lvc@cbscd5.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) (10/18/83)
A friend of mine wrote the following letter to the editor in one of our local papers. I think it is important enough to bring into the discussion on Martin Luther King. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In considering the goals, methods, and accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, we should dispose of a myth -- that King was a man of peace. King repeatedly turned to the government as a mechanism for social change; and behind the acts of government, one ultimately finds the policeman's gun and the prison guard's night stick. King did not employ violence directly, but sought for the government to use coercion. Of course, the use of force can sometimes be justified and necessary. But, when employed, it should be recognized as such, not cloaked with the mystique of non-violence. With the illusion of pacifism removed, it becomes possible to view the life of Dr. King more clearly. He was a man possessed of great courage, who often struggled valiantly for justice. But he had inadequate regard for individual rights or economic reality; much of what he called for would subvert the human dignity that he sought to champion. Larry Cipriani cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc
hart@cp1.UUCP (10/19/83)
larry,
Where were you during the 60's? Does the name Rap Brown ring a
bell? Most people seem to forget that Martin Luther King was in a
very strange position. He had to keep the respect of the peope he
represented, while trying to keep the lid on what was a very bad
situation. Hell, he did both and he did them well. Let someone who
was involved enlighten you. If it had not been for Dr. King we would
have had bloody riots in streets throughout the 60's. The mood was
bad and people were not talking. There were people traveling through
out the country yelling "burn baby burn!", federal forces spying
on anyone with enough guts to speak out and local police forces
on the verge of panic. While all of this was going on, one person
was preaching peace. There are many people who actually think he
was wrong. Some feel that integration was a farce and that Dr. King
was mistaken. All of this crap being passed around by the closet
bigots will probably do more harm than anything that has happened
since Dr. King's death. Let's face it, the unemployement rate for
black teens isn't high because they aren't qualified for work. They
just happen to be on the bottom of the scale. I can assure you, they
do not think too much of a society that would deprive them of the
few things they can be proud of. ofut@gatech.UUCP (10/19/83)
I'm much to young to remember King very well but what I read makes me
wonder. It seems he was a man of peace but everywhere he went there
were always riots. Does anyone know how these can be resolved?
trying to start trouble...
--
-- Jeff Offutt
CSNet: Ofut @ GaTech ARPA: Ofut.GaTech @ UDel-Relay
uucp: ...!{sb1,allegra,ut-ngp}!gatech!Ofut
...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!Ofutdiy@sb1.UUCP (DENNIS YOUNG) (10/20/83)
This is a *very* toned down response to Larry Cipriani's article in which a letter a friend of his wrote questioned whether King was really non-violent. I cannot argue with someone's belief that they don't want a holiday...it's our right! But I take considerable exception to distortion of FACTS to support one's argument. I'd like to address that. I don't know how many or even if anyone PARTICIPATED in the activities King led, but I did. I was in elementary school and then high school during those years, and was active in marches and sit-ins. Let me state right now students WERE NOT allowed to do anything during school hours, so so much for King taking kids out of school. Gee Larry I wish your friend was able to defend his views here on the net, and I have no idea where you stand on it, but here goes. >In considering the goals, methods, and accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther >King, we should dispose of a myth -- that King was a man of peace. Let's see... I am non-violent. I will protest the fact that a black lady has to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. It is a law that says she has to do that, and I will protest that law. I will demonstrate against that law by calling attention to it and getting thosewho made that law to change it. We have tried before, but it hasn't changed. I will call attention by marching and meeting and appealing to the conscience of those who can help us make that change. I will NOT allow us to carry any weapons. If we are met with resis- tance, we will turn the other cheek. I know that I am breaking the law by sitting at the Woolworth counter because I am black, and blacks cannot sit at the counter. I also that another law says that all men are created equal. So I will sit there and get arrested, time after time until the unfairness of the law is so plain that it has to be changed. I will go to jail, but I will not tell my supporters that we should take up arms and REALLY get their attention. So I march, and sit in the white only section. And the dogs and the hoses are loosed. I got to jail. I'm released and I do it again. I EXPECT to get jailed, I pray for no violence, but if I do, I'll TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. (Can anyone tell me how many cops were killed during that time?) It is the price I and my followers feel we must pay to be treated like men. Now here's some more of Larry's friend's comments... >King repeatedly turned to the government as a mechanism for social change; >and behind the acts of government, one ultimately fifs the policeman's gun >and the prison guard's nightstick. King did not employ violence directly, >but sought for the government to use coercion. >Of course, the use of force can sometimes be justified