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