- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Activists, on the other hand, know different. They count on the evolution of morality. Recently, Adam Hochschild's fascinating "Bury the Chains" chronicled the means by which a group of committed 18th-century idealists convinced their fellow citizens in Britain and America that slavery was an intolerable wrong.
That's a huge gripe for me. That view is popular with wanna-be activists, much less popular with historians.
Many "activists" lionize past activists most often for their zeal; rather than pragmatism or the good fortune of larger historical context. It encourages the notion that anyone zealous enough will make a great activist, when very often they lack the strategy or historical timing and just create divisions and promote the "digging in" of political opponents.
"Vegetarian Activism" i.e. the active promotion of vegetarianism has little to do with mild increases in vegetarianism, and probably has more of a negative reactionary effect than positive pro-vegetarian effect.
Vegetarianism exists mostly for reasons that are technological, with spiritual/moral and historic components. Nutrition options, society specialization, super markets the disconnect from the slaughter, are technological impetus. Some moral reasons are ancient, but the additional research into intelligent species and many other developments are technological.
It's also highly subjective. For example, many people enjoy hunting and feel the hunt and slaughter connect them to the land and maintain ancient traditions. When vegetarians think of "rednecks" doing so, they're not very sympathetic. But when it's Native Americans in sacred rituals, they're often much more sympathetic. That shows the subjective and cultural judgments which are pretty rational.
