Read other letters about this article

• Monday, November 17, 2008 09:54 AM

  @salonmarte: You are absolutely right

  Thanks for calling my attention to a loose use of the term "radical". You are right. What I tried to convey was a somewhat one-dimensional scale of civil protest, from the poster in your car to the protest in the street to civil obedience that includes peaceful rule breaking (of conventions to that of laws) and on to more violent forms of protest. I wonder now if that is really possible, and if it were, if "radicalism" is the right term to be used. If there were one dimension, maybe "extreme" might the better term, although in a dimension you often have two poles, i.e. two extremes. And if you go to the roots - which is what "radical" really signifies - withholding taxes as you did might have been the "radical" thing to do. Or being a conscentious objector, as your husband was, might be another. It depends on what "root" you are aiming at.

  As regards violence, that is another dimension that only partially covers of what I originally intended. I wonder if burning a draft card really was a violent act. Spitting at returning GIs that in some rare cases really might have happened is one but I do not remember it ever having been discussed - I left the U.S. in 1969 - and it certainly would have been rejected as a despicable act, then. Bombing property is indeed less "violent" than bombing people as the Baader-Meinhof gang did here in Germany. Bill Ayers never passed that treshold, and I still think that to be a significant fact. And yet, some people got from that type of violence to that fatal next step.

  What I understood in hindsight is how tenuous the border between these different types of violence might become when people start the mental gymnastics of justifying their (mis-)deeds. And I still struggle with the notion of "civil disobedience" some forms of which like disregarding "whites only" signs are justified without any doubt while others are breaching seemingly legitimate rules. The problem is that you define for yourself what breach is or is not legitimate, and some people stop at draft evasion, others at withholding taxes, others find government behavior so atrocious that bombing government offices seems justified, others think that bombing exponents of "the system" is called for, and suicide bombers (and armies) think killing by-standers is justified as "collateral damage" or deem by-standers not as innocent because they just stand by instead of fight on their side.

  If you never thought there was something atrocious going on in Viet Nam, or "right or wrong, my country", and being with your president, be it LBJ and Nixon or Dubya absolves you from own thinking you can afford to take the facile, moral superior position. I for one do not know what frightens me more, the rare instance of a self-righteous, rigorous Robespierre who talks the talk and walks the walk or the hypocrite who is spewing out easy condemnations in order to compensate for his own shortcomings.

  Whatever, what I wanted to convey is to have a discussion where people listen to the story others have to tell and withhold judgement upto that moment where they have tried to take in the other's point of view. Then, and only then, you might offer a judgment, a judgment accompanied by a considerable dose of humility.

  And I was wrong to put all of Ayers' critics in the same bag.

  But sincere thanks to you for starting a meaningful discussion.

  —AugoKnoke Read AugoKnoke's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel