The Most Noteworthy Thing Martin Luther King Did
Hamden Rice writes at the Daily Kos:
What most people who reference Dr. King seem not to know is how Dr. King actually changed the subjective experience of life in the United States for African Americans. And yeah, I said for African Americans, not for Americans, because his main impact was his effect on the lives of African Americans, not on Americans in general.
The essential point:
He ended the terror of living as a black person, especially in the south.
Rice explains:
I'm guessing that most of you, especially those having come fresh from seeing "The Help," may not understand what this was all about. But living in the south (and in parts of the mid west and in many ghettos of the north) was living under terrorism.It wasn't that black people had to use a separate drinking fountain or couldn't sit at lunch counters, or had to sit in the back of the bus.
You really must disabuse yourself of this idea. Lunch counters and buses were crucial symbolic planes of struggle that the civil rights movement decided to use to dramatize the issue, but the main suffering in the south did not come from our inability to drink from the same fountain, ride in the front of the bus or eat lunch at Woolworth's.
It was that white people, mostly white men, occasionally went berserk, and grabbed random black people, usually men, and lynched them. You all know about lynching. But you may forget or not know that white people also randomly beat black people, and the black people could not fight back, for fear of even worse punishment.
This constant low level dread of atavistic violence is what kept the system running. It made life miserable, stressful and terrifying for black people.
White people also occasionally tried black people, especially black men, for crimes for which they could not conceivably be guilty. With the willing participation of white women, they often accused black men of "assault," which could be anything from rape to not taking off one's hat, to "reckless eyeballing."
...That is what Dr. King did -- not march, not give good speeches. He crisscrossed the south organizing people, helping them not be afraid, and encouraging them, like Gandhi did in India, to take the beating that they had been trying to avoid all their lives.
Once the beating was over, we were free.
It wasn't the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights Act or the Fair Housing Act that freed us. It was taking the beating and thereafter not being afraid.
via @marcorandazza
Thanks for linking this. I admit, I had no idea.
jerry at January 20, 2014 1:36 AM
An excellent book that touches on this topic (the nature of the South pre-Civil Rights movement, not MLK Jr. In particular) is The Battle of Ole Miss. A bit dry, but well worth reading. It really delves into the nature of Mississippi during segregation and does a good job of comparing the state to a totalitarian society in the way it handled race relations. On my iPad, so linking is difficult, but you can find it on Amazon.com (just remember to use Amy's affiliate link!).
marion at January 20, 2014 5:37 AM
Some of the scenes in Pat Conroy's books, especially The Great Santini, and John Grisham's as well, point to this inexplicable violence which at times seemed to come out of nowhere - not from virulent racists who outwardly hated black people all the time, but from "normal" white folks who related to blacks, seemed to get along with them, and had as close as you could get to black friends in the mid-20th century South. Until all of a sudden, something would set off a pogrom.
Timothy Tyson's excellent book Blood Done Sign My Name is a worthwhile read on the same theme.
Grey Ghost at January 20, 2014 6:27 AM
A bit OT, but I wondered: Does anyone know of a book that gives a simple explanation (juvenile books are OK too) as to when and why, around the world, slavery was changed to serfdom - and when and why slavery become illegal in, say, European countries?
I had the impression, at least, that centuries ago, slavery was seen as fair in part because it wasn't necessarily based on race, so the idea of buying yourself out of slavery was seen as more plausible, and since countries were so often at war, it was just a matter of who had the bigger army, so people got to "take turns" at being masters and slaves, and even when they didn't, they eventually bought their way out so their children wouldn't be slaves. Or something like that. Trouble is, wars happen in every century, so why would that rationale stop?
lenona at January 20, 2014 1:12 PM
I was watching a historical Colombian soap opera and some of the things that struck me:
(Colombia had slaves)
1. The slaves were forced to attend church and sit almost outside.
2. The "pure" Spanish were the only ones allowed to sit in front. A woman who couldn't prove her purity-but looked white-dared sit in the front and people started screaming at her to go back to her place calling her "Tainted blood".
3. A mixed man joined the Church. His sister visited him and he kicked her out for fear she would reveal his secret--that he was mixed with indigenous blood.
It was great how accurately they showed the Catholic church.
Ppen at January 20, 2014 1:22 PM
I grew up watching a number of TV shows and movies about how things were in the South during the middle of the last century. While watching them, I would think, "Well, the way this is presented, it is clearly wrong behavior, but I wonder if I would feel that way if I had been living in that time and place. Would I think it was okay to treat black people that way? Would I actually participate in this?" These are questions I actually don't have answers to, but serve as reminders that my moral compass may accidentaly set by my environment and I often have to really put a lot of thought into what is right and wrong.
Fayd at January 20, 2014 2:14 PM
Media attention was essential to the success of the civil rights movement.
This behavior thrived in silence and isolation - mass media reports meant it could no longer be swept under the rug by Southern whites.
It also meant that people like Dr. King could not be easily silenced.
Unfortunately this and Watergate gave the left-leaning media a swelled head, which has persisted til today.
Ben David at January 20, 2014 7:51 PM
Martin Luther King WAS A REPUBLICAN.
