简介
带着好意出发，却可能在动权倡导的路上不慎「踩雷」。当来自西方的动保策略被复制粘贴到亚洲，为何常常水土不服，甚至对本土运动造成伤害？这背后，触及了近年来动权领域两个至关重要的议题：去殖民化 (decolonization) ——即深刻反思并挑战以西方为中心的动物倡导模式；以及全面解放 (total liberation) ——坚信人类解放与动物解放不可分割。围绕着这些复杂的议题，在本期节目中，我们邀请了来自世界各地的动物权利倡导者，一起坦诚地聊聊 Ta 们在运动中见过或犯过的那些错误。
节目的前半部分，一位深耕亚洲本土动权倡导的匿名嘉宾，深入剖析了国际组织在扩张时常犯的错误和全面解放的重要性。来自哥伦比亚的倡导者费尔南多分享了更为具体的教训，回忆早期运动如何错误地将农场动物的困境与哥伦比亚社会中极为敏感的人类绑架议题相提并论，并分享了促使哥伦比亚禁止斗牛娱乐的关键事件。节目的后半段，我们转向了更个人化、更关注社群内部建设的思考。有着亚洲血统和非洲生活经历的英国倡导者查尔斯，分享了自己曲折的动权之路。
以上就是本期节目的上集。通过三位嘉宾的分享，我们得以一窥在亚洲和拉丁美洲等全球南方地区，动权倡导所面临的独特文化困境与挑战。在节目的下集，我们将会把目光转向欧洲。那里有着历史更为悠久的动物权利运动，其行动策略也常常聚焦于更为直接的抗争。我们邀请了几位奋斗在欧洲前线的动权倡导者，来谈谈在不同的法律体系和社群环境下，Ta 们对犯错这个主题又有哪些不一样的观察与反思。敬请期待。
What begins with the best of intentions can sometimes lead to missteps in animal advocacy. When strategies from the West are “copy-pasted” into Asia, why do they so often fail to translate, or worse, cause real harm to the local movement? This question touches upon two crucial themes that have become central to the animal rights discourse in recent years: decolonization—a call to deeply question and challenge Western-centric models of advocacy; and total liberation—the conviction that human and animal liberation are inseparable. Navigating these complex ideas, this episode brings together advocates from around the world for a candid conversation about the mistakes they’ve witnessed or made in the movement.
In the first half of the show, an anonymous guest with deep roots in local Asian animal advocacy analyzes two critical mistakes that international organizations often make when expanding. First, blindly applying successful Western models while ignoring Asia’s unique cultural, political, and local contexts. Second, operating within a top-down management structure where strategic decisions are made by Western managers who lack local experience, leading to burnout among local activists, sometimes even causing them to leave the movement. Fernando, an animal rights advocate from Colombia, shares more concrete lessons. He recalls how the early movement mistakenly equated the plight of farm animals with the highly sensitive issue of human kidnapping in Colombian society. This appropriation not only came across as tone-deaf but also directly offended and alienated potential allies. He also shares the story of how Colombia abolished bullfighting as entertainment and the key events that led to this victory.
In the latter half of this episode, we shift to more personal reflections and a focus on internal community building. Charles, a UK-based advocate of Asian heritage with life experience in Africa, shares his own winding journey in advocacy. His childhood experiences of witnessing animal slaughter in the Philippines and Nigeria left a profound impact on him. However, to avoid friction with friends and family, he initially used “health” as a shield for practicing veganism, until a moment of physical revulsion during a meal led him to truly embrace his ethical stance. Today, he chooses to channel his energy into more concrete and tangible actions, like fundraising for animal sanctuaries.
This concludes the first half of our episode. Through the stories of our anonymous guest, Fernando, and Charles, we’ve glimpsed the unique cultural dilemmas and challenges faced by advocates in the Global South, from Asia to Latin America. In the second half, we will turn our focus to Europe. There, the animal rights movement has a much longer history, and its strategies often center on more direct forms of action. We’ve invited more advocates from the front lines in Europe to discuss their different perspectives and reflections on the theme of making mistakes within different legal systems and community environments. Stay tuned.
音频
小宇宙：豆腐国际Vol.02 全球动权前线的集体复盘（上）| 全英
时间轴
00:00:00动权倡导的误区00:01:17动权运动的去殖民化与全面解放00:02:33亚洲动权运动的复制粘贴问题00:05:22自上而下的结构与本土倡导者的倦怠00:10:05交叉性与全面解放的重要性00:15:47为动权挪用哥伦比亚民众的创伤00:17:43团结与给予空间的力量00:21:05文化不敏感的策略 (面具与 AV)00:22:52以消费为中心的西方动权模式00:25:44缺乏本土化的文宣 (PETA 西语传单)00:31:39哥伦比亚如何禁止斗牛00:37:07社群内部的道德妥协 (AV 与法西斯主义)00:41:04童年目睹动物受苦与成年后的维根主义00:45:43应对文化现实与社会压力00:47:41系统性变革 vs. 个人力量-
00:54:25内容总结与下半部分预告 00:00:00Introduction: The Pitfalls of Animal Advocacy00:01:17Key Themes: Decolonization and Total Liberation00:02:33The “Copy-Paste” Problem in Asia00:05:22Top-Down Structures and Local Burnout00:10:05Advocacy, Intersectionality, and Total Liberation00:15:47Co-opting Human Trauma for Animal Rights00:17:43The Power of Solidarity and Giving Space00:21:05Culturally Insensitive Tactics (Masks and AV)00:22:52The Consumer-Centric Western Advocacy Model00:25:44The Failure of Non-Localized Resources (PETA Leaflets)00:31:39How Colombia Banned Bullfighting00:41:04An Origin Story: Childhood Trauma and Veganism00:45:43Navigating Cultural Realities and Social Pressure00:47:41Systemic Change vs. Personal Agency00:54:25Summary and A Look Ahead to Part Two
播客全文🌟
00:00:00 Q: Passion drives animal advocacy, but sometimes even the best intentions can backfire, leaving us with awkward missteps or real harm to the movements we care about. Welcome to Slutty Slightly Tofu, a podcast from China that talks about animal abolitionism and animal rights, incorporating social commentary and eco-feminist insights. And this is our second episode from our special English language series with international guests. In this episode, I sat down with activists I met at the Copenhagen Animal Liberation Conference this year and asked them about their journeys into veganism, their experiences in advocacy and at the heart of it, the mistakes they’ve made or witnessed along the way. I wanted to do this because so much of our work in China and Asia, more broadly borrowed from English speaking countries. Yet those strategies don’t always translate to our own contexts. So learning from what’s gone wrong elsewhere can probably help us avoid repeating the same missteps and find approaches that work better here.
Q: 热情驱动着动权倡导，但有时，即便是最好的意图也可能适得其反，给我们留下尴尬的失误，或对我们关心的运动造成实质性的伤害。欢迎收听《有点豆腐》，一个来自中国的播客，我们探讨动物解放主义和动物权利，并融入社会评论和生态女性主义的视角。这是我们与国际嘉宾合作的英文特别系列的第二集。在本集中，我与今年在哥本哈根动物解放会议上认识的几位倡导者坐下来，聊了聊他们成为 vegan 的历程、在倡导中的经历，以及最核心的——他们曾经犯过或见证过的错误。我之所以想做这期节目，是因为我们在中国乃至整个亚洲的工作，在很大程度上都借鉴了英语国家的模式。然而，这些策略并非总能适用于我们自身的语境。因此，从别处的失败中学习，或许能帮助我们避免重蹈覆辙，并找到更适合此地的方法。
The conference itself was very eye opening for me. A buzzing crowd of activists from around the world swapping stories and strategies that went far beyond just Go Vegan. Two themes kept surfacing: decolonization, challenging the idea that Western models can be copy-pasted everywhere, and total liberation, the belief that animal and human freedom are inseparable. And just as these ideas were being debated, Gary Yourofsky reappeared online, reigniting an old fault line in the movement. Should advocacy stay animal first? Shutting out everything else? Or must it be intersectional to be ethical and effective? So our first guest, who’s chosen to remain anonymous, talks about a pattern she’s seen across the movement: how good intentions from international organizations can sometimes miss the mark when they reach Asia. She’s an animal justice advocate whose work is grounded in local culture and shaped by an intersectional perspective, giving her a sharp eye for how global activism translates or doesn’t cross borders.
这次会议本身让我大开眼界，来自世界各地的倡导者齐聚一堂，交换的故事和策略远远超出了“go vegan”本身。有两个主题不断浮现：去殖民化——挑战那种认为西方模式可以被“复制粘贴”到任何地方的想法；以及全面解放——坚信动物和人类的自由密不可分。正当这些思想激荡之时，盖里·尤乐夫斯基（Gary Yourofsky）又在网上出现，重新点燃了运动内部的一条旧有裂痕。倡导应该坚持动物优先吗？排除其他一切？还是说，它必须是交叉性的，才能既符合伦理又卓有成效？我们的第一位嘉宾选择匿名，她将谈谈她在整个运动中观察到的一种模式——国际组织的善意，在进入亚洲时是如何“跑偏”的。她是一位动物正义倡导者，其工作植根于本土文化，并以交叉性视角为指导，这让她对全球行动主义如何在跨越边界时被成功“转译”或“错译”，有着敏锐的洞察。
00:02:33 Anonymous advocate: There are several big organizations and groups within the animal advocacy movement that have been trying to expand their work and branch out to other global majority countries, especially to Asian countries. And to me, as an Asian animal advocate, I can say that that is not always a good thing. So I observe two big issues about that. First of all, whenever an international organization wants to start working in Asia, it is usually an organization that will establish in the West. They usually work for several years in the Western countries and have their programs or projects up and running. And they are quite confident with the programs, and they know that this program can create an impact for farmed animals.
匿名嘉宾：动权运动中有几个大型组织和团体，一直在试图扩大其工作范围，将分支机构扩展到其他全球多数国家，特别是亚洲国家。对我而言，作为一名亚洲的动物倡导者，我得说这并非总是一件好事。我观察到两个主要问题。首先，每当一个国际组织想在亚洲开展工作时，它通常是一个在西方已经根深蒂固的组织。他们通常已在西方国家运作多年，有成熟的项目和运作模式，并对这些项目充满信心，相信能为农场动物带来改变。
So what they usually do when they start working in Asian countries is that they copy the program that worked well in the Western countries and then paste it in Asia. And you can see why that is a problem. Right? Because they fail to take into account the culture, uh, differences, politics, social issues surrounding the programs and lifestyle of the people. These are all different. Like the context plays a major role into whether or not the solution that you want to implement to improve the life of farmed animals will work out. And not only did it not work out, it also caused more harm for the local movement as well.
