INTERVIEW WITH A VEGAN by Guest Voice: Elijah Sweete
Dec 16th, 2009 | 30 responses
Hello there, it’s Dr. E here, deputy editor at TMV… and just as I came home from a four day sudarshan kriya meditation with my family, in came this piece on veganism by Mr. Elijah Sweete, who has written on TMV before, including a news story about a Governor seemingly trying to influence a panel inquiring into a death penalty case in Texas.
Oddly, before I received this piece by Mr. Sweete on one person’s view of veganism, our teacher of sudarshan kriya, Lataji, had so gently spoken to us about how she grew up in India with her family, eating meat amongst other foods… and how she came over time to not require of herself, but to grow in consciousness to understand the idea of turning toward the bounty of fruits and vegetables, legumes and nuts and grains and protein combinations given to human beings by Creator.
Many of our sisters and brothers in our four-day group are vegans; some are in the midst of becoming vegan, and some may never eat in this way completely. But with consciousness, anything is possible. The compassionate point of view acknowledges, I think, that there will be many human beings throughout the world who would die without hunting their food, and this is not ours to define for them. Only for ourselves, our own self definitions and self-determinations. Gently. And with good will toward and deep wishes for growth in spirit and soul toward others. To teach lovingly when one can, to love always even when one cannot teach.
The spiritually compassionate point of view also acknowledges that creatures have far more reason for being, than to be milled and slaughtered. As do human beings have far more reason for being, than to be corralled and killed. This has always been so and will ever be so. For us, as humans, the tests to live such imperishable principles out loud daily and consistently, are often many. Yet, with consciousness, anything is possible.
My two cents’ worth only… there are many other points of view on sanctity of life, of animals, of nature… and veganism. Here is one other point of view as well.
INTERVIEW WITH A VEGAN
By: Elijah Sweete
Though not vegan myself, the number of vegan options on the menu of a local restaurant caught my attention.
In thinking about the commercial solicitation of the vegan market, I was inspired to learn more about vegans. Who are they? Why veganism? What motivates this small but growing segment of the population?
Uncomfortable attempting to explain a movement of which I am not a part, I turn to a committed vegan activist, Marybeth Wosko. Ms. Wosko is a practicing attorney and partner in a law firm as well as a gifted athlete, (marathon runner, A/Open racquetball player, fast and slow pitch softball). She is on the Board of Directors of the Compassionate Living Project, and a Trustee of the Frank and Mary Hoffman Foundation, www.all-creatures.org.
What follows are excerpts from my cyber-interview as Ms. Wosko explains her philosophy, her cause and her commitment to veganism and beyond. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her views, I hope the reader can appreciate the intellectual, moral and spiritual consistency of her perspective.
GOING VEGAN A little vegan background on the person interviewed.
ES: When did you adopt a vegan lifestyle and why?
MBW: I became vegan upon reading Howard Lyman’s book, Mad Cowboy. I was 33. Something clicked. I had a realization that I was killing animals, killing sentient life, on my dinner plate. This book triggered something in me to face the facts, to face the Truth of killing that I did not see directly. I could no longer be complicit in it.
ES: To which organizations do you belong?
MBW: I belong to, am associated with, or financially contribute to a number of animal rights organizations including The Compassionate Living Project, the Frank and Mary Hoffman Foundation, PETA, The Fund for Animals, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, United Poultry Concerns, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the Animal Rescue & Care Fund, the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, Best Friends Animal Society, Northwest Veg and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The common denominator of these groups is that this world is not and should not be a homo-sapiens only club.
DEFENDING PETA and criticizing the philosophy of exploitation
ES: PETA evokes negative reactions from many because of some of their tactics. As a PETA member, what is your view of the organization’s tactics and accomplishments?
