The article linked above is from The Washington Post, and it offers a sobering portrait of the last days of radical preacher Martin Luther King, Jr. Many of its questions on King's legacy and the current generation's relationship to it were probably truer in 1998 when this piece was written than they are now, nine years later.The war in Iraq, a criminal presidential administration and global injustice offer more reasons for Americans today to take up the mantle that King laid down on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. For those who wish to remember King only as a warrior for integration, these thoughts will be unsettling. The heart of the good doctor's mission was a battle for justice and equality for all people. This is the war that we must wage today.
The following is my favorite quote by Martin Luther King, Jr. I used it in the introduction to my album, Distorted Soul 2.0, and the words are as true today as they were when King uttered them 40 years ago.
"And I say that there is a great need now for a radical reordering of priorities in America, and there is a great need for a revolution of values." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
17 comments:
On one anti-war point I agree with Nadir and MLK: it is anti-Christian, and thus for Bush II represents a contradiction to his profession of Christianity. Whereas the Talmud/Old Testament and the Koran advocate war (and rape, slavery, murder, capital punishment, etc.), Jesus by decree and example excluded violence even in the name of self-defense. MLK radically preached non-violence as an absolute principle, and I cannot find any evidence in the Jesus Gospels justifying war or any violence under any circumstance.
I wonder if such a Christian response by Bush II would have worked. Perhaps...
I think that MLK like his hero Gahndi embraced disastrously poor economic policies.
I don't buy that "they" killed him. To the contrary, "they" preferred him to the Black Power folks, and I reckon that "they" were smart enough to have imagined the fall-out from an assassination.
I do regard King as a martyr, as a true Christian, as as a towering giant in the advancement of civilization, a true Founding Father of the free nation that we now all enjoy.
I believe that he strayed from Christianity in favoring a command economy (a guaranteed income for all citizens), vs. Christ's example of "rendering to Ceaser that which is his." His attempt to address poverty via socialism would have been just as disastrous as was Ghandi's, I am sure, but perhaps in the 1960s the data weren't yet clear on that point. Certainly nobody then had today's data, showing that alleviation of poverty in India has occured only via free marketeering. And we now see massive economic improvements enjoyed by Black Americans since MLK have occurred via a combination of equalized racial legal standing and free market opportunities.
On the Vietnam War also it is easy for me to see where thoughtful people during that time would have seen that as a mistake. Only today do we have the positive examples of South Korea and Taiwan (which by MLK's day had not yet produced prosperous independent democracies), the negative example in Vietnam following the US defeat/retreat, and the alleviation of poverty there recently only via free market reforms. The newscasts then documented wretched consequences of US military operations -- including many actions used by allies during WWII, but which the press did not broadcast from Germany, Italy, etc. -- but none by the VC and NVA.
But even on these points, King stood by his principles even when they cost him materially. For sticking to this anti-Vietnam position, LBJ abandoned him, and he received the J Edger Hoover blackmail tapes, turned over to Coretta.
I do not see a more important figure in world history for the development of civilization than MLK. Imagine the US today without his victory, and even the rest of the world. Yuck; an ugly sight. Not just for blacks, of course, but for everyone. Racism ultimately harms everybody, even the people that it favors. The conquest of racism in the the US is one reason that US businesses do better today than when when racism dominated.
A similar problem attends the dismantling of the US K-12 education system, and drug prohibition. Sadly, no coherent movements today address those issues, though the solutions to both are clear to me.
"I believe that he strayed from Christianity in favoring a command economy (a guaranteed income for all citizens), vs. Christ's example of 'rendering to Ceaser that which is his.'"
You obviously don't know your bible, Paul. Jesus was definitely a socialist. He took two fish and five loaves of bread and fed a multitude without charging them a dime. In fact, the disciples confiscated a little boy's lunch so the master could perform this miracle. That's nothing if it isn't communism.
And you forget again about the story of Annanias and Saphira who were smitten by Peter when they failed to share all of the revenue from the sale of their property with the church as they had promised. Communism.
The "render unto Caesar" passage is about paying taxes, something you and other conservatives hate to do.
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
"Certainly nobody then had today's data, showing that alleviation of poverty in India has occured only via free marketeering."
There are still millions of impoverished people in India as there are in the United States.
You cannot argue that MLK's idea of the government providing a guaranteed income to all citizens would not have eliminated poverty if that income was above the poverty level. By definition this would end poverty.
Whether people would squander the money or not is a different issue. The point is, if the government insured that everyone had enough money to live on, citizens would be free to build their wealth without worrying about putting food on the table or having a place to stay.
"The newscasts then documented wretched consequences of US military operations -- including many actions used by allies during WWII, but which the press did not broadcast from Germany, Italy, etc. -- but none by the VC and NVA."
Paul, it was MLK's mission to be the conscience of America, not the conscience of Vietnam. His whole philosophy was based on the notion that even though our enemies commit violence against us, we will stand with love and dignity. This would completely eliminate the idea of attrocities in war and the use of war itself. How can you kill people in war if you are nonviolent? You can't.
This is why when we limit King's contribution to just his victories against segregation we miss the broader picture. You can embrace King's anti-racist stance, but you reject his vision of equality and justice for all people.
By taking this position, you are saying you marvel at the 1963 version of the man, but despise the ideals of the more mature 1967 MLK, the man who understood that oppression in America is not only race based, but class based as well.
"Imagine the US today without his victory, and even the rest of the world. Yuck; an ugly sight. Not just for blacks, of course, but for everyone."
Imagine life in the United States where there were no poor people because all citizens were guaranteed an income. Imagine the positive example of an earlier end to the Vietnam war and the thousands of lives that would have been saved.
That positive example would have extended to America's imperialist excursions in Central America and The Middle East, adventures that you support. Would you march with the man in Selma and then abandon him when he goes to DC for the Poor People's March? It sounds that way.
Nadir writes: ============
you reject his vision of equality and justice for all people. ===========
Only by your definition of "equality and justice." I do not consider affirmative action (as implemented at elite universities), socialized medicine, or wage and price controls, to constitute "equality or justice." I consider all such measure harmful to their intended beneficiaries.
Nadir writes: =======================
Imagine life in the United States where there were no poor people because all citizens were guaranteed an income.
==================================
Ha, ha! I can hardly imagine a quicker road to greater and more widespread poverty than "guaranteed income"!
Nadir writes: =================
Imagine the positive example of an earlier end to the Vietnam war and the thousands of lives that would have been saved.
===================================
The million or so Commie-caused deaths that occurred *after* the US conceded defeat in Vietnam compared to lack of same following the US success in South Korea and Taiwan cause me to believe otherwise.
Nadir writes: ======================
That positive example would have extended to America's imperialist excursions in Central America and The Middle East, adventures that you support. Would you march with the man in Selma and then abandon him when he goes to DC for the Poor People's March? It sounds that way
====================================
Back then I probably would have considered all US international actions "imperialist" because at that time so many of them either were, or appeared so. The miracles of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan had not yet materialized, for example. And the horrible outcomes of commie victories in Cuba, Vietnam, etc. had also not yet come into view. So since I even in the 1980s thought that way, surely in the 1960s I also would have held such thoughts, plus the crazy beliefs that governments can "guarantee incomes."
But knowing what I do now, I would have fought hard for civil rights equality, a better implementation in Vietnam, and free market participation for newly freed black folks rather than socialism. Probably I would have been at King's rallies for socialism and pacifism, but I would have disagreed with my comrades.
"Only by your definition of "equality and justice." I do not consider affirmative action (as implemented at elite universities), socialized medicine, or wage and price controls, to constitute "equality or justice." I consider all such measure harmful to their intended beneficiaries."
Then why are your preferred methods of education, healthcare and poverty reduction still failing. We've seen your education reform plan and we know that you would pay for it with vouchers. The same funds could easily be used in public schools. We've seen that you would end affirmative action though you have no answer for the disparity in funding for poor school systems. You think market forces could improve this, but they haven't. School choice hasn't prompted a rise in Michigan's Black student population.
How would you equalize the healthcare system, Paul? How would you use the market to improve the fact that millions of Americans can't afford to go to the doctor or get prenatal care?