所以，当他们开始在亚洲国家工作时，他们通常做的就是复制在西方行之有效的项目，然后粘贴到亚洲。你可以想见为什么这会是个问题，对吧？因为他们没有考虑到文化差异、政治、围绕项目的社会议题，以及当地人的生活方式。这些都截然不同。在地脉络对于你想要推行的、旨在改善农场动物生活的解决方案是否能奏效，起着决定性作用。结果不仅是项目不成功，还对本土运动造成了更大的伤害。
An example that I can give is when these programs are executed by foreigners who have failed to be culturally sensitive when they talk about animal justice and veganism. Of course, the local population, the audience in the local countries would feel resistance to the idea and have a wrong negative understanding of animal justice and veganism, and I see that a lot in my home country as well. And that is very sad because it takes years back of local advocates’ effort in trying to raise awareness, implementing educational programs to make people care about animal justice, to make people understand veganism in our own culturally sensitive way.
我可以举一个例子：当这些项目由那些缺乏文化敏感性的外国人来执行时，当他们谈论动物正义和veganism 时，当地的民众、当地的受众很自然地就会对这个理念产生抵触情绪，并对动物正义和veganism 形成错误的、负面的理解。我在我的国家就看到了很多这样的情况。这非常可悲，因为它让本土倡导者们多年来在提高意识、推行教育项目、引导人们关心动物正义、并以我们自己文化敏感的方式去理解 veganism 等方面的努力，一下子倒退了好几年。
The second problem that comes with international organizations coming to work in Asia is that I noticed that most often than not, these organizations have a top down, corporate like structure. So that means people who are hired in the higher up position, who can make strategic decisions are people from the West who, of course, have no knowledge about the context and about the culture in Asia. Although I know many organizations that try to hire local staff as much as possible, they are being hired. Just people who execute the project and not someone who can have a say or dictate the direction of the programs.
随之而来的第二个问题是，我注意到，这些进入亚洲的国际组织，往往采用一种自上而下的、类似公司的结构。这意味着，那些被雇佣来做战略决策的高层职位的人，都是来自西方的，他们理所当然地对亚洲的在地脉络和文化一无所知。尽管我知道很多组织会尽可能地雇佣本地员工，但他们被雇来只是作为项目的执行者，而不是一个能够有发言权或主导项目方向的人。
And that’s a problem, because when they replicate their programs and there are contexts or different realities that simply don’t allow the programs to work out, local staffs are the people who know that, who see the problems, but when they bring this up to their higher ups, they are not listened to and they still this local staff still are expected to deliver the same impact, the same numbers as they hope to see, because they know that in Western countries they are they manage to get this high number right.
而这就是一个问题。因为当他们复制推行自己的项目，而当地的语境或不同的现实情况根本不允许项目奏效时，本地员工才是知道问题、看到问题所在的人。但是，当他们向上级反映这些问题时，他们的意见却不被采纳。这些本地员工仍然被期望交付同样的影响力、达成同样的指标，拿出和西方国家一样亮眼的成绩，因为（高层）知道他们在西方国家就是能拿到很高的数据。
So this local stuff from people that I know sometimes get burnt out and even even drop out from the movement because they are not listened to and they can be pressured to create the impact that they know is impossible to create. And that creates a major problem for our overall movement, because the movement in Asia is known for lack of resources, and also lack of trained advocates who can do the work, who can engage in activism to help farmed animals. So when these international organizations come in and cause burnout and eventually drop out from the local advocates, we now have even less people who want to be involved in the movement.
所以，据我所知，这些本地员工有时会因此身心俱疲，甚至最终退出这个运动，因为他们的声音不被倾听，同时又被施压去创造他们明知不可能实现的影响力。这对我们整个运动造成了一个巨大的问题，因为亚洲的动权运动本来就以资源匮乏和训练有素的倡导者短缺而闻名。所以，当这些国际组织进来，导致本土倡导者倦怠并最终退出时，我们愿意参与这个运动的人就变得更少了。
And that’s the two major problems, and I think it’s important for every international organization who wants to start working in Asian countries to carefully assess their impacts and the harms that they might create to the local movement.
这就是两个主要的问题。我认为，对于任何想要在亚洲国家开展工作的国际组织来说，至关重要的是，要仔细评估它们可能带来的影响和伤害。
So, first of all, they need to ask themselves to see if there are any local groups working on the same issue or not. Second of all, they need to be aware that whatever works in one country doesn’t always work in another country. Third, they need to ask themselves what kind of impact they would create if they start working in Asian countries. Is it just going to be a short term impact if they have the money to pump into their programs and then they can create certain numbers? But whenever they need to stop operating, those numbers don’t also disappear. Or would it be something that can create even long term change for the movement and local movements. Local advocates can continue to use and build upon that even after they need to stop operating in those countries.
所以，首先，他们需要问自己，当地是否已经有团体在做同样议题的工作。其次，他们需要意识到，在一个国家行之有效的方法，不一定在另一个国家也行得通。第三，他们需要问自己，如果开始在亚洲国家工作，他们会创造什么样的影响？是那种只要有钱注入项目就能创造出某些数字的短期影响吗？可一旦他们停止运营，这些数字和影响力是否也会随之消失？还是说，他们能创造出一种对运动更长期的改变，让本土的运动和倡导者们，在他们撤出后，依然可以持续使用并在此基础上继续发展？
And most importantly, they need to understand if they’re going to cause more harm than good to the animals and to the local movement. I think it’s their responsibility to ask themselves these questions before starting to work in Asian countries or other countries in the world. And I think we need to work a lot more on dismantling the power structure that is oppressive, whether it’s white privilege, whether it’s capitalism within the animal advocacy organizations, and especially white saviorism. Even though you mean well, even though you want to help farmed animals, I think it’s really important to come back and really understand the context and admit that your, well, intention could also play out in the wrong way.
最重要的是，他们需要想清楚，他们带来的究竟是利大于弊，还是弊大于利——无论是对动物，还是对本土的运动。我认为，在开始进入亚洲或其他国家工作之前，他们有责任问自己这些问题。而且我认为，我们需要做更多的工作，去瓦解那些压迫性的权力结构，无论是白人特权，是动权组织内部的资本主义，还是尤其是“白人救世主心态”。即便你本意是好的，即便你想帮助农场动物，我认为，回归本源，真正地去理解在地脉络，并坦诚地承认你的善意也可能最终导向一个错误的结果，是至关重要的。
I think it’s an illusion to think that we can achieve animal liberation without caring about other social justice issues, and vice versa. If you are an animal advocate, you will come to notice that many obstacles that you encounter in your activism come from the fact that there are different oppressions that exist in human society.
认为我们可以在不关心其他社会正义议题的情况下实现动物解放，这是一种幻想，反之亦然。如果你是一名动物倡导者，你就会注意到，你在行动中遇到的许多障碍，都源于人类社会中存在的各种不同形式的压迫。
Animal justice issues don’t exist in a vacuum. It exists because of our relationships with non-human animals. It exists because we treat them as objects we feel okay exploiting from them, we see them inferior. And this whole idea of supremacy is the same logic that is applied and used anywhere. When injustice happens. It’s used to justify discrimination within human groups as well. So when you see this core belief, you see the pattern of injustice and you see that injustice is everywhere. It’s just, um, connected.
动物正义议题并非存在于真空中。它的存在，源于我们与非人动物之间的关系；它的存在，是因为我们将牠们视为可以随意剥削的物品，视牠们为低等的存在。而这整套至上主义的逻辑，在任何不公义发生的地方，都被同样地应用着。它也被用来为人类群体内部的歧视做辩护。所以，当你看到了这个核心信念，你就能看到不公义的模式，你会发现不公义无处不在，它们是相互关联的。
And that’s why I believe in the phrase that says, none of us are free until all of us are. And that’s why, even though I am an animal advocate and I center my work around non-human animals, I make sure whenever I can to use an intersectional approach, which means I try to see a bigger picture of total liberation. Preparation, try to see that the issues that I’m working with are intersect, and how can I approach it in a way that I can address multiple problems at the same time, while having non-human animals at the center of my activism?
这正是我信奉那句话的原因：“无人自由，直至人人自由”。也正因如此，尽管我是一名以非人动物为工作中心的动物倡导者，但我确保尽可能地使用交叉性的方法。这意味着我试图看到一幅“全面解放”（total liberation）的更宏大图景，试图看清我所处理的议题是如何相互交织的，并思考如何能在我将非人动物置于行动中心的同时，一并处理多个问题。
I don’t think it’s a difficult thing to do. It’s simply just the reality that we are handling it. So I think it’s important for activists from any backgrounds, with any focus, to realize that human rights activists also should realize that their agenda and their goal will not be met if animals are still being oppressed. And I think it’s important to see the bigger picture.
这并非难事，这恰恰是我们正在处理的现实本貌。所以我认为，对于任何背景、任何关注点的行动者来说，认识到这一点都非常重要。同理，人权领域的行动者也应该认识到，如果动物仍在受压迫，他们的议程和目标也无法实现。我认为，看到这幅更宏大的图景至关重要。
And another thing is that I think it’s really important to understand the very different nature of the environment that we are working in. So, for example, animal advocates from the West might have a totally different reality from advocates that are working in Asian countries in the West, let’s say. Usually there are more democratic, more stable politically and economically. And let’s say for example, they have a certain level of human rights already being met.
另一件事是，我认为理解我们所处工作环境的迥异性质也极其重要。例如，来自西方的动权倡导者所处的现实，可能与在亚洲国家工作的倡导者完全不同。在西方，通常社会更民主，政治和经济也更稳定，比方说，他们已经达到了某种程度的人权保障。
But in many countries in Asia that I have known and talked to other Asian advocates, some of them have to work in a society that still is very against LGBT rights or women’s rights. And if they are women advocates who are trying to organize events to raise awareness for animal justice, they are usually being targeted by a misogynist group, for example, and that’s really put them in danger.
但在亚洲的许多国家——据我所知以及与其他亚洲倡导者交流所了解到的——他们中的一些人必须在一个仍然非常反对 LGBT 权利或女性权利的社会中工作。如果她们是女性倡导者，当她们试图组织活动来为动物正义发声时，她们通常会成为厌女团体的攻击目标，这真的让她们身陷险境。
Or in another country where the justice system is being used by farm animals companies to sue workers and press when they are being exposed about their wrongdoings. Basically, they not only abuse the animals, but they also violate immigrants, workers rights. And all of these just put more layers into understanding the obstacles of the reality that we are working in. Even though we are advocating for the animals, it will not be possible if human rights are still an issue and really put advocates in danger from day to day. So yeah, I think it’s important to have that awareness in mind. Maybe you might, even though you cannot see it in your activism yet, but it’s also good to have it in your mind to understand really different realities of other advocates that work in different conditions.
