true that anger easily gets out of control. It’s too easy, when we’re so certain about a cause, to be thinking – “I’m proud to feel this way. I’m standing up for what I believe, standing against a violent world”. Both vegans and omnivores draw strength from another belief, that this is “a free country and I can think and say what I like”. And that’s true enough. I’m sure I won’t be arrested for speaking out, but if I break the unwritten laws governing warm relationship, because you won’t agree over this matter of animal-use, it’s dangerous, especially if I become personal and disapproving of you, and you of me. The world of successful communication is an art form. I only break the rules when I’m sure I know the person I’m talking to and even then it’s risky. Talking about this most delicate subject might start out well but can change abruptly. I prefer to treat any chance to speak rather like a variety act - it’s an opportunity for a little performing, a little showing off, attempting to look attractive (enough for people to want to spend a little time discovering what I might have to say). There’s even some seduction. But I keep the emotion behind what I’m saying light, so there can never be any threat of my turning on them. I’m suggesting here that effective relationship-building must be done, first up, because omnivore-perception of ‘vegans’ is often proscribed. People are wary of what we might say, accusingly. Perhaps it’s not that vegans are thought to be untrustworthy, more that we are thought of as being so off the planet that we’re unpredictable and possibly too stupid to talk to. Whatever negative perception people have of vegans (and they rarely tell us to our face) we may have to work quite hard to fix that first before engaging them in our arguments. Between each other we have a great opportunity to find common ground, instead of getting off-side with each other. The onus is on us. If I want you to listen to me I should take my example from those who are most successful at being non-threatening - kids. They’re too inexperienced and small to be much of a threat, usually, so they develop techniques (which adults no longer employ with each other when talking seriously). When I watch how these little ‘wise-ones’ operate, I see how we adults could take a leaf out of their book. They want something, they want the adult to listen, they often have it down to a fine art, mixing light hearted banter with the serious business - and eventually get what they want whilst building trust and adding to their cuteness, all at the same time. We adults could learn a lot from their techniques. If we talked serious talk the way kids do, both vegans and omnivores could get a lot out of Information Day.

The central dilemma

495: We are taught to believe that being omnivore is the only safe way humans can live, and not enough prominent people have contradicted this ‘common perception’. Eating animals is still normal. The 250 executions, per year, per person isn’t a well known fact (its being little-known is significant in itself) but even if it was, would it touch people enough to change them? Maybe not, because Society’s ‘universal acceptance’ says that animals fall into a special category. People are not necessarily contemptuous of animals as such, because we know most of us do love animals, but there’s a cut off point about certain specific animals. (As there used to be over racial inferiority). That ‘cut-off’ point is central to omnivore-thinking and it’s useful in tricking the mind, to make speciesism acceptable. This is surely how we can all stay within the safe confines of normality, eat the food we enjoy and not have nightmares about it. To be normal one must be willing to consume animals, in fact to partake of just about any food on the menu. If we can eat (the same foods) together we feel together. Happily, it is also a gratifying part of living the good-life, with good-tasting food being very much part of that lifestyle. Animal-based foods are everywhere, in restaurants, home-cooked dinners, street snacks, packed lunches, hearty breakfasts, feasts and celebrations. And normality extends beyond food, with cashmere sweaters, silk shirts, woollen blankets and many other animal fabrics, not the least of which is leather. It all comes to us by way of an astronomical loss of life of innocent creatures. Animal products are our biggest ‘turn-on’ - it’s the stuff we love and can’t do without. It doesn’t enter our heads to think of the pain, fear, cruelty and death without which these items could never reach us. The experience of animal-based food and clothing is a little like anything else we experience which is illicit - stolen fruit always tastes sweetest. We might be attracted to it (and the Devil take the hindmost) or we might be repulsed by it and the seduction of it. We might be reluctant to change our diets or we may be convinced that we can’t change. It may be that we have no interest in this whole issue but it’s clear that animal products have always had an indisputably powerful effect on humans. We are used to using animals to get every benefit possible. It might seem virtually impossible to bring our impulses under control when it comes to the use of animals - it would have to be something very powerful to draw us away from the so called ‘good things of life’ and persuade us away from conforming to this sort of ‘normality’. My question here is about whether what vegans are saying could ever act as a powerful enough counterweight to all this habit, taste, conforming and lack of interest in animal welfare. Could there ever be anything which would swing people over, enough to liberate all animals entirely? What I’m attempting here is simply an exploration of this one question, and whether it’s a jolt that’s strong enough to build a stand against the locking up of animals or an inspiration enough to step beyond ‘Welfare’ and take us on into the establishing of ‘Rights’, I don’t know. But I do know there’s a dilemma facing most thinking people - that animals are sweet to love but also sweet to eat. Most people have trouble working that one out.