How would you make sure that more Americans make a living wage besides eliminating the minimum wage? How would that work when the market forces are sending jobs overseas where other labor markets pay even lower wages? How will your changes benefit poor Americans, not just corporations? And let's see real pragmatic solutions, not just idealized philosophy by Adam Smith and the Chicago school.
"Ha, ha! I can hardly imagine a quicker road to greater and more widespread poverty than "guaranteed income"!"
Why is that? Explain. If people receive a guaranteed above poverty level income, then they wouldn't be impoverished. How would that create widespread poverty? Quantify.
"The million or so Commie-caused deaths that occurred *after* the US conceded defeat in Vietnam compared to lack of same following the US success in South Korea and Taiwan cause me to believe otherwise."
Those "commie-caused deaths" wouldn't have occured if the US hadn't invaded Vietnam in the first place creating a civil war situation dividing North and South Vietnam. The Vietnamese would have worked out their differences (as they have since the US departure) but those commie-caused deaths were the cost of collusion with the enemy, the US.
Those deaths didn't occur in South Korea because of the armistice there and the continued separation of the country. US forces still occupy SK and Taiwan as a deterrant to North Korea and to China who still insists that Taiwan is part of their country.
Your philosophy for Vietnam is just like your philosophy for Iraq: keep the troops there so they will die and keep killing. The division of Iraq across a man-made border like the one in Korea wouldn't work, as it didn't work in Vietnam. Taiwan is an island, so it works there.
You're grasping at straws.
Nadir writes: ==========================
you have no answer for the disparity in funding for poor school systems.
===========================================
As demonstrated here repeatedly, there exists no "funding disparity." In Detroit metro the black schools get much more per student govt outlays than just about any of the surrounding white government school districts.
Nadir writes: =======================
If people receive a guaranteed above poverty level income, then they wouldn't be impoverished.
=====================================
Where would this money magically come from? And in exchange for what would the recipients receive it? Wherever this has been tried -- USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. -- it has failed. The promise of perfection (0% unemployment and poverty) is appealing, but in practice always falls short of free people earning their own income, houses, health care, etc. via their own efforts in private negotiations with other free people.
Nadir writes: ===================
division of Iraq across a man-made border like the one in Korea wouldn't work, as it didn't work in Vietnam
==================================
Please describe any national border in the history of the world that doesn't unite historically waring people and divide historically homogeneous people, and which wasn't unnaturally imposed by outsiders. You can't even describe such for the ancient Summarians in Iraq or their eventual conquerers the ancient Egyptians.
You're evading the challenge.
"How would you equalize the healthcare system, Paul? How would you use the market to improve the fact that millions of Americans can't afford to go to the doctor or get prenatal care?
"How would you make sure that more Americans make a living wage besides eliminating the minimum wage? How would that work when the market forces are sending jobs overseas where other labor markets pay even lower wages? How will your changes benefit poor Americans, not just corporations?"
I believe that the highest fraction of people will get the highest average healthcare by those people obtaining it for themselves, with help from friends and other willing charitable people in some cases, in an open and free market unrestrained by unnecessary government regulations and taxes.
I believe that low, simple taxes will enable this, and result in a better outcome than any attempt by a government to fix people's basic needs.
I believe that a government mandating that all drummers get paid $10K/year would result in fewer drummers getting work, or mandating that all band gigs receive $400 per bandmates would result in smaller bands and fewer live gigs. I think that band members and club owners can better arrive at their payment schedules than government officials, who are better at enforcing the agreements that free people make.
I could support something like Milton Friedman's proposal to eliminate all social services, but give each US citizen something like 10K annually, minus 50 cents for each dollar they earn in reported wages. This would amount to less than gets spent now, but more going to each recipient than any now receives, and provides them freedom to make choices. It eliminates disincentives to work (many welfare benefits end if you work or earn too much: If you work at all you lose certain benefits, if you make one extra dollar you lose certain others; this one is graduated, providing incentive to earn ever extra dollar you can) and encourages marriage (two adults living together can benefit from 20K$) rather than the current system that discourages marriage.
Post a Comment