The Radicalism of the Attack on Americas Conscience - Essay Example

Martin Luther King, Jr The Radicalism of the Attack on America’s Conscience No other individual was more renowned than Reverend Martin Luther King,Jr. in the African-American Civil Rights Movement of 1955-1968. The movement which has been stirring the Negroes’ freedom from slavery reached its crescendo during this period. The movement took a sudden urgency and calls for direct action rang from the discontented Negro middle-class; the call was heard loudest from the pulpit of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Clayborne Carson speculated in 1987 that “if King had never lived, the Black struggle would have followed a course of development similar to the one it did…the Black Movement would have probably achieved its major legislative victories without King’s leadership, for the Southern Jim Crow system was a regional anachronism, and the forces that undermined it were inexorable.”1 Nevertheless, no one can refute that King gave the Negroes of that time the loudest, most articulate voice they could have hoped for. King’s was a dedication to non-violence deeply rooted on his Christian beliefs. King’s non-violent campaign fueled the fires in the heart of the Negroes while at the same time attacking the conscience of white America. It was this strategy, recurring and foremost in King’s speeches, sermons, and writings, that white America found threatening, not because it was sinister but because it was a radical call for them to examine their own moral and Christian values. With Abraham Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation in1963, the Negroes were freed from slavery; but it was not to be the end of their struggle for freedom. Throughout history, African-Americans have been relegated to the margins of society held there by the bondage of white supremacy, first in slavery then racial discrimination – the degrading segregation, voter suppression, and brutal lynching. But throughout that era – encompassing the civil war, the Reconstruction that came after, the two World Wars, and the rapid move to industrialization – Black Americans strived to improve their economic well-being; the strong cohesiveness of their community was instrumental in that struggle. This saw the creation of the middle-class Negroes, well-educated and distinguished professionals. On the political front, the independence of the Negro community was much encouraged by the successful efforts of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NCAAP) in desegregating America’s public school through gaining the historic 17 May 1954 Supreme Court decision. And yet it was all too apparent that despite their achievements and economic status, African-Americans could not break away from the stigma of color; white America was obstinate in holding on to its belief in Negro inferiority. The prominent members of the black community became increasingly restless with the gradual and dawdling process of the legalistic approach. Many clamored for a more direct action to shatter the resistance of the proponents of segregation and discrimination. The turning point came in 1955 when Rosa Parks, a respected Montgomery black citizen, was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger as demanded by the Jim Crow laws of segregationist America. Black leaders in Montgomery, Alabama decided that the time has come to protest this unjust treatment; it was decided that a massive boycott is the most effective way to get the message across. Black citizens fully supported the move. To sustain the initial success, the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) was organized and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., then pastor of Montgomery’s Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, was elected president. The boycott went on for 381 days and ended only when the decision to desegregate the Montgomery public bus system was imposed. More than what it negotiated for Montgomery’s black community, the boycott – which King was ever careful to term as “refusal to cooperate with an evil system” – catapulted the young pastor to the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement, thereby becoming a national figure. 2 Of the success of the Montgomery bus boycott, King recalled during his address at the First Institute for Non-Violence and Social Change in December 3, 1956: “Little did we know that were starting a movement that would rise to international proportions; a movement whose lofty echoes would ring in the ears of people of every nation; a movement that would stagger and astound the imagination of the oppressor, while leaving a glittering star of hope etched in the midnight skies of the oppressed.”3 Using the force of his personality and the eloquence of his preaching, King called for a social change, but a change that will be brought about by non-violent resistance, an act of civil disobedience that underscored a “non-violent protest against injustice.”4 It was a belief inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha or nonviolent resistance, that pressured the British to relinquish their regime in 1947. In his speech An Experiment on Love King quoted Gandhi as saying: “Things of fundamental importance to people are not secured by reason alone, but have to be purchased with their suffering…Suffering is infinitely more profoundly powerful than the law of the jungle for converting the opponent and opening his ears which are otherwise shut to the voice of reason.5 Most central to his idea of non-violence was King’s deep religiosity, the strength of his belief in God, and his sense of Christian duty. He is often heard to say, “Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method.”6 In Long’s examination of Reverend King in Against Us, But For Us: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the State, he asserted that King’s theology was the foundation of his socio-political views.7 Long further revealed that to understand King and his advocacy, it was crucial to understand that he was first and foremost a Baptist preacher, a man called to the ministry and to serve God in that capacity; King’s behavior was rooted and has developed from this.8 The subject of God and the role of Christians were not mere oft mentioned in King’s speeches, sermons, and writing, but it was the context about which non-violence revolved; it was Christianity in action. Churches were the centers of communities. As a pastor, King naturally used the pulpit to advance the calls for civil disobedience. By bringing the church into the movement, King painted the picture of a militant church. He further claimed that “the church has no alternative but to provide the non-violent dynamics for social change in the midst of conflict.”9 King effectively steered his congregation towards acceptance of non-violence, as it appeals to their Christian beliefs and moral values. He was not blind to the congregation’s skepticism, though. Some, if