dagblog - Comments for "Martin Luther King's Civility"

The Manchester Union-Leader,

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:49:22 +0000

The Manchester Union-Leader, in New Hampshire, was denouncing MLK as a Communist well into the 1980s.

It's striking that we've limited our public memory of king to the period from roughly 1955-1964, from the bus boycott in Montgomery to the Civil Rights Act. People prefer to forget that Dr. King did not see the Civil Rights Act as the end of his struggle, and that he continued to champion social justice on many other fronts. But of course, that deliberate amnesia allows people to claim MLK for causes that he actively fought against.

Thanks for the thoughtful

acanuck — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:44:06 +0000

In reply to Martin Luther King's Civility

Thanks for the thoughtful post, doctor. It spurred me to read up a bit on MLK's philosophy and life. By the end of it, he'd evolved from a simple civil-rights activist to a full-fledged revolutionary who saw war, poverty, racism and (yes) capitalism as all links in a web of oppression.

He stuck to his non-violent strategy, but his vision of the societal changes needed was increasingly sweeping. In a way, he became what the FBI had long cast him as: the most dangerous Negro in America. And I mean that in the best possible sense.

When I saw the title of your

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:04:20 +0000

In reply to Martin Luther King's Civility

When I saw the title of your post the two points that came immediately to mind were ones you made--the unwillingness to inflict violence on others and the unwillingness to dehumanize another human being--the stubborn, insistent belief that all of us are capable of changing for the better no matter how impossible it might seem and that even where that is not destined to happen, we are obliged to love our fellow humans even if we also intensely dislike them or specific things they are doing.

Three other characteristics of Dr. King's approach to social change seem worth noting to me.

First, in challenging the existing order, he appealed not to some imagined utopia but rather to the beliefs stated in the country's founding documents, beliefs from documents whose validity and worth were nominally embraced by his persecutors. His were appeals deeply grounded in, not a rebuke to, the history of his country. He was calling for us to make real the promissory note reflected in some of those documents (he was selective in which ones he cited--wisely so! it seems like a simple point but the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, both treated as Holy Grail by some of our fellow citizens and assumed to reflect a common belief system, actually point to contradictory conclusions on some of the most important and fundamental issues in our history.) A very effective advocacy strategy. Today we see many on the far right appeal to the commitments reflected in our founding documents, often in ways that reflect partial or misunderstandings of those documents. A great speech by a public figure yet to be made will call out the falsehoods, identifying specific ones followed by a repeated rhythmic refrain of "But that isn't what it said..."

Second, he was peaceful and civil, but he was militant. Those are not a contradiction in terms. He was forceful, insistent. He confronted power directly, in just about the most open and assertive way imaginable. He didn't believe that it was possible to bring about fundamental change without doing that. He showed far greater physical and moral courage than some of his critics who engaged in vandalism or other mayhem when they thought themselves least likely to get caught. Whereas he performed his acts of civil disobedience in broad daylight for all to see--and explained and stood by the morality of those acts, sometimes from his jail cell.

Third, his rhetoric was powerful, inspirational, and effective without insulting or denigrating others. He was never to my knowledge publicly cynical or sarcastic about his adversaries. Yet no one could say he pulled his punches. To the contrary. One of the most powerful orators in our history showed deep restraint. Sometimes when it comes to appeals to move people, what seems like less turns out really to be more.

Thanks for your post. I saw a whole lot of references to Dr. King and his legacy yesterday and was pleased because sometimes with these holidays it doesn't always seem to be clear what or why we are celebrating or commemorating. I saw a good deal of effort put into that yesterday--during the Celtics-Magic basketball game, for example, the network even showed a clip of Celtics' coach Doc Rivers referencing King and Rivers' views about his legacy in his remarks to his team. I attribute this largely to the proximity of this year's holiday to the Tucson tragedy.

Wow, great clip, great blog,

tmccarthy0 — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 06:00:57 +0000

In reply to Martin Luther King's Civility

Wow, great clip, great blog, I thoroughly enjoyed it, I only take issue with one thing you wrote, once people start to call me names, I totally don't hear what they are saying. However, while I was reading your blog, I couldn't help but think that Sarah Palin is actually the Anti-MLK.

Thanks for the great read.

There is a time when idealism

chucktrotter — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:36:16 +0000

In reply to Martin Luther King's Civility

There is a time when idealism becomes self-defeating. What laissez-faire capitalism has done to the entire globe is unacceptable. Fire hoses and German Shepherds are unacceptable to me!

“Idealism is what precedes experience, cynicism is what follows.”

David Wolf

Very well done. Your post is

emerson — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:08:39 +0000

In reply to Martin Luther King's Civility

Very well done. Your post is inspiring and thought-provoking. And I enjoyed the clip of Dr. King talking about resistance and how he feels it is best to resist. I thought it was interesting what he said about people feeling shame. I have recently observed and had the thought that a lot of people support or do things that deep down they know are wrong but instead of addressing their wrong-doing they attempt to make it out that those who disagree with them are the ones doing something wrong. Seems to me that this makes a situation unnecessarily complicated and prolongs any conflict. If only people could own up to their transgressions easier then maybe we would spend less time arguing with one another.

I especially liked the following passages in your post:

And perhaps the secret is that Dr. King never wrote his enemies off, never dehumanized them. Even when facing the worst of mobs, he was acutely aware that the people in that mob were human beings, with moral selves, deserving of love.

and

The obvious difference is that King and his followers were willing to suffer, rather than to cause suffering, in order to achieve their goals. They could (and did) step outside the rules meant to prevent civil violence because when they stepped out side those rules they brought no violence and no threat with them. They could break the laws in service of a higher good because they were in a peculiar way the perfect citizens: harming no one and wishing no one harm. They didn't need the rules to preserve the peace because civil peace itself was their rule.

I wish everyone a meaningful and peaceful Martin Luther King day. His legacy certainly lives on in all of us. And it is up to us to keep that legacy alive forever.