I've always wondered why the mere mention of Cindy Sheehan's name can incite violent reactions in many Americans. I always assumed that it was because many people felt as if she were using her son's death to her advantage, as if being the mother of a fallen soldier and a war protester at the same time made her an instant celebrity. While this may be why many people dislike her, I believe the way she presents herself establishes an unflattering ethos for many listeners.
Throughout her speech she derides everyone not present at the protest. While she quotes (or, more accurately, paraphrases) great minds such as Emerson and Thoreau on materialism, she comes off insensitive to the lives of everyday people. Sheehan argues that if you can't bring yourself to sell all your possessions and follow her, you're not a true believer in the cause. She fails to take into consideration the responsibilities people have within families and communities. Furthermore, her words encourage angry words that are almost counterintuitive to a nonviolent protest - her followers shout out unflattering epithets at the White House and embellish her speech with rash comments of their own.
Sheehan's movement would be better served if she were to urge positive action instead of focusing on her hatred of the Bush Administration and mainstream culture. While I understand her anger and sense of betrayal that came as a result of her son's death, I question her ethos. Strangely, I find myself in agreement with plenty of what she said but I would never call myself her follower. Perhaps many other Americans feel the same way. If so, her polarizing character is a bigger hindrance to the movement than help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Wow, I didn't notice that she was criticizing those that weren't there to protest with her. Now that you mentioned it, looking back, I realize that that kind of disuaded me as well from protesting with her. Just because not some do not support you, doesn't mean that they should be criticized for it.
Sorry...the last sentence was meant to be: "Just because some do not support you, doesn't mean..." Just wanted to clarify that and avoid confusion.
The sad part is that Cindy Sheehan running for Nancy Pelosi's seat in Congress could conceivably siphon enough left wing wacko votes away from Ms. Pelosi to give the seat (maybe even the House majority!) back to the Republicans. Sort of like deja vu all over again as when the Nader voting numbskulls (in Florida alone!) gave us 8 freaking years of George W. Bush.
Have you ever listened to that woman speak? Whoa! More proof that the extreme left is as goofy as the extreme right in my most humble opinion. I do believe she is standing on her son's grave to promote her far left agenda but as long as there are people to listen to her drivel...well that's what makes America great...I think! Cheers!
Laura's post and each of your comments is a good illustration of how a person's might dislike someone's tactics (Sheehan's criticism) within a larger area of protest that they agree with (the anti-war movement). In class today we'll talk about this point further. It's great how you are each building on each other's points.
Post a Comment