By Edwin Cooney
Within hours after sending readers my tribute to Muhammad Ali, I got the following astounding message from a very good man.
“Ali was neither a symbol of manhood or courage. Manhood & courage do not run from serving your country. I believe the way the press has handled his death is absolutely wrong!”
Although I find this gentleman’s response in this case to be ironic, assumptive and harsh, I know him to be an exceedingly conscientious, generous, thoughtful, public-spirited person and citizen. He is a friend, a colleague as a Lion and an exceedingly personable social companion.
Of course, the definition of courage and manhood are highly subject to individual interpretation. Thus, their meaning and what they portray about the national character and mood can be quite revealing. That meaning and purpose are two of the reasons I’m responding to this gentleman’s response to my characterization last week of Muhammad Ali as a symbol of both courage and manhood. My third reason is fundamental as to why I author these weekly musings. I’ll state that reason at the close of this commentary.
First, my friend whom I’ll refer to here as LD, appears to believe that no citizen has the right to conscientiously object to the dictates of the United States government. Hence, Ali’s refusal to respond to the draft which would have obligated him to fight in the Vietnam War was a denial of his moral and patriotic obligation and as such was both disloyal and even cowardly. There is an irony here. LD, like many of those who would support his conclusions about Muhammad Ali, regards himself as conservative. In fact, LD, when asked, proclaims himself as such. The Vietnam War in the eyes of millions of citizens and scores of historians came to be seen as an unnecessary war having had little to do with our national security. It resulted in approximately 58,000 deaths and its purpose, to prevent the spread of Communism in domino fashion across Southeast Asia toward Hawaii and our west coast, was a careless and empty assumption. Neither Muhammad Ali’s possible death or any single soldier’s death, as I see it, turned out to be worthy of that assumption. Thus I pose the following question to my friend LD: is acquiescence or open objection more courageously patriotic when “big government” mistakenly concludes that our national security is at peril? Shouldn’t conservatives have questioned JFK and LBJ, foremost advocates of “big government,” as to the wisdom and practicality of that war?
As for the definition of courage, I have believed most of my life that courage has been mistakenly ill-defined in the minds of too many people. A courageous act doesn’t occur out of necessity. A courageous act occurs when its performer has another option. It is my experience that those who are regarded as courageous due to the effects of a physical disability are wrongly so regarded. The risks a blind man takes to cross a street or that a girl in a wheelchair takes to attend school or the willingness a deaf man or woman displays to become an employee are merely symbolic of what every person, whether able bodied or disabled, must do to function gratifyingly and successfully as a full member of the human family. No one has a choice except to strive to be both productive and useful. Useful productivity is natural to who we are!
A soldier becomes courageous when he deliberately drops onto a land mine putting himself at risk and thereby saving the lives of others in his platoon. He isn’t courageous merely because he agrees to be drafted. Muhammad Ali preferred to be the subject of ridicule rather than to surrender to the supposed moral and patriotic obligation to serve in a pointless war. History shows that the government, going back as far as the Civil War, recognized the legitimacy of conscientious objection. Future President Grover Cleveland paid $300 which the Lincoln administration accepted as a legitimate strategy to express his objection to that tragic conflict.
Ali’s refusal, at least initially, cost him plenty: his heavyweight championship and millions of dollars! Only the decision the Supreme Court of the United States made under the law covering conscientious objection kept Ali out of jail. (Note: if one dismisses that court merely as a “liberal” court, remember that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon were responsible for appointing a solid half of that court including Justices John Marshall Harlan, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, and finally Chief Justice Warren Burger. Additionally, Byron White, JFK’s appointee, was generally regarded as centrist to conservative as a justice. That covers five of the Justices who might or might not have ruled in Ali’s favor.)
What constitutes “manliness” is even more subjective or nebulous than the matter of who is courageous. Much of what is “manly” depends on what traditionally is regarded as natural to most men’s behavior. What is natural is generally what is expected of a “manly man.” Muhammad Ali’s profession of boxing is traditionally regarded as “manly” by definition. It seems to me that stepping into the ring with a gang enforcer named Charles (Sonny) Liston (a man who’d served prison time) must have been a “manly” act. When Liston failed to come out in the seventh round of the fight that crowned Ali, it was because he’d swung so hard that he’d torn ligaments in his left shoulder and thus couldn’t go on. Had he connected, Ali might have slept for days if not for eternity! I wonder if LD, even as a young man, would have stepped into the ring with Mr. Liston? I certainly wouldn’t have!
As for the press being all wrong about the significance of Muhammad Ali, remember that the press merely reflects the national mood. It doesn’t dictate it!
Obviously, my conclusions and that of my friend are very different. Although I love it best of all when readers write to express their agreement with what I conclude about any topic, it is also very gratifying to receive a substantive challenge. Ultimately, praise is the sweet nectar of political or social commentary. That which most nurtures commentary however is a thoughtful, cogent respectfully submitted counter opinion.
These weekly columns are designed to inform, stimulate thought, and even to entertain the author and the reader.
Thus LD, you’ve provided me and your fellow readers with that healthy grist for argument that makes debate an essential element of learning.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment