Don't Give a Cow

Over the years, I have experienced much frustration and sadness over the growth in popularity of nonprofit organizations that send live animals to impoverished countries all around the world. This growing phenomenon is headed by the high-profile Heifer Project International, which – I believe – is doing a great disservice to the people it wishes to help, to the environment, to the public who is persuaded and mislead by celebrity sponsors, to the children who are desensitized to animal suffering, and to the animals themselves. Heifer Project is so successful at making people think they’re actually helping animals that I know of several animal activists whose family members donated to Heifer on their behalf, thinking they were doing something for animals. They thought, because these activists “loved animals” they would appreciate having a goat bought in their name and sent to a needy family somewhere around the world. Luckily, that hasn’t happened to me, but for awhile I was receiving their “catalog” – this is actually a full-color, very well-produced “catalog” of animals and children. You choose an animal – a goat, a llama, a cow, a chicken - or what they call an entire “ark” of animals and your donation is translated into live animals being transported to a family to be used. This, in my opinion, essentially amounts to nothing more than a slave trade – an animal slave trade.

Now, let me just say that I’m often perplexed by the claim that animal advocates are anti-human. You’ve probably heard that before or maybe you’ve made that claim yourself. What perplexes me about that accusation is that it implies that compassion for one species means lack of compassion for another; as if our capacity for mercy and kindness is limited. When we deem certain human groups unequal, we call it racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism. When we make this claim about non-human animals, we justify it – their inequality, that is – on the grounds of tradition, science, or religion. But there is a name for this – it’s called speciesism. The claim – that animal advocates are anti-human – seems really odd to me because though we are reminded every day that humans steal, lie, cheat, kill, rape, and hurt each other, I’ve never heard any of these people called “anti-human.” It seems to me that the accusation would better suit someone who actually acts against humans, which is something we see and hear about every day in the news, on the street, and in our own homes. Ironically, those who commit the worst crimes against humans are derisively called “animals.”

This societal premise leaves animal advocates reluctant to publicly object to such groups as Heifer Project International, lest they be accused of caring more about humans than animals. Heifer’s mission is “to end hunger and poverty and to care for the earth.” Their mission statement does not say that they give animals to people around the globe to use, breed, sell, and consume their milk, eggs, flesh, hair, fur, feathers, and skin. Instead, Heifer, whose $75 million revenue increases every holiday season, dupes individuals and seemingly progressive celebrities, such as Susan Sarandon, Frances Moore Lappe, and Jimmy Carter, into supporting what is essentially an animal slave trade.

Aside from the obvious problems this model creates: such as environmental problems economic problems, (raising animals for human consumption is expensive and inefficient) health problems (globalizing our preventable diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes hardly seems charitable; and despite the fact that two-thirds of non-Caucasians on the planet are lactose intolerant and cannot digest dairy, Heifer is spending millions on dairy programs in countries like Zimbabwe. The last thing a hungry child in Africa needs is the milk of a cow. Aside from these problems, and I’m skimming over only a few, Heifer perpetuates a speciesist paradigm, viewing animals as mere commodities with no regard for their own inherent value.

Heifer says “sharing the offspring of gift animals with others in need” is “fundamental” to its approach; however, a mother’s relationship with her offspring is sacred and not unique to humans—we even call ourselves “mother hens” when we fuss over our own children. We admire the fierceness with which a mother bear protects her cubs. Manipulating a female’s reproductive cycle is offensive enough (as with egg-laying hens and lactating cows), but to take away her offspring is – to my mind – the ultimate blow.

If you’ve never seen their catalog, it’s absolutely amazing. It reminds me of those depictions of happy slaves smiling and laughing while working in the fields, depictions designed to shape public opinion and squelch any potential uprising among the slaves themselves. The Heifer Project’s glossy “catalog,” sent to millions of homes every year for “holiday shopping,” egregiously exploits children’s affection for animals and manipulates our own sensibilities, as they depict beautiful gorgeous children hugging these animals. And if you look at this catalog, you’ll notice that they’re all babies. These are gorgeous photos – with smiling celebrities proudly hugging beautiful animals – these animals are all babies, an egregious manipulation of our own appreciation for life, our appreciation of youth, our enthusiasm for babies – all babies. Everyone goes crazy when they see a baby chick or a baby goat – for god’s sake, they’re perfect.

But this carefully crafted public relations campaign succeeds in helping us forget that these catalog “products” are living, feeling beings who will be used up and killed. Sure, they say that this animal or that animal is valuable for “meat.,” so it’s not like people aren’t aware of that, but as with any effective marketing campaign, the real truth is concealed. There are no pictures of slaughter, or of females yearning for their young, or of the animals’ living conditions. It’s not just Heifer; they lead the pack, but there are other nonprofit organizations that also solicit donations to send animals to people all around the world, including Oxfam, Send a Cow, and Christian Aid. Now, this isn’t an all or nothing situation. I’m not suggesting we don’t help the hungry; what I’m suggesting is to do it in such a way that benefits EVERYONE and that doesn’t exploit ANYONE.

There are many other programs dedicated to providing solutions to hunger without exploiting animals. Trees for Life (treesforlife.org) and the Fruit Tree Planting Foundation (http://www.ftpf.org/) enable you to buy a fruit tree in someone’s name, providing a food source to communities in developing countries. Every time you buy a gift from the Women’s Bean Project (womensbeanproject.org), you help a woman break the cycle of poverty and unemployment by supporting their programs that provide skills and training to women. One of Plenty International’s (plenty.org) programs includes training villages in soy bean agriculture and production as a way to improve nutrition, soil quality, and food security. Through Sustainable Harvest International, whose website is http://www.sustainableharvest.org/, you can contribute to planting trees in Central America, which has lost more than half of its rainforests in the last 50 years, and of course we know that much of this occurs to provide grazing land for cattle, who will be slaughtered and exported, so that Americans can have cheap meat. Finally, Animal Aid, a UK charity, http://www.animalaid.org.uk/, is supporting a tree-planting initiative in Kenya, which will provide fruit-bearing trees for local families. The aim is to help 100 families to plant 20 trees each, which will bear oranges, avocados, mangoes, and macadamia nuts, with a few additional trees for timber and firewood.

If we claim to be a compassionate society—a compassionate species—don’t we have a duty to foster solutions that do not harm others? The great humanitarian Albert Schweitzer certainly thought so when he wrote, “The thinking [person] must oppose all cruel customs no matter how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo. When we have a choice, we must avoid bringing torment and injury into the life of another.”

Speaking Your Truth

I think in many ways the eating aspects of being vegan are a breeze, but dealing with the social aspects can be a little challenging. Most of us have been brainwashed into believing we need to consume animal products, so the burden remains on the vegetarian to justify his or her eating habits, and I think this is why many people shy away from vegetarianism – they’re afraid to appear different or they don’t want to call attention to themselves or don’t want the “hassle” of asking for what they want or they’re just lazy. But despite their own ethics or health concerns or whatever compels someone to stop eating animals and their secretions, many people continue to do so for fear of “being different.”

It reminds me of an old Arabic folktale about a witch who visits a kingdom one night and poisons the central well with seven drops of a potion that drives people mad. The next morning all who drink from that well go crazy. The king, however, knew about this in advance and, like all self-respecting kings with their own water source, didn't drink from the communal well. The next day, those who drank the poisoned water came to the king and accused him of being the crazy one. The king, aware of what had transpired, was faced with a dilemma: drink from the well and lose his sanity like the rest of his subjects, but remain king; or don't drink, remain sane, but be swept from power by those who would view his very sanity as madness.