又或者在另一个国家，司法系统被农场动物公司利用，来起诉那些揭露其不法行为的工人与媒体。基本上，这些公司不仅虐待动物，他们还侵犯移民和工人的权利。所有这些，都为理解我们所处现实的障碍，增添了更多的复杂层次。尽管我们是在为动物发声，但如果人权本身仍是个问题，并且每天都将倡导者置于危险之中，那么（动物解放）也是不可能实现的。所以，是的，我认为在脑海中拥有这种意识非常重要。也许，即便你暂时还无法在自己的行动中看到这些联系，但把它放在心上，去理解其他在不同条件下工作的倡导。
00:14:42 Q: Before we move on to our next guest, a quick heads up to our listeners. The following conversations were recorded outdoors. Um, so you might hear a bit of wind chatter or nature doing its thing. I tried to clean it up as much as I could, but if it still sounds weird, I kindly ask for your forgiveness, or at least your lowered expectations.
Q: 在我们请出下一位嘉宾之前，给听众们一个小提示。接下来的对话是在户外录制的，所以你可能会听到一些风声、谈话声，或是大自然的声音。我已尽力做了后期处理，但如果听起来还是有些奇怪，恳请你的谅解，或者至少，请降低你的期待。
We’re about to hear from Fernando, a long time animal advocate who got his start in Colombia’s Anti-bullfighting movement way back in the nineties. Fernando co-founded Colombia’s first ethical veganism group and currently focuses on activism that is at the intersection between human conflict and animal rights. He has some incredibly wise stories about the art of showing up for people, giving them space, and not comparing their national traumas to the plight of farmed animals. It’s a fantastic look at how sometimes the best way to win people over is just be a normal, supportive human.
接下来，我们即将听到费尔南多（Fernando）的分享。他是一位资深的动物倡导者，早在 90 年代就投身于哥伦比亚的反斗牛运动。费尔南多联合创办了哥伦比亚第一个伦理 veganism 团体，目前专注于人类冲突与动物权利交叉领域的行动主义。他有一些极富智慧的故事，关于如何为他人“在场”、如何给予他们空间，以及如何避免将一个国家的创伤与农场动物的困境进行比较。这是一个绝佳的视角，让我们看到，有时候，赢得人心的最好方式，仅仅是做一个能给予支持的普通人。
00:15:47 Fernando: So one mistake we made early on was we tried to co-opt other causes. So when we started doing animal activism in Colombia, kidnapping was very popular. Like they were kidnapping people, like armed groups were kidnapping people. And I remember we tried to put an ad in a newspaper that had the picture of, uh, there were two versions. One had a picture of a hen, another one had a picture of a cow and a, uh, it says like, this is, uh, these are people. These are animals that are kidnapped in farms, which was a way to tell people, like, if you care about kidnapping humans, then you should care about animals. But that didn’t work. As a matter of fact, the newspaper was rejected or it never got published. But that was a mistake we made trying to co-opt other causes.
费尔南多： 我们早期犯过的一个错误是，我们试图挪用其他社会议题（co-opt other causes）。当我们开始在哥伦比亚做动权倡导时，绑架事件非常猖獗。武装团伙在绑架人。我记得我们曾想在报纸上刊登一则广告，广告上有两种版本，一个版本是一只母鸡的照片，另一个是一头牛的照片，广告词大概是说：“这些是在农场里被绑架的动物”。我们想通过这种方式告诉人们：如果你关心被绑架的人，那么你也应该关心动物。但这没有用。事实上，报社拒绝了这则广告，它从未被刊登出来。但这就是我们犯过的一个错误——试图挪用其他议题。
00:16:45 Q: And maybe, just to elaborate a little bit, what went wrong, exactly with that kind of language or what? That kind of, uh, co-opting?
Q: 或许可以稍微详细说说吗？具体来说，是哪种语言，或者说，是哪种“挪用”的方式出了问题？
00:16:55 Fernando: Yeah. So what went wrong was that, first I, I think it was disrespectful to the people who were suffering because their family members were being kidnapped, or they have been victims themselves. So there was a lot of pushback from using that kind of language. And then even if those people had been open to the idea of veganism, now they have a really negative view of vegans. So they stop to consider it because their interaction with vegans is this very insensitive type of person.
费尔南多： 是的。之所以出错，首先，我认为这对那些因家人被绑架或自身就是受害者而遭受痛苦的人们是不尊重的。所以，使用那种语言招致了大量的抵制。嗯。然后，即使那些人本可能对 veganism 持开放态度，现在他们对 vegan 有了非常负面的看法。所以他们不再会去考虑这件事，因为在他们与 vegan 的互动让他们觉得 vegans 都是欠考虑不敏感的人。
00:17:31 Q: Right.
明白了。
00:17:31 Fernando: Yeah.
费尔南多： 是的。
00:17:32 Q: But then if we cannot use these languages because we thought people can sympathize, what other languages, what kind of resources are available to us?
Q: 但如果我们不能使用这类语言——尽管我们以为人们可以由此产生共情——那我们还能用什么样的话语？我们还有什么样的资源可用？
00:17:43 Fernando: Um, like, for me, I think it’s like you need to show up for them. Mhm. And eventually some of them will start showing up for you.
费尔南多： 嗯对我来说，我认为你需要为他们“在场”（show up for them）。。最终，他们中的一些人也会开始为你“在场”。
00:17:53 Q: So, you’re the complete opposite of Gary Yourofsky
Q: 所以，你的做法和盖里·尤乐夫斯基（Gary Yourofsky）完全相反。
00:17:57 Fernando: Yeah. I like to show true solidarity. Like show, show these people that you care that their issues are important, that their suffering is important. And it will not be everybody, but some of them will start asking you, oh, why? Why do you talk about, uh, why what’s the issue with animals? And you start talking to them and some people come back and, and they, they actually understand what you’re talking about and, and they, they join you in, in your, in your struggle or in the animal struggle, and you do that by showing up for them.
费尔南多： 是的。我倾向于展现真正的团结。去向这些人展示，你在乎他们的议题，他们的痛苦很重要。这不会对每个人都奏效，但他们中的一些人会开始问你：“哦，为什么？你为什么会关心，动物有什么问题吗？”然后你就可以开始和他们交谈。一些人会回来，他们会真正理解你在说什么，然后他们会加入你，加入你的抗争，或者说，动物的抗争。而你做到这一切，正是通过为他们“在场”。
00:18:33 Q: Do you have maybe one example?
Q： 你或许能举一个例子吗？
00:18:35 Fernando: Yeah, one of my best friends was, um, that he grew up in my neighborhood. I told him when I went vegan, I told him I had gone vegan, and his first reaction was very, uh, negative. He told me, I remember he told me right away. He told me never, never talk to me about this. I don’t care. And I could have been more aggressive with him. Right. And it would have never changed his mind. But I said, okay, I won’t mention it. And then a few months later, he came back and asked me why. Why is it that you don’t eat meat? Right. And I told him, I showed him, you know, and I showed him some literature, and I. And I gave him a book to read. And then he said, oh, I’ll go. And I didn’t even give him a speech. I just said, like, just read these things.
费尔南多： 可以。我最好的朋友之一，，他和我从小在一个社区长大。我成为 vegan 后告诉了他这件事，他的第一反应非常负面。我记得他立刻就对我说：“永远、永远别跟我提这个。我不在乎。” 我本可以对他更具攻击性，对吧？那他将永远不会改变想法。但我说：“好的，我不会再提了。” 然后，几个月后，他自己回来问我：“你为什么不吃肉了？”对吧。我就告诉了他，给他看了一些东西，你知道的，我给他看了一些文宣资料，我我还给了他一本书去读。然后他说：“哦，我去读读。” 我甚至没有对他进行任何说教，我只是说：“你读读这些东西就好。”
00:19:27 Q: But I’m curious at the very beginning, like, why did he have such a strong attitude towards it?
Q： 但我很好奇，最开始的时候，他为什么会有那么强烈的抵触态度？
00:19:33 Fernando: Oh, I, I don’t know. I think, uh, I think he thought I was going to be judgmental of him. Right. And I think he was surprised that I wasn’t, um, I think he was surprised that I gave him space for him to come back around. Uh, yeah. So I gave him that space, and then he took my literature. And I remember about a week later, he. He told me, oh, you know, that was great. Uh, thanks for sharing that with me.
费尔南多： 哦，我，我不知道。我想，我想他大概觉得我会去评判他吧。对。而且我想他很惊讶我并没有那么做。我想他也很惊讶我给了他空间，让他自己想通并回头。是的。所以我给了他那个空间，然后他拿了我的资料去读。我记得大约一周后，他他告诉我：“哦，你知道，那很棒。谢谢你跟我分享。”
And then he went vegan, and then he showed it to his mom, and his mom went vegan, and then, um, he showed it to his nephew. His nephew went vegan. So it is just by giving one person enough space to, uh, to come back to you instead of being pushy.
然后，他成了 vegan。再然后，他又把这些告诉了他妈妈，他妈妈也成了 vegan。再然后，他又告诉了他侄子，他侄子也成了 vegan。所以，这一切仅仅是因为给予了一个人足够的空间，让他自己来找你，而不是去强迫他。
00:20:17 Q: And, you know, actually, I feel sometimes because you’re also from the Global South, right? If I can put that generally, sometimes I feel a bit envious with regards to or actually the infights in the Western vegan discourse because, um, this is very weird to say, but it actually shows they have a plurality of thoughts and you actually have people at different spectrum in terms of how to approach animal rights. And at least they all come from the same position, which is to defend animals. Of course, people have very different, you know, ideology and there are different approaches, but at least their voices are diverse enough for you to actually have an infight. Yeah. Are there such a kind of disagreements within the vegan movement in Colombia, or.
Q： 还有，你知道吗，我有时会觉得，因为你也是来自“全球南方”的倡导者，对吧？如果我可以这样笼统地概括的话，我有时会对西方 vegan 圈的内讧感到一丝羡慕。这么说可能很奇怪，但它实际上表明了他们拥有思想的多元性，不同立场的人在如何推进动物权利上，处于不同的光谱。但至少，他们都基于一个共同的立场——捍卫动物。当然，人们可能有非常不同的意识形态和方法，但至少他们的声音足够多样化，让他们足够产生内讧了。哥伦比亚的 vegan 运动中也有这类分歧吗？
00:21:05 Fernando: Are there were. Yeah. Um, because there were people who were and there still are, for example, Anonymous for the Voiceless as a chapter in Colombia, which makes, for me, that doesn’t make any sense. Like you have a society in which people with masks have done a whole lot of harm. Like there is no positive association with being messed. People think something’s going to happen.