Picking up on it

494: However much I learn about this subject, I’m always disappointed by what’s being picked up by others. It’s as if others live in a parallel universe where they don’t notice all the ugly human dealings with animals and therefore can’t recognise the need for Animal Rights. It’s as if animal-users either know nothing or care nothing about this subject. Or perhaps they don’t even know they don’t care. Either way, we animal advocates are missing our target. We’re not reaching people about the need for the liberation of animals, in fact we might be pushing them away. Until we spare no effort to reach-out rather than push-away nothing will change. By becoming more professional in our approach we seem more reliable and safer as people, and what we say more likely to convince. Obviously, if we just simply leave it to the omnivore to find out, they’ll be side-tracked by other issues (nonetheless, important ones) and animal issues put on the back burner. As activists we compete for attention-space with many other issues. Everyone’s shouting for attention, so we need to be different. We need to stand out as more ... what? It’s a big ask to suggest we quell our anger, subdue our frustration, hide our disappointment and be more understanding and yet that will, I’d suggest, make us appear interestingly different. This subject polarises almost everyone mainly because of the food they eat forces then to oppose what we are saying, so until we move past the shouting stage and get closer (into hearing range), people will continue to look the other way. They’ll be seduced by those who are easier to listen to (like the environmentalists), or who ‘do it’ better than we do. Admittedly, we start with a distinct disadvantage in the first place - all the more reason we need to make our approach distinctly different to ‘ the others’. Unlike save-planet-and-save-children causes, ours just looks like hard work. It is, after all, a tough message. We need all our skill to help it along. We certainly don’t need to capsize it … by alienating people or by NOT addressing their perception-worries … which serve as fine excuses for people NOT to pick-up on what we’re saying.

Getting good and judgmental

493: There are many industrialists and decision-making people acting irrationally, worsening the mess we’re in instead of improving it. Vegans are making a stand against the self-interest of the decision makers, simply by boycotting the Animal Industries. Vegans are proposing a straightforward solution. Nothing could be simpler for people to grasp, but the mass of people are continuing to ignore it. For us it’s frustrating. We know people have the intelligence to understand our arguments but something is not connecting. What’s missing is willingness. So we wait. During which time we hope to find out why some ordinary people, once they know about the horrors, decide to act while other ordinary people aren’t similarly affected by the horrors and carry on as usual. Why? I’m always looking for clues to the question of the huge differences between people. Are people neatly divided between those who are empathetic and those who are not? I doubt it. Other animal activists feel more sure about it and choose to hurl rocks at the windows of the un-carers. There’s trouble in the ranks down at the Vegan Detective Agency. Some, like me, look for clues to solve the crime of un-caring, others just want the culprits punished. Some of us never give up trying to appeal to omnivore intelligence and good nature, others just get annoyed and judge them negatively. I’d say this is the major divide amongst vegan animal advocates, between those who want to issue “fatwas” on those they consider the enemy and others of us who simply want to get through, who want to educate them. The first sort of vegan gets angry – it makes them feel good to get it ‘off their chest’. They judge ‘the animal eater’, and that makes them look good, strong and decisive. It lets them feel empowered. The second sort of vegan believes that by condemning others we automatically separate from them and appear ‘better-than’. On any important subject, as soon as one person takes the higher moral ground the other feels it They defend themselves (however ridiculously) and the whole dialogue ends in a quarrel. It’s terrible when that happens with people we’re close to. Over this particular matter, because the belief we hold is strengthened every time we eat, changing sides is very difficult. The meat eaters are not trying to convert vegans, it’s always the other way around. The onus is always on us to avoid quarrelling so it’s us who have to come up with some sort of solution to this vexed problem. It isn’t just a case of coming up with a good argument to convince the unbeliever, it’s more subtle than that. Once we’re talking about animals having rights, the gulf between vegans and non-vegans shows up very quickly; within seconds, we can separate from someone, just by ‘making a stand’, just by getting a bit personal about it. So, what am I suggesting here? Simply, avoid quarrelling, because after any quarrel, it’s an uphill slog trying to restore balance. ‘Angry’ goes to judgement goes to unnecessarily complicating issues. First up, I want to feel as though I’m standing on firm ground. I want to establish some mutual respect, before imparting ANY information. The reason ‘mutual separation’ occurs, over this animal question, isn’t just because I may have different views about food, health and cruelty to you. It’s because of MY value judging you about your ‘contempt’ for animals or YOU value judging my hypersensitivity by saying “they’re just animals”. I consider each animal as a sovereign, irreplaceable individual and you consider the animal to be dumb and that we can do as we please with them. On this basis we might be far apart, so far apart that we can’t hear what the other is saying. Any chance of discussion is made almost impossible when all we can read is each other’s ‘outrage’. My shock and disappointment in you is matched by your seeing me as a self-righteous do-gooders. Inevitably, each of us begins to take umbrage, offended by the dismissiveness of the other, and that leads to disliking ... and if we don’t like our ‘adversary’ we show it. That’s my reasoning for trying to avoid separation and inevitable quarrelling. As soon as you feel me disliking you, however good my argument is you will oppose it. If there’s no anger or disliking we won’t waste precious moments when we might be using that time to assess the sort of person we’re talking to. I think it’s important to spend just a few microseconds, gauging where to pitch our remarks, and deciding which (if any) facts we going to bring to someone’s attention. Facts, how loaded they can be. Facts - the idea is to avail someone of facts NOT assail them with facts! Once I can learn to keep that at the forefront of my mind I can sail safely past wanting to be judgemental. And you’ll appreciate that more than anything, I’m sure of it.

