 |
 |
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." Tom K 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. > Nancy > > > 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