Watson said something the last time that has been stuck in my head. And while I might get the exact wording wrong, I think the point will be pretty on target:
Watson said: "I don't give a shit what anybody out there thinks of me. I answer to the whales."
The "I don't give a shit what anybody thinks of me" phrase has been confirmed by a longtime Sea Shepherd crew member thusly: "No, really! He doesn't give a shit what anybody thinks of him!"
So. You know.
I've been stuck on this part of his talk. I'm starting to wonder how much appeasing and soft selling and tip toeing I've done when representing animals when I should have been more outspoken, or straight up, or just plain old aggressive. And I wonder how much of that appeasing was being done to make myself more comfortable in a situation as opposed to whether I thought it was going to be the most helpful approach for the animals I was advocating for.
Which brings me to this conclusion: Sometimes the middle finger is the correct response.
Some people need to see that we are not going to bend. Some people, inside the movement and outside, need to see that we are serious about this and will fight for those animals.
The flipside to that is that some people will never respond to calm debate or a well worded pamphlet. Some people need a kick in the pants to be persuaded.
I know there has long been the fear that voices too strident or militant will turn people off to this movement and while I think that may be the case sometimes, look around and ask yourself what the masses respond to: Images of strength and courage.
I'm not asking you to fashion your animal outreach after Charles Bronson, but I am looking at society at large and what we find persuasive, vs. what we find quaint. And I'm thinking we could all perhaps stand to be a little more like Paul Watson in regards to who we answer to.
Posts
5 people felt it was time to chime in.:
in the same vein as this but not exactly...it's like some people's tendency (often-times women) to apologize for everything. we don't need to be sorry, we should not EVER be sorry, for wanting to stop people from hurting animals. if we act like people should agree with us, like it's the most obvious choice, then most likley they'll just follow along. at the same time, you can't just be a dick to everyone.
You know, it's really hard to know what to think of this kind of advice in the abstract. I do care what people think of me--I have to, because my activism involves more trying-to-get-people-to-listen than ramming-ships and being-an-awesome-badass-pirate-on-the-high-seas. In some cases, I probably should be more middlefingery (less apologizing, like michelle said; being more vocal in general); but some cases are different (I'm still not going to tell the friend who says "I'll stop eating meat and eggs but I just CAN'T stop eating cheese" that they're being stupid and need to just put down the puswheel).
What you say, Josh, about what people listen to is something I think about a lot, and here's what I think most of the time: there isn't just one way of expressing ourselves that will get through to everyone. It's fantastic to have someone like Paul Watson out there to not give a fuck what anyone thinks; but we also need people with more of a soft-sell. That's not to say we should ever compromise the content of our message, just that we need to say it lots of times in lots of different ways to get through to the most people possible. So I'm not sure we do all need to be more like Paul Watson in that sense.
But we should all have pirate ships. That's obviously the most important way to emulate Captain Paul.
hey roger,
thanks for your note. i'm not advocating we all run around like obnoxious, self-righteous types flipping people of at the slightest provocation. i just mean, more, that i have found myself appeasing and trying to calm the waters in situations rather than being steadfast and not giving an inch. it isn't EXACTLY giving the finger, but to me it is in a way: it's giving the middle finger to people who want to shoot us down or "win" an argument or debate or run our belief into the ground.
i trust most of us folks to use the bird wisely and sometimes only internally. : )
I've thought long and hard on something Gandhi said re: lines that need to be drawn within oneself (and no, I'm not one of those who goes around claiming Gandhi to my side, nor quoting him aloud or on t-shirts) on this front.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
No hippie, I've done my share of bar fighting and street defending and stomping and swearing before arriving at my own style of loudly conscious pseudo-non-violence. Enough to know that yes, sometimes, where a good amount of rage is the honest reaction then it is likely the appropriate answer. Not blind rage, not unprovoked violent actions, but a guttural and controlled F-you that can't be swallowed? Sure.
I have a certain measure of respect for Watson, for what he does and how he goes about it. The issues I have with him are some of the same ones I have with Greenpeace, PETA, &c., and mostly surround their seeming constant assignation of blame down the line to the workers, community members, and subsistence hunters/fishers who almost exclusively (literally, if you've ever been to a Newfoundland or Labrador outport you'll know this) have been left no other option than to participate for survival in the very same corporate structure of mass-slaughter that cost them their self-sufficiency in the first place.
It's as though in adopting a Marxist philosophy of championing the oppressed they've made a conscious decision to eschew any form of understanding for or solidarity with oppressed peoples.
I'm not saying I value human life above animal life. As a vegan, my stance on the matter is pretty obvious. But as a Kantian-Habermasian tinged Marxist, it upsets me when those who speak so passionately for exploited animals can't find within themselves even the smallest measure of compassion for exploited peoples. There is a certain understanding of history, and especially the often violent Maritime and Northern Canadian colonial history, that is seriously wanting in much of the animal rights activism and debate that happens.
Alright, I've ranted long enough. I won't apologize. Suffice to say - flip-it-if-you've-got-it at those who stand in your way in front of you, but also don't be afraid to examine the actions, words, and motives of those standing beside and behind you and flip freely there also where needed.
* Nothing I've said above translates to the Ringling issue. That situation is offensive and deplorable on all counts.
This was a thought provoking post. As a relatively new vegan, I'm certainly struggling with this issue. I find myself biting my tongue quite a bit while formulating a calm response rather than telling people to stop whining about how they have to eat cheese already. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
Post a Comment