You see Dr. King, he was a real pro-war advocate, he really spoke out against all those radical anti-war anti-Vietnam activists.
What's the matter, don't you remember it that way?
Neither do I.
Funny how all of a sudden Dr. King supports
whatever anyone wants him to.
Martin Luther King, Jr., would have been 82 this month. His assassination occurred nearly 43 years ago. As we get further and further from that time, memories get fuzzy and a kind of collective amnesia sets in, some of it deliberately promoted.
In 1968 he took a brave stance against the war in Vietnam, in a speech in New York City’s Riverside Church, that cost him some of his liberal supporters.
He criticized the injustices of capitalism: persistent poverty, inadequate aid to workers and the poor, and growing wealth disparity. Let us remember he died demanding not simply integration, but labor rights for striking sanitation workers in Memphis.
Remembering King’s legacy is remembering the dangers of political repression and vitriolic persecution. Recent events in Tucson come to mind.
King lived under a constant fear of assassination because his visibility and outspokenness made him a target. But something else made him a target, too.
The way in which his critics vilified him, attributed sinister motives to his actions, called him un-American and a danger to the traditional values of our nation.
Those people are called extremists now, but they weren't seen as outliers in King’s time. They were politicians and editors, civic leaders and sheriffs.
The violent rampage that left six people dead in Arizona last week and many others injured was carried out by one troubled man.
However, he chose a political event and targeted a politician. And he did so in a climate where that same politician had been a literal bulls-eye on political hit list. When violent metaphors are used to “target” opponents we should not be surprised when one disturbed person takes the bait.
But here is a sad and troubling irony: Tea party organizers can bring guns to rallies and put their political rivals under bulls-eyes on websites and have that accepted as legitimate political activity, while non-violent activists who criticize government policy are under attack by the FBI.
That refers to the Supreme Court decision in June against the Humanitarian Law Project, which essentially criminalized their efforts to offer conflict resolution training to people immersed in violent conflicts around the world.
This decision made it a crime to provide “material support” to any organization the government designates a terrorist group, but established a ridiculously broad definition of support.
The ruling has been the basis of FBI raids on the homes of activists who support Palestinian rights and oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan. The people the FBI is targeting do not advocate the use of guns or even own them; they advocate peace and justice.
King, too, was a peace activist who supported anti-colonial struggles and was under constant FBI surveillance. His phone was tapped, his mail was opened, he was followed and watched. People he trusted were enlisted to spy on him. Government agents plotted how to undermine his leadership, especially as he moved more toward the left.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remember to be respectful with your comments.