费尔南多： 是的，曾经有。因为当时有人——现在仍然有——例如，Anonymous for the Voiceless （简称 AV）在哥伦比亚就有分部。对我来说，这毫无道理。你身处一个戴面具的人造成了巨大伤害的社会。戴面具没有任何正面的联想，人们会觉得要出事了。
00:21:33 Q: Could you tell me a bit more about the mask? Why are there so many negative associations?
Q： 你能多告诉我一些关于面具的事吗？为什么会有这么多的负面联想？
00:21:38 Fernando: Well, because all these, uh. Like the death squads I was talking about, they show up as masked men with guns. And every time you would see somebody masked, like you knew something was going to happen, something bad was going to happen. So I think as a society that that doesn’t work.
费尔南多： 因为所有这些就像我们一直在谈论的那些“行刑队”，他们就是戴着面具、拿着枪出现的。每当你看到戴面具的人，你就知道要出事了，会有不好的事情发生。所以我认为，在我们的社会中，这种做法是行不通的。
00:21:56 Q: Um, even with, uh, you know, the V for vendetta, you know, even with that mask like, that is a bad association.
Q: 嗯哪怕是像电影《V字仇杀队》那样的面具，也会有负面联想吗？
00:22:03 Fernando: I think people just think something bad is going to happen. Um, so they tend to be very, like, wary of, like, why are these people about what’s going to happen right now?
费尔南多： 我想人们只是觉得会有不好的事情发生。嗯所以他们会变得非常警惕，会想：“这些人在这里干嘛？现在要发生什么事了？”
00:22:15 Q: Right.
Q： 明白了。
00:22:15 Fernando: Instead of being curious, they’re not curious.
费尔南多： 他们不会感到好奇，一点也不好奇。
00:22:18 Q: But with the Cube of Truth approach itself, like exposing animal agriculture. Do you think there’s anything counterproductive about it?
Q： 但就“真相之围”（Cube of Truth）这个方法本身而言，比如揭露畜牧业的真相，你认为它有什么适得其反的地方吗？
00:22:28 Fernando: Um, I think, uh, there is, uh, there is something very counterproductive about it is that they tend to not talk about the human issues, which affect a lot of people in Colombia. Right. Um, so it’s that the people who do this type of work in Colombia, like truth, tend to be very privileged. So they don’t understand this very, uh, you know, Americanized or westernized version of veganism in which. Oh, yeah, all you have to do is go to the grocery store and buy new stuff. And, uh, a lot of people in Colombia cannot even go to the grocery store to begin with. So it’s like, how do you convince them that this is a problem so it doesn’t work. It just feels like people are worried about way too many other things.
费尔南多： 嗯我认为它有一个非常适得其反的地方，那就是他们倾向于不谈论影响了许多哥伦比亚人的人类议题。对吧？嗯所以在哥伦比亚做这类工作的人，比如说（Cube of Truth），往往都是有特权的人。所以他们不理解这套非常美国化或西方化的 veganism 版本，也就是你所要做的就是去超市买新东西。然而，在哥伦比亚，很多人连超市都去不了。所以，你怎么能说服他们这是一个问题呢？因此，这行不通。感觉上，人们有太多太多其他的事情要担心了。
00:23:21 Q: I agree.
Q： 我同意。
00:23:22 Fernando: Yeah. So the way is to show them that you care about those issues too. And then and then tell them, you know, they’ll actually pull your information. That’s my experience. At some point people get curious about why is it that you do this?
费尔南多： 是的。所以，方法就是要去向他们展示，你也关心那些（人类的）议题。然后，你知道，他们最终会主动来向你了解信息。这是我的经验。到某个时刻，人们会开始好奇：“你为什么会做这些事？”
00:23:36 Q: Right. But then are there even any positive examples, you know, more international groups and more institutional groups coming to Columbia and?
Q： 明白了。但有没有一些正面的例子呢？比如，有没有更多国际性、更制度化的团体来到哥伦比亚（所做的积极的事情）？
00:23:46 Fernando: Uh, well, yes, I think there was an organization that was started in Spain. Mhm. It’s called AnimaNaturalis. AnimaNaturalis went to Colombia and created a chapter. And what helped was that they had a lot more resources than groups like mine. But at the same time they let the group have a lot of autonomy. So the group in Colombia could use those resources in a way that made a lot more sense for Colombian society. And so they were pretty successful. I think it’s one of the most successful groups in Colombia. Mhm. Uh, because they were allowed to do that.
费尔南多： 有的。我想，曾经有一个在西班牙成立的组织，叫 AnimaNaturalis。这个组织来到了哥伦比亚，并建立了一个分部。他们的帮助在于，他们拥有比我这样的团体多得多的资源。但与此同时，他们给予了本地团体高度的自主权。所以，哥伦比亚的团队可以以一种对哥伦比亚社会更有意义的方式来使用那些资源。因此，他们相当成功。我认为它是哥伦比亚最成功的团体之一。因为他们被允许那样做。
So I think it’s very counterproductive when groups like AV go into another country and they don’t provide resources. I mean, they provide resources, but they also dictate how you should be doing activism. Even if, even if it doesn’t make any sense, they’re like, this is the way you need to do it. So the locals always know better. Local people always know what’s the best thing, what works and what doesn’t work.
所以我认为，当像 AV 这样的团体进入另一个国家时，就非常适得其反。他们不提供资源——我的意思是，他们提供资源，但他们也规定了你应该如何进行倡导。哪怕那些方法根本说不通，他们也会说：“你就得这么做。” 所以，本地人永远更懂。本地人永远知道什么是最好的方法，什么行得通，什么行不通。
00:24:58 Q: When you are talking about what local people always know, I kind of want to push you a little bit. Uh, well, local people always know how to do this kind of, uh, animal advocacy or have, uh, an idea about what works and what doesn’t. Speaking from experience, I think at the very early stage when you were an animal rights advocate, you tend to go to these larger organizations like Peta, for example. And because they already have institutionalized structure, they have a roadmap. They have all these things already established. Right? So sometimes it feels like a no brainer to go for these resources.
Q： 当你说“本地人永远更懂”的时候，我想稍微挑战一下你。就是关于本地人总是知道该如何进行这类动物权利倡导，或者说，他们明白什么行得通、什么行不通。从我的经验来看，我认为在最早期阶段，当你成为一名动权倡导者时，你往往会倾向于去寻求像 PETA 这样的大型组织。因为他们已经有了制度化的结构，他们有路线图，他们已经建立好了一切，对吧？所以有时候，去利用这些资源感觉像是个想都不用想的选择。
00:25:37 Fernando: Yeah, yeah.
费尔南多： 是的，是的。
00:25:37 Q: But you don’t think that is the way to go.
Q： 但你认为那不是正确的道路。
00:25:42 Q: Have to be very reflective and reflexive about this.
Q： 必须对此进行深刻的反思和反身思考。
00:25:44 Fernando: Not not if not if it’s not being. If it’s not allowed to be localized. And I have a perfect example of that when I first started and I didn’t know anybody else doing this. I remember I wrote to Peta and they sent me leaflets in Spanish. And I thought, oh, great, I have leaflets in Spanish. And I started giving them out to people and one person, I guess, read it and came back and said, you know, this is very sad, but this doesn’t happen here.
费尔南多： 除非它被允许本土化，否则不行。 我有一个绝佳的例子可以说明这一点。当我刚开始的时候，我不认识任何其他做这件事的人。我记得我写信给 PETA，他们给我寄了西班牙语的传单。我想：“哦，太好了，我有西班牙语的传单了。” 我开始把它们分发给人们。有个人，我猜他读了传单，然后回来对我说：“你知道，这很可悲，但这事儿在我们这儿不发生。”
And it occurred to me like, okay, well, he has a point. I’m giving him a leaflet that has statistics and pictures of farms in the United States. It was meant for United States people who spoke Spanish, not for us. And I thought, oh, okay, that’s a problem.
我突然意识到：“好的，他说得对。” 我给他的传单上，是关于美国农场的统计数据和图片。那传单是为说西班牙语的美国人准备的，不是为我们准备的。我想：“哦，好吧，这是个问题。”
So what should or could have happened that would have been better was like, if I asked Peta, hey, I want to print my own leaflets. And they came back and said, okay, we can help you with that, with the resources to do that. And then I can put my own information that makes sense for where I am. And um, very few groups, I think over time have done that. The only one that comes to mind is, um, vegan outreach. As a vegan outreach in Mexico. And they allow the Mexican group to be like, okay, so these leaflets have statistics and pictures. And they were put together by the group in Mexico. So it’s more of a show of solidarity than anything else, which is I’m giving you resources and letting you decide how they are used. Instead I give you resources and I also tell you how to use them. Yeah.
所以，本可以发生、并且会更好的情况是，如果我问 PETA：“嘿，我想印我自己的传单。”然后他们回答：“好的，我们可以帮你，给你提供资源去做这件事。”然后我就可以放上对我所在的地方有意义的信息。嗯我认为，随着时间的推移，很少有团体这样做。我唯一能想到的一个例子是 Vegan Outreach 在墨西哥的分部。他们允许墨西哥的团队自己决定：“好的，这些传单上要有我们自己的统计数据和图片。”这些传单是由墨西哥的团队制作的。所以，这更多地是一种团结的体现，而不是其他。这代表着：“我给你资源，然后让你来决定如何使用它们。”而不是：“我给你资源，然后我还告诉你该怎么用它们。”是的。
00:27:35 Q: Okay. I have one final question.
Q： 好的，我还有最后一个问题。
00:27:37 Fernando: Okay.
费尔南多： 好的。
00:27:38 Q: How does conservation fit into all this?
Q： 保育在（哥伦比亚的动权倡议）中处于什么位置？
00:27:42 Fernando: Oh, yeah. Um, like, for me, at least in Colombia, there’s obviously deforestation and what that implies. Right. Like when we cut down the forest, right? You’re not killing just the trees. It’s like, who lives in the forest? Where do they go? Right.
费尔南多： 哦，是的。嗯对我来说，至少在哥伦比亚，很明显有森林砍伐的问题，以及它所暗示的一切，对吧？当我们砍伐森林时，你不仅仅是在杀死树木，对吧？关键是，谁住在森林里？牠们要去哪里？对吧？
00:28:02 Q: Yeah.