not most of them had settled into the uneasy peace and accepted segregation, discrimination, humiliation, and their inferiority as the price for this peace. But the preaching of King also stirred their longings for real peace and a decent place in American society; it was, for them, an awakening that something could still possibly be done. In his autobiography, King exposed that “most of them did not believe in non-violence as a philosophy of life, but because of their confidence in their leaders and because non-violence was presented to them as a simple expression of Christianity in action, they were willing to use it as a technique…non-violence is ultimately a way of life that men live by because of the sheer morality of its claim.”10 King was often criticized for his advocacy of non-violent resistance. On one side were the black citizens who have become complacent and have accepted their segregation. They lamented that the non-violent movement was going too fast. On the other side was the sinister force of black Americans too full of hatred and bitterness and preaching black power and armed self-defense. To those who preferred the familiar ways and shunned a radical change, King admonished in his now-famous Letter from Birmingham Jail: “You may well ask: Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path? You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Non-violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored…We see the need for non-violent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”11 To those who were bitter of non-resistance and saw it as “playing into the hands of white oppressors”, making the “Negroes meek and supine”, King answered: “There’s a great deal of difference between non-resistance to evil and non-violent resistance. Non-resistance leaves you in the state of passivity and dead-end complacency. Wherein non-violent resistance means you do resist in a very strong and determined manner. And I think some of the criticisms of non-violence, or some of the critics, fail to realize that we are talking about something very strong, and they confuse non-resistance with non-violent resistance.”12 King dedicated his life to becoming the principal example of non-violence. In 1957, he and several other church leaders and activists joined forces to form the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with the aim of coordinating civil rights activities. King was elected president and held the position until his death. Non-violence was both its central precept and its chief strategy for challenging racial discrimination. Many black and white Christians and progressive activists supported King and the “SCLC became a mighty moral force for social reform. King’s rise to social power marked the end of America’s Christendom – especially the black church’s movements – often passive and sometimes cynical indifference to this persecution.”13 Before King put out his calls for social reform, he impressed upon his constituents the necessity and urgency of direct action. “Freedom is never given to any body, for the oppressor has you in domination because he plans to keep you there and he never voluntarily gives up. That is where the strong resistance comes… it is done through the pressure that comes about from people who were oppressed.”14 King was quick to acknowledge that there are two ways to fight injustice and one of that is to resort to physical violence. But King consistently argued that although violence can bring a temporary victory, lasting peace and a solution to the social problems will never be achieved. King offered the method of non-violence resistance as the alternative; it was a method that was “nothing more and nothing less Christianity in action…the Christian way of life in solving problems of human relations.”15 The SCLC organized, led, and supported several of the period’s most defining protests and demonstrations. Probably one of those that captured the essence of non-violence as part of their struggle and captured as well the response that they were aiming for was the Birmingham campaign. The Birmingham campaign’s focus was the desegregation of Birmingham’s business establishments. When the demonstrators, along with King, were arrested, more than 2,000 students took to the streets and took up the protests. Television cameras were rolling when these students were knocked down by water from fire hoses and attacked by police dogs. The nation was jolted by the sheer brutality of the authorities’ unprovoked response to the demonstrations. In the midst of widespread public outrage, President Kennedy was left with little choice but to intervene. In the same way that it advanced the Birmingham campaign, television coverage was a boon to the Civil Rights Movement and contributed to some of its successes. The broadcasts of the protests – images of sit-ins, marches, and demonstrations – reached several households. More importantly, the conscience of mainstream America was attacked by the brutal and often inhumane treatment accorded the civil rights activists in the hands of authority attempting to quell such protests. “I think it arouses a sense of shame within them often, in many instances, I think it does something to touch the conscience and establish a sense of guilt.”16 In the face of the outrage, the government – the Kennedy Administration in this case – could not fail to heed the calls. President Kennedy promised to endorse his Civil Rights Act to Congress framing America’s capitulation to the pressures in the context of fulfilling a promise of peace to the world: “It ought to be possible…for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color…But this is not the case…We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes? Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events at Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or state or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.”17 Kennedy did not live long enough to witness the realization of the Civil Rights Act. But his successor, President Lyndon Johnson, took up the mantle and exerted his political force to realize the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banning discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations. Thereafter, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which restored and protected voting rights, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale and rental of housing, were also passed and spelled considerable hopes for the Negro community. Martin Luther King, Jr., although not solely responsible, was instrumental in turning the tides – with these Civil Rights Acts – in favor of the African-Americans. His efforts were lauded and his contributions to these achievements recognized: he was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1963 and in 1964 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for being “the first person in the Western world to have shown us that a struggle can be waged without violence. He