MBW: PETA, in my opinion, is one of the best organizations in terms of public outreach. Their mission and promotion of non-violence is laudable. Sometimes they promote discussion through controversial tactics. Those who dismiss PETA as lacking in credibility because of those tactics, in my view, are looking for a reason to dismiss an uncomfortable Truth they have yet to realize and are too lazy to change. It is easier to say “radical idiots” than to self-examine behavior and change behavior after contemplation of the ethics of consumer choices.
ES: Discuss your views of human exploitation of the planet, other humans and animals.
MBW: Human exploitation is tied to animal exploitation. The ethic behind either is the same: a party has power and oppresses parties without power. This is a profoundly moral issue. In terms of the environment, homo sapiens as oppressors cannot be denied as we have driven, and drive, species to extinction and now may create a catastrophic global warming through carbon emissions.
DIVINITY AND RELIGION
loving God, but the Church, not so much
ES: You have been active in trying to persuade churches to become active. Please explain why you have focused on churches?
MBW: Organized religions, in my opinion, are laggards in terms of ethics and morality – even though they are in the business of ethics and morality. Efforts with my church, which happens to be Roman Catholic, have been largely negative in terms of eliciting interest in animal rights issues. As institutions dependent upon money, organized religion, in my view, is afraid of alienating its donor base by challenging the traditions associated with food consumption. As with the civil rights movement, where most churches waited for people to find civil rights to be important before endorsing it, I believe most organized religions will wait until grassroots reform makes animal rights popular before taking a position on the issue. That, to me, is cowardice and irresponsible on the part of organized religion.
ES: What are your views of divinity?
MBW: Divinity is real. It is the spark of existence and the connection with a greater, benevolent, omnipotent Source.
FACTORY FARMING
ES: Please discuss your views of factory farming.
MBW: “Factory Farming” refers to the present state of use of animals in concentrated animal factory operations which are like concentration camps. Animals are warehoused, well away from the press and public view. They, particularly chickens, live lives in squalor and confinement, only to be killed. These sentient beings – sentient referring to an ability to feel pleasure or pain – suffer greatly during their short lives.
MBW: Dairy farming is one of the most abusive industries in terms of animal exploitation and in terms of impact on human health. Cows are kept continually impregnated in confined conditions, giving birth only to have their calves ripped away from them, and then milked continuously until they are spent, at which time they are sent to slaughter. In terms of human health, casein, the protein in milk, has been linked as a cancer promoter of breast and prostate cancer as discussed in T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study.
RESEARCH
ES: Why don’t we hear about these cancer issues from mainstream researchers?
MBW: Cancer is big business. All those universities that need grant money are silent with respect to veganism, which may be the best prevention of breast and prostate cancer. Why? Disease brings them money.
HUNTERS, FISHING
Do hunters murder the ones they love?
ES: Do you also oppose hunting and fishing?
MBW: With respect to hunting and fishing, this I would describe as “murdering for pleasure”. It is inexcusable and morally reprehensible to teach children this murderous habit in the name of “love of nature” or “tradition”. How exactly is it love to murder the object of one’s love? To the fish, moose, elk or deer, a hunter would be their Satan.
ANIMAL TESTING
ES: What about animal testing?
MBW: Animal testing is around only because of antiquated FDA regulations and grant money. Better alternatives include micro-dosing of humans and computer modeling.
THE PERSONAL SIDE OF VEGANISM
commitment meets lifestyle
ES: What changes have you noticed in your personal life since becoming vegan?
MBW: The impact on my personal life of being vegan has been enjoyable and profound. I am happier, stronger and more vital than I ever have been. I feel great! In my practice of non-violence, particularly on my dinner plate, I feel better connected with what I perceive God to be. Yet my happiness is not why I am vegan. If I were miserable, I would still be vegan. Happiness or narcissism is not the issue for me. Other sentient life is what matters for me. I am beginning to realize that giving strength to others (including the most oppressed, animals) around me is more satisfying than giving strength to myself.
ES: Some might regard veganism as inconvenient. What would you tell them?
