I have been thinking how best to broach this subject because I am asked often about it. So, when a faithful reader, Carol, who always has some incisive comments, called me out on my remark in the September 13th post in which I said,
"It's a shame, but the "Meat is Murder" crowd really seemed to put many in the mainstream off, and only now are serious omnivores admitting the benefits of a plant-based diet, and problems with animal flesh diets," it was time to step up to the plate. Since I was reminded that most of my audience, including the one who was the impetus behind this vegan journey of mine, were part of the "Meat is Murder" crowd that I should clarify my remarks. I could not agree more, Carol!
In short, the average person, I have found, has been turned off by the
messenger, not necessarily the message as it relates to veganism.
One of the biggest motivating factors of Western veganism is the ethical treatment of animals and the effects on the environment. In my opinion, it is mostly because of this movement, and celebrity endorsement, that veganism has become such a focus, sometimes controversial, over the years. And that is a great thing because it brought added attention to those doctors who advocate a plant-based diet, and when books like the "China Study" are touted on TV more people are influenced by the benefits of a vegetarian, or vegan diet. But lets discuss the ethical issues.
One of the most strident defenders of the ethical issues, benefits to animals and environment, of veganism is, indeed, Heather Mills. We have had multiple conversations about the environment, and I find many of the arguments very interesting. So interesting that I want to see continued open debate and discussion with the brightest scientific minds in the world, void of all politics and obfuscation, and just pristine, transparent scholarship about what is happening to the environment, correct any problems, and how we can preserve it for many centuries more.
When it comes to the discussion over the environment, I want to be bored by the truth, and not entertained by half-truths.
I decided on this vegan quest almost a year ago because I was fat, and abusing my body terribly. Moderation was not working, it was impossible for me, really, so I whole-heartedly bought into the notion that veganism was an excellent way to bring my body back to life, lose weight, lower cholesterol, and master moderation. Because it was such a radical idea - to take a hard-core carnivore, and make him a hard-core vegan - I figured, it was crazy enough to work. And it did! But, my motivation for veganism was 100% dietary, and that is what I wrote about.
Outside of writing about the documentary
Food, Inc. and a couple of other brief comments, I have stayed clear of the "other side" of veganism. Until now.
|
Peta Protester |
I stand by my comments about the "Meat is Murder" crowd putting many in the mainstream off to the benefits of veganism, because of the countless individuals I have encountered in the past 10 months who say as much. Whereas this movement gained attention first through some very controversial antics, the celebrity endorsements brought the attention to animal rights, specifically PETA, out of the corners of far-left ideology and into everyone's living rooms. This in turn gave more discussion and voice to veganism as a diet which was great, but along the way some controversial tactics bothered so many people to the point that they became blind to the great benefits (both dietary, and environmentally) of veganism.
The ugly side of that coin is video of some elderly society woman being doused with red paint in protest of her antique mink stole, or an advertisement with raw, painful 9-11 images to protest...logging. I myself, while waiting for a table at Red Bamboo, picked up a vegan newsletter and was repulsed by the images of mutilated animals -- it angered me alright, but it was against the publication and the restaurant for putting it out there. I have educated myself to some of the horrible practices of animal meat cultivation, and I staunchly support more humane practices, but a photo of a mutilated carcass does nothing but...well, put me off.
I do admit the same can be said for other controversial social issues - the more shocking and revolting the image, the more damage they do to their own side. Not every point needs to be made with a bloody sledge-hammer.
The more radical "Meat is Murder" crowd has definitely turned off many mainstream people by their tactics and stances. (**quick breath of levity here in the midst of such a heavy topic - I really liked the 1985 album by The Smiths, coincidentally, called "Meat is Murder." OK, back to seriousness**). Although it is the fringe, it is what gets the media attention. If an organization states that animals deserve more rights than humans, and people should not own pets, or if a movie star implies that people who eat meat are inhumane, that really turns people off to such a noble cause of respecting animals, the environment, and a vegan diet. I have always maintained that veganism needs a better PR campaign.
All sane people want a better environment, and abhor animal cruelty, but they see a difference between some savage who beats and starves his horse, and Grandma who keeps two cats. The visual image many people have had in their heads of a vegan, or animal rights activist has not been one that they aspire to be, nor neccessarily identify with. But that is changing, that is good, and that was my point.
I am thrilled that the extreme voices are becoming more mute, and that the mainstream sees more evidence on TV by Dr. Oz, and Dr. Fuhrman, etc. about the benefits to a plant-based diet, and more and more mainstream celebrities and athletes are coming out in favor of it.
Finally, I am 100% in favor of humane treatment of animals, and strongly feel that what some of these food conglomerates do with both the injection of hormones into animals, and their gross mistreatment on these "farms" are barbaric. However, I think it is folly to want to outlaw Farmer Brown and his free range chicken farm.
Recently, when Men's Journal magazine wrote about athletes who have gone vegan, they took strides to make the point that it's not a sandal-wearing, tree-hugging crowd anymore. Point being, don't flip the page, these are folks like you (or folks you want to be like) who are vegan too!
In conclusion, had the pro-vegan, "Meat is Murder" crowd not been so radical in the past it would be more mainstream today. And on the flip side, had they not been so radical they would not have attracted the attention of celebrities, who in turn ended up making the vegan diet more newsworthy, thus more acceptable.
So, did this radicalism work? End justifying the means? Well, it did, but at what cost? Even today, mainstream publications talk about the harm of a carnivore diet, but stress that although vegetarianism/veganism is good, 'We are not one of those radicals!' Or, as a world-wide news analyst said recently in a story about a champion wrestler from India who is a strict vegetarian, "Who says vegetarians are wimps?" For every mainstream comment about the positives of vegansim there often is an accompanying back-pedal as if to say, "We are not one of the those weirdos, but veganism is good!"
I firmly believe the cause of animal rights and veganism would be much farther along in society today if they took a more measured, and sober approach. And the years of mainstream society's resistance to the cause bears (bares) this out. Q.E.D.
Thank you for your time and I welcome your comments - pro and con! Terrence