Though the stakes may not seem as high as those in this story, I think they feel that way to many people. Though they may not lose their kingdom, many people are afraid of losing their social status, friends, or comfort level, and all of those may be valued as high to an ordinary citizen as a kingdom is to a king. Those of us who make the choice to be vegetarian may grapple with this each time we go out to eat with non-vegetarian friends or who accept an invitation to a dinner party hosted by a non-vegetarian. You may face it at work when your company orders lunch for everyone or at a business dinner when you don’t choose the restaurant. You may feel this if you’re vegan and your spouse is not – dealing with holidays or on a much larger scale – deciding how to raise your future children.

PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCEI’ve heard some people say that they’re not vegetarian (or are only sometimes) because when they go to dinner at friends’ houses or at their in-laws’ or just out to dinner with non-vegetarian friends, they don’t want to make anyone uncomfortable and they don’t want to appear difficult. Those who fall into this category very willingly take the Path of Least Resistance.

Truth be told, I’ve never been much of a conformist. I’ve always questioned the customs or habits or rules of the status quo and have never done something just because everyone else did it. In fact, if something becomes very popular, I’m actually wary of it. But that’s not to say I simply do things just for the sake of being different either. It probably appears to some as if I do – because I often swim against the current, but that’s just because there’s an awful lot of people drinking from that poisoned well! There are a lot of things I have opinions about, and what’s the use of taking a position if I didn’t manifest those opinions or beliefs in my behavior?

Of course sometimes it would be easier to just conform, blend in, look like everyone else, sound like everyone else, but at what cost? At the cost of my own values? That’s a pretty high cost, in my opinion. This is not to say that you have to rock the boat constantly, but everyone who knows me or meets me knows where I stand on certain things – certain things I don’t compromise on – namely my belief that animals are here for their own sake and not for my pleasure. That’s not something I have to apologize for. That’s not something that changes according to who invites me to dinner or who can handle it and who it makes uncomfortable.

And if you think about it, it would be pretty self-centered of me to try and control other people’s reactions – being afraid for telling someone I don’t eat animals because it might make them uncomfortable. Who am I to guess what someone’s reaction is going to be? Who am I to protect someone from the very thing that might open up their own repressed feelings about animals? Who am I to deny someone the chance to show me they care about my feelings and ethical beliefs? I mean, I’ve never seen people at their most beautiful and vulnerable than when they learn I’m vegetarian and either begin sharing their own stories and feelings or when they go out of their way to accommodate me. That’s their choice, and I always appreciate it.

I think we don’t give people the benefit of the doubt enough. I think we underestimate our friends and family, and as long as we think we’re “protecting them” from any discomfort, we’re not only denying our own ethics and perpetuating the socially sanctioned abuse of animals, we’re also – potentially – denying other people their own transformation. Because how else does this occur than through honest interaction and communication with others?

On that same note, I think it’s important in all our relationships to know where we begin and another person ends. What a mess I’d be if my behavior was determined by how it would make other people react. In other words, if my veganism does make someone uncomfortable, that’s not mine. Whatever someone does with my values isn’t mine to worry about. Now again, I’m not saying that we be selfish or rude or ungracious. But what I am saying is that we need to speak our truth without being attached to what our truth will do to other people, without being self-effacing. I just don’t see why we think someone else’s comfort level is more important than our own principles – and our own desire for a satisfying dinner.

EMBARRASSED ABOUT ETHICS?When I became vegan – or as I like to say “when I woke up”- I felt so liberated. We all say we want to make a difference. We all say we want to leave our mark on this world. We all say we want to do something meaningful, live a meaningful life, help others, effect change, contribute something important. I do think people mean it when they say it, but I wonder sometimes if this all means as much to them as not appearing different. We all say we want to make a difference, but in order to do so, we have to do something different. Which means we may appear different. What’s that quote? “Well-behaved women seldom make history." (Men, too.) The point is it’s only people willing to assert their individuality, their personal beliefs who actually make a difference. It’s easy to go along with the status quo, but is it what we really want? And the best part about this issue is you don’t have to become an animal activist to help animals. You just have to stop eating them. A pretty simple, selfless act.

