Martin Luther King Jr. was literally a martyr for his cause.
He is the champion of fighting for your beliefs, even if it puts your own life and livelihood in danger. He once said those that have nothing worth dying for have nothing worth living for. The Letter from Birmingham Jail is a great example of King's ideology of sacrifice. Last time we talked about how we are all linked in the "single garment of destiny" and are thus marked by "an inescapable network of mutuality". These words are beautiful but they come at a pretty ugly cost. Think about this concept of "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". That means I must be ever vigilant...to everything...all the time. King sacrificed his time, money, reputation, toil and ultimately his life fighting for justice. Yet he was not the only one who suffered. Some had little to no choice in the matter and it makes me wonder something that has been stuck in my brain for years... Is sacrifice selfish? I know it sounds insane but hear me out...
4 Comments
"But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid."
Martin Luther King Jr. is trying to push our understanding of a concept. Any time you stretch people's perceptions you have to start at the beginning. You cannot just open an argument without setting forth the context and the specific point you wish to prove. King was asked a very simple question, albeit implicitly, by the clergymen of Birmingham Who are you and why are you here? King started with the simple answer: I was asked (but that's not his real answer). This paragraph makes clear that King would be here even if he was not asked. "I am in Birmingham because injustice is here." Once again, this is a point that's hard to argue against. Birmingham, Alabama was the most segregated town in America in 1963. Birmingham has a sheriff who refused to leave office after losing an election. It had a governor that declared "segregation today, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever". A man who would stand in front of the University doors to deny access to African American students. King is creating building blocks to get us somewhere. So.... A. I was asked to be here. (I never actually confirmed this but we'll go with check) B. Injustice is here. (Check) C. I feel COMPELLED to fight this injustice. To justify this compulsion, King goes to his wheelhouse--The Bible. First and foremost, King is a preacher, a man of God. If he is going to use historical precedence what better place to start....especially when you are responding to clergymen! Using the apostles spreading the good word of Jesus has evolved into what King calls "the gospel of freedom". The Bible is clear, being a good Christian means spreading the good word, performing the actions of Christ in the community, not just hiding it to yourself. King is framing his "untimely and unwisely actions" as an extension of Christian purpose, not more sinister reasons like notoriety or hubris. Indeed, using a word like "compel" makes it clear that King sees no choice in the matter. In a perfect world he may not choose to do this, but he has committed himself to fight against injustice and thus his battle will never end. Today's incarnation is Birmingham. In a sense of the "gospel of freedom" is being enslaved towards a journey to free all. This sense of a never-ending battle is confirmed in the next paragraph: "Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds." Now King is making a bold leap A. I am here because I was invited, (Check) B. There is injustice here. (Check) C. I feel compelled to fight injustice. (Good on ya, mate) D. We are all compelled to fight injustice because I am affected by things that do not directly impact me. (HOLD UP...I have to do stuff?) Notice that if King has started at D, many people would have dismissed his response to the clergymen. Who cares if there are people dying and starving across the world? What can I do? Yeah there are homeless people in my community but they had their opportunity and wasted it. Wouldn't it be wiser to deal with YOUR problems in YOUR community first? King breaks down these barriers and identities by creating an amazing image: a single garment of destiny. These words are beautiful but are they accurate? Is injustice anywhere really a threat to justice in general? Will Syria's instability ever really threaten an affluent American suburb? Am I really in a network of mutuality that I cannot escape? I thought we were spreading freedom, not commitment. Once again, the positive, loving preacher is not exactly using the most positive words to describe his position. We are COMPELLED to help, we cannot ESCAPE this network. I mean it does sound scary, my justice may depend on people I do not know in a place I have never visited doing things I may not know about??? That sounds more like a horror film than the soaring rhetoric I hear from Dr. King in "I Have a Dream" (spoiler alert: just four months after this letter). Shouldn't he be saying that our common brotherhood is a good thing? Where is the rosy, sunshiny King I learned about in grammar school? Could it be that fighting for rights is more than sunshine and rainbows? I mean the idea of a struggle for rights makes sense because history has taught us this but why does it make sense? If it's such a good thing for all people to have rights won't nature support our single garment of destiny? Won't we WANT to maintain it, look after it and therefore there would be no problems or stress involved since it is in everyone's best interest to look after and care for one another? King would probably go to the Christian reason of sin for why this is not the case. Humans are constantly battling the demons of selfishness, avarice and gluttony. So they are