Good job Lawry. However, I disagree on a lot of the negatives of what you have to say about King. King was also from the South while Lowenstien and Thomas were not. Indeed the racism that comes out today in the Conservative movement from names like Strauss, Horowitz in the Northeast and in California and many others shows that even in the level-headed community of Al Lowenstien there were and still are racists who believe that blacks are keeping Jews out of college. And they also claim that there is no networking in the Jewish community and that it is all talent. I will admit to the talent but I've lived and live in all of these communities and the issues are always provenciality and chauvinism and the ability of people of means to network their children into college and jobs while others of equal and above abilities are factored out. Our President did not achieve his entrance into Yale and Harvard on grades and that's a fact. But that is a snake pit and no one comes out of it with clean hands and no venom. I would also add that I am not against networking since I believe on the whole that it usually provides people whose culture makes them as a group more successful both in those colleges and in the jobs that are traditional in their families. However, it is a hard problem because that path leads to aristocracy. However, it is a fact that the children of Hollywood tend to be more successful as a group then those who come from nowhere to fabulous success. Those same children are also very tough to compete with, not only because of there connections but because they know how to move in the Hollywood Society and make fewer mistakes. Think of all of the families where the entire set of siblings are fabulously successful.
Anyway coming from the Southwest, I can say that Dr. King was well known as radical and that people like Rustin were less known because of prejudice against Gays. King was, in our part of the country, the Al Sharpton of the bunch in a 1960s style. Sharpton is more New York but people around here say the same things about him that I heard said about King in Oklahoma, the Virginia suburbs of D.C. although not at all in the ghetto where both Todd Duncan and Frederick Wilkerson (the Operatic teacher Icons of the Black community) both strongly considered King to be the giant that we now say he was. I don't think the riots would have happened if any of the people you mentioned had been murdered. Stokely was a kid and he resembled the left wingnuts too much for there to be that kind of support except in some of the college young. If he had been killed the Black Community would have grieved and considered it the status quo. Not the same as killing THE King. Bond was serious but local. You can always make the case for the Non-comms being the real soldiers of the War but King was Eisenhower to Bond's Patton. King knew how to tap dance. In spite of River Dance there is still the believe that culturally White Folks don't tap dance. That it was cultural capital stolen by wannabee whites. I can't imagine Bond, Carmichael, Lewis, Rustin, or Donaldson tap dancing either. They just didn't have the moves that Martin Luther King had on all levels of the Black Community. REH P.S. a name you left out who was an amazing man was Ralph Abernathy, but even still he was an Officer but not the General as became apparent when the General was murdered and no one took his place although Abernathy tried. America should be as proud of King as any of its great citizens. People like Douglas MacArthur and Thomas Jefferson were also controversial and yet they did the duty when it came time for them to do so. And it was whether they were used well in their talents by the society as to whether they were successful or not. I think King would have been successful no matter what because he was a great orator and knew how to do all of the things that it took to manifest that talent in the time he was given. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:55 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] FWD: The King They Still Won't Talk About > Thanks for posting this aptly provocative article. King has become an icon, > thanks to his eloquence and past leadership, and like many icons, he is > being interpreted and used by some for their own purposes. I don't see any > reason to suppose that President Bush is being any more hypocritical in his > reference to King than the others cited in the article, nor would I suggest > that any Republican is going to be more racist than any Democrat. > > That said, let me offer some reservations about King: > > 1. King came very late to the anti-Viet Nam war issue. The movement was, by > the time he did, already in full swing and King was viewed as a latecomer, > drafting safely in behind millions who had already committed themselves > publicly to opposition to the war. It is not that his voice wasn't welcome > and eloquent, it just came much too late to be decisive or even important. > Once in, he did deliver some eloquent speeches against the war, and this is > what we remember today because they are handy, powerful and beautiful. > > 2. The great gains in the civil rights came not so much from King but from > the more militant civil rights organizations and workers, people like Julian > Bond, Lonnie King (no relation), John Lewis, Bayard Rustin, Ivanhoe > Donaldson, etc. (Even, say I grudgingly, Stokely Carmichael.) It was the > militant action that demonstrated publicly the realities of southern racism. > For example, Bond's leadership in Atlanta, in 1961, picketing segregated > white businesses, pioneering tactics that so many now take for granted. For > example, the mock gubernatorial election of Aaron as governor of Mississippi > in the fall of 1963 revealed the depths to which the White Citizen Councils > and local sheriffs would go to stop blacks from registering to vote, and for > those neutral whites who thought blacks didn't want to vote, the reality > that they did. Yet King was against the mock election, and it was only > undertaken and supported by the militant civil rights groups. King viewed > these kinds of actions as too confrontational and contrary to his view of > the precepts of non-violence. Yet the Aaron campaign led directly to the > Freedom Rides the following summer (King still opposing them), the bloody > confrontations before public buildings with white political and law > representatives, and the direct intervention of the Department of Justice > (Bobby Kennedy, the FBI, and National Guard). It was only then, too slowly > and cautiously, that King came around. He was viewed by the militants of > SNCC (Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee) as a guy who had helped > get things started, but had fallen behind, and by some militants as someone > who was part of the problem, so appeasing that he in effect aided the enemy. > > 3. King's defenders on this matter sometimes assert that King had no choice: > he had a black church-going constituency to serve and could not get too far > ahead of them. I have no doubt that this was true in _some_ cases, but > would offer two points: A. The job of a leader is to lead, and the better > the leader, the greater the distance he can pull his followers. B. There > were many black church congregations that were also critical of King for his > excessive caution, and I am talking about poor, rural black congregations, > who had the courage to gather in their churches, sing civil rights songs, > march when marching was needed, attempt to vote when that was what was > needed, and all this in the face of aggressive white actions: surrounding > their churches with torches, running blacks off the roads, gunshots into > black homes, beatings on courthouse steps, dismissals from jobs, destruction > of farming equipment, expulsion from the community, and from time to time, > murder. These folks would not have minded had King at the time shown some > more gumption. > > 4. OK. Now to say some things in King's favor. I would buy the argument -- > indeed I would make it myself -- that a civil rights movement needs a > _diversity_ of efforts. It needs militants, and it needs diplomats, > diplomats who can talk with the proper people who might become allies and > tip the balance of power in favor of civil rights. King was this, and did a > great job. He was the respectable face of the civil rights movement, the > face with which northern liberals could be comfortable, the face they > preferred to those of the militants. He was, if one wants to be cynical, the > lesser evil; he was an alternative to Stokely, Lewis, Ivanhoe, etc. And so > the northern establishment embraced King. This was helpful to the civil > rights movement, and played a significant role in the movement's success. > We can recognize this, and praise King for the often difficult role he > played so successfully, and laud him for the soaring and still-inspirational > rhetoric -- we can do all this while seeing King as just one more of the > moving elements in the movement, and we can do it without forgetting the > others who were the real drivers of the movement, and without whom there > would have been no movement. > > 5. Not all northern whites needed a King to make the movement palatable. Al > Lowenstein and Norman Thomas, for example, were two who didn't. They were in > the early forefront of support for the militants. Without Al, there would > have been no mock gubernatorial election in the fall of '63, or the Freedom > Rides in '64, and far fewer white militants spreading the word to their > families, colleagues, journalists, etc, of just how oppressed blacks were in > the south, of the reality and depth of southern racism. > > 6. I can imagine the reaction of some to reading these comments. "Hey! Civil > rights won. It is time to celebrate. Why bring all this up? King was a great > man. Why not build him up" It is true that people love to celebrate, and in > the course create the mythology through which past victories (or defeats) > will be remembered. Every myth needs its larger-than-life heroes, perfect > in their vision, skills, and actions. Why not King? The reason to not > succumb to this myth making, the reason to remember reality as it was, is > that the civil rights movement was all about undoing lies. One lie was that > blacks are inferior to whites. Another was that blacks are lazy, and don't > want jobs, or even to vote. The civil rights movement strip bare the lies > behind these assertions, and so caused the repeal of the Jim Crow laws that > had their roots in those poisonous beliefs. So why resist the creation of > false myths even now, now that the civil rights battle is won? Because we > still live in a world where lies are being told, where bigotry is rampant > and unnoticed because the lies are taken as truth. And if we join in the > myth-making, even if only under the guise of celebration, we will be doing > no more than creating a new set of lies, a new distancing from reality, and > we will have set ourselves up to become part of new problems, new patterns > of bigotry. > > 7. President Bush's confrontation with the Middle East, with the > "evil-doers", is a demonstration that myth-making and bigotry are again upon > our land. We cannot afford the joys of celebration and the creation of > equally mythic opposition to the President's policies. There is too much > real work to be done. > > Best regards, > Lawry > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of mcandreb > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 5:07 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Futurework] FWD: The King They Still Won't Talk About > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Published on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 by the Boston Globe > > The King They Still Won't Talk About > > by Derrick Jackson > > > > PRESIDENTS AND presidential hopefuls delivered a kitchen sink of a > > Martin Luther King Jr. over the weekend. Democratic candidates talked > > about King in the context of Trent Lott, Judge Charles Pickering, > > Michigan's affirmative action case, AIDS, criminal