He met with Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957 to discuss ways to overcome Democrat opposition to the Republican civil rights agenda.
The Democrats are the party of the KKK.
Link:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/happy-martin-luther-king-jr-day-2013/
Ben David at January 20, 2014 8:02 PM
Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics
Jim P. at January 20, 2014 8:25 PM
King may have been a Republican, even though no one has ever produced proof, because once upon a time before the GOP was led by loons & goons, there were liberals in the party. Just as there were white supremacists in the Democratic Party. King certainly campaigned actively for the defeat of the GOP candidate in the '64 election.
In the month before the election, King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference launched a nationwide “get out the vote” drive. Although King called the campaign “bipartisan,” he wrote, “The principles of states’ rights advocated by Mr. Goldwater diminish us and would deny to Negro and white alike, many of the privileges and opportunities of living in American society” (King, 9 October 1964). When Johnson defeated Goldwater, King declared, “the American people made a choice… to build a great society, rather than to wallow in the past” (King, “A Choice and a Promise”).>> http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/about_king/encyclopedia/goldwater_barry.html
If you have any doubt about how out of step he'd be with today's GOP http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/01/martin-luther-king-voted-for-barry-goldwater/
James Hames at January 20, 2014 8:42 PM
But about the Democrats, know this.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 20, 2014 9:29 PM
So now I'm confused. Was Dr. King a bringer of hope for all Americans, or just some? Was he a champion of equality, or an angel of vengence? I speak not necessarily of the man himself, but of how he is portrayed now.
Cousin Dave at January 21, 2014 2:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/01/20/the_most_notewo.html#comment-4213122">comment from Cousin DaveI'm obviously not black but for me, it is a huge thing that he made the south a place where there wasn't one group of people living in (valid) fear for their lives. I also love his message "content of a man's character" and some of the other things he said. When somebody makes the world safe for a group of people who are being persecuted, they make civil liberties better for all of us.
Amy Alkon at January 21, 2014 3:50 PM
Wiki seems to think that lynchings reached their peak in the 1920's and had declined substantially by Kings era, so I am not sure how he gets all the credit.
Although I am sure he was instrumental in getting the civil rights act passed.
Isab at January 21, 2014 4:09 PM
Yes, Ben David, times - and political parties - change.
The Republicans decided to go all-white after they helped push through the Civil Rights Act.
Weird flip-flop but it's all out there for anyone who wants to Google it.
Next topic: do you find orange Jews too Hasidic on an empty stomach?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 21, 2014 8:12 PM
they often accused black men of "assault," which could be anything from rape to not taking off one's hat, to "reckless eyeballing."
Sounds like the typical encounter with the american police of today
Peter at January 22, 2014 2:50 AM
Or a feminist
lujlp at January 24, 2014 11:11 AM
From Ben David,
"This behavior thrived in silence and isolation - mass media reports meant it could no longer be swept under the rug by Southern whites.
It also meant that people like Dr. King could not be easily silenced.
Unfortunately this and Watergate gave the left-leaning media a swelled head, which has persisted til today."
Just take the beating?
http://takimag.com/article/hunting_the_domestic_polar_bear_jim_goad/print#axzz2rTZgVsXE
Thankfully, Jim has not been silenced about black people, mostly black men, occasionally going berserk. Interesting how this is not so much a southern problem as a midwestern one per the article; maybe the left-leaning media does have a swelled head. Not so swelled though,
" Even Al Sharpton isn’t as blind as these white enablers and ethnomasochists. He calls the Knockout Game “ insane thuggery ” and concedes that “We would not be silent if it was the other way around.” Black Atlanta radio host T. J. Sotomayor
recorded a 16-minute video where he says white people should counter the Knockout Game with one called Shootout Game.
But it seems this only became a national story when Jewish leaders spoke up and demanded action after a string of attacks in Brooklyn that left multiple Jewish victims. In some cases the victims were Hasidim and thus obviously Jewish, but in
others, such as the attack on a 78-year-old woman, it strains belief to think that roving packs of dumb-as-a-stump black teens looking for blood would be able to tell a 78-year-old Jewess from a 78-year-old shiksa . The attackers may not have been able to distinguish one light-skinned person from another. We may all look the same to them—pale, easy targets.
New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, Rabbi Yaacov Behrman of the Jewish Future Alliance, and Evan Bernstein of the ADL sprung into action, petitioning everyone from NYC’s Police Commissioner to President Obama to what I will gently suggest is a sympathetic media to publicize and rectify this horrifying trend that had Brooklyn’s Jewish community on edge. In no time at all, an alleged assailant was being charged with a hate crime . These scrappy Tribesmen may not have fought back with their fists, but they used every other available blunt instrument to finally make this a national story. Non-Jewish whites could learn a lesson from such tenacious group solidarity."
"Mobs who prey upon the weak are nothing new"
Mlk it seems represented his tribe. 50 years and a changing of the positions is all.
Bobby at January 25, 2014 10:41 PM
Damn tablet,
The second copy is final draft.
Bobby at January 25, 2014 10:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/01/20/the_most_notewo.html#comment-4221284">comment from BobbyCorrected.
Amy Alkon at January 25, 2014 11:26 PM
Leave a comment