Q： 是的。
00:28:03 Fernando: And we cut down forests, uh, to make room for animal agriculture. Right. So it’s very intertwined. Intertwine is like very linked right.
费尔南多： 而我们砍伐森林，是为了给畜牧业腾出空间。对吧？所以这两者是紧密交织的，联系非常紧密。
00:28:15 Q: It’s a direct link.
Q： 是直接的联系。
00:28:16 Fernando: Yeah. Direct link. Yeah. So it’s frustrating for me that conservationists don’t see that. So a lot of comfort. Some conservationists in Colombia are more like let’s protect what’s what’s left instead of like how come instead of asking like, hey, we’re what happened to the forest? Like it’s more like, let’s protect the forest that’s left and that’s important. I’m not saying that’s not important, but that’s important. That’s important. But they need to go a step further and say, okay, these are the drivers.
费尔南多： 是的，直接的联系。所以，保育主义者们看不到这一点，令我非常沮丧。哥伦比亚的一些保育主义者更像是说：“让我们保护剩下的一切吧”，而不是去问：“嘿，森林发生了什么？”他们的态度更像是“保护剩下的森林就好”。这很重要，我不是说这不重要，这当然重要。但他们需要更进一步，去说：“好的，这些才是森林砍伐的驱动力。”
00:28:51 Q: Yeah.
Q： 是的。
00:28:52 Fernando: Of these deforestation. And some organizations around the world mention it. But at the same time, not a lot of them mention veganism as an option to, as a solution.
费尔南多： 世界各地的一些组织提到了这一点，但与此同时，没有多少组织会提及将 veganism 作为一种选择、一种解决方案。
00:29:09 Q: Well, because lots of conservationists also eat meat.
Q： 嗯，因为很多生态保育人员自己也吃肉。
00:29:12 Fernando: Need. Yeah. That’s one thing that I’m like, I don’t understand.
费尔南多： 是的。这就是我无法理解的一点。
00:29:18 Q: Lots of environmentalists are meat eaters, too.
Q： 很多环保主义者也是吃肉的。
00:29:21 Fernando: Yeah. So. And a lot of conservationists I find frustrating is that they, they talk a lot about, like, justice for the environment.
费尔南多： 是的。所以，很多保育主义者让我感到沮丧的是，他们谈论很多关于“环境正义”的话题。
00:29:31 Q: Yeah.
Q： 是的。
00:29:31 Fernando: But I’m always like, how can you advocate for justice for the environment without
费尔南多： 但我总是想，你怎么能倡导环境正义，却不为
00:29:37 Q: Animals.
Q： 动物。
00:29:37 Fernando: Without advocating justice for animals? Animals are part of the environment. Right. Yeah. So why don’t they say anything about this? So it’s very frustrating. I think they need to expand their worldview. Yeah.
费尔南多： 却不为动物倡导正义呢？动物就是环境的一部分，对吧？是的。那他们为什么对此只字不提？所以这非常令人沮丧。我认为他们需要扩展自己的世界观。是的。
00:29:51 Q: I had to share that frustration because I work in environmental humanities and practically like all the people that I’m dealing with are the environmental scholars. And, uh, again, I’m generalizing. I would say most of them don’t care about animals at all. They try to challenge human exceptionalism, you know, challenge human supremacy. But then when they see nature, they see trees, they see water, they see rivers, they don’t see what’s inside the river, what’s on the tree. And when it comes to climate as well, all they see they have this tunnel vision of carbon. I guess everything is just carbon, right?
Q： 我必须说我感同身受，因为我的工作领域是环境人文学科，我打交道的人几乎都是环境学者。而且，我只能笼统地概括一下，我会说他们中的大多数人根本不关心动物。他们试图挑战“人类例外论”，你知道，挑战“人类至上论”，但当他们看到自然时，他们看到的是树木，是水，是河流，他们看不到河里有什么，树上有什么。而且当谈到气候问题时，他们看到的也只有碳，他们有一种“碳的隧道视野”。我想，在他们看来，一切都只是碳，对吧？
00:30:36 Fernando: Yeah, I can see that. Yeah. That’s And I don’t know, I think uh, I think one way to, to try to fix that is, for example, if you are in that space just showing your own consistency. Yeah. And maybe somebody will ask, come back around and ask you like, hey, what about, uh, what about cows and pigs?
费尔南多： 是的，我能理解。是啊。那是而且我不知道，我想，我认为尝试解决这个问题的一个方法是，例如，如果你身处那样的环境，就只要展现你自身的言行一致。是的。或许就会有人回来问你：“嘿，那牛和猪呢？”
00:30:57 Q: Yeah.
Q： 是的。
00:30:57 Fernando: And then they’ll put it together. But it can be very frustrating because we want it to be done quickly. Right? One thing I showed in my presentation was how I went to my first Anti-bullfighting protest in nineteen ninety nine, so I had to wait twenty five years. Yeah, so sometimes we have to just put in the work like it’s not gonna be a month, but you just keep doing it and keep doing and keep doing. And sometimes, sometimes it works. Yeah.
费尔南多： 然后他们就会把这些点联系起来。但这可能非常令人沮丧，因为我们总希望事情能很快完成，对吧？我在我的演讲中展示了一件事，那就是我第一次参加反斗牛抗议是在 1999 年，所以我不得不等了 25 年。是的，所以有时候我们必须投入努力，这不会是一个月就能完成的事，但你只要坚持做、坚持做、再坚持做。有时候，有时候它就会奏效。是的。
00:31:27 Q: Yeah. If you can give people, like a crash course, what are the major landmark events that cause bullfighting to be prohibited?
Q： 是的。如果你能给大家来个“速成课”，有哪些主要的里程碑事件，最终导致了斗牛被禁止？
00:31:36 Fernando: Oh, yeah.
费尔南多： 哦，好的。
00:31:37 Q: Landmark success or.
Q： 或者说里程碑式的成功。
00:31:39 Fernando: Um, so I think that was asked. So there were, uh, a few things. One was the, the, in the capital where the biggest bullfights happened. They passed an ordinance that made the bullfight very not profitable. So, uh, first they banned any. So they said you can have bullfights as long as there are no other instruments that hurt animals. So like if you want to hit an animal with a stick, it cannot be sharp. Things like that. Yeah. Um, and then they were taxing them really high. And it came to a point that they were like, there’s no point in running a bullfight. We’re not gonna make any money. So that’s where that’s really when the ball started, like rolling. Because it got to a point where even though the bullfight was not banned, there were no bullfights, they were not interested. They were having them in other places a lot smaller, because that’s what they could make it profitable.
费尔南多： 这个问题被问到过。有几件事。一是在首都，最大的斗牛场所在地，他们通过了一项法令，让斗牛变得非常不赚钱。首先他们禁止了任何他们说你可以举办斗牛，只要不使用任何会伤害动物的工具。比如，如果你想用棍子打动物，那棍子不能是尖的，诸如此类。是的。然后他们还课以重税。事情发展到他们觉得举办斗牛毫无意义的地步，“我们赚不到钱了”。所以，那才是事情真正开始滚雪球的时候。因为即便斗牛没有被禁止，也没有斗牛活动了，他们不感兴趣了。他们会把斗牛活动放到其他地方，规模小得多，因为只有那样他们才能赚钱。
And I think another landmark was that the like was, uh, political, like the president that got elected had promised he would ban it. And so people got into high gear and they started working really hard for that. That’s another landmark.
我想另一个里程碑是政治层面的。当选的总统曾承诺要禁止它。所以人们都卯足了劲，开始为此非常努力地工作。那是另一个里程碑。
And I think the forming of a coalition, even if it’s just for a single issue when it’s that close to have some really lasting or tangible results. I think it strategically made sense. They put all their differences away and they said, okay, let’s let’s get this law passed and then it will be and uh, yeah, that worked. And, um, all that has inspired that process has inspired the Anti-bullfighting campaigns in other places, like in Mexico. They’re really looking at things like what happened in Colombia. Let’s do the same thing and see if we can get it done.
而且我认为，组建一个联盟——哪怕只是为了一个单一的议题——当离实现一些真正持久或实在的成果如此之近时，从策略上来说，这是非常有意义的。他们搁置了所有的分歧，说：“好的，让我们通过这项法律吧。”然后事情就成了。是的，那招奏效了。而且，所有这些都启发了这个过程启发了其他地方的反斗牛运动，比如在墨西哥。他们真的在研究哥伦比亚发生了什么，然后说：“让我们也这么做吧，看看我们能不能成功。”
00:33:47 Q: One piece of puzzle for me was the cultural part. I don’t know how much is related to Colombians cultural identity or tradition, because when it’s starting to fade away, people just accept that. I mean, what do they, um. How do people feel, culturally speaking?
Q： 我困惑的一点是文化部分。我不知道这在多大程度上与哥伦比亚人的文化认同或传统有关。因为当它开始消亡时，人们似乎就接受了。我的意思是，从文化角度来说，人们对此感觉如何？
00:34:05 Fernando: So traditionally there’s two things there. One is traditionally, um, bullfighting has been like a rich people thing.
费尔南多： 传统上有两点。第一，传统上，斗牛一直是一种富人的玩意儿。
00:34:13 Q: Okay.
Q： 好的。
00:34:13 Fernando: Right. So not a whole lot of the population goes to a bullfight or can afford to go to a bullfight, but it’s like the elite, you know, I can remember going to protest bullfights, and you could see it was all like TV celebrities and politicians going in. It wasn’t, I mean, there were regular people, but let’s be honest, like, like, poor people are not going to bullfight, right? So there was not a lot of real culture. It wasn’t that culturally strong for us. Nobody saw it that way. So I think that helped to help it.
费尔南多： 对。所以，大部分民众不会去看斗牛，也负担不起。它就像是精英阶层的活动。你知道，我记得去抗议斗牛时，你能看到进去的都是电视明星和政客。我的意思，也有普通人，但说实话，穷人是不会去看斗牛的，对吧？所以，它没有太多真正的文化根基，对我们来说，它的文化属性没那么强。没人把它看得那么重。所以我想这一点帮助了我们。
00:34:49 Q: Then there’s not like that much toxic masculinity, uh, associated with it?
Q： 和它相关的“有毒的男子气概”之类的东西也没那么多？
00:34:54 Fernando: No, there really
费尔南多： 不，其实
00:34:55 Fernando: There is. But I think if bullfights had historically been cheap and a lot of people could go. There will be a lot more resistance to banning, right? As a matter of fact, there is another type of animal spectacle: cockfighting. Uh, no, it’s called Corraleja, which is almost like a bullfight. But, I mean, I don’t even know what it is. They basically just, uh, there’s like an arena, and they throw one or multiple bulls in the arena, and people, the public just goes into the arena to, like, harass these animals.
