Protest #3

I would have thought that perhaps the protest against systemic injustices, that constant subtle and not so subtle discrimination that affects the lives of so many people of colour would have either slowly been reduced in its intensity or become even more violent. That is -  either people would get bored with the topic and move on to the next issue of the week or that their level of frustration and anger would increase as some institutions over-reacted (again). Instead, there seems to still be a number of marches and while the number of people has remained consistent, the destruction of property and the rage seems to have lessened or at least it is not as obvious. Which is good news. Those who have been oppressed may be tired of hearing the words "meaningful dialogue", but no one listens when too many people are screaming.   I wonder how many of those who are marching know the roots of the modern protest movement.

A few decades before the US's war between the states, a young man, who at best could be described as an aspiring writer, wrote an essay on civil disobedience. In it, he argued that men (he was a chauvinist as were most men of his era), if they disagreed with the actions of their government, had the responsibility to refuse to follow that government; that a citizen was not obliged to support their government when they knew they were wrong. The writer disagreed with the USA's intervention in Mexico and therefore refused to pay a portion of his taxes. He was fined, refused to pay the fine and was sent to jail. A relative paid the fine and he only spent one night in jail. Like so much of Henry David Thoreau's work, his essay on civil disobedience did not attract a lot of attention during his lifetime.

Almost fifty or so years later, a young lawyer from India was working in South Africa independence movement -specifically trying to ensure that individuals of Indian descent were not discriminated against. On his way to Britain to discuss these issues, he read a copy of Thoreau's essay on civil disobedience. When he returned to South Africa and later to India, Gandhi used Thoreau's work as part of the philosophical underpinning of his non-violent protesting.

A few decades later another young man was doing graduate studies at Boston University. He read about Gandhi's peaceful protest and the power of gathering so many people together in a non-violent way. He read about Gandhi's connection to Thoreau. If you read some of Martin Luther King's speeches, you can hear some of Thoreau's words. It took just over a hundred years before people listened and understood what he wrote.  

I think most of the above story is true. I have always liked it for the synchronicity of it all. I have liked it in part because it took two men of colour to interpret the words of a reasonably privileged white man. But there is something else to the story that is worth remembering. All three of the individual took action on their own. They did not wait for someone to pave the way or to make it safe for them to protest. They did not expect anyone to do what they did. They did it because it was right.

Gandhi simply said that he was going to the sea to make salt (something that was not allowed). He did not ask his fellow members of the Ashram to come, he just said he was going. King did not moan about the police and their dogs blocking his way crossing the bridge in Selma, he did not expect anything of anyone. He just walked across. Thoreau did not ask anyone to pay his fine or to not pay their taxes.

The extraordinary thing about these three men is that they did what they did because it was right. The fact that two of them were followed by thousands of other individuals is irrelevant. They would have done it if they had been all alone. They did not blame others for their actions or lack of actions - they just stood there - convinced that they had the obligation to disagree with their government when they knew the government was wrong.