You're not wrong about Rosa Parks, but I'm not sure how it applies any differently. Whether her example (though not the premier example) inspires someone to take up civil disobedience or not is entirely up to how she had inspired that person. The fact remains that she did engage in civil disobedience so why does it matter that she wasn't the first?
It had nothing to do with Rosa Parks specifically. I was pointing out to the OP that we can't sit here in our ivory desk chairs and tell other people to make a large sacrifice based on some superficial ethos argument. If you want to truly inspire people you do so with honesty and good intentions. You don't grasp at straws and tell people they can be Rosa Parks if they do what you say.
I will concede that explicit is better then implicit, but I seized the opportunity to clear up a historical inaccuracy in the process.
Sorry but you spent a good deal of your argument undermining Rosa Parks' contribution to civil disobedience so it's hard to swallow that it had nothing to do with her in particular.
And believe me: I'm all about not invoking easy references to drum up BS patriotism, but if that's your point, then say it like I just did.
I might also add that you yourself would probably benefit by putting something on the line before you make a career out of siezing on opportunities to clear up historical inaccuracies. Unless I somehow stumbled upon talking to Malala Yousafzi.
I don't see that as "undermining". It's more that Rosa Parks is very symbolic, but in many ways she was "standing on the shoulders of giants", and we see her, the symbol, but not the giants.