MBW: Vegan food is abundant. Many meat eaters would say, “Then what do I eat?”, when the fact is that a large part of what they already consume – coffee, bread, vegetables, fruits, etc. – is vegan anyway. To see veganism as an ascetic lifestyle is wrong. It is the opposite. It is a lifestyle of abundance. As a vegan, I love food more than I ever have.
ES: And the clothes you choose to wear?
As far as clothes, I buy organic cotton and Patagonia items for casual wear and Misook high-end polyester suits for business attire. I have no problem eating or dressing well.
ES: Is your commitment limited to veganism or are there other aspects to your lifestyle?
MBW: My commitment to veganism is not limited to not eating animals. It also means not exploiting human animals, not exploiting the environment and minimizing consumption. I try to buy local and organic whenever I can.
ANIMAL RIGHTS, ANIMAL WELFARE
to demand animal freedom or to ease the pain
ES: Where do you see the animal rights movement today?
MBW: The animal rights movement is rapidly gaining momentum. Go to your local grocery store and you will see vegan options.
ES: Please distinguish between animal rights and animal welfare and why you emphasize rights.
MBW: The distinction between animal rights and animal welfare may best be explained by an analogy to human slavery. In the abolitionist movement, a rightist would say “emancipate” whereas the welfarist would say “loosen the shackles and limit the number of whips in a beating.” Most animal rights groups adopt a welfare approach, but only because they feel it is the best way to minimize suffering in the face of a largely apathetic and, frankly, sociopathic public. It is better to reduce suffering if nothing else is likely to happen by way of change anytime soon. Rightists want immediate change today. Welfarists espouse the “pushing the peanut” approach because we have an ethically and morally retarded society. By retarded I mean slow to change. Yet I believe most welfarists are simply practical rightists. They concede to minimize suffering because people won’t stop eating turkey simply because they don’t want to, never mind the turkey’s position. So let’s make the turkey’s brief life as good as possible while he or she is alive because we are dealing with a sociopathic mentality which does not reason properly.
RESPONDING TO CRITICS, ENGAGING THE APATHETIC
go ahead, get mad, I like it…and Schopenhauer too
ES: Do you ever find yourself socially ostracized because of your views, or not taken seriously by others?
MBW: I do not feel ostracized generally because I use logic in my arguments directed to mostly intellectually-minded people who comprise my circle of friends. I have met with resistance and ridicule however. When I do, I recall Schopenhauer, who described the three stages of Truth as: (1) ridicule, (2) violent opposition and (3) acceptance as self evident. The anti-slavery movement in the United States is an example of this. First, blacks having freedom and the right to vote? How silly; they are mere animals! Second, the civil war with violent resistance to emancipation. Third, the now accepted axiom that blacks are free persons. This same pattern happened with women, and it will also happen with animals. The common denominator, again, is that of oppressor/oppressed. In terms of animal rights, I like it when someone is angry with me, as I know they are closer to the Truth than those that ridicule.
ES: Some people believe veganism is not a healthy choice. How do you respond to that?
MBW: Veganism is far healthier than the standard American diet. Americans today experience heart disease, diabetes, obesity, impotence and cancer at an unprecedented rate. Vegans do not eat animal proteins and fats. In my personal experience, I know of no obese, diabetic, or sexually impotent vegans, whereas I know of many meat and dairy consumers who have these afflictions.
ES: How do you propose getting the apathetic general public to pay attention and/or care about this movement and these issues?
MBW: The only way to get the public to pay attention to animal rights issues is by appealing to one of three things: (1) that their personal health is at stake or (2) that the ethical and moral implications of taking life where it is unnecessary and where tremendous suffering is involved require changes in behavior or (3) that, if we continue to eat flesh, we will deforest land for production of Big Macs and deplete aquifers and topsoil with resultant starvation, famine, disease and war. Meat eating is not sustainable.
