MLK Day
01.15.07 (4:05 pm) [edit]
I have a lot to write about and a lot of stuff to catch up on because I'm fully over the cold that really knocked me down. I probably won't get to a lot of it, but I'm sure we all know how that goes: they'll be new stuff to write about.
We can't really skip past MLK day though. We as a nation need to press on with the vision of freedom and social justice he spoke of. We need to see the evils of poverty and war and violence for what they are. If we can't see those, then we'll never get to advanced concepts like passive violence that goes to the roots of so many problems. For those that want to sequester MLK to the 60's or to "the civil rights movement" like that was something in the past and not on-going or ever-expanding: please don't miss his message that continues to inspire people, especially children, today. For those that see the "60's" as some horrible misdirection for our country: does that view really stand up to honest scrutiny?
MLK is a classic example of someone as much a leader as a surfer on a wave. If we see him only as a leader: we miss the swell of the masses that propelled him, we miss the team of people around him, we miss the complex depth of Rosa Parks, we miss the cultural imperative of returning vets that saw their freedoms denied and their service to the nation forgotten, we miss the need for his approach in the face of violence being used against the expansion of freedom and the cry for social justice, and we miss the examples that he was following. Skipping past these things we risk missing we can find the ways forward. We can't truly be inspired by his leadership if we can't see that leadership in the greater context from which it came.
Martin Luther King was a much of an inspiration and leader as Martin Luther King Jr. The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree as they say. But, there is another amazing "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" going on here. Jesus inspired Tolstoy to take a sober look at his lifestyle and his class status and his role as a military man in his culture and conclude he had basically lived a lie. Tolstoy gave us The Kingdom of God is Within You. This was picked up by Gandhi, and provided the blueprint for not only his approach to gaining India's independence but for his expansion of these ideas into a non-violent way of life. This way of life that Gandhi formulated can be found by doing a search for "passive violence" on google or checking out href= then an apostrophe like so href=' http://www.gandhiinstitute.or...' target='_the Gandhi institute'_blank'visit the Gandhi Institute for an intellectually rewarding trip into his vision for mankind, or href=' http://www.unitedforpeace.org...' target='_United for Peace and Justice'_blank'visit United for Peace and Justice for a real-time activist approach to the same goal.
Martin Luther King realized that opponents of the civil rights movement would paint it with the hate that they themselves were engulfed in, unless they used a radically different approach. Non-violence as a tactic prevents the conservatives of today to paint the civil-rights movement of the 60's with the hate and half truths they use on the rest of the 60's. We progressives today need to see that the vision for the long-term that King had is what preserves his memory today as much as his achievements. Our vision for the country is a continuation of his, we should embrace the spiritual sources of our inspiration.
For Christians, we need to realize that the teachings of Jesus and the movement he started that liberates people from earthly empires and emperors is carried on not by the Jose Maria Escrivas, Ian Paisleys, Charles Coughlins, Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, of the world. Gandhi and King brought Jesus' message into the modern era for the people, to make the world a better place. These are the Christians, and we in their wake are the Christians: opening up the future for all people in the Spirit of Jesus, not holding back the future in defense of the past (to paraphrase our own Kurt Maddox) and mocking the name of Jesus in the process. We might as well defend his crucifixion with Bible quotes and call King a communist or let Newt Gingrich tell us about King's legacy if were are to confuse the true Christian messengers for the pretenders.
We can't really skip past MLK day though. We as a nation need to press on with the vision of freedom and social justice he spoke of. We need to see the evils of poverty and war and violence for what they are. If we can't see those, then we'll never get to advanced concepts like passive violence that goes to the roots of so many problems. For those that want to sequester MLK to the 60's or to "the civil rights movement" like that was something in the past and not on-going or ever-expanding: please don't miss his message that continues to inspire people, especially children, today. For those that see the "60's" as some horrible misdirection for our country: does that view really stand up to honest scrutiny?
MLK is a classic example of someone as much a leader as a surfer on a wave. If we see him only as a leader: we miss the swell of the masses that propelled him, we miss the team of people around him, we miss the complex depth of Rosa Parks, we miss the cultural imperative of returning vets that saw their freedoms denied and their service to the nation forgotten, we miss the need for his approach in the face of violence being used against the expansion of freedom and the cry for social justice, and we miss the examples that he was following. Skipping past these things we risk missing we can find the ways forward. We can't truly be inspired by his leadership if we can't see that leadership in the greater context from which it came.
