"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Preface

In the West, we accept our civil liberties so lightly that to say we take them for granted has become a cliché. Whether called human rights, civil rights, or basic freedoms, we often forget in debating and discussing these issues that these are Western concepts articulated in ancient times but only formerly incorporated into formal government law over the past few centuries. For all the horrors perpetrated by the West (referring loosely to the United States, England, and Western Europe), it should never be forgotten that the very framework of our discussions of these issues is grounded in concepts that arose during the Enlightenment in Western Europe.

At any rate, I thought it would be interesting to provide some reminders of those who have struggled and continue to struggle against oppression. This struggle, whether the lone stance of a student against a tank in China or a woman refusing to yield her bus seat in Alabama, fascinates and compels us. Despite all the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in the world, a theme seems to run throughout of those who struggle to challenge existing orders of control and oppression, those who attempt to silence them, and the perennial give-and-take of the process. Long periods of darkness - the Middle Ages, the communist experiment in Russia and Eastern Europe, fascism in Germany, Italy, and Japan, and the Jim Crowe laws of the American South - can end with breathtaking swiftness, but usually only after a great struggle.

Are we developing a moral consensus? Are we improving as a species, understanding that it is in all of our interests - economic as well as spiritual - to tolerate dissent and allow the messy, noisy, often imperfect machine of democracy and the spread of democratic ideas to flourish? Or is what we are witnessing the last gasp of a great empire - founded initially perhaps with armies and the threat of violence but in the end spread through the irrefutable power of a subversive ideology, the ideology that we no man or woman should own another, that government should serve the people not the other way around, and that those who abuse power ultimately will fall? Only our great grandchildren will know for sure, but the struggle is a perpetual one, only because democracy and freedom are in a way so unnatural.

Why indeed should someone who controls most of a country's resources, including access to the outside world, relinquish that control? It violates all the teachings of history (and contemporary affairs) to believe that anyone in a position of power would give up or modify that position freely and willingly. Indeed, it only is when the vast majority of a country's citizens come to realize that it is in their interests to stop oppression that it really ends.

Revisionists and various radical elements will never be satisfied, and assure us that we are duping ourselves, even today. Whose freedom are we talking about? They might ask. With so much oppression based on gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or caste, how can we claim to be advancing? Are we simply switching one set of oppressors (local dicators and thugs) with another (the worship of the almighty dollar or the will of the seething masses)?

These are difficult questions to answer, and measuring something as abstract as freedom is difficult. But what is important to note is that the questions seem to have changed. Even if not followed through on, most local leaders and politicians see it in their interests to at least portray themselves as "democratic." Indeed, one of the great ironies of history has been the misuse of that term by some of the world's most totalitarian regimes, such as the German Democratic Republic (the former communist East German).

Personally, I take it as an article of faith, understanding it is difficult if not impossible to prove, that the world is becoming a better and a freer place (and that the two are related) for more of the world's citizens. Civil wars, ethnic strife, oppression, petty rivalries, and even overt or subtle colonialism continue to scar the planet here and there, but on balance more of us live under popularly elected regimes than at any point in human history. More importantly, less people live in poverty (as a proportion of the world's population) or suffer from famine or disease than at any point in human history. Perhaps most importantly, people can vote with their feet as regimes become less and less willing (or able) to use violence to keep their citizens from seeking a better life elsewhere. And even those who do trap their citizens in their own countries are finding it increasingly difficult to keep out information from the outside world, information they cannot control and distort. This is a tough time in human history to be a dictator (although some are certainly succeeding).

Martin Luther King, Jr., studied civil disobedience from Mohandas Ghandi who in turn had studied the examples of Henry David Thoreau (who was imprisoned for his conscientious objection to the war with Mexico and perhaps coined the phrase civil disobedience) and Jesus Christ, who many might consider the greatest political activist and subversive. We can all learn from the inspiration provided by those who fought and continue to fight against oppression.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Facing almost impossible odds, this one man managed to mobilize one of the most effective nonviolent movements in history. Displaying extraordinary courage and self-restraint, he was not only able to resist the temptation to use violence but was able to inspire others to follow. His victory was won because he recognized that unless he could convince the white majority not only that segregation and racism were wrong but that it was in their interests to fight to end oppression of African Americans and the poor. Who can forget the television images of police dogs, tear gas, clubs and guns being used by the police on unarmed protestors marching for civil rights and simple human dignity? Certainly not the lawmakers watching in Washington, who approved then enforced sweeping civil rights legislation.