|
CounterPunch
February
21, 2003
"A Revolutionary
Spirit in a Hostile World"
The Real Martin
Luther King, Jr.
by ALAN MAASS
George W. Bush had the gall to use Martin Luther
King's birthday as the occasion for announcing that his administration
wanted to gut part of King's legacy. "[W] e renew our commitment
to the principles of justice, equality, opportunity and optimism
that Dr. King espoused and exemplified," Bush declared last
month--as his administration sided against affirmative action
programs in college admissions.
This latest slap in the face shows how
comfortable Washington politicians have become with "celebrating"
King's life, while taking actions that are the opposite of what
he stood for. And not only Republicans.
"It's time for all of us to apply
the same sense of consciousness, the same guts, the same determination,
and the same impatience to change America for the better,"
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), an early favorite of many liberals
for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, said of King.
This from a man who voted for Bush's war on Iraq--and offered
only token opposition to the attack on affirmative action.
The truth is that Martin Luther King's
commitment to justice--and his determination to fight for it--sets
him apart from everyone in the Washington establishment today.
* *
*
King came to prominence as a leader of
the Montgomery Bus Boycott in Alabama in 1955. The boycott was
launched after Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up
her seat on a city bus to a white passenger. But years of organizing
had laid the basis for this struggle to erupt.
In the years following the Second World
War--in which more than 3 million African Americans had registered
for military service--the federal courts began overturning Jim
Crow laws that upheld the South's apartheid system of segregation.
But for the court decisions to have any real meaning, Southern
Blacks had to take action themselves.
Montgomery stood out from earlier civil
rights struggles because of its mass character. Some 50,000 African
American residents maintained the boycott of the city's buses
for more than a year--which took constant meetings and organizing.
King later spelled out the lesson of
the boycott: "Feeling that our demands were moderate, I
had assumed that they would be granted with little question...I
came to see that no one gives up his privileges without strong
resistance."
King founded the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference (SCLC) as an alternative to national organizations
like the NAACP that insisted on a purely legal strategy for civil
rights. The SCLC was committed to mass mobilization. King put
forward a new model for organizing, based on nonviolent direct
action.
The principles of nonviolence became
the watchword for civil rights activists across the South. But
as the movement developed--particularly in the early 1960s, with
a new wave of civil rights organizing led by Black college students,
united in the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)--King's
strategy gradually came into question.
For one thing, King's principle of nonviolence
couldn't be sustained in the face of the Southern establishment's
savage violence. In practice, activists recognized the need for
armed self-defense, while using nonviolent direct action as a
tactic to build the struggle.
Moreover, King's stated goal was to use
mass mobilizations--often counting on the violence of Southern
authorities to gain media attention--to embarrass the northern
wing of the Democratic Party and force it to act for civil rights.
But Democrats like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were openly
hostile to the movement, because they didn't want to offend Southern
Dixiecrats.
King found himself caught in the middle,
increasingly acting as a brake on the movement for fear of offending
Democrats in Washington. So at the famous 1963 March on Washington--now
remembered mainly for his "I Have a Dream" speech--King,
at the request of the Kennedy White House, played the central
role in toning down the demonstration and censoring a fiery speech
planned by SNCC leader John L. Lewis.
* *
*
By the mid-1960s, King was considered
too moderate and out of touch by an increasingly radical movement.
And at this point, he might have become something like the tame
image of him promoted in Washington these days--a successful
mainstream politician, perhaps, or at least an armchair "elder
statesman."
But as passage of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965--the two main pieces
of legislation that destroyed legal segregation in the South--marked
a new phase in the struggle, King, too, moved to the left. He
turned his attention to the North, challenging not only legal
discrimination, but economic and social inequalities--poverty,
chronic unemployment, police brutality--that thrived throughout
the U.S.
That brought King into conflict with
northern Democrats, who could be pressured into supporting civil
rights in the South against the Dixiecrat wing of their party,
but didn't take well to a challenge to their political machines
and big business allies in the North.
King was conscious of the shift he was
making. "For the last 12 years, we have been in a reform
movement," he told his staff. "But after Selma and
the voting rights bill, we moved into a new era, which must be
an era of revolution."
In April 1967, King decided to take a
public stand against the war in Vietnam--and put his prestige
on the line in making the connection between the injustices that
he struggled against at home and those committed abroad by the
U.S. military.
"We were taking the Black young
men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8,000
miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they
had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem," he
said in a speech at the Riverside Church in New York City.
"So we have been repeatedly faced
with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens
as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable
to seat them together in the same schools...I knew that I could
never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed
in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest
purveyor of violence in the world today--my own government."
King explicitly recognized the economic
roots of Washington's imperialist war--and gave expression to
the growing discontent within the army itself. "We are adding
cynicism to the process of death, for [U.S. soldiers] must know
after a short period that none of the things we claim to be fighting
for are really involved," he said. "Before long, they
must know that their government has sent them into a struggle
among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that
we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create
a hell for the poor."
The Washington establishment--liberals
and conservatives alike--lashed out at King. Time magazine, which
three years before had named him their "Person of the Year,"
declared that his antiwar speech was "sounded like a script
for Radio Hanoi."
But King resisted the pull. His 1967
speech to the SCLC--given little more than half a year before
he was killed--gives a sense of his willingness to ask questions
that go far beyond civil rights reforms.
"[T]he movement must address itself
to the question of restructuring the whole of American society,"
King said. "There are 40 million poor people here. And one
day, we must ask the question, 'Why are there 40 million poor
people in America?'
"And when you begin to ask that
question, you are raising questions about the economic system,
about a broader distribution of wealth. And when you ask that
question, you are raising questions about the economic system,
about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question,
you begin to question the capitalistic economy...We are called
upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But
one day, we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars
needs restructuring.
"It means that questions must be
raised. You see my friends, when you deal with this, you begin
to ask the question, 'Who owns the oil?' You begin to ask the
question, 'Who owns the iron ore?' You begin to ask the question,
'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that
is two-thirds water?'"
* *
*
It's impossible to say how King would
have answered these questions had he lived longer. The SCLC's
plans for a Poor People's Campaign, for example, still reflected
King's strategy of pressuring Democratic Party politicians.
But there's certainly no comparison with
the harmless picture of King that we get 35 years later. "Our
only hope today," King said in 1967, "lies in our ability
to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes
hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism
and militarism."
To socialists, that sounds a lot like
our own call to action--and it's why we claim Martin Luther King
as an inspiration in our struggle for a new society.
Alan Maass is an editor of Socialist
Worker. He
can be reached at: maass@socialistworker.org
Yesterday's
Features
Ray Hanania
Blame
It on Code Orange: Did Terror Paranoia Cause Chicago Nightclub
Panic?
Ben Tripp
Vote
for Glitch
William Blum
What the Bush Gang Really Wants
Kurt Nimmo
The IMF Fiddles While La Paz Burns:
The New Opium Wars in Bolivia
Pablo Mukheree
Answering the Moral Warriors
Ian Jones
What Price Relevance?
A View from Iceland
Kamil Madhi
War Will Bring Disaster to Our People, Not Liberation
Aluf Benn
Likud's
Cry: "Saddam and Arafat are One"
M. Shahid Alam
Israel's
Proxy War
Website of the Day
Whose
Florida?
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|