Posted on 01/23/2005 7:33:44 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
Another January, another Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. The observance has to a great extent deteriorated, as have many other holidays, into just a paid day off for people with government jobs and an opportunity for retailers to snatch whatever available credit remains on bankcards.
At the same time, there will be no shortage of worshipful speeches and articles about Dr. King, some of them bordering on idolatry. For the man has moved to the pantheon of secular saints.
Politicians of all persuasions have jumped on the MLK bandwagon. Last year we frequently were reminded that it was Ronald Reagan who signed the legislation establishing the King holiday. The President had misgivings, but was shrewd enough to recognize a veto-proof juggernaut when he saw one.
Its easy to forget that when the minister was alive he was tremendously controversial. Questioning his methods or motives was not beyond the pale.
Today, saying anything that remotely could be construed as critical of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a certain ticket to being branded a racist or being measured for a tinfoil hat.
And Im speaking here not about bringing up his alleged marital infidelities or his association with known Communists or even asking why the FBIs tapings of the civil rights leader authorized by liberal icon Bobby Kennedy were sealed for 50 years.
As someone who lived through the period, what I remember most about Martin Luther King, Jr. is what he said about this Nation that now reveres him.
He charged in 1967 that the United States was " the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." He claimed that in Vietnam "we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe." He asserted that Americans might have killed a million Vietnamese civilians, "mostly children."
In the same speech, delivered in New York Citys Riverside Church, he detailed his objections to the Vietnam War, a struggle that many citizens viewed as a valiant effort to save people from the horrors of Communism.
The very first reason he cited for his opposition was this:
"There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."
Kings first objection to Vietnam, then, was that it diverted resources from the war on poverty. According to him, anti-poverty programs had been "eviscerated."
That wasnt accurate even at the time he pronounced it. Lyndon Johnson declared the war on poverty in 1964. By the year King gave his Riverside Church speech, total welfare outlays by the federal government had almost doubled over those three years.
Spending on almost every facet of the welfare state had escalated. More tax dollars were being devoted to education, jobs training, community development and social services. Eviscerated? Not hardly.
Even liberals had qualms about Kings speech. Not with his ignorance of welfare expenditures, but with his irresponsible comments on Vietnam. The Washington Post editorialized that his speech "was filled with bitter and damaging allegations and inferences that he did not and could not document."
The editorial ended by noting: "Many who have listened to him with respect will never again accord him the same confidence. He has diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country and to his people. And that is a great tragedy."
Martin Luther King exhibited a steadfast devotion to equal rights. He was a man of courage and eloquence. That cant be taken away from him.
Nevertheless, his memory is severely tarnished by his unwarranted attacks on his own country and his naive faith in the efficacy of the welfare state. Acknowledging those aspects of his crusade isnt racist. Just reality.
This appears in the January 13, 2005 Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter. Mike Bates is the author of Right Angles and Other Obstinate Truths, which is available at Barnesandnoble.com, Booksamillion.com, Amazon.com or iUniverse.com and can be ordered through most bookstores. http://www.michaelmbates.com
No selective memory on my part. Are we talking about civil rights activities or riots that happened after civil rights? What does inner city rioting have to do with this topic? If you were just making a statement about inner city rioting being doing by blacks, then I would agree. I do believe that poster was referring to white mobs during the civil rights movement, not inner city riots.
FYI, I was in fourth grade, from Wisconsin, but attending school in Columbus, GA, when I first encountered what you have wrapped your holier-than-thou in. I didn't understand it and never liked it. So, actually, despite your sentencing, my mindset was similar.
You see, I have always believed that color shouldn't matter. It shouldn't have mattered then when the Klan was running loose, and it shouldn't matter now, when the Black Klan is trumpeting that only "whitie can be racist".
MLK Jr spoke a good line and many people, Black and Non-Black, agreed with what he said. But he was a philanderer, probably a Marxist and associated with some less-than-desirable individuals, such as Jessie Jackson. Taken from the speeches he is remembered for, he left large footprints, but remembering the chaos and destruction that seemed to follow him, along with his personal foibles, he isn't the saint you seem to praise him as.
Now please go and piss on someone else's leg. Thank you!
Incidents always followed King, and it wasn't just the whiteys causing the ruckus. Yes, a few whites caused problems, but it was small in comparison to what blacks did.
So what did blacks do during the civil rights movement? If you want to talk about what has happened in the way of Watts and LA Riots,etc. that's fine but tell me with examples what black civil rights marchers did that was worse than what whites were doing.
BTW, as an observation point, I don't think blacks in the South have ever rioted in way close to anything you and I have seen in the big cities in the North and West.
The first serious disturbances broke out in Cambridge in 1963 and 1964, and the National Guard was called in to restore order. Then in 1965, a particularly severe Black riot erupted in Watts. The Watts riots lasted six days, taking 34 lives and causing $40 million in property damage.
Black riots then spread across more than 30 major American cities, turning almost every major center into a battle zone of White policemen trying to control mobs of Blacks rioting and burning and looting anything they could. It was from these Black riots that the 1960s phrase "Burn, Baby Burn" was developed. From 1964 to 1968, Black riots had killed 215 people and caused $250 million damage.
King was around during this time. He wasn't killed until 1968.
You can't connect MLK to those riots. You've not answered my question as to what blacks in the segregated South did worse than white people in terms of rioting. Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree. Have a nice afternoon.
Thank You, Lando for bringing out the truth. Any criticism of MLK always targets a racist, to most people.
Thanks for refreshing my memory.
All I can point out is that during the entire movement, many riots occurred. Many times, these incidents happened immediately after King and his associates had left the area.
Things got "stirred up" and then conveniently the leaders were never around when it hit the fan. Not much different from today, after Jesse Jackass or others visit a site.
Just before the '67 riots in Evansville, IN, the King and his merry henchmen strode into town, stroked the fires of rebellion, and as if on cue left the city hours before the riot began.
For example?
Sometime in the late 60's or early 70's, at the U of Arizona, I wrote a paper on a book by Barry Goldwater. I think he said that he had asked MLK to be more patient because things were going to work out. However, he felt MLK wanted the protest violence. I do not remember the title of the book.
Bang!
Like a smart bomb ... right on target! ;)
The greater evil will always be the inhumane treatment of blacks.
There is no good to compensate for this.
And being reasonable men, we think that wasn't the plan Stan ... er... uh ... I mean auggy. ;)
What an odd thing for Barry Goldwater to say.
"I think all those things are good things. Don't you?"
I certainly do and I'm glad that the Founding Fathers gave them to us all. Further more, I'm grateful for our Republican form of governance that eventually triumphed in the application of that ideal for all.
I'm sorry, what was it that you think MLK did for America?
"King's 'dream' was equal opportunity and equal rights for all regardless of their race."
King's dream does not upset me in the least because it is embodied in what I value in America. I also think that if King were alive and actually was the man that many of his acolytes seem to believe, he would reject the "civil rights" movement of today and launch a crusade against black American "leadership" and the perverted ideals of his legacy.
"Sorry if that upsets you so."
Not to worry - it doesn't upset me in the least. I do, however, wonder that some, like yourself, have such iconic and naieve ideas about such a singularly flawed man and his purposes.
"Perosnally, I would love to see a holiday for Frederick Douglas instead of King."
Agreed - 100%.
Too bad it is impolitic to question clay-footed gods. Here's a few pointers for getting along with the rest of enlightened society:
1. You must submerge your mind with the greater body.
2. Individualism is dangerous.
3. The central commitee will do all your thinking for you.
Now that you have been re-educated, our heroes to worship for today will be...
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.