费尔南多： 是有的。但我认为，如果斗牛在历史上一直很便宜，很多人都能去的话，那要禁止它就会遇到更大的阻力，对吧？事实上，还有另一种动物表演（斗鸡？）不，它叫 Corraleja，有点像斗牛。但，我的意思是，我甚至不知道那是什么。他们基本上就是有一个场地，然后他们把一头或多头牛扔进场地里，然后民众，公众直接进入场地去骚扰那些动物。
And the whole point is, it is like the animals, like chasing people for fun. So that has met with a lot of resistance to be banned, because that’s a lot that’s more culturally meaningful to people in certain regions because it’s affordable. Like people go there. I don’t know why anybody would pay to get hurt by a bull, but they do that and it’s lots of people. So yeah, in Colombia it helped that it was seen as this like very rich people thing. And so there was never like there wasn’t too popular to be honest. And then the newer generations were not interested.
整个看点就是，动物追逐人们取乐。要禁止这个就遇到了很大的阻力，因为它在某些地区对人们来说更具文化意义，因为它很便宜。人们会去那里。我不知道为什么会有人愿意花钱被牛弄伤，但他们就是这么做的，而且人还很多。所以，是的，在哥伦比亚，斗牛被看作是富人的玩意儿，这一点帮助了我们。所以，说实话，它从来没有那么受欢迎。而且，更年轻的一代对此也不感兴趣。
00:36:18 Fernando: So over time, the last time they were fighting in Colombia, in Bogota, like you could see, it was like half of it was empty. People didn’t want to go see that.
费尔南多： 所以随着时间的推移，上一次他们在哥伦比亚波哥大有斗牛活动时，你能看到，场地大概有一半是空的。人们不想去看那个了。
00:36:29 Q: Right. Awesome. Thank you Fernando.
Q： 明白了。太棒了。谢谢你，费尔南多。
00:36:32 Fernando: Yeah.
费尔南多： 不客气。
00:36:35 Q: Our next guest is Charles. He’s an advocate who brings a fascinating perspective to our conversation. Charles has a foot in two worlds. He’s of Asian ethnicity and has lots of insights into animal issues in the global South, but is also on the frontlines of the movement in the UK. He’s here to talk about his journey, which started with some very personal, very vivid childhood memories of animals in the Philippines that he tried to forget for years.
Q： 我们的下一位嘉宾是查尔斯（Charles）。他为我们的对话带来了一个非常有意思的视角。查尔斯可以说是一脚踏在两个世界里：他有是亚裔，对“全球南方”的动物议题有深刻见解，同时他也参与过英国动权运动的前线。他将和我们聊聊他的心路历程，而这一切，都始于一些非常个人化、非常鲜活的，关于菲律宾动物的童年记忆——那些他曾试图遗忘多年的记忆。
00:37:07 Charles: I feel like I’ve done, uh, I’ve dipped into as many facets of vegan outreach as I can either have in London, in the UK, um, so that, uh, a lot of local ones, a lot of international ones, anonymous for the voiceless are an international, probably the most well known and well-funded activist organization, I think. And then off there are. But then I would say there’s also even more organizations who were born out of frustrations with anonymous or voiceless. So there’s a lot of them in Germany as well. AV and others are considered relatively quite strict and dogmatic in their approach. Um, they have a whole script that they like people to adhere to. They believe it’s the most effective and efficient way at, uh, guiding the conversations with, uh, the average people whilst we’re doing outreach. It is useful, um, but in, uh, as if, as with most organisations, there are things that, um, are lines in the sand, red lines, red flags. For some people in Germany, there were some of the major AV groups, uh, they allowed people who were known to be fascists to be there, um, because it’s for the animals.
查尔斯： 我觉得我，在伦敦，英国，我已经涉足了尽可能多的 vegan 倡导的各个方面。嗯其中，有许多本地的，也有许多国际性的。（其中）Anonymous for the Voiceless，我想，它大概是国际上最知名、资金最雄厚的倡导组织了。然后，在此之外，我得说，还有更多组织是出于对AV 的失望而诞生的，在德国也有很多这样的组织。AV 和其他一些组织被认为在方法上相对严格和教条。他们有一整套脚本，希望人们遵守。他们认为这是在进行外展活动时，引导与普通民众对话最有效、最高效的方式。这很有用，但是，就像大多数组织一样，总会有一些事情，是不可逾越的底线，是红线，是危险信号。对一些人来说，在德国，一些主要的 AV 团体，他们允许那些被认为是法西斯主义者的人在场，理由是“这是为了动物”。
00:38:29 Charles: You know, it’s not about politics. There are stances, no biotics. But for a lot of people, it’s reprehensible and impossible to conceive being with fascists openly.
查尔斯： 你懂的，（他们的立场是）“这无关政治”。但对很多人来说，公开地与法西斯主义者为伍，是应受谴责和无法想象的。
00:38:41 Q: And this could be counter intuitive for a lot of people, because how can you be a fascist? But at the same time having compassion for animals?
Q： 这对很多人来说可能有点反直觉，因为，你怎么可能既是一个法西斯主义者，同时又对动物怀有同情心呢？
00:38:48 Charles: Well, as someone explained to me, because I was talking to them when I was in Germany doing some outreach there, they said that, um, uh, Nazis are part of Mein Kampf. Uh, he says that, um, uh, Jews are below animals. So there lies your justification for it, which is just bonkers. Um, really?
查尔斯： 正如有人向我解释的——因为我当时在德国做外展时和他们聊过——他们说，纳粹在《我的奋斗》（Mein Kampf）里他说，犹太人比动物还低等。所以，这就是这就是他们的理由所在，简直是疯了。真的。
00:39:12 Q: Um, humans.
Q： 嗯人类。
00:39:13 Charles: Right. You know, so there’s all, all sorts of things wrong with that, but, um, yeah. So I’ve done that. Um, in the UK there are, yeah, there’s lots of different types of outreach. Um, I’ve tried to do a lot of it. They’ve all got different approaches. But the thing I do primarily now is because it’s easy. We all when we come to places like this, there’s a real sense of solidarity and optimism that can almost pervade you inside. To think that, you know, we can do things and change things. Um, but sometimes the sheer statistics and the reality of how many societies really are. I went to Dubai and it was just a microcosm of many other places in Asia of how heavy the meat.
查尔斯： 对。你知道，所以那里面有各种各样的问题。但，是的，那些事我都做过。在英国，是的，有很多不同类型的倡议活动。我尝试过很多。它们都有不同的方法。但我现在主要做的事情是因为这很容易。当我们来到像这样的地方时，我们所有人都会有一种真正的团结感和乐观主义，几乎能渗透你的内心，让你觉得，你知道，我们能做成一些事，能改变一些事。但有时，庞大的统计数据和许多社会的真实情况我曾去过迪拜，而那里简直就是一个缩影，反映了亚洲许多其他地方，肉食是多么普遍
00:40:03 Charles: was on the menus every day. Yeah. and you think that, uh, what you’re it really makes you comprehend your own individual action and agency in much smaller terms. Um, so I found that one thing that feels tangible is helping sanctuaries. So I, I fundraised for them by, um, I’ve got a background in, in cooking and some restaurants. Uh, so I go to festivals and things and the profits I make, I give to a variety of sanctuaries. So there’s a tangible thing there that I can feel that I can connect to. Um, there’s plenty for us to do. Yeah. I’ve tried to think of how I can contribute.
查尔斯： 每天都在菜单上。是的。然后你会觉得这真的让你以更小的尺度去理解自己个人的行动和力量。所以我发现，一件感觉很实在的事情，就是帮助动物庇护所。所以我为他们筹款，通过，我有烹饪和一些餐厅的背景，所以我去参加美食节之类的活动，然后把我赚的利润捐给各种庇护所。所以，那里有一件很实在的事情，我能感觉到自己可以与之连接。在这里面，我们有很多可以做的事情。是的，我一直在思考我该如何贡献。
00:40:44 Q: And if I can, if I may ask, like, uh, kind of go back a little bit further to the history of your vegan or animal rights journey. Do you still remember the very first encounter you had with animals or. And also, just like the moment that makes you feel like you’re compelled to do activism?
Q： 如果可以的话，我想问一下，稍微回溯一下你的 vegan 或动权之旅的历史。你还记得你第一次和动物的接触吗？或者说，是哪个时刻让你觉得你必须投身于行动主义？
00:41:04 Charles: Yeah. Well, um, I think that my vegan origin story, uh, was actually when I was, uh, eight years old. Oh, I was in the Philippines, but this is my vegan origin. And then I forgot it, and then I came back to it. My family in the Philippines live in a poor rural part in the South, uh, on a farm. And, uh, my mum, we were going to have one of the chickens from the back and my mum brought it in, broke the neck, started bleeding, you know, cut the neck. And I went into the other room to start praying for it. My mum was shaking me, saying, what are you doing? Why? It’s just a chicken. And I was crying and I still went and prayed.
查尔斯： 好的。我想我的 vegan 缘起故事，实际上发生在我八岁的时候。哦，我当时在菲律宾。但这就是我的 vegan 缘起，然后我忘了它，后来又回想了起来。我在菲律宾的家人住在南部一个贫困的农村地区，在一个农场上。然后，我妈妈，我们要吃一只后院的鸡，我妈妈把它抓进来，拧断了脖子，开始流血，你知道，割断了脖子。我跑到另一个房间开始为它祈祷。我妈妈摇着我说：“你在干什么？为什么？这只是一只鸡。”我当时在哭，但我还是去祈祷了。
And then a couple of years later in Nigeria, there was, uh, a in the back garden of a friend’s house. There was a cow being, there was a, some sort of celebration, and there were ropes attached to each of the cows’ legs. And people gather around it. And I stood two or three meters from the cow’s face, and I could recognize terror in the voice. I don’t, “Help! Help! ” not in human language, but I understood perfectly. And then they cut the throat and I watched the blood drain. Wow. From the cow. But again, that lingered in me, but stayed in the back of my mind. Right? Yeah. Um. And then I remember I was about eight years ago, um, I had KFC, uh, for breakfast, lunch and dinner, uh, and, uh, and I realized I felt like shit, and I thought, what am I doing? Um, I was a professional. Well, kind of no longer, but I was a kind of semi-professional athlete at the time.
