Martin Luther King: Terrorist

01.16.04 - Let’s not mince words. Were Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. alive today, he would be at risk for being imprisoned indefinitely, without charges or access to legal counsel, as an “enemy combatant.”

He would be decried, by powerful figures inside and outside government, as at worst a domestic terrorist, at best a publicity-seeking menace whose criticisms of America gave comfort to our unseen enemies.

King would not have the opportunity to engage in repeated nonviolent civil disobediences. Media would be quickly bored by the spectacles; a nation accustomed to police violence against protesters yawns at the tanks, rubber bullets, chemical weapons, and “preventative” arrests now commonly used against those who employ the same tactics King himself once used. The felony charges against King would put him away for years -- if he were allowed to stand trial at all.

The powerful black religious networks that produced King and so many other courageous civil rights leaders would be attacked by federal prosecutors as providing financial support for terrorism. Church groups’ tax exemptions would be lifted; records would be seized. Charges would be brought, perhaps under federal RICO statutes or Patriot Act provisions. The FBI harassment that hounded King throughout his career would today be fiercer, and subject to no judicial oversight.

In an era where a federal holiday has served to both commemorate and sanitize the history of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., White America has forgotten just how radical and controversial a figure he was in his time. Many of these charges -- domestic terrorist, commie dupe, publicity hound -- were leveled against King during the 14 long-but-so-short years of his national prominence. The police were violent. The church groups were criticized.

The differences, today, are twofold. First, our government has granted itself enormously greater legal powers to crush dissent. And, secondly, much of the public, taught by years of government rhetoric and media sensationalism to dismiss dissenters as violent and illegitimate, is predisposed to let the government get away with it. Moral appeals by leaders like King would have far less chance of success. We no longer grant presumed moral authority to either religious leaders or to those wronged by the world; in today’s media-saturated, scandal-obsessed age, King’s moral failings (e.g., his various affairs) might well be used to undermine his movement.

Moreover, today, we’ve heard it all before. The world is brought to our doorstep, teeming with suffering, each day. Sadly, as our planet’s woes have become more immediate, and America’s role in its inequalities more obvious to those who would look, many of us have chosen to tune out -- out of fear, or boredom, or despair that we ordinary people can do little to change things.

Ordinary people can change the world, of course -- King is one of our country’s shining examples, still recent enough that many of us were alive during his lifetime. But as his holiday becomes sanitized, and his image becomes lionized beyond all recognition, it has become harder and harder to draw personal inspiration from his story -- or his politics.

This year, even more than in the past, it has become essential to remember that King did far more than have a dream. Along with Mohandas Gandhi, he was one of the two most internationally revered symbols of nonviolence in the 20th century. He spent his adult life defying authority and convention, citing a higher moral authority. He gave hope and inspiration for the liberation of people of color on six continents.

King is not a legend because he believed in diversity trainings and civic ceremonies. He is remembered because he took serious risks and, as the Quakers say, spoke truth to power. King did far more than have a nice dream. Unfortunately, we don't hear his powerful indictments of poverty, the Vietnam War, and the military-industrial complex. Today, as American soldiers fight two major wars on the far side of the world, and the U.S. military wades quietly into a half dozen more -- all in non-white countries -- they’re more timely than ever. But it’s not likely we’ll hear much on the networks of King pronouncing the spiritual death of a country that would spend so much to kill and so little to help people live. That’s a little too touchy nowaways.

The literal whitewashing of King also serves another purpose: to locate American racism as safely in the South and in our historical past. The changes of the past half century are, indeed, remarkable; Jim Crow seems today as unthinkable as slavery itself. But struggles against racial equality happened in every state -- not just Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. As for our progress since then, consider: the persistently huge economic gaps between whites and non-whites; the horrific public health indices in some non-white areas, including the re-emergence of TB and widespread, endemic hunger among often non-white children; the shameful failure of public education in many predominantly non-white school districts; the War on Drugs and its imprisonment of a generation of non-white youth; the race-coded political attacks on welfare and workfare programs; the near-complete dismantling of affirmative action; and the still-striking disparity between how America looks and how its leaders look. We still have a long, long way to go.

If the King of 1955 or 1965 were alive today, he’d be talking about all of this. King would also have something to say about America’s eagerness to consider every human being of a particular shading as a potential terrorist. He would be accused of treason for his pacifism, as he was reviled for "Communism" back in the day. Instead of the FBI trying to bring him down, he, and most of his associates, would be prosecutable under anti-terrorism statutes. And the moral outrage of Americans, that made his work so effective? These days, we prefer denial.