A final comment from Mr. Elijah Sweete
Ms. Wosko brings a very interesting perspective. While not agreeing with all her conclusions, I found her responses honest and reflective of a kind spirit and iron-willed commitment. TMV’s comment section carries both critique and support, and I ask TMV’s always thoughtful commenters to consider additional questions they would like to see addressed on this subject. Finally, Ms. Wosko moves me to say that, whether or not one chooses veganism, there is more we all can do as individuals for our personal health and the health and welfare of all our fellow beings.
———————-
CODA by Dr. Estés: The above image of The Lamb is related to writings by theologians from the Anglican and other faiths who are writing about what they are understanding as an animal theology… which seems a movement of theology into human responsibility for animals in certain ways that have not been as clearly stated in the past. Andrew Linzey and Jay McDaniel, are “two pioneer animal theologians, coming from different positions on the theological landscape [and they] have attempted to develop a theology beyond the traditional cruelty-kindness ethic.” If you’d like to read one person’s review of their work, it is here for you.
30 Responses to “INTERVIEW WITH A VEGAN by Guest Voice: Elijah Sweete”
Powerful picture, Dr. E.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, Vegetarian News. Vegetarian News said: INTERVIEW WITH A VEGAN by Guest Voice: Elijah Sweete – The Moderate Voice http://bit.ly/6KKiKt #vegan #veg [...]
Right.
Just think of all the animals that would never have lived at all had we not bred them for eating.
It's Xmas time and there is a turkey with my name on it. His life may be short, but he will have not died in vain….that I can guarantee you.
Another life-affirming post from Dr. E. Thanks!
Wosko also seems like a wonderful person, and I agree with most of what she says, or at least most of what she is advocating. I can't agree with her take on PETA — building an animal rights movement on the exploitation of women irks me to no end.
Put me in the animal welfare camp. I think that industrial practices are tragic and dangerous, we have poor diets of the wrong kind of animals and am definitely planning on raising my own animals in the future, but I don't see a higher purpose that would make it immoral to eat them. The issues about land usage and such are correct and should be paid attention to more widely, but there are practices (and species) to address that.
It is definitely not “sociopathic” since that means lacking empathy and since they are animals it's impossible to empathize because we can't understand their root psychological nature. This whole perspective inaccurately anthropomorphizes animals, and assigns motivation to them that there is no evidence exists.
I'm going to get a burger. All this reading has made me hungry
They eat dogs in Asia. They've got puppy pens for selling puppy meat rigtht out on the street. Pobably healthier for me to eat that puppy than the xmas turkey, being home grown and all.
Maybe I should by a ticket to somewhere in Asia this year and have some organic puppy meat.
Now you did it. The classical commercial conditioning kicked in and now I have to go hunt down a burger too. Wonder how long the line is at the King's house?? Wonder if they killed any French fries too?? To much wondering….gotta act. See ya.
dr e–
Sudarshan kryia meditation sounds interesting. I'll hope you'll write something about it.
Turkeys were here before white man came, there are still wild turkeys roaming the hillsides. The ones we eat are farm bred & genetically altered to be stupid, slow-witted cretins. So I know it's not turkeys you are saying would not exist if we didn't eat them.
Cattle would still be around, including a few extinct species if we were not eating them. but allowing cattle to graze on what used to be rain forest IS removing many species which we don't eat.
Sheep, at least the dumb critters we now know, are the result of millenniums of breeding for wool & docility. Wild sheep are certainly much smarter than the domestic breeds & are only endangered by hunters. So we know that it is neither cattle or sheep of which you speak.
Nor can it be pigs. Their only virtue to a farm is as a garbage disposal (which a compost heap can handle better & more cleanly) & meat. yet they are amongst the most intelligent of farm animals. If they get into the wild it is merely a matter of one or two generations before they are again fully adopted to that life.
So it must be chickens. Bred from a bird native to Malaysia to lose its ability to fly & to lay more eggs than it needs … but the Native Malaysian bird is still out there.
