the day when alt God’s children–black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics–will be able to join hands ---- and fight the muzzies again!!!
On Monday, August 5, 2013 5:51:42 PM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > > *Martin Luther King's Flawed Dream > *By Anne Wortham > August 3, 2013 > > *From: Anne Wortham, The World and I, June 1998, 66-71 > > *Annually, throughout the month of February, known as Black History > Month, Martin Luther King Jr.’s voice punctuates the airwaves like a > public-service announcement, delivering his “I Have a Dream”’ speech at the > 1963 March for Jobs and Freedom in Washington, D.C. > > What listeners usually hear is the speech’s rousing “Let freedom ring!” > finale, which begins with King’s invocation of the patriotic hymn “America” > and ends with the vision of > > the day when alt God’s children–black men and white men, Jews and > Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics–will be able to join hands and sing in > the words of the old Negro spiritual, ,Free at last! Free at last! Thank > God Almighty, we are free at last!” > > Although this climax receives the most airplay and seems to be most often > included in film documentaries, it is the preceding “Dream” sequence that > is most often quoted. King told a quarter of a million people at the > Lincoln Memorial that “even though we face the difficulties of today and > tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American > dream.” > > *Dreams Past, Present, and Future > > *The rhetorical flourish that followed, in which he wished that his > 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,” was but an > abbreviated portrayal of his vision of the Beloved Community. > > Three years earlier, in a speech he delivered on the golden anniversary of > the National Urban League and which appeared in the December 1960 issue of > the YWCA Magazine, he presented his most succinct conception of the dream, > as follows: > > The dream is one of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property > widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities > from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men do > not argue that the color of a man’s skin determines the content of his > character; a dream of a place where all our gifts and resources are held > not for ourselves alone but as instruments of service for the rest of > humanity; the dream of a country where every man will respect the dignity > and worth of all human personality and men will dare to live together as > brothers–that is the dream. Whenever it is fulfilled, we will emerge from > the bleak and desolate midnight of man’s inhumanity to man into the bright > and glowing daybreak of freedom and justice for all of God’s children. > > King’s dream was “no private vision, nothing esoteric,” observes > biographer William Robert Miller in* Martin Luther King, Jr: His Life, > Martyrdom, and Meaning for the World *(1968). Rather, it was “a > personalized translation of the American heritage taught to every > schoolboy, forged anew in a context of the Negro experience.” > > The words of the speech, which invoked the patriotic symbolism of the > Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, and Emancipation > Proclamation, “came right out of elementary school civics,” Miller > concludes. Indeed, as King stated in the Washington speech and asserted > several years later, in the May 1968 issue of *Negro History Bulletin*, > > It is a dream of a land where men of all races, of all nationalities and > of all creeds can live together as brothers. The substance of the dream is > expressed in these sublime words, lifted to cosmic proportions: “We hold > these these truths to be self-evident–that all men are created with > inalienable fights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of > happiness. This is the dream.” > > *A New American Dream > > *But as Richard Lescher points out in *The Preacher King: Martin Luther > King, Jr. and the Word That Moved America *(1995), King meant to convey > more than a civics lesson; the speech was a rhetorical strategy that > identified black aspirations with the traditional consensus ideals of > America and “assured his hearers that history and universal moral law are > aligned with the black quest for freedom.” > > As King stated in a 1967 *Playboy* article, “A Testament of Hope,” he > believed that blacks could provide “a new expression of The American Dream > that need not be realized at the expense of other men. around the world, > but a dream of opportunity and life that can be shared with the rest of the > world.” His aim was to expand the dream and give blacks a central role in > its fulfillment. > > That the speech was more than rhetoric for King is clearly documented by > Ira Zepp in his study *The Social Vision of Martin Luther King, Jr. *(1989). > > As Zepp shows, through the use of a synthesis of biblical and > civil-religious rhetoric, King expressed his preoccupation with the > establishment of the Beloved Community–a completely integrated society, a > community of love and justice, based on what he called the “solidarity of > the human family” and the “inescapable network of mutuality” with which we > are tied together. He believed the Beloved Community would be the ideal > corporate expression of the Christian faith and was the only form of > association that could foster an egalitarian approach to wealth and > property. > > King’s abiding faith, as he said in the Washington speech, was that “the > glory of the Lord shall be revealed,” that God had the power to achieve His > purpose among mankind within history. And it was with this faith that > Americans > > will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a > beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work > together, to play together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, > to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. > > *Life in the Beloved Community > > *King understood the American dream as belief in the “dignity and worth > of all human personality,” but he was no individualist. The primary purpose > of life in the Beloved Community is self-giving, not self-realization. That > is, he saw self-realization as a derivative of self-giving. > > As Ervin Smith points out in *The Ethics of Martin Luther King, *Jr. > (1981): “King came to believe that only through losing one’s self for the > Beloved Community does one really find himself.” The self is never thought > of in detachment from the community. The good of the community is not > really served where the chief concern is self-realization. Neither did he > believe that the good of the community was served by giving primacy to > private property. > > King saw his dream as rooted in the American dream. His dream is more > properly seen, however, as a collection of conflicting premises borrowed > from