然后几年后，在尼日利亚，在一个朋友家的后院里，有一头牛是为了某种庆祝活动。它的每条腿都系着绳子，人们围在牠周围。我站在离牛脸两三米远的地方，我能从它的声音里辨认出恐惧。“我不要！”“救命！救命”那声音并非人类的语言，但我完全明白了。然后他们割断了牠的喉咙，我看着血流干。从那头牛身上。但同样，那件事在我心中挥之不去，只是停留在了我的脑海深处，对吧？是的。然后我记得大约八年前，我早、中、晚三餐都吃 KFC，然后我意识到自己感觉糟透了，我想：“我到底在干什么？”我当时是一名职业，有点算不上了，但我当时算是一名半职业运动员。
00:42:44 Q: And you were eating at KFC?
Q： 而且你你在吃 KFC？
00:42:48 Charles: Three times a day as well, that. Well, it just kind of ended up like that. Like, I woke up late, and so I had lunch, and then I was like, still hungry. So then I had an early kind of middle of the day, and then I went for dinner. It was like a funny thing, but it really made me realize that there was an element of like, this is impressive to other my guy friends. You know, there were some layers as to the bullshit as to why I did that. Um, but I realized, like, I felt inflamed. To be honest, it came from this, a health perspective. It’s the truth. Yeah. Um, but I knew in the background I was like, I don’t want to. I don’t want to deal with that whole conversation about rights and welfarism and morality and ethics. Um, I’m gonna make it about health that’s tangible because everyone else around reacts more positively. “You’re doing it for health?” “Yeah.” “Great. Oh, fantastic. How do you feel?” It was great. I was like, “Oh, no, I’m doing it for the animals.” Like, “Do you know how unhealthy that is? That’s terrible. Are you sure?” You know, like.
查尔斯： 一天三次。事情就是那样发生的。比如，我起晚了，所以吃了午饭。然后我觉得还饿，所以就在下午早些时候又吃了一顿，然后我又去吃了晚饭。这事儿有点好笑，但它真的让我意识到，这其中有种“这在我那些哥们儿看来很牛”的成分。你知道，我为什么那么做，背后有一些扯淡的层次。但我意识到，我的身体感觉像在发炎。说实话，这最初是出于一个健康的视角，这是事实。是的。但我内心深处知道，我只是不想我不想去处理关于权利、福祉主义、道德和伦理的整套对话。我就把它说成是为了健康，这更实在，因为周围其他人的反应会更积极。“你是为了健康吗？”“是的。”“太棒了。哦，好极了。你感觉怎么样？”“很棒。” 而如果我说：“哦，不，我是为了动物。”他们就会说：“你知道那有多不健康吗？太可怕了。你确定吗？”你知道，就像那样。
00:43:38 Q: Yeah. The cognitive dissonance, right?
Q： 是的，认知失调，对吧？
00:43:41 Charles: Um, so it was an easy thing socially to be accepted if you talked about it in health. I have a keen knowledge for bio, um, biohacking and biology and health and nutrition. So it was like an easy fit. But then, uh, it was here. Copenhagen. Really? Uh, about eight years ago, I came with my ex. At the time, I was on the edge of being vegan and really vegetarian, and then we couldn’t find anything that was vegan for, like, dinner. It was just bizarre. We couldn’t find it where we were. And we ended up in this place. And the closest thing they had was Florentine eggs. And, uh, it’s on a hollandaise sauce, which is very. It’s a rich cream sauce. And it just clicked that I felt My conception of what I was having was being menstrual-based. I was having, you know, um, some period whatever the feeling of disgust kind of because you’re looking at it like it’s almost like it’s been pulled. You have this image, “oh, this is delicious.” And then you’re like, “oh, hang on, that’s what it is.” Um, and then you kind of realize this is kind of gross, and then it’s a very quick movement from there, I would say, to recognizing more. But it had come to
查尔斯： 所以，如果你把它说成是为了健康，就很容易在社交上被接受。我很喜欢研究身体黑客、生物学以及健康和营养，所以这像是一个很自然的切入点。但后来，转折点就在这里，在哥本哈根。真的。大约八年前，我和我前任一起来的。当时，我正处于成为 vegan 的边缘，但其实还是蛋奶素。然后我们晚饭想找点纯素的东西，却什么也找不到。这简直太奇怪了。在我们待的地方就是找不到。最后我们进了这家餐厅，他们最接近纯素的菜是佛罗伦萨蛋。上面浇了荷兰酱，那是一种非常浓郁的奶油酱。就在那一刻，我突然感觉我所构想的、我正在吃的东西，是（动物的）月经。我正在吃你知道嗯某种经期产物总之，就是那种恶心的感觉因为你看着它就像它被剥离了美好的外衣。你本来有个画面：“哦，这很美味。”但紧接着你又想：“哦，等等，这东西是这么来的。”然后你开始意识到这有点恶心。从那一点开始，我会说，到认识更多东西，就是一个非常迅速的过程。但那个时刻已经到来了
00:44:54 Charles: So it was there and I put it in my mouth and it just kind of was so rich right there, so eggy. I just kind of gagged. I was like and like, I couldn’t and I couldn’t finish it.
查尔斯： 所以它就在那里，我把它放进嘴里，然后就它太浓郁了，蛋味太重了。我差点就吐了出来。我当时就我吃不下，也吃不完。
00:45:05 Q: This is fascinating because for a lot of people, they might just actually feel, “well, this is really rich and I love it.” Yeah, right.
Q： 这太有意思了，因为对很多人来说，他们可能只会觉得：“哇，这真浓郁，我爱死它了。”是的，对吧。
00:45:11 Charles: But me previously, that’s why I couldn’t make the move. That’s why it was easy to dismiss the dissonance because you could justify it because of taste. But when taste is removed, it’s a completely different connotation. But it’s a difficult thing to try and do that with people that you talk to. Try and convince them through words.
查尔斯： 但之前的我就是这样。那就是为什么我无法迈出那一步。那就是为什么很容易就能忽视那种认知失调很容易被忽视，因为你可以用味觉来为它辩护。但当味觉被移除后，内涵就完全不同了。可要尝试对你交谈的人做到这一点，就很难了。想通过语言去说服他们。
00:45:29 Q: Yeah.
Q： 是的。
00:45:30 Charles: Because because then the conversation is, if I’m doing any type of outreach, you never really want to talk about fucking food anyway, because it’s an irrelevant it’s a consequence of your ethics, your position.
查尔斯： 因为因为那时的对话就变成了如果我在做任何类型的外展，你根本就不想谈论他妈的食物，因为它无关紧要它只是你伦理立场的一个结果。
00:45:39 Q: Not yeah.
Q： 而不是是的。
00:45:40 Charles: Not, you know, the reason for it.
查尔斯： 而不是，你知道，成为 vegan 的原因。
00:45:43 Q: But you have traveled to so many places, right? And how does that play into your understanding about, you know, how veganism can work or animal rights discourse can work out in different cultures because you’re Yeah, I think you probably have a different kind of Asian perspective and also maybe in Africa and also very Eurocentric.
Q： 但你去过这么多地方，对吧？这对你理解你知道，veganism 或动权话语如何在不同文化中运作，有什么影响？因为你是的，我想你可能有不同的，比如亚洲的视角，可能还有非洲的，以及非常欧洲中心的视角。
00:46:04 Charles: Yeah. For sure. And to be honest, I think it really makes you acknowledge how much internalized chatter that we have, which can be interpreted really because of cultural programming as internalized self-hate and hatred and embarrassment and shame that you’re not like, you know, because even though, you know, you might be fixed in a position, you can still hear the voices of, say, family members or the societies which you’re in saying, you know, “Why are you doing this?” Yeah, the lack of acceptance I internalize a lot of because you still want to participate in the world. But then suddenly and this is probably the difficulty, we all, none of us wants to feel rejected by the world we live in. Mhm. But choosing this position you essentially have to reject a lot of it, but still maintain and be inside it.
查尔斯： 是的。当然。说实话，我认为这真的让你意识到我们有多少内化的杂音。这些杂音其实可以被解读为，源于文化规训的、内化的自我憎恨、厌恶、尴尬和羞耻感，因为你与众不同。你知道，因为即使你立场坚定，你仍然能听到，比如说，家人或者你所处社会的声音在说：“你为什么要这样做？”是的，那种不被接纳的感觉我内化了很多，因为你仍然想参与这个世界。但突然之间这可能就是困难所在，我们所有人，我们都不想被我们生活的世界所排斥。嗯。但选择了这个立场，你基本上就必须拒绝它的大部分，但同时又要维持并生活在其中。
So I think the interesting thing has been trying to navigate the different responses and tailor your opinions to them. If I know someone, you know, they just want to talk about the food or they’re like, “Oh, I hear you’re vegan.” It’s like, “Yeah, I just” And you know, it’s not really a conversation. They’re not really open to it. But like, “Yeah, I just love eating grass,” you know. You know, we turn a joke into it, you dismiss it. I just want to move on because you know that you’re now cognitively trying to avoid conflict, uh, or conversations. Not every moment is a moment to have teaching points or learning points for everyone around you. So no longer am I the Savior. I can only lead with myself as my moral example.
所以我认为，有趣之处就在于尝试去驾驭不同的反应，并根据对方来调整你的言论。如果我知道某个人，你知道，他们只是想谈谈食物，或者他们会说：“哦，我听说你是 vegan。”我就会说：“是啊，我只是”然后你知道，这根本不是一场真正的对话，他们并不是真的对此开放。我就会说：“是啊，我就是爱吃草。”你知道的。我们把它变成一个玩笑，你把它轻轻带过。我只想继续前进，因为你知道你此刻在认知上正试图避免冲突或深入的对话。不是每一个时刻都是一个可以给周围每个人带来教益或学习的时刻。所以我不再是救世主了。我只能我只能以身作则，作为我自己的道德榜样。
00:47:28 Q: Yeah. So when it comes to the mistakes, you know, this is the main reason why I want to interview you and also many other advocates here is like, if you could go back in time, what are some of the mistakes that you wish you could avoid?
Q： 是的。所以，当谈到“错误”时，你知道，这是我想要采访你以及这里许多其他倡导者的主要原因。就是说，如果能回到过去，有哪些错误是你希望自己可以避免的？
00:47:41 Charles: Well, funny enough. So this is why I think it’s complicated. Because we have people like Gary Yourofsky who can get in the bin.
查尔斯： 有意思的是，这就是为什么我认为这很复杂。因为我们有像盖里·尤乐夫斯基（Gary Yourofsky）这样的人，他可以被丢进垃圾桶了。
00:47:47 Q: Exactly.