We also tend to think in extremes, and I think people believe that if you speak up for what you want, you’re going to be a social outcast. It’s not true at all. We absolutely underestimate friends and family in this area. We even underestimate strangers. Yes, our being vegetarian or vegan might make someone uncomfortable, but that’s because most people don’t meet other people willing to stand up for what they believe in! Imagine if we all raised our expectations of each other. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to live in a world where you’re surprised by someone who believes something but doesn’t act accordingly? "So, you care about animals and you keep eating them? I don’t understand! How can that be?" Wouldn’t that be great? To live in a world where people truly embrace values of compassion and nonviolence and kindness without feeling ashamed or embarrassed? And to be honest, people admire it. They might be afraid of it, but they admire the courage it takes to go against the grain.

So, don’t drink from the poisoned well. Stay sane. Stay true. Because if you won't stand up for what you believe in, you might as well have no opinion at all.

Active Listening

I think we have forgotten how to talk to one another. Certainly the anonymity of the Internet has contributed to this and has dulled our discourse, dehumanized our dialogue. We listen with divided attention, more interested in hearing our own voices and ready to respond with a defensive answer or a witty quip. This is particularly true when it comes to talking about vegetarianism. Thoughtless (i.e. "without thought") responses come flowing out of people's mouths when confronted with the idea of not eating once-alive, once-kicking animals. A dichotomy of good vs. bad is immediately imagined, and hackles are raised even before the bell goes off.

Communication is central to everything I do, as this sensitive subject requires special care. Admittedly, it is exhausting work - prepping for the cooking classes alone takes countless hours, and it is when the class is over that I am utterly spent - not because of the hours I've been on my feet - but because of the energy that goes into fostering a dialogue in each of my classes. I'm exhausted not just from talking but from listening. I absorb and honor every word and try to create a safe space for students to say what they need to. It takes energy to listen.

Every day, whether it's via email, in my classes, or on the street, I am asked the same questions over and over. (Every vegetarian knows what this is like.) But I try and treat each question as if it is being asked for the very first time. And you know what? It is. By that individual. I know that many people are hearing what I am saying - about veganism, about animals, about nutrition - for the very first time, and since we've all been brainwashed by the same machine, there is a relatively small pool of responses from which people draw.

You don't have to be an educator to honor the dialogue that I believe we all so desperately want. I know many vegetarians who are tired of answering the "protein question" or fielding justifications about eating animals. And I know it can be tiresome, but not only to I feel it is my responsbility to speak on behalf of the truth when asked about vegetarianism, I believe it is a breech of trust if I don't. I would be breeching the trust of the animals who need me as their voice, and I would be breeching the trust of the person asking the question who is trusting me with their fears or concerns or needs. I am compelled to answer with grace. I am expected to answer with truth. I am honored to answer at all.

This doesn't mean that the non-vegetarians are off the hook. Each one of us knows when we're asking a genuine question and seeking authenic dialogue or when we're merely spouting off judgments and trying to provoke anger. All of that is just based on fear - of hearing the truth, of having our own truth revealed to us, of being inspired to make a change. Each time we push away the truth about this issue, we're just delaying our own growth. It will happen eventually, so we may as well just jump in now. If we're not actively participating in life and all its complexities and pain and suffering, then we're just stagnant.

My husband and I regularly attend a Japanese Tea Ceremony, and one of the most valuable things that we've taken from it is the idea of "facing forward." During the ceremony, guests are expected to pay attention to every detail, to admire the scroll and the tea wares, to be fully present. Now, at home, whenever one of us feels the other is distracted when we want to say something, we ask the other person to please face forward. It's a much gentler way (and much more effective) than saying "you're not listening to me!"

So, I'll leave you with that thought. May we listen to each other with authenticity and respond with integrity. May we speak for truth. May we face forward and look directly into each other's eyes, directly into our own fears and embrace the joys and sorrows that come with living fully present and fully open.