Heavy

491: Omnivores see themselves pulled in two directions at once - conscience versus comfort. In the end it’s usually comfort that calls the shots, offering wonderful, delicious-to-eat foods but clouding over various animal gulags down the road. Comfort and luxury come at a cost though, quite apart from money, in that the omnivore lifestyle is at the expense of the many animals who must die to provide for it. And that’s only at the end point, without bringing to mind their imprisonment in slum conditions. A niggling conscience could be enough to keep the omnivore’s nightmares alive at night, but gut-instinct also warns of the dangers of the live-now-pay-later variety. Somehow most of us know that what comes out of abattoirs and animal farms is not safe food. As we get older that becomes more apparent with the slowing-down, clogging-up and general fattening effects of eating animal foods. And if this makes us feel un-comfortable it rather defeats the persuasions of earlier years, when decisions were made concerning ‘comfort-over-conscience’. Delicious foods, tempting treats, full stomach - gradually the effects show up. Over the years ‘something’ goes sluggish and heavy inside. And it isn’t a healthy or happy feeling. Vegans are, to some extent and in this respect, safer and more comfortable. Conscience certainly feels okay. But we have the other sort of heavy problem, associated with the increasing and inescapable concern for our fattening friends and the animals who are being fattened to fatten our friends. Although, as vegans, we can at least sleep in peace at night, relatively un-plagued by our own fatness or guilt, we are still weighed down with an impossible sense of responsibility … perhaps for the whole planet. Omnivores and vegans alike are heavy with what could be so unnecessary.

250 capital crimes

490: At some point in a discussion (about animals that we eat) I like to establish the scale of the crime I’m talking about. Once the ‘crime-status’ is established there’s no need to go back over it again and again. I regard my main job is in establishing why I think it’s a crime, that’s all. The main difference between an omnivore and a vegan is in the evaluation of the situation. First, before discussing if it IS a crime, I settle something important - that I think that people in general are not idiots. I would credit them with enough raw intelligence to understand what I’m saying to them. And no, they mightn’t react the way I want, but they may take in what I say, nevertheless. If I use something like a shock fact - the ‘250-animals-we-each-eat-every-year’ - the impact can be powerful. It stops people in their tracks, because it’s a surprisingly large number of animal executions to be responsible for (amounting to 25,000 deaths if one gets to live for a hundred years!!). Once the scale of this ‘crime’ is established, I consider that I’ve effectively laid my cards on the table. It can’t be considered as anything other than a crime, surely. And then, at least, I can have a sensible discussion (hopefully without lots of heavy value judgement). My emphasis would be on how people have been bamboozled by The Animal Industry, and how otherwise-beautiful people have been drawn into an ugly complicity, where so many deaths have been carried out on their behalf.

