Cindy Sheehan may be opposed to the war in Iraq. However, her opposition to the war does not make her a Rosa Parks. Nor does anything that she has thus far done. The comparison strikes me as utterly inappropriate for a plethora of reasons. I do not retract these claims even if it is true that Sheehan received a call of support from Ms. Rosa Parks herself, as is reported on one blog.
I have no desire to trivialize the loss of her son. Likewise, I do not wish to trivialize the fact that this has proven to be a catalyst in her life.
Finding a single event horrendously wrong and suffering a lifetime of injustice owing simply to the color of one’s skin in a country that is one’s own, where one has been a dutiful and law-abiding citizen, are not even on the same plane.
It is my view that one trivializes what Ms. Parks actually when we so glibly compare our struggles and bits of disgruntlement to the courage that Ms. Parks displayed on that fateful day in December of 1955. Ms. Parks had no way of knowing that she would live to tell her story, let along to become an icon of the Civil Rights Movement.
Not so with Ms. Sheehan. Nothing she has done can constitute putting her life on the line. No one would think to threaten her life merely because she has expressed her opposition to the war in Iraq. Indeed, she has basked in a frenzy on the part of the media. I have been trying to come up with any instance of real courage on Sheehan’s part that might call to mind the Civil Rights Movement. And nothing whatsoever comes to mind. No one would think to unleash dogs upon her or hose her to assassinate her. Ms. Sheehan bears no vulnerability whatsoever simply in virtue of either her sex or her skin color. Moreover, she will surely get a multi-million dollar book contract. So far, I see no resemblance to the courage of the Civil Rights Movement.
I tend to think that the word ‘racist’ is overused. But I find the elevation of Cindy Sheehan to the status of a Rosa Parks—even a Rosa Parks of the town of Crawford—deeply offensive precisely because I find it racist. Why? Because it radically discounts the moral excellences of courage and self-respect that were majestically displayed in the struggle for racial equality. One of the defining features of racism is that it discounts the excellences displayed by the members of a racial or ethnic or religious group. Thus, I think that it is possible for members of a group to be racists towards other members of the group.
I never heard another Jew compare her or himself to Elie Wiesel. And that strikes me as quite right. I have never hear another black compare himself Frederic Douglass. Not even Martin Luther King ever compared himself Frederic Douglass. And that, too, strikes me as quite right.
So let’s see: If it is morally correct for a Martin Luther King not to compare himself to a Frederic Douglass, then nothing seems more implausible than that Cindy Sheehan should turn out to be on the same moral plane as Rosa Parks. Could someone turn out to be on the same moral plane as Ms. Parks? Absolutely. But Sheehan most certainly is not that person.
I hold the media is complicit in this racism. It knows better. The nedia knows that Sheehan is not a target in the way that blacks were in the United States. Certainly, it should know this. In the name of its opposition to the war the media is exploiting the profound struggles of a people for racial equality. Opposition to the war in Iraq may or may not be just, but there can be no justification at all for exploiting the sacred struggles of a people. And insofar as blacks allowing this exploitation to continue, because they, too, are opposed to the war, then are revealing a profound lack of self-respect.
In recent years, gays have claimed that they, too, have been riding in the back of the bus. This is neither literally nor metaphorically true. Have gays been egregiously mistreated? Absolutely! Evil, however, is not impoverished. And nothing excuses appropriating the suffering of another in the name of one’s own self-advancement. This, in fact, is what Cindy Sheehan has done. Or, in any case, her supporters have done so, and she has not distanced herself from their doing so, which makes her culpable.
I suppose that calling Sheehan the Rose Parks of Crawford is supposed to minimize the comparison to the struggles of Ms. Parks. Let’s see. Does that strategy work? I don’t think so. Just try saying of someone that he is the Martin Luther King of Crawford or Charlottesville. Or try saying that he is the Oscar Schindler of Crawford or Raleigh. An icon transcends geographical boundaries. So you really can’t use an icon and then attempt to rein the person end by assigning the person to a geographical location. Let’s see, Sheehan is the Mother Theresa of Crawford. I cannot imagine a devoted Catholic who would not be insulted by the mere suggestion of a comparison. And, of course, no one would dare do so. But why not? Mother Theresa was awfully courageous and stood her ground against all sorts of people in high places, just like Cindy Sheehan is doing. Why who can discern a difference between the wonderfully self-sacrificing Cindy Sheehan and Mother Theresas? Oh, is this the wrong comprison? I see. But Rosa Parks is just fine. Enough said.
