Originally Posted by medic06

OK, I take exception to that. While King and Parks were not in the military, many of the citizens who started the civil rights movement were veterans of WWII, who first had to fight for their right to fight, then went on to fight the axis powers. they shed blood for a country which thought of them as second class citizens but still fought as hard and as bravely as anyone.

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

If you mean, how far would Rosa have gotten in a war zone using nothing but her beliefs, passive resistance, and a call to action from the oppressed majority, I'd have to say potentially as far as Gandhi got in India against the British using nothing but his beliefs, passive resistance, and a call to action from the oppressed majority.

You can't overlook the power of free thought applied to the limits of prejudice and injustice - whether that free thought is directed at the political structure through guns or words. The price paid by Rosa Parks may not have been as high as the price paid by soldiers who die in war, but was it the same for Malcolm X, President Kennedy, or Martin Luther King? Were they simply murdered, or were they casualties of a different kind of war?

Not arguing one way or the other....just food for thought.

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

I understand what you're saying, but you lumped Martin Luther King Jr. in with that same perspective. I think it's fair to say he did a whole bunch for the civil liberties movement, including the whole being gunned down thing.

And as far as Rosa Parks, maybe she was just resting her tired feet. It's that whole Butterfly Effect, though. Small things to one person may be huge, life changing, monumental happenings to others. How many kids took up martial arts because they saw some dubbed-over Bruce Lee flick? Hell, Bosnians just erected a damned statue of the guy as a symbol of international peace - and all he did was punch and kick people and make a few movies (that honestly weren't that great to begin with.). I think in many cases, it's the result that simple actions bring, rather than the actions themselves, that make deeds heroic in the eyes of history. Sometimes, someone makes a sacrifice that you can call heroic on the spot. Other times, you end up a unifying symbol between war-torn nations because you wanted to make money teaching white guys kung fu in the 60's. Odd, but somehow important nonetheless.

Originally Posted by medic06

Rosa Parks did alot more than sit on a bus. In the end, King took a bullet to the head. Many veterans of both WWII and Korea participated in the civil rights movement. Quite a few veterans came home from fighting nazis and got lynched by their own fellow Americans.

OK, back to the topic

Originally Posted by BoarSpear

okay but then the women who burned their bra's are hero's as well by your standards...somehow i think dying fighting for a cause should get you special consideration...hero is based on what other people choose to respect...maybe my standards are a little tougher...it seems alot of people respect Bush for instance

Originally Posted by Garland

yes, but sometimes blind martyrdom isn't a good thing. Look at the suicide bombers for instance...they die for their cause.

As for Bush...I'm still confused about that one, as far as respect, or even trust goes!