Malala's central dogma is the practice of peaceful protest, something we studied briefly in the prior unit. Henry David Thoreau was an American philosopher who published the idea of peaceful revolution as opposed to bloody revolution. Perhaps the South should have taken note; this method worked beautifully in the case of Malala.
The South, when seceding from the Union, began the Civil War with somewhat less extreme dispositions than those that developed as the war progressed. Jefferson Davis' attitude at the start of the war was that of focusing solely on defense: he wouldn't attack the North, he would only defend himself if the Union invaded. Of course, this method spiraled into disaster and ruin when this conflict became the bloodiest in American history.
Obviously, there's a huge discrepancy between the Northern-Southern conflict and the Taliban's presence in Pakistan. And yet, both are conflicts over idealism, and similar idealism, at that. The Civil War was fought over the worth of the individual, namely the African American individual. The peaceful protest that Malala has waged against the Taliban is also about the worth of the individual, namely women in Islamic societies.
The South went to war with the North over its conflict and blood was spilled; still, the South lost in protecting its ideals. Malala's process in waging peaceful war of idealism may just work, because, in contrast with the Civil War, Malala refuses to take up arms; she's only trying to spread her message. And, in that way, there's hope for women's education in Pakistan and around the world.
Obviously, there's a huge discrepancy between the Northern-Southern conflict and the Taliban's presence in Pakistan. And yet, both are conflicts over idealism, and similar idealism, at that. The Civil War was fought over the worth of the individual, namely the African American individual. The peaceful protest that Malala has waged against the Taliban is also about the worth of the individual, namely women in Islamic societies.
The South went to war with the North over its conflict and blood was spilled; still, the South lost in protecting its ideals. Malala's process in waging peaceful war of idealism may just work, because, in contrast with the Civil War, Malala refuses to take up arms; she's only trying to spread her message. And, in that way, there's hope for women's education in Pakistan and around the world.
Great post, Zach! Malala is such an inspiraton. One thing that I think is interesting is how Malala views US involvement in Pakistan. When she met Obama just the other day, she told him of her concerns about the drone attacks. I think, in addition to everything you said, it's awesome that she has such a clear grasp of the situation and is not afraid to speak her mind -- hopefully the world listens and heeds her words. Malala meeting the Obamas: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=232342688
ReplyDeleteRegarding the quip about Davis, didn't the Union get invaded by Confederate armies under Lee? If that's the case, then the statement about not attacking the Union is false. Nevertheless, this article about an amazing individual is as inspiring as Malala herself.
ReplyDeleteThis is such an interesting comparison; it's great that you tied in current events, namely methods of protest, to the Civil War. I would have never considered the idea that the south might have attempted tried civil disobedience in its cause to protect slavery. I feel that this begs the question of when peaceful civil disobedience became a well known idea in the Western world? Henry David Thoreau actually died in 1862, so it's surprising that the idea of peaceful civil disobedience was not popularly considered in the south by the beginning of the Civil War. (Relatively) Peaceful protest had been utilized during the American Revolution, (the Boston Tea Party), however there are few other instances in American history, until the 20th century, where peaceful protest is utilized on a large scale.
ReplyDelete