Dr. King, nonviolent martyr to reconciliation and justice, has become a Hallmark Card, a warm, fuzzy, feel-good invocation of neighborliness, a file photo for sneakers or soda commercials, a reprieve for post-holiday shoppers, an excuse for a three-day weekend, a cardboard cutout used for photo ops by the same political leaders that wage wars and let black children starve.

Sounds pretty accurate to me... ``He would be decried, by powerful figures inside and outside government, as at worst a domestic terrorist, at best a publicity-seeking menace whose criticisms of America gave comfort to our unseen enemies.''

Not fair. I would hardly describe Dr. King as a pure capitalist, but his most important message to America was a demand that it live up to the spirit of its own founding documents.

Martin Luther King was therefore a patriot. His name has been taken in vain in more ways than I can count, but that's not entirely his own fault. Who can stop a Jesse Jackson or a Malcolm X?

But at a time when drinking fountains were separate, how could we offer a morally superior position to the world in the face of communism? The time had come for America to truly become the land of the free:

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-- "I have a dream" speech.

"I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream."

Honoring the King Myth

by John F. McManus

In 1983, shortly after Congress approved the bill which would create a national holiday honoring the late civil rights activist Martin Luther King, former New Hampshire Governor Meldrim Thomson sent a letter to his old friend Ronald Reagan, urging the President not to sign the bill for a holiday honoring "the memory of a man of immoral character whose frequent associations with leading agents of communism is well established."

In response to Thomson, the President wrote: "On the national holiday you mentioned, I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed, to them the perception is reality." (Emphasis in original.) In other words, Mr. Reagan knew that Martin Luther King was, in reality, unworthy of national adulation. Nonetheless, on November 2, 1983, he put his signature on the bill and the holiday became law.

Communist Connections

Since, as Mr. Reagan candidly observed, the perception of King had become the reality, it makes sense to go back and look at the stark reality of the man J. Edgar Hoover once dubbed "the most notorious liar in the country." During the Kennedy Administration, King’s connections with Communists were well known to both JFK and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. In fact, Bobby Kennedy — with his liberal credentials overflowing — directed the FBI to institute surveillance of King, including wiretaps of telephone calls. While much of the information gathered by the FBI remains sealed by court order until 2027, some of it has come to light.

On December 8, 1975, for instance, the Washington Post pinpointed New York attorney Stanley Levinson as the "important secret member of the Communist Party" who was discovered by the FBI to have been King’s mentor, financier, and confidante for 12 years. The Levinson relationship began during King’s meteoric rise to national prominence. In her memoirs, King’s widow described Levinson’s contributions to her husband’s work as "indispensable." Levinson even wrote speeches for King.

In 1957, perhaps stimulated by Levinson, King attended and taught at a training school in Tennessee where he was photographed with Communists Carl and Anne Braden, Abner Berry, and Aubrey Williams.

In 1960, King hired one Hunter Pitts O’Dell to his staff. When O’Dell’s position as a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party was revealed in 1961, King supposedly fired him. But it turned out that rather than discharging this key Red, he had transferred and promoted O’Dell to a higher post within King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. When O’Dell was again exposed, King went through the same routine of announcing his dismissal. But a check by United Press International found him still employed by King’s organization.

Stumping for Hanoi

On April 4, 1967, King demonstrated the influence Communists in his organization (such as "principal aide" Fred Shuttlesworth) had enjoyed when he savaged U.S. policy in Vietnam during a fiery speech at Riverside Church in New York. King went so far as to liken the conduct of U.S. forces in Vietnam to that of the "Germans … in the concentration camps of Europe." Life magazine characterized the speech as "a demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." Syndicated black columnist Carl Rowan wrote that King "has alienated many of the Negro’s friends and armed the Negro’s foes." Leftist John Roche of Americans for Democratic Action fame claimed that the speech showed that King had "thrown in with the commies." The Washington Post commented that the speech "had diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country, and to his people."

But not everyone was appalled by King’s inflammatory rhetoric. Writing in the Communist Party’s Political Affairs, Party public relations chief Arnold Johnson enthusiastically quoted King as describing the U.S. as the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." The Communist press had earlier extolled King’s violence-producing marches and demonstrations, events that customarily led to property damage and loss of life in black neighborhoods.

In October 1988, J.A. Parker of the Washington-based Lincoln Institute, an organization of Black conservatives, refused to buy into the phony image of King and pointed to evidence showing that King had been "under communist discipline." Parker insisted that the "King holiday is an insult to all Americans — black or white." And he launched a drive to have Congress repeal it. A Congress representing truth and the interests of all Americans would do exactly that.

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/01-04-99/king_myth.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.