So no, I don't know which animal(s) would never have lived if we hadn't farmed them for food. Furthermore, your post indicates that you are one of those who would rather look “for a reason to dismiss an uncomfortable Truth they have yet to realize and are too lazy to change.” than a true seeker of the truth. Try taking that Turkey's place for a while, if you can.
I am not a vegan, but I do not like sloppy or insensitive arguments. Do try again.
Hi roro,
I agree that PETA's tactics are a problem, and not just the denegration of women. I also disagree with Ms. Wosko that controversial tactics are used to advance discussion. Seems to me that many are so offended by the tactics that they refuse to engage in the discussion, instead taking the position “If those offensive people at PETA take that position, I'm against it.” Knee jerk reaction to offensive conduct…no discussion necessary. I takes a lot, my view, to want to engage in discussion with folks who begin by being ofensive.
The other side is that there are legitimate issues that need to be discussed and addressed like factory farming, artificially altering animals, issues about dairy factories and general insensitivity to suffering and death. My question is whether PETA advances that discussion or impedes it. Maybe PETA, with its outrageous tactics has served its purpose and it is time to move on to a more rational, and less stunt-based conversation of real issues.
Other than the PETA issue I thought Ms. Wosko did an admirable job of defending what is still a minority view.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't be around dummy.
I'm saying there would have been far fewer that have lived!
We know you want them as cute little pets to play with, but really they don't want you and many would eat you if they could. So go sit on an egg…..after you learn to read and understand english.
Thanks for the insults, they indicate the depth of your compassion & the weakness of your argument. For your benefit, I do understand English – old, middle, modern & American.
I do not wish for such animals as were mentioned above to be my pets any more than I might want to bring in a deer or a skunk from the wild, for one thing I don't have the room. If, however, I did have the space to take in a cow or a sheep as a pet its life would likely be far better than when it's ultimate fate is food for people who care not from whence it came or what it may have suffered.
I suspect that, if we weren't eating them, robbing them of habitat, transporting them into different environments & continents & otherwise corralling & abusing them, there would have been possibly just about as many as their own habitats would sustainably support. More is not necessarily better. I won't say that their lives would be better or worse, that's a personal judgment call, but their lives would have been their own. You would not be participating in what would be, at its most polite, called murder if said creatures could talk. That they cannot speak for themselves just means that it is our duty to protect them.
However, if you still want to go out now & eat that hamburger, then give thanks for the life that was taken so that you could increase your cholesterol intake. That is also a personal judgment call & one I am not proposing to make for you.
I have been a vegetarian for over thirty years. As a child growing up on a farm/ranch the only way i would eat meat would be to cover it over with bread or sauces and hide the reality of a beloved animal on the plate then dissociate from what i was eating. In college became vegetarian. It has been a life decision of unequivocal rightness that filtered into many other levels of my life and psyche to live as non-violently as possible.
Thanks for this article Dr. E. and Elijah. . .To each their own is how i live it, but in truth so much could be written about the repercussions and negative effects to the environment, the body, the heart, and soul with the current carnivore practices. The truth is; Vegan, Vegetarian, or even reducing the intake of meat products is good for our bodies, good for the environment, good for our hearts, good for our souls, and good for all sentient beings. Truly when one is able to make the decision to reduce the intake of meat it is a win/win for every direction.
Cool to hear about the sudarshan kriya meditation Dr. E. I do Nidra Yoga each morning and it is one that anyone can do without having to turn the body into a pretzel, the benefits have been amazing.
As far as PETA, for me they are similar to Green Peace. Shock activism like shock jocks are not my energetic but can appreciate their passion.
“You would not be participating in what would be, at its most polite, called murder if said creatures could talk. That they cannot speak for themselves just means that it is our duty to protect them.”
If they could talk I wouldn't eat them.