Martin Luther King was a much of an inspiration and leader as Martin Luther King Jr. The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree as they say. But, there is another amazing "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" going on here. Jesus inspired Tolstoy to take a sober look at his lifestyle and his class status and his role as a military man in his culture and conclude he had basically lived a lie. Tolstoy gave us The Kingdom of God is Within You. This was picked up by Gandhi, and provided the blueprint for not only his approach to gaining India's independence but for his expansion of these ideas into a non-violent way of life. This way of life that Gandhi formulated can be found by doing a search for "passive violence" on google or checking out href= then an apostrophe like so href=' http://www.gandhiinstitute.or...' target='_the Gandhi institute'_blank'visit the Gandhi Institute for an intellectually rewarding trip into his vision for mankind, or href=' http://www.unitedforpeace.org...' target='_United for Peace and Justice'_blank'visit United for Peace and Justice for a real-time activist approach to the same goal.
Martin Luther King realized that opponents of the civil rights movement would paint it with the hate that they themselves were engulfed in, unless they used a radically different approach. Non-violence as a tactic prevents the conservatives of today to paint the civil-rights movement of the 60's with the hate and half truths they use on the rest of the 60's. We progressives today need to see that the vision for the long-term that King had is what preserves his memory today as much as his achievements. Our vision for the country is a continuation of his, we should embrace the spiritual sources of our inspiration.
For Christians, we need to realize that the teachings of Jesus and the movement he started that liberates people from earthly empires and emperors is carried on not by the Jose Maria Escrivas, Ian Paisleys, Charles Coughlins, Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, of the world. Gandhi and King brought Jesus' message into the modern era for the people, to make the world a better place. These are the Christians, and we in their wake are the Christians: opening up the future for all people in the Spirit of Jesus, not holding back the future in defense of the past (to paraphrase our own Kurt Maddox) and mocking the name of Jesus in the process. We might as well defend his crucifixion with Bible quotes and call King a communist or let Newt Gingrich tell us about King's legacy if were are to confuse the true Christian messengers for the pretenders.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 01.15.07 (1:10 pm)
I might tweak the links, but they do work which is better results then I've gotten before. Thanks "Swankytrends" and everyone else that offered their assitence when I asked for help with the links. From my perspective it paid off and they work.
Success is all in how you define it I guess.
posted by: LadyG (reply)
post date: 01.15.07 (1:51 pm)
Happy MLK Day to you, glad you are feeling better.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 01.15.07 (4:53 pm)
Reply to: LadyG
Thanks, and Happy MLK Day to you!
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 01.15.07 (6:07 pm)
A great MLK Day to you.
Clicking through the television channels, I came across a black minister making a speech in commemoration of MLK. It was heavily a political rant, blasting GWB and the Republicans. I sensed a lot of verbal animosity in such a speech. No wonder 90 percent of the black population feels the need to vote Democrat. Yet, the same type of folk will turn around and ridicule the Republicans for close ties to people like Falwell and Dobson. A bit of hypocrisy here, don't you think?
From what I understand, MLK was a great man. I've read his Letters From The Birmingham Jail, many of his sermons, etc. I've lived in Birmingham and other places of the deep South, as well as Detroit and Kansas City, and observed a clear line of social demarcation between the races. MLK did much good. It is sad, I think, that his good and earnest movement has been mostly co-opted by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the modern Democrat Party.
Why can't we have a colorless society, that considers a person according to character and never because of skin color?
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 01.15.07 (7:58 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
Is Al Sharpton blocking a "colorless society" when he leads a march protesting the Amadou Diallo case? Or were the police that fired 41 shots into him showing us that race is still a source of oppression? Was Abner Louima a victim of racist cops, or am I creating a work of fiction by even suggesting that these men's skin color was their biggest crime in the eyes of the police that night?
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not the problem as I see it; they are seeking solutions and uniting people that are actively working to eliminate racism.
We don't have a race neutral society; it is not the fault of the people pointing it out but OUR fault for tolerating it. The night after Amadou Diallo was shot I played a show in Kenny's Castaways on Bleeker St in NYC. The city was like ghost town, the roads were empty. We luckily filled the club. The tension in the air on the whole block and presumably the whole city was like nothing I ever felt before. It was like the air right be for a Hurricane hits or in the eye or a lightning storm, or when you see a tornado start to from and descend in the sky as I remember from my luckily limited experiences.
There was a cop right on the corner and he looked as freaked out as all of us were. Eventually he ended up in the club too. Between songs at one point I said to the crowd that what happened last night is something we have to stop. So long as we sit back and pretend it isn't equally our problem, it will never end and will continue to have a divided society. If we sit back and do nothing-- no letter writing, no marching, no getting involved, no talking back to the hate machine that wants us to pretend it is no big deal-- then we become to blame. We have to stop tolerating it, we have to demand better. The outrage over the Duke Lacrosse case should be an outrage every time a black man gets run over by the criminal justice system.