250 deaths

489: Imagine how it would be if people did respond differently to what we were saying (about animals and eating them), rather than getting defensive. Suppose they came over to seeing things from the animals’ point of view. Imagine how it would be if vegans approached omnivores without wanting to attack them. Imagine how we’d sound without the static of judgement in our voices. I find it useful, when talking on this subject, to have a couple of shock facts in the bag, to help clinch the ‘deal’, to act as stun grenades for when things turn seriously illogical. I like to keep something at hand, to help me feel confident when facing group opposition. Most importantly, I like to trust the discussion and let it go where it may, knowing that I have this particular trump up my sleeve - that we in the West each eat 250 animals a year. I like to let people chew on that. Why go further? The rest of the argument, about ‘why vegan’, speaks for itself.

Identifying with a vegan

488: I know a very pushy vegan who is both loathed and loved. He has great compassion but effects a rough, take-no-prisoners manner. On the other hand there are those vegans who are really nice people but ineffectual. The extremes are rude or soft. Who is most ‘identifiable-with’? In the end it comes down to one’s ability to ‘resonate’ with the issues ... but it might help if the advocate-for-animals were more objective and less emotional when promoting Animal Rights. Obviously the advocate has got to be sincere. We need to spark something in others, to impress them if possible … but it’s not a niceness competition, it’s just a plain job. Each one of us has our own approach, each aiming to reach out and inspire interest, and then go on to ignite empathy for all those billions of creatures languishing in their prison cells. My aim is to inspire interest without alienating, so that no one is given any excuse to ‘close the book’ on me. I reckon I’m more likely to make sense if I can show how animal farming worsens our global warming problems, and I often try that tack, and let that be a central basis for encouraging personal reform, in addition of course to the inhumanity of farming animals. People are often embarrassed to act solely on humanitarian grounds, whereas given an environmental or health angle, people feel less self conscious about being ‘touched’ by these issues. And yet, privately, most of us are proud of our sense of humanity, and know that without humanity we aren’t complete as humans, but publically it doesn’t seem to warrant such a radical change of lifestyle (as a vegan leads). It’s probably only when we are fairly young that we set out our life’s principles, aiming to live by them for the rest of our lives. If one of these is to not hurt animals (eat them, add to their suffering, wear them, etc) the ramifications of this one decision only become clearer as we get older. The ideal of being a humanitarian is associated with youth and not taken quite so seriously amongst older adults - and this is probably the tragedy of the sophistication of our adulthood.

Strong with compassion

487: If an omnivore is compassionate by nature, how do they feel when they meet me, and I tart to accuse them of not caring about animals? When a vegan condemns an omnivore it can cut deep. It probably doesn’t stimulate self examination only derision and counter attack – “You’re insane. Animal-derived foods are fundamental to life, and universally used by humans in every country of the world. To try to change that is pointless”. Needless to say, vegans don’t see it that way. But on another level I often ask myself what it is that I want to get out of being an advocate for Animal Rights – maybe to be right, maybe to feel superior to others. And if so, what then? I know we have a watertight case and that might make me seem too confident and maybe I can abuse that advantage ... and being ‘right’ emboldens me, getting me very close to asserting my ‘right to speak out’ (whether you like it or not). Is this a sort of violence - a stab here and a punch there, to drive my message home? I have to admit that my sledgehammer approach is close to bullying, close to one-upmanship, almost boasting for being so relaxed and fearless. On the opposite side is the omnivore. Their response is to eat ‘dangerous foods’ in a dominator-goes-out-to-kill-his-meat sort of way. They show an “up yours!” confidence. The meat-eater’s macho slugs it out with the vegan’s value judgements, punch for punch. Omnivores try to disarm us mentally, using ridicule and refusing to talk on such a ridiculous level. “Animal Rights is a ‘non-issue’”. They dig their heels in. But if we drive them to feel this way (the ‘book’ is closed, never to be opened again) we’ve only harmed our cause not helped it. Which is why I try to internalise my outrage. I know I’m sad that such terrible things are happening, that things have turned out this way … but get over it - I’m not looking for any pity for myself. I only want others to feel pity for them.

