After watching part of the film, An Act of Conscience, I was reminded of Thoreau's take on direct and indirect civil disobedience, and the persons obligated to take these actions. Obviously, a refusal to pay income tax, to prevent that money from being used in war is an example of direct civil disobedience that Thoreau himself used.
I do admire Thoreau's commitment to direct civil disobedience, but I think his view that it is the only proper way to protest is wrong, for a simple reason. In many cases, the person(s) being persecuted or suffering injustice are perfectly capable of taking effective actions to better their cause and seek change. However, what of the more extreme cases of injustice? Could slaves have protested slavery? Could members of an ethnic group protest to their genocidal counterparts? I think not. It seems to me that Thoreau's idea of leaving civil disobedience to the ones suffering the persecution stops short of the most deadly and heinous forms of social injustice.
I also like what Thoreau says about being directly civilly disobedient rather than merely indirectly. However, I also think there are cases in which it is impossible. I wonder how much civil disobedience a person living in North Korea right now can do. Probably not a lot before they are arrested and put in jail or to death.
ReplyDeleteSlaves, serfs, and totalitarian subjects protest their condition all the time, but in passive, indirect, and largely ineffectual ways -- playing dumb, foot-dragging, grumbling among themselves, sloppy work (ever wonder why the North Korean economy is disastrously inefficient?). Part of Jesus' genius was to organize downtrodden, occupied imperial subjects to perform almost as safe but more assertive, self-respect-building ways to do this (turn the other cheek, go the extra mile...). Gandhi understood this about Jesus long before Walter Wink winkled it out of the scripture.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt, though, as you say, we need everyone who perceives the injustice to speak up, not just those directly oppressed by it (I'm not sure I see where Thoreau was recommending leaving it to the victims...).
I would reference another post:
ReplyDeletehttp://macromomsmusings.blogspot.com/2012/10/timing-is-everything.html
Is it enough just to be disobedient until you are put in physical harms way? I think the people of North Korea, given enough reason to do so, could do anything that's necessary to free themselves of their unjust leaders. If something is important enough, you can justify the physical backlash.
In principle perhaps, though that's not a decision we can make on someone else's behalf...
ReplyDelete