It is clear that people can use radical forms to protest and deliver a message. Both Cindy Sheehan and Malachai Richter used extreme methods of protest. Richter decided that self immolation would portray his political stance against the war in Iraq. As well Sheehan devoted her time to camping out in front of the President’s private residence and refused to leave until he agreed to speak to her. When he denied her request she bought property near to him, just to be there when he decided to come home.
I think Richter’s form of protest was radical and created shock value. I think that it was his way of self sacrificing himself for what he considered a worthy cause. In contrast his personal moral character (ethos) is in question when he makes claims like “I wish I killed Rumsfeld when I had the chance.” I mean what sort of image does that give of his personal values? I think the fact that his suicide was harmless to others makes it “peaceful” in a way. I mean he was only hurting himself not anyone else, which was his choice and in some ways is respectable in that not many people are willing to die such a painful death for a cause. However, there is never any justification for infringing on another’s rights, especially taking another person’s life. Richter did something so shocking that it did demand attention, but I don’t think it accomplished much else. I mean there are no “Richter Anti-war” legislations being debated in congress. There are no memorial parks dedicated to him or his mission. I just think that suicide in itself is a selfish act and that aside from being dramatic and calling attention to the issue it won’t accomplish much. Wouldn’t someone rather work to progressively change and have the satisfaction of seeing results if that is possible? This is what I respect about Cindy Sheehan...
Now I think that Sheehan did so many things wrong with her method of protest but I also think she did many things right. First of all, who would make a better leader for a peace cause then a heartbroken mother of a deceased soldier? She is the epitome of ethos, she is a “stakeholder” in that she was directly affected in a personal way by the war in Iraq. Who is more trustworthy than a mother of an American soldier? I mean people would just naturally trust that alone as making her a reliable person for the cause. I just think that Sheehan was asking a lot of the public. She suggest that we leave all our “stuff” behind and sell our houses and cars in order to protest the war. I mean many people may agree with her and want to protest with her but she didn’t really offer any practical options for people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with you that Malachi did not accomplish much with his form of protesting. He did get the public's attention, but due to his background of mental illness and lack of social life, many people doubted his reason for protesting. In my opinion, I don't think he should have made such a big sacrifice. I think he should have found other means of protesting that would have made the US government listen.
The fact that Sheehan has lost a son in the war definitely affects her actions and I believe makes her a more passionate activist. If a protest's effectiveness is defined as the response it generates, she did a good job, because thousands of people (including celebrities and members of Congress) visited her camp near Bush's ranch. However, she does cross the line at times, including all the expletives she used to describe Bush in her speech (e.g. she kept referring to how he "shit" all over the White House).
I agree with the comment you made about how Cindy Sheehan is the perfect leader for an anti-war protest. Because she has lost her son in the war I believe she can reach many people purely through pathos and gaining their sympathy. However, I agree with your comment that she did many things wrong with how she went about protesting.
Post a Comment