justice, schools, > > economic disparities, voting, the Confederate flag, and Africa. > > > > Senator John Kerry of Masschusetts said, ''It's time for all of us to > > apply the same sense of consciousness, the same guts, the same > > determination, and the same impatience to change America for the > > better.'' Senator John Edwards of North Carolina said, ''Leadership is > > more than photo ops with black children.'' Senator Joseph Lieberman of > > Connecticut called King a ''modern-day Moses.'' > > > > On the Republican side, President Bush, fresh from throwing bricks at > > African-Americans with his stance against affirmative action and his > > renomination of Pickering, the softie for a cross burner, found a > > forgiving black church in suburban Washington from which to speak in > > tongues, issuing such snoozers as, ''There is still a need for us to > > hear the words of Martin Luther King.'' > > > > By keeping things very black and very parochial (neither Kerry nor > > Gephardt reportedly spoke about affirmative action in Iowa last > > weekend), some of the universal and universally challenging words of > > King were easily passed over by Bush and trod over lightly by most of > > his potential Democratic rivals. All the issues they raised are > > important, but the chances of addressing any of them will dwindle > > precipitously if the nation launches a resource-draining war against > > Iraq. Bush is rushing toward it. The majority of the announced > > Democratic candidates, including Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, and Dick > > Gephardt, voted for Bush's war. > > > > It is no surprise that none of them had the courage to quote the King > > who opposed the Vietnam War. Perhaps they cannot, because that is the > > King who risked bitter disfavor from the White House. > > > > King spoke out against the war because he decided that ''silence is > > betrayal.'' He said he could not be silent as Vietnam drained resources > > from the antipoverty programs of President Johnson. He said he could not > > be silent over the ''cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV > > screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable > > to seat them together in the same schools.'' He said he could no longer > > tolerate the hypocrisy of the America that wanted angry black men to put > > down their Molotov cocktails but unleashed untold violence on the > > Vietnamese. > > > > ''I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of > > the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the > > greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government,'' > > King said. > > > > He also said: ''I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as > > anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to > > in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war > > where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism > > to the process of death, for they must know after a short period that > > none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. > > Before long, they must know that their government has sent them into a > > struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize > > that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create a > > hell for the poor... > > > > ''Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation > > has taken - the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by > > refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the > > immense profits of overseas investment. I am convinced that if we are to > > get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must > > undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift > > from a `thing-oriented' society to a `person-oriented' society. When > > machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are > > considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, > > materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.... > > > > ''This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our > > nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of > > hate into veins of peoples normally humane ... cannot be reconciled with > > wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to > > spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift > > is approaching spiritual death.... Our only hope today lies in our > > ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a > > sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, > > and militarism.'' > > > > When we see our presidential candidates quoting this King, then we know > > that they really share King's guts, determination, impatience. When this > > part of King becomes as much a part of the holiday as ''I Have a > > Dream,'' then we know that our leaders truly share his sense of > > consciousness. > > > > © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company > > > > ### > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE > > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not > > always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are > > making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding > > of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, > > scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes > > a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section > > 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section > > 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those > > who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included > > information for research and educational purposes. For more information > > go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to > > use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go > > beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. > > > > > > Common Dreams NewsCenter > > A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the > > progressive community. > > Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives > > > > > > © Copyrighted 1997-2003 > > www.commondreams.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
