It was because he wanted there to be conspirators. It was much better to imagine men in some smoky room somewhere, made mad and cynical by privilege and power, plotting over the brandy. You had to cling to this sort of image, because if you didn't then you might have to face the fact that bad things happened because ordinary people, the kind who brushed the dog and told their children bedtime stories, were capable of then going out and doing horrible things to other ordinary people.

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was Us, what did that make Me? After all, Im one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

I have a Romanian cyberbuddy who is a voracious reader and movie watcher - of any subject, but it has to have a lot to do with the foibles of humanity, and thought processes and questions and answers of an often esoteric nature. Anyway, she sends me quotes and clips that she found interesting, and today's little missive is a snippet of Pratchett. And it prompted the following post.

Us and Them is what we often use when speaking as animal welfare proponents about 'animal rights' misanthropes. It's an easy way to make distinctions, but the above little snippet got me to thinking about the time before an 'us' and a 'them'. The time before 'we' heard about all of this. Back when 'we' were just people who enjoyed our pets, or lived on a farm and took care of the livestock, or had an Aunt Mamie who raised Chihuahuas.

Back to a time when it was just 'we', no 'us' or 'them'. As the above quote points out the whole of society is just 'we'. And this is the deal now - 'us' thinks of 'them' as 'them' - but 'they' also are thinking of 'us' as 'them'. To 'them' they are 'us'. The terms are - in a certain sense - interchangeable. I'm seeing a message in this that I may not be able to express quite adequately. But I'll try.

We use 'us' and 'them' as though we were talking about a species from another planet that not only doesn't speak our language but probably can't comprehend our ways. And we feel that it is unlikely that they ever will, so we either ignore them, or get busy trying to make sure that they don't impinge on our lives as we like to live them. Now I'll admit that the thought of actually approaching an Ingrid Newkirk, to make an effort to get her to at least find toleration for my point of view and cease attempting to force her own point of view upon me , pretty much turns my stomach. However, lost cause though she may be, there are likely to be many among those 'in the field' espousing her viewpoint without actually understanding the underlying aim.

So perhaps the next time 'us' find ourselves at a rally or in a city hall where we're voicing our own cause in opposition to 'them' and their cause, maybe actually trying to talk to some of the minions might be worthwhile. Not 'their' leaders, but the ones who are just there as numbers, to show support but have real lives otherwise. These minions are almost 'us', they probably have a pet that they love, maybe grew up on a farm and were happy (before they were told that they were living off of enslaved fellow beings) or still have an Aunt Mamie who used to raise Chihuahuas before she got too old to take care of them. Maybe many of these minions don't actually understand that this whole thing is not about the animals, never has been. Maybe they're just there because the propaganda sounds good and most of 'us' want to do good things, for ourselves and others.

Maybe if we talk to a minion it won't do any good, but all we've lost is a little time and effort (and maybe a little more than a 'little' of our store of patience). But maybe we can plant a seed of question in that minion's mind. Maybe later that same day that minion might sit at the dinner table, eating their tofu and sprouts, or veggie burger and potato chips, and experience enlightenment.

Maybe they'll watch the obvious joy in their loved pet's reaction to that potato chip tidbit and reach an awareness that that pet is happy living with them.

Maybe they'll recall their childhood on that farm, when bacon and eggs was breakfast, and feeding the chickens and slopping the hogs was a chore - but one in which the animals clearly participated with appreciation, since they didn't have to search for that food or fend off predators if they found it. And maybe they'll understand that while those animals on the farm lived in confinement, they had food, shelter and a place that was their own without territorial contention.

Maybe they'll remember watching Aunt Mamie sitting next to a new Chihuahua mom, ready to get help if the delivery ran into problems, remember that tiny newborn pup that Aunt Mamie held with such hope for it's future shining in her face, remember how much fun it was getting down in the grass in the yard to play with every dog on the place that had it's own name and membership in the family pack. And just maybe they'll remember Aunt Mamie's very real grief when a beloved old Ch sire finally cycled off of this plane..

Then maybe they'll find themselves asking the question that I ask myself almost daily : Where do the Ingrid Newkirks expect all of these animals to go, if they succeed in cutting every human animal bond that exists - and has existed for centuries? And finally they may wake up and realize that the answer to that question is the Ingrid Newkirks DON'T CARE where all of the animals will go.

Because this has never been about the animals.

Note : Ingrid Newkirk is one of PETA's guiding lights and quite proud of it.