the American creed and its corollary, the American dream. In his > powerfully argued book, *American Exceptionalism *(1996), sociologist > Seymour Martin Lipset quotes G.K. Chesterton, who observed that “America is > the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set > forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of > Independence.” > > The two values at the core of the American creed are individualism and > egalitarianism, or freedom and equality. As Lipset points out, “Americans > believe strongly in both.” But one consequence of a perceived contradiction > between the two is that > > political debate often takes the form of one consensual value opposing the > other. Liberals stress the primacy of egalitarianism and the social > injustice that flows through unfettered individualism. Conservatives > enshrine individual freedom and the social need for mobility and > achievement as values “endangered” by the collectivism inherent in liberal > nostrums. Both sides treat as their natural constituency the entire > American public. > > King’s dream of the Beloved Community was partially grounded in a > distorted version of the egalitarian element of the American creed, not in > its individualism. Had he been an advocate of individualism, he would have > possessed a conceptual basis for a far more inspiring dream speech, the > thrust of which would have served both blacks and whites better than the > speech he delivered. > > For the country surely could have used a good dose of back-stiffening > rational individualism rather than the sugarcoated collectivism that was > ladled out that day. Such a speech would have had as its central feature > not compulsory social egalitarianism in racial matters but the primacy of > individual freedom, achievement, and equality of opportunity and their > dependence on a competitive market economy. > > *What about Talent and Hard Work? > > *The American dream is based on a belief in upward mobility through > talent and hard work. Even those whose hard work has not made them > millionaires believe that upward mobility is possible for their children. > Our folklore and children’s books are filled with stories of upward > mobility through thrill, clean living, self-discipline, > self-responsibility, the training and cultivation of our talents, and, > above all, the cultivation of reason–qualities that define the work ethic. > > We warn the young against laxness and wastefulness, lest they fall in > status. As Katherine Newman points out in *Falling From Grace*(1988), > downward mobility–that is, losing social rank–is portrayed as a disgrace to > one’s family and a denial of the meaning of our society. If success in life > is a sign of God’s grace, then failure to maintain social rank can be > interpreted as withdrawal of divine approval, a “falling from grace.” > > “It cannot be stressed enough that much in contemporary attitudes and > behavior may be explained by the cultural emphasis on achievement,” argues > Lipset. “Most Americans believe that hard work, rather than ‘lucky breaks > or help from other people,’ is what enables people to move up.” Lipset > provides thorough documentation of this assertion, including his citation > of a 1991 Gallup poll which found that “69 percent of whites and 68 percent > of blacks say that African-Americans should focus their energy on improving > education” > > Had King’s dream been a more consistent reflection of the American dream, > there would have been less talk about the table of brotherhood and more > about the table of plenty. He would have done better by us to insist not on > a Beloved Community (which can hardly be taken as an irreducible primary) > connected by the most unrealistic quality of “disinterested love” but on a > pluralistic community of achievers connected by the very real requirement > of individual rights. Harold Cruse points out in *Plural but Equal*(1989) > that King was the first black leader in over 70 years who possessed > the charisma, moral authority, and broad-enough community base to tell > blacks in the wake of civil rights gains “how they might reorganize their > lives to cope with the demands of freedom in a pluralistic society.” > > King came close to doing so, even to the extent of using the words of > Booker T. Washington to say in *Where Do We Go From Here? *that “[the > Negro] must not wait for the end of the segregation that lies at the basis > of his own economic deprivation; he must act now to lift himself up by his > own bootstraps.” But, as Cruse demonstrates, in the end King foundered and > dissipated his moral authority in the interests of the “brotherhood of man” > and the redemption of America’s soul. > > *A Civics Lesson Was Needed > > *In the years following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, King > should have “turned his moral authority back on the black minority itself,” > says Cruse, and delivered a secular message of self-determination that > said, in effect, “get your own minority house in order.” Unfortunately, > this was not King’s message. It would not have been a new message. > Variations of its perspective have been voiced by blacks since the > antebellum period, most notably by Booker T. Washington at the turn of the > century and later by W.E.B. DuBois. But it has gone unheeded. > > The Martin Luther King who is lionized by intellectuals, theologians, the > media, civic organizations, and professional black activists is not the > potential bootstraps King but the “I have a dream” King. One wishes that if > he could not have strategically delivered a bootstraps speech during the > March on Washington, that he could have at least delivered a “civics > lesson” which more accurately depicted the American creed and the American > dream. > > I truly believe that my life would be different and my country would be a > better place had Martin Luther King been the kind of man who could insist > on the whole of the American creed and merge his voice not only with > Jefferson and Lincoln and Isaiah but with John Locke, Adam Smith, and > Booker T. Washington. And not just these, but with the voices of ordinary > blacks like my working-class, achievement-oriented father–a true yeoman of > black progress–who, by the time of King’s emergence as a black leader, had > already taught me those commonsense sayings of Benjamin Franklin’s *Poor > Richard *(some of which can also be found in Saint Paul): > > God helps them that help themselves. Lost time is never found again. > Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today .If you would know > the value of money, go and try to borrow some; for he that goes a borrowing > goes a sorrowing. > > Imagine hearing words like these punctuating the airwaves during Black > History Month! > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/anne-wortham/a-flawed-dream/ > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