Q： 没错。
00:47:47 Charles: They can just jump in there. But if I hadn’t, if I had seen more slaughterhouse footage, if I’d seen harder images earlier, I would have gone vegan earlier. That’s the truth. Um, the misnomer with that is the suggestion that the more people you show slaughterhouse footage to, the more people will change. Yeah, but I’m a big Jake Conroy fan, and I have been for a long time. So the message that he talks about is that the only change we’ll get will be a systemic one. Uh, I acknowledge Do I do outreach? Yeah, I still do. Um, do I overestimate my personal agency and its effects on the movement as a bigger picture? Uh, not anymore. Um, is it am I, like the man who stood in front of the White House with a candle during the Vietnam War, and he was asked by reporters, “Why do you do that?” And he said, um, essentially not that he thought that he himself could make a change, but he did it with solidarity with his own humanity. And I do the same thing. I do it to honor, um, my ethics, that I believe it’s important. Yeah. Um, we cannot always choose to think that each one of our actions will be significant. Um, if you do, it can be very easy to get depressed. Yeah. So I feel that actually coming to places like this, um, going to outreach often is about solidarity with ideas.
查尔斯： 他们可以直接跳进去了。但如果我没有如果我更早看到那些屠宰场的画面，看到那些更残酷的图像，我会更早成为 vegan。这是事实。这里的误区在于，它暗示你看的屠宰场画面越多，就会有越多人改变。是的，但我是杰克·康罗伊（Jake Conroy）的忠实粉丝，很久了。所以他传达的信息是，我们能得到的唯一改变，将是系统性的改变。我承认我还做倡导吗？是的，我还在做。我是否高估了我个人的力量及其对整个运动宏观画面的影响？现在不了。我是不是就像那个在越战期间手持蜡烛站在白宫前的人，当记者问他：“你为什么要这么做？”他说，不是因为他认为自己能带来改变，而是他这样做，是为了与自己的人性站在一起。我也做同样的事。我这样做，是为了捍卫我的伦理，我认为这很重要。是的。我们不能总是以为我们的每一个行动都会意义重大。如果你那样想，就很容易感到沮丧。是的。所以我觉得，其实来到像这样的地方，去做倡议往往是为了与理念站在一起。
00:49:15 Q: Yeah, but what do you say about, say, for example, after the talk from Jake and I, thinking about the mistakes that he had mentioned. Right. But then I start to think about the unintended consequences of these radical movements. Right. Or these radical pressure campaigns, especially in the digital age where people decontextualize, I guess the most common counterargument for these kinds of campaigns is that it backfires. People end up becoming even more defensive about what they do. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Q： 是的，但你怎么看比如说，听了杰克的演讲后，我在思考他提到的那些错误，对吧？然后我开始思考这些激进行动可能带来的非预期后果，对吧？或者说这些基进的施压运动，尤其是在人们会断章取义的数字时代。我想，对这类运动最常见的反驳就是，它会适得其反。人们最终会对自己的行为变得更加戒备和防卫。你对此有什么想法吗？
00:49:51 Charles: Well, I think, uh, context matters I think it’s a nuanced argument. I would say it depends on which is a pressure campaign, which is the culturally insensitive component that isn’t working. I think there’s a lot of reasons why a lot of the messaging fails in a lot of vegan movements, right? But as kind of suggested by Jake there, um, it’s who’s behind a lot of it. Um, so I don’t agree with much of it. Um, but the essence of what it is to be vegan Um, I will try to do something about that. Yeah. Do you have a specific When you asked that question, was there something specifically in your mind that you were thinking of?
查尔斯： 我认为，语境很重要。我认为这是一个很微妙的论点。我会说，这取决于具体是哪种施压运动，哪个文化不敏感的成分在起反作用。我认为动权运动中很多信息的传递之所以失败，有很多原因，对吧？但就像杰克在那里所暗示的，关键在于谁是幕后推手。所以我并不认同其中的很多做法。但是，成为 vegan 的精髓，我努力就此做一些事情。是的。你刚才问那个问题时，脑海里有什么具体的例子吗？
00:50:33 Q: I’m thinking about how social media tells only half of the story, and I especially don’t know what will happen with AI. And people can manipulate information and use different framing, um, provoke and incite people to, uh, make us look bad. The whole kind of defensiveness will come from, you know, the general public seeing these pressure campaigns. Maybe a good reaction, relatively good reaction would be, “What about the people working at these companies?” You know, like, “You have to have solutions for farmers to transition,” etc. This is already a kind of a good reaction. But then you also have a really bad reaction where people will say, you know, “These are terrorists. These are extremists,” at least I think in Asia, uh, when we don’t have that history of doing this kind of sabotage or this kind of pressure campaign that much.
Q： 我在想社交媒体是如何只讲述了故事的一半，特别是我不知道有了 AI 之后会发生什么。人们可以操纵信息，使用不同的框架，去挑衅和煽动人们，让我们（动权倡导）看起来很糟糕。那种整体的戒备心态，会来自于，你知道，普通公众看到了这些施压运动。也许一个好的反应，相对好的反应会是：“那些在这些企业工作的人怎么办？”你知道，比如，“你们必须为农民转型提供解决方案”，等等。这已经算是一种好的反应了。但你也可能会遇到非常糟糕的反应，人们会说：“这些人是恐怖分子。是极端分子。”至少我认为在亚洲，当我们没有那么多进行这类破坏活动或施压运动的历史时，会是这样。
00:51:34 Charles: Yeah, I do think
查尔斯： 是的，我确实认为
00:51:36 Charles: You, you in particular are super interesting for me and for a lot of people here because the Chinese culture is so old and established. Um, but in many ways, it mirrors America’s obsession with dominance and power and status. And, um, you said “saving face.” Yeah. So how things appear. Yeah. Um, uh, rightness or wrongness? Um, pride? These are things that are problematic when you are asking people to confront things that can induce shame.
查尔斯： 你尤其让我和这里的很多人都非常感兴趣，因为中国文化如此古老和根深蒂固。但在很多方面，它与美国对统治、权力和地位的痴迷是类似的。而且，你（演讲的时候）提到了挽回“面子”（saving face）。是的。所以事情看起来怎么样很重要。是对与错？或者骄傲？当你要求人们去面对可能引发羞耻感的事情时，这些就成了问题。
00:52:10 Q: Yeah.
Q： 是的。
00:52:11 Charles: Uh, so there’s a whole layer there that is a cultural obstacle to trying to have an ethical conversation and that they have never really contemplated as a society, in my opinion. I think there are always pockets within most societies where there are people who, uh, maybe don’t eat much meat. The Okinawan diet, you know, there was fish, whatever, were primarily vegetables. Yeah. blue zone, blah blah blah. Um, um, but I think that China and I’ve said this for a long time, represents a different hurdle. Here we live in a, um, a Western, um, bubble. And, uh, our pressure campaigns, our small wins if we only need to just zoom out and compare the statistics with the size and scale of what’s in China, and we could be instantly deflated.
查尔斯： 所以这里有一整层的文化障碍，阻碍了进行一场伦理对话，而且在我看来，作为一个社会，他们从未真正思考过这些。我想，在大多数社会中，总会有一些小群体，他们，可能不怎么吃肉。冲绳饮食，你知道，有鱼什么的，但主要是蔬菜。是的。蓝色地带，等等。但我认为中国我这么说已经很久了，它代表着一个不同的障碍。我们这里生活在一个西方的泡沫里。而且，我们的施压运动，我们的小胜利如果我们我们只需要把视野拉远，将统计数据与中国的体量和规模相比，我们可能瞬间就会泄气。
And I think that there is the essence of thinking about our own personal agency and what is the impact we want to have. Sometimes we cannot know that. But being as smart as you are, you will be navigating towards what you can do and where can you start? Um, I think the podcast is fantastic. I think it’s the best way to know if people will listen, you know. Yeah. Um, uh, to engage people’s thinking. There’s a reason why everyone has got a You said everyone’s got a podcast. Yeah, there’s a reason. Because people would much rather conversationally absorb something, uh, than read through and try and then personally reflect and allow that to happen in, you know, a lot of academic circles. So I think it’s a great medium. Again, you I can’t remember his name, but he was talking about using pop culture.
我认为，这里的精髓就在于思考我们自己的个人力量，以及我们想要产生什么样的影响。有时我们无法知道答案。但像你这么聪明的人，你会朝着那个方向去探索你能做什么，以及你能从哪里开始。我认为这个播客非常棒。我认为这是一个它是如果人们愿意听的话，它是最好的方式。是的。去引导人们的思考。你说”每个人都有一个播客”，这是有原因的。是的，有原因的。因为人们更愿意通过对话的方式来吸收一些东西，而不是去阅读，然后尝试个人反思，让那种反思发生在，你知道，很多学术圈子里（也是这样）。所以我认为这是一个很棒的媒介。另外，你我不记得他的名字了，但他在谈论使用流行文化来（进行动物解放的倡导）。
00:54:02 Q: Um, Christopher. Um, Sebastian.
Q： 嗯，克里斯托弗·塞巴斯蒂安。
00:54:06 Charles: Yeah. Yeah, as a means to get cut right through and across as many different barriers. I think that will be……
查尔斯：是的，是的。作为一种手段，去直接切入并跨越尽可能多的不同障碍。我认为那将会是……
00:54:14 Q: one way out, perhaps in China.
Q： 一条出路，或许在中国是这样。
00:54:25 Q: The stories we’ve heard so far from Fernando and Charles have given us an invaluable look at the complexities of animal advocacy on a global scale. They’ve highlighted the critical need for cultural sensitivity, the dangers of a one-size-fits-all approach, and the deeply personal journeys that shape our activism. Now we’re going to shift our focus. We’re moving from these vital discussions about cultural translation to the frontlines of direct action in Europe. Here, in countries with long-established animal rights movements, the challenges and the mistakes can be quite different. The fight often involves direct pressure campaigns, navigating complex legal systems and sometimes direct confrontation with authorities. The risks can be higher and the strategies are forged in a very different kind of fire.
Q： 到目前为止，我们从费尔南多和查尔斯那里听到的故事，为我们提供了一个宝贵的视角，让我们得以一窥全球范围内动权倡导的复杂性。他们强调了文化敏感性的关键需求，“一刀切”方法的危险，以及塑造我们行动主义的深刻个人旅程。现在，我们将转换我们的焦点。我们将从这些关于文化转译的重要讨论，转向欧洲直接行动的前线。在那里，在有着悠久动权运动历史的国家，挑战和错误可能截然不同。斗争常常涉及直接的施压运动、驾驭复杂的法律体系，有时甚至是与当局的直接对抗。风险可能更高，而他们的策略，则是在一种截然不同的火焰中锻造而成的。
