Turning nasty

In public some vegans protest in the streets or in the media for Animal Rights. In our fierce fight for ‘rights’ we mightn’t have any room for fancy ideas, like “having all-round-respect for animals and humans alike”.
In our daily interactions with people, it’s this one small weakness amongst ourselves that screws animal advocacy. It’s one of the main contested issues within the Animal Rights and Vegan movements - how we appear to the general public, how our words are couched, how we deal with contentious issues sensitively. Same say “go in soft”, others like to throw their moral fists about. The whole process of communicating effectively is what ‘we’ are surely all about?
Here’s an omnivore listening to us. Hearing all about our interest in Animal Rights. The question may well revolve around listeners’ reactions to our initial impact, our image, around the question of whether we are people other people can identify with. It comes down to gut reaction – about vegans – and whether they are violent or non-violent in nature. Every adult omnivore (I can only speak of ‘Western’ countries) is surely familiar with the standard line of animal rights ‘emotional blackmail’. It is connected to that old school idea in conversation and debate, trying to prove someone is WRONG. That’s all very well for something mathematical but not useful for moral reason – for this very reason. To be wrong, to be right, scored debating points, competition, and when the debate turns to such a touchy subject as this one is, we remember the conversations. We remember those cringeings and humiliations of being proved wrong or foolish.
An omnivore listening to a vegan never knows if being with a vegan who may threaten to bring up Animal Rights isn’t like being thrown up over by a drunk. How does any omnivore know that ‘our views’ will be expressed in a reasonable way. As vegans, if we come across as fierce, we may reinforce that old familiar evangelical image. “Outraged and vegan” or “outraged at …” whatever the subject we get steamed up about, it’s the outrage that sounds so ugly and ridiculous. Oh yes, when Gough Whitlam said in 1975, “Maintain your rage” that was valid enough. At the time we were all outraged that Gough had been sacked. But our outrage dissolved, and if we as activists only do ‘outrage’ that won’t be enough. Vegan shouts: listener cringes. What the listener does NOT do, I believe, is say “that is so true, from this moment on I join you in your outrage, not if they have a ham sandwich in their lunch pack! So, okay if outrage isn’t the cool image, then what is?
I’m not sure personally that we can even attempt to answer that question because we aren’t in control of our emotions. I won’t flinch at watching footage of animal cruelty. I hate to see it but I’ve seen so much of it, and I know it underlines the rotten core of some humans, I know it reminds me to kep my focus on the ‘outrage against animals’ but I also know it’s a trap. That it interferes in our speaking about this subject. All important is how we seem, how forgiving we are, how creatinvel intelligent we are and how much and how deeply we respect other humans. It isn’t just animals. So, we speak so we create great waves of trust and promise no pouncing. It comes naturally to the truly peaceful person but for old warring natures like mine we have to learn this lesson the hard way. Preferably just drop the aggro attitude. That’s if we want to advocate. Communication is going to be a long an patient processs. This is whye delivery is so important.
But vegans are natural talkers (!!!). And do a lot of emailing, writing, telephoning, speak through art and any number of ways, to connect this vegan message to people. But hell, face to face communication is hard enough, over any other medium this delicate message is even harder – how do we protect people from fearing us as preachy-threatening-evangelical? How do we avoid that image? Even when face to face it’s almost impossible so in any other situation, in letters-to-the-editor, in radio interview, a few sentences recorded for the news, there’s just too few signals getting across, to make it ‘safe’, for omnivores to listen to us. They can’t protect themselves from us except by running away. Does the listener really need to confront vegan ‘violence’ in the tradition of the slogan, ‘Meat is murder’? Omnivores need to trust us, that we won’t ‘turn’ on them, crush them or make fools of them.