Martin Luther King, militarism, media, etc.
 

So there's a bit of this kind of thing going around the bits of the internet I frequent in light of the anniversary of his assasination and the recent interjection or racial and religious politics into the current election. I thought it was worthwhile to consider and so am sharing it with you all.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/04/8090/

During the Rev Wright thing I read in a few places where people were making the argument that well Martin Luther King made a lot of similarly radical statements and would the people attacking Wright condemn King as well, and that type of thing. So what stood out to me here was that King emphatically was attacked and condemned for those statements in a similar way as was Wright.

I don't know that I have a particular point here to make. I guess in general I find it worthwhile to consider the way that King's modern status as a sort of secular saint* obscures the radical nature of what he advocated and the radical reaction from the organs of power which he criticized.



*I mean secular aside from that he was a religious leader

Hm. Something I didn't know, but certainly nothing unexpected.

Things like that tend to happen to people who try to stand against the flow of the times - on the racial stage, he quickly got supporters to help him dam it up. With talking about Vietnam being bad and such, I imagine maybe 50% of his original camp disappeared. There are also other issues that would take away his support, such as African-Americans seeing it as their war and their country instead of our war and our country, etc.

Basically, he kept rocking the boat, and some got tired and tried to push him overboard. Without as many others to keep him steady and beat off the people trying to push him over, it went on.

What he advocated was definitely radical for the time. The reactions, however, I see as adamantly typical and predictable.

Also, Wright's statements and King's can really not be lumped together like that. In fact, King's statements about race and his statements about war can't be lumped together either. Regardless of the race, gender, mental status or what-have-you of the person making a statement, the validity of the statement lies right there - in the statement. Not in the person.

But yeah. Interesting that the media still refuses to air his comments on war. The American mainstream media never fails to disappoint...

We do this a lot, especially with big name people.

Helen Keller: Lauded by many, described as <paraphase> "a stunning example of the human spirit" by one newspaper editor. After she became a radical socialist, the same editor wrote "her judgement is as sound as her senses."

Woodrow Wilson: Oh, god. Practices many anti-immigrant- he wrote a book on how much they sucked according to him- and racist views. He re-segregated the White House despite it being officially desegregated since Lincoln did it in 1863. Was among the first among those to see The Triumph of a Nation, made by one of his close friends, and praised it. Keep in mind, you know, the film essentially glorified the KKK to the Light Brigade or the 54th Colored Regiment. And (originally I said we, I mean that in the regard of textbooks) say people loved him when people hated him so much they elected Warren G. Harding, quite possibly the most pathetic president, who no one had ever heard of rather than elect Wilson's successor.

John Brown: A man who went to Harper's Ferry fully knowing what would happen in his likely failure, he was a compassionate man who thought that God loved all his children and because of that slavery was the cruelest accepted behavior, and someone had to do something about it. History textbooks portray him as almost sociopathically violent and question his sanity.

The Cold War: Started without question by us, when we aided the White Russians (the name of the counterrevolution group) against the Red Russians, despite the Red Russians being a triumphant revolt against an oppressive government out of touch with it's people and introducing a new way of doing things. Sound familiar? Oh, and inexplicably linking communism with totalitarianism when the economic system had nothing to do with Stalin, who was a fucking madman, and purposefully ruining the economy of the Soviet Union (therefore driving many Russians to poverty and alcoholism which claims about 500 people a year just in Moscow.) Oh, and has built a capitalistic totalitarian government in Russia. Good going, USA!

The U.S.A. has had a long, strong practice of weeding out things that makes it look bad, like criticizing noble figures like Martin Luther King or causing poor figures to come out as heroes, like Wilson. We also have issues with radical behavior because the stance we've been holding onto for years is to be moderate and sensible and safe, and they challenge all of that. The U.S.A. no longer desires radicals despite itself being a child of radicalism.

While I do like to point out the many flaws I think exist with US policies and customs like the one you just described, I hardly think that is something only the USA has done or does still.

It might be a bit more rear in many European countries today (or maybe that's not even "many", maybe it should be "some") than in the USA, but even still.

Besides that, I don't find this all very surprising. Unfortunately.

I am sorry to say that I don't know anything about Rev. Wright or this business around him, so I have no comment on that.

Odjn: A big one you missed, unless this is common knowledge.

Abraham Lincoln. Racist to the max. He only did what he did during his presidency, as evidenced in his letters to others, because he thought that it would be better for the country, not because he wanted to abolish slavery or help blacks or anything like that.

Osterbaum:

Odjn put out several examples that supported his statement. If you don't believe his statements are true, you should probably provide some countering evidence, such as the fact that I, for one, was never taught or ever thought that Woodrow Wilson was beloved at the end of his term.

That's a misconception. Lincoln was pro-abolition before he was elected president. That's was actually one of the (albeit lesser) motivations for the South for ceding from the Union. Lincoln also believed, however, that what was most practical for the preservation of the nation superseded what he thought was right as an individual. Kind of off topic though.

On topic, mainstream broadcast news pretty much needs to die already. It was a necessary evil once, but we've surpassed anything that was good about it with the internet. Why they refuse to play King's later stuff I can only guess at; mainly I think it's because they need a black hero to be able to plaster all over the place once a year to prove how diverse they are and they don't want to do anything that might taint his mythology among parts of the viewing audience. This happens with anybody anytime the puppet show (to reference Firefly) needs a protagonist for the narrative.

Abraham Lincoln was indeed racist. If you were white and lived back then there was some degree of racism, as we know now to exist in everyone. Here are some of Lincoln's words:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham...ois_.281854.29

"What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate, yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals. My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot then make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted, but for their tardiness in this I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South."

From a personal letter to his friend Josh Speed (what a name, right?):

"You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were on board
ten or twelve slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me, and
I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." He lated mentioned
the memory still had "the power of making me miserable."

From the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

"I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it- where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does another not say it does not mean some other man? If that Declaration is not...true, let us tear it out! [cries of no, no] Let us stick to it then, let us stand firmly by it then."


Also, I never (edit: intended) said that he was, but history textbooks to this day paint Woodrow as accepted by the people instead of saying flatly he was hated.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? The last two quotes show pretty clearly that he didn't like slavery at all. The first one was him saying that he thought integration should be a gradual process. Not to mention all the other anti-slavery quotes in that link you provided. This is getting pretty far afield, so perhaps another thread is in order?

Just something about Lincoln that I had to read for one of my classes that is relevant to the side-discussion.

Lincoln stated "A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals." He later elaborated this view in 1858 by saying "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. That I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the black and white races which I beleive will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while the ydo remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

I found this quote of Lincolns while reading "The Strange Career of Jim Crow" by C. Vann Woodward.

So it isn't so much as Lincoln was or wasn't racist. He was saying stuff that would most likely get him elected. And remember, actions speak louder than words.

I did not disagree nor in anyway did I indicate that I disagreed with him on the examples I gave. I merely meant that the same sort of thing has been and still too often is very common in most other countries as well.

That may be, but it is not an excuse for ones own words.