Misperceptions

486: Except for those who are vegan from birth, all of us have compromised our principles over the foods we’ve used, assuming that we DO have regard for the humane treatment of animals. And we’ve justified it with some rather shallow thinking, and some convenient forgetting. None of us have a clean slate. So when I’m having a go at the animal-eaters I try to be careful not to hit out too hard. It’s easy to condemn others for faults we no longer have ourselves, like vegans accusing omnivores that they couldn’t care less. It rather misses the point anyway, because that’s not how omnivore sees themselves. They just have different priorities. The ethics of the food they eat may not be high on their agenda. Regarding food, they’re just ordinary consumers. To them vegan criticism sounds like unfair criticism - omnivores do care about many things, but they say “There are limits”. Eating or using animals isn’t even on their radar. Most omnivores know very little about how vegans think and probably don’t take us seriously anyway. There’s no common ground here. It’s a case of mutual misperception. There are strong cultural traditions holding food habits in place. Usually it’s about nutrition, not about ethics of animal farming. Now, there’s a new culture emerging, establishing new habits and an altogether different view of animal foods based on ethical principles. In this clash of cultures vegans are making what sounds like a terrible accusation: that ‘meat-eaters’ are ethically dumbing down, deliberately, so they can enjoy their animal foods with impunity. In reply, omnivores accuse vegans of being the new morality police, intent on spoiling the very pleasure of living which is enjoyed by ordinary, free-thinking people. We are the abstainers and they the partakers. There’s a gulf between the two and the nature of that gulf widens or narrows as we make the one crucial decision - to either aim to be hard or acknowledge our incapability of being hard. Vegans should boldly criticise the omnivore’s decision to ignore animal cruelty in the food industry, but moderate our feelings by remembering that, not so long ago, most of us were omnivores too.

Arrogance-free

485: Inevitably I always resent the arrogance of the majority, which stirs anger, frustration and ‘judgement’ in me. I get angry because I don’t succeed in persuading them: and the more I want them to change the less they seem to comply. As an activist I’m familiar with factory farming techniques but I know most omnivores aren’t aware or choose not to be. I know that if they knew, they’d see the connection – they’d find out where their favourite foods come from, then see how ‘all of it’ should be off-limits. So, I come back to square one, that whatever I say to people about the cruelty of it all, it’ll be like water off a duck’s back. What choice do they have? And for this I judge them … for selling out to convenience and personal pleasure. And that judgement poisons any constructive chance I might have with them. I think the only way to break the impasse is by looking deeply at myself – is my behaviour counterproductive? Is their indifference and my judgement inextricably linked? Let’s pick on me for a start. I am judging a person for doing what their contemporaries do, what they have ALWAYS done and what they’ve been brought up to do – to use animals. It’s part of the fabric of life, as they know it. I paint them black and refuse to see them any other way. They deserve no mercy since they show none to the animals. They don’t respond to routine animal cruelty and refuse to see it as wrong. We both see arrogance in the other. Each judges the other for their faulty reasoning, on this subject of ‘animal-usage’. You might hate me for criticising you and being an arrogant purist. I might judge you for being shallow and hedonistic. According to each perception the other side seems arrogant and therefore flawed. As long as these perceptions remain fixed nothing can move on. My suggestion is that you have no reason to feel warm towards me or to persuade me your way, whereas I DO want to persuade you my way, and so for that reason alone I must try to break the deadlock between us. All I have to hand is my imagination and a determination to find a way to make sense to you without you wanting to run away from me.

Judgement-free

484: The worst thing about judging and disapproving is how much of it I do. I can hear it going on inside my head. Even when I don’t think you can see it, even in my most private thoughts, it still comes out. By the twitch of my mouth, in a sigh, with an involuntary snigger ... even the quietest disapproval gives the game away. You can read me like a book, and this gives you the chance to turn the tables on me. In effect, I hand you the advantage on a plate. Of course I don’t reckon you CAN read me. I believe I’m able to conceal my private value judgements from you. I’m inscrutable. You can’t sense my personal criticism ... or do you notice a lot more than I think you do? The game of judging or being judged - vegans judge the ‘meatheads’, omnivores judge the judger … and so it goes on. But because I belong to such a tiny ‘plant-eating’ minority, I don’t seem to represent any sort of strength of authority. You find it easy to dismiss what I say because you have the weight of the VAST majority behind you. The effect of that can sap my self-confidence, which in turn leaves me no other choice but to use aggression on you, to bolster my sagging confidence. Value judgement is my weapon of choice, but a very blunt one it is. Surely I should realise that the only way to appear strong is to stick to the facts, follow the thread of my excellent arguments and keep out of the way of judgement-making. Why be judgemental anyway, when I know how much truth we have on our side?

Don’t condemn, encourage

483: The more likely it is that I’m losing my argument the more aggressive I’m likely to be. If you’re not listening to what I’m saying, if you’re ignoring me, I get upset. If I can learn to take the initiative by NOT getting angry, what then? Can I perhaps strategise? Can I make some positive judgements about you or at least be a passive observer so I can find out what you’re thinking. I’m not obliged to convert the agnostic. I’m not saying this to seem passive or serene but simply to be fair. I can’t be sure how close you might be to ditching your old habits (animal foods) and listening to what I have to say. What a disaster if I misjudge you and turn you against me (and ‘it all’) for ever. If I can throw some light on one or two of your dark corners and give you a better idea of how things are from my point of view I’m serving you better than pre-judging you and cutting you down. Advocating for animals is still fairly unusual. Vegans are unlikely to significantly impact on people’s psyches, yet a while. But we are seed planters (in more ways than one). Our job is surely to encourage in a world that is dying for the want of imaginative, positive encouragement. I see it all the time, parents and teachers praising moderate achievements of children - why don’t I do it all the time, adult to adult, over the development of this particular ethic?

Revenge

482: Revenge is a hard habit to drop. Since getting into Animal Rights and feeling bad about people ignoring what’s happening to animals I’ve felt the need to take my revenge, do anything to make people feel uncomfortable for not feeling the way I do. At the very least I’ve got into the habit of making value judgements about it all. And now I see that as absurd. Quite wrong. So, like an athlete practising daily push-ups, I need to build up my resistance and practise being non-judgemental. In our culture it doesn’t come easily. Confronting people face to face or, when they’re not there, slagging them off is a favourite pastime. My comments can be sharp as a razor. Is it any wonder I’m not invited to dinner parties? Is it any wonder that omnivores dislike me for trying to spoil their dinner? When I start talking about Animal Rights without getting permission, I’m regarded as a gate-crasher, a pariah. When you’re eating your leg of lamb and I criticise your food choice, I’m really calling you a thug. You’re either bad, violent or stupid. Accusations hurt. I always go for the most tender spot, the conscience. I raise the cruelty angle. I probably sound as though I’m taking my revenge. By attacking personal values I get something out of my system ... but I usually get something pretty nasty back in return. And then there’s a quarrel. It’s how wars blow up – my need for revenge against your reaction to an unjust (or far too way out) accusation. Humans dealing with differences this way, the quickest way, violently. What about a better way, a longer way round perhaps? A slower but less dangerous way? Today’s Society is divided over this issue, whether to use animals for our convenience or not to. It’s here to stay, this disagreement over ‘animals being used for food’, a disagreement about one’s freedom of choice and independence of lifestyle. When I feel frustration and impotence and am ignored and disliked for being vegan, for pushing vegan issues, it’s hard to stay cool and calm. But my short-temper is probably hard to take because when the emotions get fired up there’s no reasoning with me. So, you avoid me, run away, close down and certainly don’t make things worse for yourself by giving me a chance to present my arguments. (I live in a dream world about this, expecting you to listen, to ‘get it’, to welcome my passion and admire me for it). However, once I take away my revenge element and replace it with unconditional patience, it’s likely you’ll be so relieved at my behaviour that you’ll give me the chance to explain what’s behind this whole idea of ‘animal liberation’. All I need to do is modify my aggro, not my passion.

How I see myself, as a vegan

480: To me, other vegans are not objectionable (some exceptions!!). I have positive feelings about my fellow vegans mainly because each of us has liberated ourselves from being ashamed about animal-use. However, on a slightly more self-critical level I should feel ashamed, for being judgemental and unforgiving and feeling just a tad superior to certain ‘others’. I sometimes find myself ashamed of feeling negatively towards animal-eaters, and then have to remind myself why that is - it’s so reciprocal, the way I see myself depends on how I see non-vegans. In many important ways (from my point of view, of course) vegans are okay, but that’s not how most omnivores see us, either as individuals or as a group - we’re pushy-types who never miss an opportunity to make a ‘vegan convert’ out of a carnivore, and when we don’t succeed we then accuse the meat-eater of being a person who just doesn’t care. And we go one stage further, by believing that they’ll never come across, as if we neither have faith in them or feel any affection for them. I know that oftn goes through my own mind. I’m ashamed to say so, but it’s true. I hope other vegans aren’t as judgemental. So the question to be asked: Am I a caring person myself? Is it possible that I put so much effort into caring for and defending the rights of animals that I have no defence or care left over for people? And what makes me feel this way? Is it that ‘they’ don’t respect animals or is it really that ‘they’ don’t respect me? How big am I? Perhaps not big enough to face those who judge, hate, dislike or ignore me?

