Just one more thing.
I wouldn't be dwelling on this if about half my readers weren't from the States, because I think the Europeans and Asians get what I'm getting at. At least that's been my experience. It's my fellow countrypeople who appear be the last one for whom the other shoe falls.
Just about everybody knows the glorious and noble outline of American history and the revolutionary (in the positive sense of the word, not in the military sense, though that played a (as it turns out, most likely unnecessary) role as well. There was a time, it was an event, there was an important and deep-seated factum that arose in 1776. Now, I know that this may be a bit difficult to follow, but a key element of the break between GB and the USA lies in the idea that there was the universal, political, outright expression of the notion that there is such as thing as unjust laws.
This wasn't pointed out to me in history class back in school, but it has been pointed out to be in the meantime. "No taxation without representation" is a statement that challenges the legitimacy of a properly instituted law. King George had it in his power, and his parliament seconded the idea that the tea tax could be levied. It was the law of the land, and consequently, of the colonies as well. Nobody asked the colonies, however, and it was expected, as was wont at the time, that they obey the law, as it was expected of them. But there such things as unjust laws. And it was this that our forebears chose as the turning point for their dissatisfaction. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right by a long shot, but this -- in my mind -- defining moment of American history has been (apparently) swept under the carpet in the meantime, because as we know, if you disobey the law, you can't expect anyone to feel sorry for you.
If you don't believe me, ask anyone in a demonstration who doesn't follow the orders of a policeman, or anyone who challenges a policeman in any way, or who chooses to demonstrate in a public place only to be told they have to find another public place, or who feeds the homeless in spite of a law, or ... the list truly goes on and on. And, there are brave souls who are willing to challenge this blind obedience to law and order, but at the same time there are others who openly declare their opposition to judicial rulings (even if we know they'll rightfully calm down before too long).
The key issue here is not the mere existence of a law, but its "justice value". Was the greater portion of the colonial citizenry disadvantaged because of the King's tea tax (which was more a not-so-discreet corporate subsidy)? Yes. Was a very slim minority advantaged at the expense of the majority? Yes. Does the fact that same-sex couples can now marry in any way restrict the majority's right to marry as they see fit? No. Does the provision of affordable healthcare to the majority restrict the minority's access to healthcare at all? No. Does your right to own, carry, and flash around any weapon you damn well please infringe upon my right to a safe and secure existence, free from personal lapses of judgement? Not really. Is it in all our interests that anybody can get a gun, but not everybody can get a vote? No. I think you get the point (or at least you should).
There are unjust laws. There were unjust laws then, and there are unjust laws now. To insist, when it suits you, that laws must be obeyed, is disrespectful of all those who fought and died that injustice should be challenged. Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment