Saving animals is not enough (5)

What Tatjana had planned, she put into practice. It was so easy, much easier than she thought, to eat no animal products. The vegan community in particular was very supportive. Primarily when she was dealing with non-vegans, because that was one of the strangest experiences I’ve had to go through. As soon as someone found out that she did not eat cruelty to animals, she was ridiculed, at best, but mostly insulted and put down. She no longer understood the world. She tried as far as possible to avoid animal suffering and ultimately also human suffering, and was she attacked for that? She didn’t do anyone any harm, quite the opposite?

With this experience, however, she was anything but alone. Rejection was omnipresent. Tatjana was explained this with the theory of „cognitive dissonance“, which means that there is a gap between what you know, which would be good, and what you actually do. In other words, nobody wants animals to suffer, but most of them still want to eat them. Now vegans do exactly what they cannot or do not dare to do themselves because their social environment would react negatively. They direct their anger at the vegans. That made much more understandable for Tatjana. She was not the target of the attacks and underhandedness, but what she stood for. She was the thorn in the flesh, the personified bad conscience of those who knew what would be good for the animals, the environment and their own health, but still didn’t manage to change their habits accordingly. Above all, it was good to know that she wasn’t alone. She received so much support and encouragement.

The next step, after watching numerous documentaries, was as logical as the first. She joined an animal rights organization and tried to pass on her newly acquired knowledge to the people. It’s called awareness work.

Tatyana had rescued a dog. It was wonderful to know that. It had been brave. Now this dog lived in safety and comfort. But what about all the other dogs who continued to be tortured and abused? It was therefore important not to stop at this point, but to outlaw cruelty to animals and achieve minimum legal standards.

Tatjana had taken care of and scratched Ferdinand the boar, cleaned out his stable and watched him how happy he was with his life. It was good that he had found this place and was now allowed to stay until the end of his natural life. But in his place came another boar, now caught in the machinery of exploitation. That’s why it was important to break the system, to end the exploitation.

Tatjana’s conclusion was that for every animal that is saved, there was another that had to endure this suffering. This would change if the social and moral framework changed. But you had to do something to make people aware of how much suffering and misery was hidden behind closed doors. It was necessary to bring this to the light of the public in order to enable a rethink. So, it was wonderful that there were places like this where rescued individuals could find home and sanctuary, but it wasn’t enough. Only when all animals, human and non-human, could live in peace and quiet was the goal reached, the end of the path that Tatjana had begun when she saved a puppy from being stoned. Now she stood on the street and never tired of drawing attention to the suffering of animals in the so-called livestock industry. And it would remain until all animals, human and non-human, were free and safe, since no one would have the right to exercise power over them and the mere thought of owning living beings would seem absurd. When she was tired and drained, she drew new strength on Samara’s farm.

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit deinem Abmelden /  Wechseln )


Du kommentierst mit deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Wechseln )

Verbinde mit %s