On the nose

479: I’m at my most hurtful when I am value judging, and when I’m demanding to be listened to. If I think the rightness of our cause gives me the right to make demands, then I’m presuming that people are going to excuse my rough edges and instead admire the stand I’m taking … and that secretly they want to be like me. Err, no!! For most people ‘our cause’ is way off target and anyway there are other more important things to consider (name any one of a dozen issues ranging from global warming to human slavery). Of course from my point of view ‘their’ concern is not consistent. ‘They’ think differently. They think they are on course. If they do have anything constructive to say to me they’ll be telling me to polish up my act. All vegans want change, big change, animal-liberating-change, and as soon as possible. We’re reluctant to believe that we face a wall. We refuse to accept that there are huge forces swaying people’s minds, all being nicely cemented in by people’s willing acceptance. Not only can’t we break down the wall we can’t see it for what it is - a food-wall. People love the food that vegans choose to hate, which makes us the common enemy and makes swift change unlikely. ‘Enlightenment’ might not be due any time soon, and let’s be frank, most vegans themselves can’t foresee a vegan revolution in the near future. We keep looking at this wall and will it to fall over. We wait and wait, and stir and get angry and feel upset and lose heart. It’s understandable if vegans get a little tetchy, sometimes feel defeated, pessimistic. Meat and animal stuff is so utterly omnipresent and we can’t escape that fact. I’m always finding myself downwind of meat being cooked. In my local park I’m forever dodging the smell of animals being cremated. It drives me nuts. That’s why I’m tempted to say, “To hell with it, let’s just make war on the carnivores and have done with it”. But this devil-may-care approach is not the best idea. Diets are changing anyway, plant-based foods are becoming known as ‘safe foods’, and probably most adults will agree in the end that, in theory, meat is on the way out on dinner tables. We probably have a much bigger audience of potential listeners than we realise, even if it’s not quite as full-on as we’d like. Omnivores might be warming to the idea, even interested in what we’ve got to say, even attracted … but whoa … that doesn’t mean they want to join the ‘vegan club’ in an impulsive fit of solidarity with us. Some may be curious but not yet agreeing. The gulf between omnivore and committed vegan is huge. It’s likely that, at present, most omnivores would prefer we weren’t around to pester them. But things are changing and we should be seen as far-sighted forerunners. Vegans are essentially resource people, sitting on the sunny side of the hill, being the access point for an alternative and attractive lifestyle. We can keep our aims polished up brightly - we can drive on our own road, draw people to our view and yet keep well out of their way at the same time, especially during their special cremation ceremonies. Be with them … but not too close to them!

Why do vegans dislike non-vegans?

478: … Hey, excuse me, not ALL vegans dislike non-vegans … but our image precedes us. Our reputation (as people-haters) is part of what we’re known for. For my part, I know that I’ve used confrontation in the past ... to ‘guilt’ people, but it never works. The approach is changing, today we just need some essential facts at our fingertips so that we can shock-speak outrageously BUT without value-judging the people we’re talking to. Having said that, I have to admit there’s nothing better than having a good stoush with a meat-eater, to release the frustration of being ignored and to have some fun at their expense. I sometimes need to do just that to preserve my sanity. But in the end it all comes down to effectiveness - how what I say is taken and how I, as an advocate, am accepted. Talking up Animal Rights always generates some heat BUT it’s destructive heat if it’s aggressive. Some of us can be so consumed with anger that we wear it like body odour. If I look carefully at my own anger, I have to admit that sometimes I just want revenge! I secretly want to attack meat eaters as pay back for attacking animals. Big mistake!! When I try to make ‘them’ see the error of their ways by making them feel uncomfortable, I think I’m trying to wake them up. Maybe that’s valid enough, but it comes across as if I am talking down to them. Or doubting them - already convinced they’ll never change.