FT was out of line and offensive in his remarks but you know what being called a murderer is even more offensive to me and certainly does not encourage conversation..
hello there,
I have removed a couple lines of remarks, so some following may not track exactly. The commenters' rules at TMV are no attacking other commenters. Debate, discuss, teach, put forth your point of argument, facts, opinions about the topic… all fine, expected and accepted.
If in doubt about TMV rules for commenters, or you havent read them lately and want to, please go to Top of Home Page: there are there, and they are good boundaries for keeping discussions passionate and civil… which most of our commenters do… nearly all the time.
And by the way, its the holiday season: I hope you all have kind, funny, safe and meaningful moments in this time of so many different kinds of celebrations and good will.
thanks,
dr.e
You are quite correct. I was passing along the gist of a discussion I participated in barely a week ago with a very, I'll use the term “devout” despite it's other luggage, vegan. His argument, to place finer points on it, was that if we would not eat people, who can speak, but do eat animals which cannot, then why not also eat humans who cannot speak.
It is a rash & bold statement which is, to say the least, provocative in the extreme. Somehow, though, I can see the directions of his thought. If it is murder to kill a human, no matter how debilitated or unable to speak in his/her own defense then why is it not murder to kill anything else which shares this life with us?
My intention is to try to get people to think outside of their “comfort zones” & try to see the world in a different way. As a certain German physicist once suggested, the thinking which got us into a problem will not get us out. Meat consumption is helping drive global climate problems, undercutting our attempts to feed the poorer members of our own tribe, & generally costing us billions in health costs. It is only by rethinking our relationship with other tribes that we will have a chance to solve some of these problems.
I will not say “don't eat meat! Give it up! Go vegetarian right now!” That would be hypocritical of me & unworthy of you and your readers. All I ask is that people not blissfully trash-talk opinions with which they differ, and actually use the brains & the hearts with which we were endowed by an all-loving Creator.
To reiterate, the “murder” statement was not meant as an insult, it was meant as a mental goad.
You can accept or reject that as you will. Thank you for hearing me out.
1st Welcome back Dr. E, the reason I became interested in the Moderate was your voice, so as your contributions have begun to dwindle so has my interest. Know this: YOUR ARE MISSED!
I suspect that it is only force of habit and laziness (unconsciousness) that keeps me eating flesh. I am slow to change but the path is lit and I an aware of the blinking light down the vegan path.
Irrespective of the subject at hand, I do believe our lifestyle (modern Western post industrial) is unsustainable and mightily disrespective to all nature, human and animal. For me much of it boils down to relationship (to land, to creatures). Try to explain to any kid why their pet goat has to be put to slaughter. Why JoJo the dog has to die. I have too, spoken to small farmers, who do slaughter but sometimes even cry for doing so, for the loss of a creature they have named and loved. I remember to in Don Juan's books, the gratitude expressed and the pain acknowledged when a vegetable was pulled from the earth to serve the purpose of feeding us. In other words all living things including plants suffer, the difference is the consciousness and gratefulness involved in how much, how many, how done, etc.
I would be curious to hear the authors views vis-a-vis the Native American view. There was a certain consciousness and gratitude in their killing. The respect and thankfulness it takes to take another's life so as to feed your own. It would have been a good interview question.
Breathing techniques ……..to relieve the stress…….relax the mind. It has been difficult get my soul to take its place on the cushion, to be quiet, and to listen ………….it has been very rewarding and a gift that keeps on giving. Far away from TMV , Dr E, I'll meet you there.
“To reiterate, the “murder” statement was not meant as an insult, it was meant as a mental goad.”
And you could hit someone and say it was not meant as an assault but as a “physical goad”, how do you think that will play? Yeah thought so.
Vegans are always so small and weak how can it be good for you?
Not to mention why does no one ever think about all the poor mudered plants?
Hey tidbits, long time no talk, eh? Hope all is well with you. I pretty much agree with everything you said — particularly about PETA's seeming need to force a conversation about whether or not they're *ssholes instead of about the important issues they claim to care about — so I'm mostly just saying hi.