is the first to make the message of brotherly love a reality in the course of his struggle, and he has brought this message to all men, to all nations and races.”18 Leaders were quick to congratulate King and none encapsulated the general sentiment better than Edward Kennedy in his congratulatory telegram to King: “The honor symbolizes the extraordinary regard in which you are held by men of goodwill everywhere. It recognizes the fact that we as a nation are facing up to the responsibilities imposed upon us by our religious heritage and our national traditions.”19 As King rose to international prominence, he also gained the admiration of the people in his country. Kennedy put it best when he said to King in a telegram sent during the 6th Annual Convention of SCLC in September 24, 1962: “Yours is a difficult and at times dangerous undertaking, but the example you have set by your personal conduct and your dynamic leadership have gained for you and your organization the respect and admiration of the great majority of the people of the United States.”20 King articulated a vision that was personally meaningful to him and he communicated it effectively to his followers. Huggins noted that King’s relationship to his community lies at the heart of his visions as evident in his referral to his beloved community – a vision of love and racial and human justice without boundaries of race, class or nation.21 For all the criticisms and violent attacks he faced, King and his radical views for social change were generally accepted by both black as well as white community. Oates observed that “people idolized him…white because he appealed to the best in America and did not rant at them, Negroes because he articulated their longings, hurts, and aspirations with what Time Magazine called ‘an indescribable capacity for empathy’.”22 Simply put, many people shared King’s dream that “one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’…that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”23 King garnered accolade after accolade but it did not silence his enemies. Too many people were now listening to King despite attempts to discredit him. In the latter part of his life, he leaned too much to the left with his open criticism of the government’s war in Vietnam. Although he inspired, his very message threatened the established white American system. King was assassinated in April 4, 1964 and the only confession they could get out of his killer was that it was a conspiracy. America paid dearly for King’s death. When news of his assassination filtered out, racial riots ran rampant in hundreds of cities causing severe damages to properties and injured people. The riots were a testimony of the violent rage that King had held in check. In his speech after hearing of the assassination, Robert F. Kennedy articulated his sympathy for the black community and challenged them in continuing on the path set for them by King: “We can now move in that direction as a country, in great polarization – black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred towards one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King, Jr. did, to understand and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion, and love.”24 King may have died but what he left behind was a lifetime legacy. The riots may have unleashed the rage African-Americans felt for the loss of a great leader, the father of their revolution, but the echoes of his life’s dedication to non-violence rang on. King succeeded in carrying the battle into heart of each American, forcing them to examine themselves. King inspired his people not just with his powerful rhetoric but with the central message of his preaching that as Christians, it was their moral obligation to resist an evil system and to do so without resorting to violence and hatred. King roused his people by challenging the status quo, and with his audacity to dream of an America where peace, justice, freedom, and equality reign not just for whites but with the inclusion of its black citizens as well. King awakened white America, brandishing before them the degrading reality of their tolerance, even sanctions, of segregationists. White America suppressed its black citizen’s demands for freedom while it proclaimed itself the leader of the free world to the international community – the whole world watch as the hypocrisy unfolded. King was all-too human; while his critics used his less-than-perfect persona in attempts to discredit him, it only served to make King and his struggles more real – his dreams, beliefs, and sufferings were the Negroes dreams, beliefs, and sufferings. And America could not fail to listen and regard the calls because King’s dreams and all Negroes dreams still burn in their hearts and the challenge to end racism is still being waged, summoning the people to keep on reaching for the dream. BIBLIOGRAPHY Carson, Clayborne, ed. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1998). http://www.stanford.edu/group/ling/mlkpapers. Carson, Clayborne, Stewart Burrs, Susan Carson, Pete Holloran, Dana Powell, eds. Volume III: Birth of a New Age, December 1955 – December 1956. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Huggins, Nathan Irving. “Martin Luther King” in Revelations: American History, American Myths, edited by Smith Huggins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Jahn, Gunnar. “Presentation,” in Nobel Lectures, Peace 1951-1970, edited by Frederick W. Haberman. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1972. Kennedy, John F. “Civil Rights Address,” in American Rhetoric, (1963) http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/johnfkennedycivilright.htm Kennedy, Robert F. “Remarks on the Assassination of Martin Luther King,” in American Rhetoric, (1968) http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkonmlkdeath.htm King, Martin Luther, Jr. A Call to Conscience: The Landmark Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., (2001) http://www.stanford.edu/group/kiing/mlkpapers/. King, Martin Luther, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963): 1-9. http://www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/letter.pdf. Long, Michael. Against Us, But For Us: Martin Luther King Jr. and the State. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2002. McGuire, David and Kate Hutchings. “Portrait of a Transformational Leader: The legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,” in Leadership and Organization Development Journal 28, no. 2 (2007): 154 - 166. Morgenthau, Henry III, The Negro and the American Promise (1963) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/mlk/sfeature/sf_video_pop_01_tr_qry.html Oates, Stephen. Let the Trumpet Sound: The Life of Martin Luther King, Jr., 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1994. Saul, Scott. “Sweet Martin’s Badass Song.” Nation (New York), May 8, 2008. Washington, James E., ed. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1986. Read More