Fair enough; "overlooked" was the wrong word. I should perhaps have said, "I would like to make a point that your comments brought to my mind but did not themselves raise."
In a message dated 12/6/2002 9:38:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
> You're right that the category is not consistently one of civil disobedience.
> I did not claim it was such a category. I meant to group together forms of
> refusal of complicity in violence, not to create a single category of one
> kind. Not to make a point is not the same as overlooking it.
> Date sent: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:11:47 -0500
> Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OT: Canada and Vietnam (was, Marianne Moore poem in WWII)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> > From: Nancy Gish [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > I really don't think you can blame feminism for Condi Rice any more than
> > you could praise masculism for Martin Luther King or Gandhi or Viet Nam
> > objectors who went to Canada.
> I think your grouping of these latter three together overlooks an
> important point.
> ML King and Gandhi fought repressive systems from within through
> passive resistance, which included accepting the punishment meted out
> by the oppressors and using that punishment to illustrate the injustice of
> what was being done. Those who went to Canada to avoid the Vietnam
> draft -- whatever their degree of principle, which presumably varied -- were
> engaging in something different. Muhammad Ali would be the better
> example to complete your triad, as he remained in the country and thus
> remained subject to the law he was challenging (and was ultimately
> vindicated, albeit on dubious technical grounds unworthy of
> the principle
> he was standing for.) That's my view of it, anyway.
> Tom K