Thanks, roro. Appreciate the thought.
back at ya.
tidbits
The animal rights groups including PETA have a motto about animals it goes like this “You cant wear them, eat them, keep them as pets or breed them.” This is animal extinction. The world cant feed a world of vegans. There isn't enough land available for crops. The land that is being used to grow grain for the animals is GM grain. Unsuitable for human cunsumption grain. The alteration is made into the soil with herbacide, the herbacide doesn't break down. In 50 years the herbacide will still be there Unsuitable for human consumption.
PETA uses film that was shot in other countries, they lie and say the film was shot in the USA. They lie about everything. I want to be in a world with animals myself. No my spiritual path is why I'm not a meat eater. Twenty five years on this path. What are the masses going to eat?
“Live and let live” is my motto. I have no problem with people following specific lifestyles or diets.
I do think, however, that calling people “murderers” because they consume meat is offensive and unhelpful.
Aren’t humans amazing Animals? They kill wildlife – birds, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice and foxes by the million in order to protect their domestic animals and their feed.
Then they kill domestic animals by the billion and eat them. This in turn kills people by the million, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative – and fatal – - health conditions like heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, and cancer.
So then humans spend billions of dollars torturing and killing millions of more animals to look for cures for these diseases.
Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals.
Meanwhile, few people recognize the absurdity of humans, who kill so easily and violently, and once a year send out cards praying for “Peace on Earth.”
~Revised Preface to Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm by C. David Coates~
Check out this informative and inspiring video on why people choose vegan: http://veganvideo.org/
Also see Gary Yourofsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bagt5L9wXGo
My dear friend and unrepentent horse thief,
Your gentle spirit shines through as always in your remarks, and I commend your deep committment to non-violence.
Still, I find a sliver of separation when you compare PETA to Green Peace. Green Peace seeks to prevent the extinction of rare species by directly interfering in the killing of that species. PETA, it seems to me, seeks only to shock for the sake of shock itself. The general public appears to have a very different perception of the two, one respected the other distasteful.
If I am incorrect, or if my views on this are simply a product of social indoctrination, I stand open to correction and education.
dear Tidbits it was good to read your reply to comment. Thanks for your kind words friend.
I had to stop and think about comparing PETA and Greenpeace in the same sentence, like you i have long admired Greenpeace. First heard of Greenpeace back in the late 60 or early seventies era. As a teenager i resonated with their stance on anti-nuclear protest and their powerful commitment to environmental issues: whaling, bottom trawling, global warming, old growth, nuclear power, and genetically modified organisms and as an adult i still do. Do you remember 'back in the day' when Greenpeace was so very controversial as they took on the whaling ships. They threw their bodies, hearts with such passion. It was covered each evening by the major news networks and remember vividly the family,community and school reactions to what they perceived as anarchy, if they would of known the word eco-terrorists back then they would of use it for Greenpeace. The parcel of Greenpeace feels very masculine in its passionate expression. Nowadays it seems that only causes that are sensationalized get air time. The non-dramatical advocate organizations are left to send newsletters with address stickers hoping to get a few dollars and even then they become soiled with legitimacy concerns. Maybe there is something in us that seeks to resist advocacy which suggests we need to make changes for the greater good and is imperative if we are going to have a life sustaining planet?
