It
may seem strange to write about the celebration of Martin
Luther King’s birthday two months in advance. But I do feel that time
is of the essence. We can’t wait until January if we are
to eradicate the sorry spectacle we have allowed Martin Luther
King Day to become.
I
both anticipate and dread the celebration of Martin Luther
King’s birth. I look forward to thinking of his enormous yet
still under-valued contribution to the history of America and
the world. But I dread hearing that once upon a time a black
woman on a bus was too tired to give her seat to a white person,
a young minister helped her get a seat, ten years later he
gave a speech about a dream, and for some strange reason he
was shot and killed by a petty criminal in Memphis a few years
later.
To
add insult to the injury caused by this fractured fairy tale
we see children singing songs, and Jennings, Brokaw and Rather
asking if The Dream has been realized. The news anchors reel
off a series of depressing statistics about black people (income,
incarceration rates, life expectancy, etc.) and then conclude
that King’s dream is still just that.
Another
cause of my King Day dread is the sight of politicians descending
on black communities like locusts. Here in New York they go
from church to church, borough to borough. Usually they quote
the lines from the “I
Have a Dream” speech which exhort hand holding between
people of different races.
But
we are at a pivotal moment in history. In 2004 the Iraq war
will enter its second year. A president will be elected. Because
2004 will be so important we should begin now, in 2003, to
give the day a new direction. It is high time that the “drum
majors for justice” reclaim King Day and demand that those
who invoke King’s name do so by acting in the spirit he demanded
of himself and others.
On
April 4, 1967, a year to the day before his murder, Martin
Luther King spoke at New York’s Riverside
Church. The Vietnam War was at its apex, in terms of men
at arms, dollars spent, and bombs dropped. King’s decision
to speak out against the war was incredibly risky. He risked
incurring the wrath of President Johnson, who was seen as a
champion of the civil rights movement, and the movement’s liberal
allies as well.
The
liberal establishment showed its true colors after the speech.
It is important to note that many who laud King today were
hostile to him in his lifetime.
In an editorial the New York Times called the speech “King’s
Error” and lambasted King for daring to speak about foreign
affairs at all. Time magazine called it “…demagogic slander
that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.” Frightened black
leaders and organizations such as the NAACP disassociated
themselves from King’s statements against the war. The week
before he gave the Riverside speech, King requested that the
Board of the organization he headed, the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, make a statement of commitment to oppose
Johnson’s policies on Vietnam. They declined to do so. King
had stepped into a no man’s land where few were willing to
follow.
As
we prepare to honor Dr. King in 2004 we must remember his words
about the war in Vietnam. Iraq is the Vietnam of our era. I
have often said that when reading the Riverside speech the
word Vietnam should be replaced by Iraq and the statements
made at that time applied to our situation today. Because people
in power didn’t listen to King in any serious way we have repeated
all that he warned us about 36 years ago.
“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.”
“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.”
“We
are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must
know after a short period there that none of the things we
claim to be fighting for are really involved.”
Because
most King Day celebrations take place in churches we should
return to our church roots in 2004 and ask the multitude of
eager politicos to speak on a particular theme. Black ministers
are accustomed to doing that. In 2004 they should request the
speakers who inundate their churches to address the issues
raised in the Riverside Church speech as they relate to the
war in Iraq. The theme should be “A Time to Break the Silence
on Iraq.”
I
would love to see my Governor, Republican George Pataki, cheerleader
for George Bush, be forced to defend his support for the war
in Iraq. I would also like to see the man who will no doubt
run for that office, Democrat Attorney General Eliot Spitzer,
who is also in support of the war, speak on King’s anti-war
sentiments. Likewise my Senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary
Clinton, both of whom voted to authorize the president to attack
Iraq and not give Congress so much as the time of day for another
48 hours. Let’s hear them talk about the anti-war King.
Of
course they won’t do it. In all likelihood they wouldn’t show
up, which would not be a bad idea. King’s memory needs to be
reclaimed from maudlin ads from McDonald’s with gospel music
in the background. It also must be reclaimed from politicians
who don’t care about justice or peace or nonviolence but pretend
to once every year.
It
is also likely that some churches and black leaders would repeat
the events of 1967 and run from the topic as well. That would
also be good. We will know who our friends are and who is too
cowardly or enamored of Faith Based Initiative dollars to speak
out in the cause of righteousness. Many of us who claim to
honor King will be forced to take the day seriously too. Perhaps
it would be better if we sat in our churches and community
centers without politicians. We might read King’s words and
remember how he changed our world forever.
When
his birthday was made a holiday I feared that King would be
treated like Washington and Lincoln. He would be seen as the
reason for another three-day weekend and sales in department
stores. Just imagine if we had to celebrate the day without
Mayors, members of Congress and Alderman. We could think about
the accomplishments of his life, and teach young people why
he was important.
I
was a little girl when King was still alive. I recall sitting
in church and singing a hymn written by Martin Luther. I asked
myself, “Why did they leave off the name King?” I assumed that
the name Martin Luther had to be followed by King. I feel privileged
to have been alive when he was, even though I was very young. Today
young people have little idea what King did, said, or stood
for or against, which makes it imperative that we break the
silence and reclaim his legacy.
Margaret
Kimberley’s
Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BC. Ms. Kimberley
is a freelance writer living in New York City. She can
be reached via e-Mail at [email protected].
You can read more of Ms. Kimberley's writings at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/