and necessary. But >when employed, it should be recognized as such, not cloaked with the mystique >of non-violence. So then, I'm non-violent! I won't carry weapons, but I will march. If I know that I'm going to encounter violence (NOT ENCOURAGE, mind you) then that makes me VIOLENT. If I DO carry weapons, then I am VIOLENT! I have your paycheck. You need your paycheck. you ask me for your pay- check. I say no, and I let the dogs and the hoses loose. You ask me again. You have not threatened me with bodily harm, you carry no big stick. I still say no, and let you have the dogs again. Who's violent, who's not? Who's taking the peaceful approach??? King turned to the government and the PEOPLE for social change. The only coercion King looked for was a change in the LAW, not a knot on the head!! The gov. made the law...could it not change that law??? King NEVER said that those who protested would have to eventually use force, and he never justified it. He did say that if it menat getting kicked in the head to be removed from second-class citizenship "TURN THE OTHER CHEEK!!!" >With the illusion of pacifism removed, it becomes possible to view the life >of Dr. King more clearly. He was a man possessed of great courage, who >often struggled valiantly for justice. But he had inadequate regard for >individual rights or economic reality; much of what he called for would >subvert the human dignity that he sought to champion. This is where I realy wish the author could answer this, but again, there may be those on the net who agree. If I associate the words correctly, I read that statement to say "Hey, he was really a good guy at heart, but he didn't think about what would happen ot blacks, that is, put them on welfare and thus "subvert...human dignity". If course we've all heard that folks on welfare, and blacks in particular, have no "dignity", so I don't think I'm too far off target. Well, King never marched for welfare. He marched for basic freedoms which were denied the black folks. I speculate here, but I don't think he would object to welfare. Remember, he was a minister and as such VERY religious. Religious in the sense of helping others. But hey, that's speculation. As I stated earlier, I participated in the activites of the 60's. I sat at the counters. The activities I took part in stressed NON-VIOLENCE. I did it because I felt that I was just as good as a white kid my age, and I should live accordingly. I did not join the Black Panthers, who wanted that same right via different means. I can not and will not let others distort, or destroy that effort. Hey, Gene Spafford, you can have your soapbox back. I didn't mean to keep it so long. :-) Dennis
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/83)
Everywhere Gandhi went, those about him often engaged in violence (often, they thought, in his name), despite his opposition. The same sort of "violence in the name of a non-violent leader" has been associated with Jesus for almost 2000 years. Violence seems to follow those who would propose non-violence. It seems that they all have followers who will say, "Be non-violent, follow my leader, or I'll split your nostrils open and nail your head to the floor." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) (10/20/83)
Hey, some of us were in kindergarten in the 60's (all through the 60's - I flunked several times :-) ), and we don't remember a thing. My mother was taking classes at Berkeley in the mid-60's and every so often she would take us kids on campus. I have a vague memory of Sather Gate and people with signs... To me, MLK is semi-legendary. I like the idea of a holiday where the kids stay in school to learn about King, but there's parts of the country where that sort of thing wouldn't go down (like Texas, for example). stan the l.h. utah-cs!shebs
odom@uiucuxc.UUCP (10/26/83)
#R:sb1:-14900:uiucuxc:21200012:000:1088
uiucuxc!odom Oct 25 11:45:00 1983
i'm too young to have taken part or even observed much
of what went on in the 60's (politically) however, i was
raised to belief that MLK was a good man who intelligently
went about changing an unintelligent system.
i saw Ghandi not long ago, and was struck by the resemblence
between the two points of view. i was also under the
impression that America was very big on the "civil disobedience"
belief as a means to change unjust laws?!?
i just returned from vacation with my in-laws (born-again, white,
southern etc., but nice folks) who informed me that MLK was
a Communist (i avoided that fight). fact of the matter is,
i don't care if he was or wasn't, he started a chain of
events that changed a lot of stupid laws/rules and by so
doing increased our resources ("a mind is a terrible thing to waste").
anyways, Dennis, it must be great to be able to say you took
part in that historical a movement. i doubted if i'd've done
much even if i had been old enough (i tend toward the silent
majority) but i'd like to think i would have...
susan odomofut@gatech.UUCP (10/26/83)
I recently had a thought. Let's look at the long-range historical
perspective. Was Washington really such a great guy? Probably not.
He was a good general and had a lot of children but I doubt if he
ever chopped down cherry trees. He is a symbol.
If we make King a hero in our generation then he will cease to be
a person as well and will become a symbol. I'm not so sure that he's
such a great guy either but I think it's a great symbol. What will
our grand-children think of when they think of King? Peace, equality,
goodness and all those good things.
Hopefully they'll respect him and those things as well.
Historically, we remember people but are affected by symbols.
--
Jeff Offutt
School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA
CSNet: Ofut @ GATech ARPA: Ofut.GATech @ UDel-Relay
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ut-ngp,ut-sally}!gatech!ofut