This is how i perceive PETA, some might be valid and some may just be the crook and slant of my mi-optic vision looking through a periscope at the kaleidoscope of these morphing bold wacky women that display themselves and gets publicized by PETA. I am only an on-looker of this organization, but once again i appreciate their passion for a cause that many would rather not see. I don't get bent out of shape when PETA displays the graphic mingling of violence with the explicit sexual to shock people. I have seen the real thing and that i become truly protest. Something in me sees PETA as coming from some kind of 'in the face' dreamscape theater of the feminine psyche. The rage of feminine exploitation, the long dark hidden history of women in the grip patriarchal dominance gets blended and woven into animal rights and welfare for the women and animals share history and many features of being forced into submission by the spirit of domination. It is a long ugly history, there is a lot stored in the collective pain body of women around this issue that gets played out so vividly in many of the images of PETA. Many of the images and ways of PETA are like little children smearing feces, it is ANGRY. IMHO there is something in the collective feminine psyche that needs expressing, and finally after thousands of years it is safe for these horrific symbolic images to be displayed for all to see. I see these women as serving all of us by airing that which would of killed them not so many years. With the display of the rage and the empowerment through symbolic dreamscape they have chosen a cause that so needs our understanding and compassion as to the ethical and humane consideration of all creatures. I like these twisted sisters and whatever theater it takes for them to bring awareness and expression that can lead them to greater space and self-containment i am heartened by.
PETA has passion, much like Greenpeace has passion. Both show their willingness to put themselves on the line. Greenpeace put their courage and bodies, and PETA puts their psyche and primal fury and that too is courageous. We all know that old saying; “There is a thin line between love and hate”, PETA has definitely tripped onto the darkside of that one.
I do believe PETA has brought some positive changes. So many dislike PETA but they have greatly reduced the use of fur coats used for glamor and affluence grabs. They have caused many science, industry, big farm and circuses to raise their standards in spite of the fact of their nasty ways. Many places do not want PETA on their tails in the same way one does not want wasp in the car while driving.
Sometimes PETA makes me laugh, or at least i think it was PETA that took the fake fox scent to throw off the Fox Hunts in England. Now Tidbits i like that one, the imagery is choice.
PETA says that pet ownership is akin to slavery. Just last night i thinking about PETA and pushed it to the back of the mind for my cat was wanting to watch a video. She loves the laptop and a few times a week i find an animal video and she sat inches from the screen and watches the entire video. Last night i came across Meer Cat Manor a series on Animal Planet. It is only 20 minutes and thought it would be just right for Luna. We ended up watching two hours of Meer Cats. The same reason i like watching the Meer Cats is the same reason i like watching PETA. There are some real behavioral similarities lots of vigilance, gutsyness, protetiveness, fighting, fierce loyalty, passion and oral crunching. Always the question, what are they going to do next?
Often times when i hear about PETA or see their images an old REO Speedwagon song plays across my mind, Tough Guys. For years thought the words where, “She does it like the tough guys”, and later came to realize the words are “She does not like the tough guys” either one seem to fit PETA for me.
Tough Guys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9rWSxlilUI
Tidbits as usual i got into a ramble, but thanks for sharing your question about PETA and Greenpeace and my association of the two are abit skewed and warped in a twisted sister sort of way. But what i really want to say is hope you have a great Holiday Season with lots of joy, peace and good fun.
And Happy Holidays to One and All. . . .
Hi Tidbits i posted you a rely but forgot to send it as reply. . .
sparrow -
Thanks so much for the kind reply. Very well expressed. As this post is nearing the end of the front page, I will print your comment so I can review it more fully & get back another time. My initial reaction is an appreciation of your perspective, though I am still haunted by what I view as the counter productive people in costume outside the state penetentiary at execution hour and how we had to struggle to overcome those images in the public eye as we tried to get referenda passed to end capital punishment.
I particularly liked your explanation of the appeal to the female.
Your cat sounds wonderful. Did you steal it?
I sadly report that my Golden Retriever passed away several weeks ago. He, Steck, had been trained as a handicap assist dog who could not be placed because of a serious heart condition, but outlived all predictions by many years. His stocking hangs above the fireplace for the holidays and he is missed.
Ahh Tidbits. . .so sorry to hear about Steck. . .that is a hard one. . .but glad to hear you had him and he had you for the many years but know how hard it can be to lose a dear pet. . .my good thoughts are with you as you experience his passing.
LOL! I would be more correct for me to say the Cat stole me. . .she rules!