The Invisible King
Monday 17 January 2011
by: Tom H. Hastings, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Half-removed paste up of Martin Luther King Jr. on Hungerford Bridge over the Thames, London. (Photo: duncan)
You watch. Over the weekend and on Monday, the Hallmarked memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. will be sanitized and blackwashed until he is no more than a sentimental husk hoping that little children of all races will one day be able to play together. Then you'll see shots of just that, as if to indicate, "Well, thanks, that's all done, nice historical figure. Bye." One of these years, they will probably launch the USS Martin Luther King Jr., a spanking new destroyer, or perhaps they will name a class of drone aircraft the "MLK Ground Dominators."
But who was this King guy? What did he really stand for and how can we most accurately and sincerely honor his name and legacy?
King was a radical pacifist who used Gandhian nonviolence and then, with others in his movement, improved upon it. Gandhi was the Henry Ford of nonviolence, inventor of the mass liberatory action. Gatling may have industrialized warfare with his machine guns, Napoleon may have industrialized the human side with his levee en masse, but Gandhi industrialized strategic nonviolent civil society uprisings and King improved on the model.
How did he and his folks do that?
First, they weren't so willing to give away their advantage once they had earned it. When Gandhi saw the British Empire stressed during various wars, he dialed back on the resistance. By contrast, students in Nashville participating in the sit-in movement in 1960, who were shocked when their lawyer's home was bombed at five in the morning, immediately wired the mayor, demanded a meeting and pressed him that morning into admitting that segregation was wrong and pledging to work to end it. The civil rights movement watched various windows open and generally shot straight through them, not holding back, as Gandhi seemed to, for some gentleman's courtesy.
And MLK was more consistent than Gandhi in some key ways. Although it took him a while - several years after the frontline spokespeople such as Bob Moses - King denounced the war in Vietnam, whereas Gandhi volunteered to help the British or stood aside without objection during several wars. In a stirring and powerful speech delivered in the Riverside Church in New York on April 4, 1967, King said a great deal that mightily angered the federal government, from J. Edgar Hoover to Lyndon B. Johnson, including:
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?"
"Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people?" they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling.
This is the Martin Luther King Jr. who will be invisible in the mainstream media as the US celebrates the birth of a hero for racial reconciliation. But he was also a hero for peace, for abolishing war and for nonviolence, a man who died with a (peace and justice) felony on his record and yet is the only American for whom we celebrate a national holiday. Dr. King's call for peace was powerful - the best speech of his life, in my view - but it will not be featured as we pretend to pay attention to the history of his life and contributions.
If he were alive today, he'd probably be in jail for resisting the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, or perhaps for resisting our client state Israel's occupation of Palestine. At the least, he would be reflecting on his evolved and holistic attempt to move to the next level of activism, past the termination of Jim Crow segregation and on to ending poverty and stopping war. He never stopped evolving, but the mainstream historians have honed in on the period five years before he was murdered and regard him as forever frozen there, just giving an "I Have a Dream" speech.
King deserves full honors; he was a fearless and brilliant campaigner for human rights, civil rights, economic justice and peace. Our young people need to know who he really was. We cannot pretend in honesty that he would support the wars and corporate bailouts featured in today's America.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Dr. King spoke truth to
Mon, 01/17/2011 - 15:51 — Anonymous (not verified)Dr. King spoke truth to power
He spoke with a poetic oration of such depth that rather than have others speak to his life and assassination, we should listen to his speeches and learn something
and that speaking truth to
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 02:12 — Mark Robinowitz (not verified)and that speaking truth to power about the War on Viet Nam is why he was assassinated by the Federal Government on the anniversary of his April 4, 1967 speech denouncing the war. The mainstream media freezes King at the Lincoln Memorial, the alternative media mentions King' anti-war oratory but neither dare admit that the King family concluded that James Earl Ray was not the assassin. Like Oswald, he was just a "patsy" set up to take the blame. A good article about the Federal trial in 1999 that the King family filed against the Federal government (the jury found for the family) is: http://www.ctka.net/pr500-king.html - The Martin Luther King Conspiracy Exposed in Memphis By Jim Douglass. Note that Douglass was the ONLY writer to attend the entire trial, the national media - and even the "alternative" media - blacked out any coverage of this important legal case. The Empire's New Clothes.
"After the American
Tue, 01/18/2011 - 06:03 — Anonymous (not verified)"After the American University address, John Kennedy and Nikita Krushchev began to act like competitors in peace. They were both turning. However, Kennedy's rejection of Cold War politics was considered treasonous by forces in his own government. In that context, which Kennedy knew well, the American University address was a profile in courage with lethal consequences. President Kennedy's June 10, 1963 call for an end to the Cold War, five and one-half months before his assassination, anticipates Dr. King's courage in his April 4, 1967, Riverside Church address calling for an end to the Vietnam War, exactly one year before his assassination. Each of those transforming speeches was a prophetic statement provoking the reward a prophet traditionally receives. John Kennedy's American University address was to his death in Dallas as Martin Luther King's Riverside Church address was to his death in Memphis."
-- James Douglass, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters" (2008: Orbis Books) p. 46
Christian Louboutin Sale
Wed, 11/14/2012 - 02:13 — Christian Louboutin Sale (not verified)Inactive pent cloth, enjoy it pertaining to essential knowledge.
Carrera Brillen
Sat, 01/19/2013 - 15:03 — Carrera Brillen (not verified)"http://vikingurol.bloggar.is/blogg/464061/Sigur_gegn_nagronnunum_i_fyrsta_leik"|"--"|"6.0"|"Sigur gegn nágrönnunum í fyrsta leik - Víkingur Ólafsvík"|"--"|"--"
Tiffany Orecchini
Mon, 01/21/2013 - 14:03 — Tiffany Orecchini (not verified)http://www.2effe.it/gallery/index.php?level=picture&id=15325