Half of the audience hopes Al Sharpton would go away every time one of these events happens, but why aren't they outraged at the violence that brings him out? That is a textbook example of "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
You can't expect Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to be numb to the institutional racism that plagues our society. I'm disappointed that you apparently are. It is the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons that call us to feel the pain of those families that have lost for no good reason. They call us to cry for the Anthony Baez's of the world, not to wish them away.
When you read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, did you read his criticism of his fellow ministers that felt he should not at this time seek civil rights in the manner he was? Isn't your view of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson no different than many's view of MLK Jr then?
Pastor Dave, as much as we wish it otherwise poverty rates for African-Americans has gotten worse, incarceration rates have exploded for African-Americans, and in the big cities where the rest of society has essentially run away from them in the wake of MLK's death, the schools are essentially useless.
The plight of the poor, which is now even more disproportionately African American, is worse now than it was in MLK's day. That is why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are not the problem. Those wishing them away are the problem. Those pretending that the Christian calling is to ignore the problems of the living while waiting to be raptured are the problem. Those confusing the compassionate bleeding-heart of Jesus that is the symbol of Liberals and progressives-- tossed up on us by conservatives-- with the fear mongering over the idea two gay people getting married will somehow effect straight people's marriage or families: those fear mongers are the problem.
I'll take Al Sharpton over that any day of the week. He reminds me what is wrong, and why our place is not at home with the family but out in the streets with the family organizing with society's castaways as Jesus did, to build a better society.
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 01.17.07 (6:40 am)
Reply to: musicalhair
Indeed, Sharpton and Jackson are reminders of what is wrong. In my opinion, they manipulate racial tensions for personal gain. The whole sordid Tawana Brawley matter comes to mind concerning Sharpton. And Jackson? We've had an event in the Atlanta area that illustrates the situation. An 88-year-old grandmother, who was black, was shot to death by police officers. Jackson and his ilk have come to the area to be on camera, fomenting the raw emotions of the matter. They worked the angry crowds quite well. But, when one explores the situation a bit, you find it is not a clear matter of racial inequity that caused the killing. The home in which the lady resided was used for drug transactions, and was under surveillance. When DEA officers entered, they were met with a hail of gunfire. The lady in question weilded a gun, and shot three officers. She was killed in return gunfire. Certainly the matter needs to be investigated, but it doesn't need to be manipulated.
There are huge racial inequities in America. The reasons are complex. Certainly mistreatment by the white community is a major factor. But, so is the breakdown of the family unit. So is the embracing of the murderous hiphop culture. I think an enabling federal government hurts instead of helps. And I will add, so are the questionable role models of the likes of Jackson and Sharpton. MLK was a great man. If he were alive today, he may have evolved/devolved into the likes of these leaders. But, I doubt it.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 01.18.07 (10:59 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
I used to think Sharpton was a Jackass. Long after the Brawley incident though I was listening to a debate of Democratic Senatorial canidates prior to a primary. They were going up against Alphonse D'Amato in the general election, so none of them had a hope of winning and anyone looking to win was not going to get in that fight (not at that time anyway). The only one that made any sense, the only one that actually talked about issues and not empty politician rhetoric was Sharpton. I couldn't beleive it actually. I was working in a geochem lab doing analysis of igneous rock samples and liked to listen to NPR and such things while working, so I listened to the whole debate. By the end I was over my shock of his making sense and more saw the debate as an indictment of the other two bozos-- Mark Green and Liz Holzman I think-- than an endorsement of Rev Al. After the Brawley incident he changed.
It should be noted though that the Brawley incident is not as cut and dry as it seems and there was misconduct and bad things going on all around that mess.
If you willing to give Mel Gibson the benefit of the doubt-- that he isn't anti-semetic but just rants like one when drunk or something (I don't know, honestly I couldn't follow your reasoning on that one)-- maybe you could extend a benefit of the doubt to Rev Al and consider his perspective on these matters. You cited one case; and if I take it exactly as you present it without even considering that the other side might have good reasons to consider the event an example of institutionalized racism: that still doesnt' mean he was wrong in all the cases I cited where he did his organizing and protesting thing in the wake of those events.
You may call it faning the flames, and you can cite a handful of cases where they might not be right in assuming the it was police brutality or institutional racism. But the vast majority of cases that Rev Al shows up at are clear cases of it, and we do our country a disservice if we think we can pretend it away instead of getting as fired up as his crowds do over it.
The "breakdown of the family unit" is an intesting thing. Back when they were first creating "welfare", the conservatives would not stand for giving welfare to an ubroken family. In order to pass the bill they had to change it so that single mothers and not married women were favored. The original bill's supporters said then this could lead to the break up of the families. Once the conservatives got what they wanted in the bill, they could turn around and point to not their own handiwork but the 'breakdown of the family' as if it comes out of no where.
What causes the breakdown of the family unit? Which families are most broken down, rich or poor? Might poverty lead to a breakdown of the family?
Regardless of what might cause it, should Rev Al wait till there is no "breakdown of the family unit" problem before he protests institutional racism? Why tie one to the other, it is a red herring. The African American communities, especially the poorest ones, have so many problems: why should we tolerate institutional racism when it is clear a contributor?
Back to something in my post: passive violence. When a man has a decent job with good prospects, can drive to work with out being pulled over for "DWB" regularly, can be promoted on his merits, he can provide and conduct himself well-- all other things being reasonable. When a recent study showed that even entry level position applicants have a 50% better chance of getting hired if they have a traditional name over a more African-American sounding name: how should one feel? I used to work for an engineer that got pulled over every time he came out to our work site for nothing, simply because he was a black guy in a BMW. Luckily his life was so good he could laugh it off. Others might not handle the offense so well. Gandhi called these kinds of "passive violence" the fuel that feels active violence. He posited that to cultivate a culture of non-violence, we need to weed out passive violence.
Hip-hop has two aspects to it, as all commercial art does. First, "gangsta rap" was a creation of white record company execs that thought it was a "real" expression of something, or they hid behind that while marketing it to idiot-rebellious whites who buy it. The rap that came up out of the Bronx and that spread from there got pushed aside by the money invested in "gansta rap", and a rapper couldn't get anywhere unless he adopted a gansta persona. Even MC Hammer adopted one. In the absense of anything else the "art form" was transformed on a commercial level. I have to tell you though that I know a lot of rappers in the NY area that will never be big or once brushed shoulders with the famous before the "gangstas", and they still seek to better their communities. Not as I would see it, but as they would.
The other aspect of Rap is that it is no different than heavy metal was in my day, punk was when I was just a little too young, grunge was when I was old enough to see it in it's cultural context, and what "acid rock", and the british invasion, and The Who and the Stones and Hendrix, and Rock and Roll it self was. Which is the same as what Ragtime and Jazz and Swing and Cool were in their day: a way for the "new" to distance itself from the old. Each was demonized by the cultural conservatives of their day, many literally. The foaming at the mouth over rock and roll of the 50's looks pretty silly now, if for no other reason than it was perfectly acceptable to let blacks listen to exactly the same music as "R&B", but when white kids started listening it was the devil's music.
Instead of "demonizing" it, we should contextualize it. Why do all rock starts and rappers act like tough guys? It is an expression of that invincibility that teenage boys feel (testosterone, essentially), their rebelliousness (testosterone again, and gearing up for self-definition as men), and the precarious position where they are the "most dangerous" and most expendable in society. This last pair of points needs elaboration. In every society the perception of who is the "criminal" by the society is the teenager/young men. In every society it is the young men/teenager sent to war. Even in the absense of war and in low crime areas, the stigma seems ingrained not just in our culture but across cultures. It is something studied by anthropologists across a really diverse range of societies.
Listen, this is long. You touched on a lot of points that I wanted to try to address. I dont' expect all of this to be digested in one sitting.
I do ask, that you give it some thought. Consider that Rev Al isn't fanning flames, but giving focus and voice to the poorest and most oppressed in our country. Their plight is worse now than in King's day. You may see big amorphous issues like "family breakdown", but consider that poverty and institutional racism contribute to these, and that they shouldn't be required to fix those problems before calling us out for "Institutional Racism" which if we go further with this I'll shorten to "IR" just for the typing.
Finally, consider Gandhi's view that passive violence fuels active violence. King and Gandhi and Tolstoy and Jesus make for an amazingly interesting study in the way ideas are picked up and expanded on and kept vibrant.
It seems a shame to take an MLK Day post and turn into typical Rev Al or Jesse Jackson bashing. If we can't find common cause with Rev Al in all the cases I listed, then something is wrong with us. Skipping over them for some other case where he might have gotten it wrong, but instead of granting him a "well he got that one wrong" just bashing him and dismissing the legitimate issue of "IR" is lacking compassion and maybe even reason.