inclined to be apathetic towards the struggles of others. Thomas Hobbes would certainly agree with this position of human moral degradation as well. Yet this seems incomplete for me. I do not think it is natural to live life so myopically. What makes King different from everyone else? Why would others not take on the mantle of fighting against injustice? Don't get me wrong, many do! They ignore their selfishness and sacrifice for others. Humans sacrifice for one another EVERY DAY and yet we turn a blind eye to injustice in other places across the world. Is it because we feel helpless? Are we scared of the personal toll fighting ALL these battles would take? Do we feel a great commitment to certain groups than others? A single garment of destiny is really another way of saying a team. Some teams thrive. People know their roles and work together to reach a common purpose. Some teams do not survive, especially when facing adversity. Egos can get in the way, others can show anger at others not doing "their part". The bickering withers away the bonds of the team and it ends up imploding. How can we ensure that humanity follows option 1 and not option 2? Do you really agree that we are ALL tied in this network of mutuality? How can I really know this when the garment goes beyond what I can see and know? What is my commitment/responsibility to the garment? Am I supposed to fight in EVERY battle in EVERY place? Am I supposed to sacrifice all my time and effort to go around and crusade like Dr. King? What is the danger of isolation? Am I living in delusion? Is that so bad? Please comment because I am asking too many questions and I need input. "Who are you?"
I am sure this is a question we all must deal with quite a bit. Often it is not so bluntly asked of us in words but in looks or tangential questions. Everytime we meet someone new they inherently wonder...what is your deal? What's your story? What role will you play in MY life? In King's response to the clergymen of Birmingham, the Reverend starts with this most basic question before anything else. It is a bit odd considering just how famous Dr. King was at the time. The man was undoubtedly the most famous African American in the country, but then again, being famous and being KNOWN or not necessarily the same thing. Famous figures have a persona, a persona that is usually placed upon them. They play a role in the narrative of our lives and our culture, even if they are unnatural fits. King realizes that these men know OF him but they do not necessarily know him. So he will take the beginning of the letter to explain who he is and more importantly what he is doing. Let's read on... Summer has arrived and that means it is time for MY summer assignment, tackling King's Letter from Birmingham Jail.
I have tried to set up most of the context and background in my previous posts so try to look those over if you need background information on this moment since it is not as famous as his speech a few months later. Yet this response is so eloquently written and deals with some of the complexities and contradictions that I find inherent in our American identity. When does protesting America's faults become unAmerican? What signifies acceptable and unacceptable protest? How do we deal with those that wish to upset the status quo, especially when YOU inherently disagree with their assertion in the first place? There is that famous quote, usually incorrectly attributed to Voltaire but actually by a biographer of his Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." A phrase like that is easy to SAY but much harder to practice. How do we deal with those we despise? How do we confront issues that are not even agreed upon as issues? How does democracy survive when EVERYONE, including radicals and extremists have an unfiltered voice? Thomas Jefferson may have written the political philosophy of America in 1776, but putting it into practice and maintaining it was the difficult task King takes on in this letter. I certainly respect him for the degree of difficulty in this challenge and, in truth, I think no one has answered these questions better. That does not mean it is a perfect response or that it provides a solution to every problem posed here, but it does take on most of them. You can tell King had been sort of boiling over to this moment from the first paragraph in his response. My Dear Fellow Clergymen: While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms. Notice the following about this opening paragraph: King is pissed off. I mean he is not subtle about it. Read how he dismisses the loads of criticism he receives and how a response to that would leave him "no time for constructive work". In other words, King is saying I see no reason trying to change the mind of a bigot. Yet he is making an exception here, and a notable one at that. Why? King says that these clergymen are "of genuine good" and "sincere". King DOES think he can change their minds, or at least let them into his world and hope they are open-minded enough to consider the argument he is about to lay forth. Open-mindness is such a key component to a democracy and yet it is often bashed by our society. "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" "Changing your mind makes you a flip-flopper" Just because we may not agree with others does not give us license to negate their experiences or refuse to listen. Opening up a discourse is the only way to address problems in a democratic society. That does not mean we will change our minds but we have to allow for that possibility. We have to be able to understand WHY we believe what we believe and if we need to ask other questions to get to the solution. After all, learning is more about asking the right questions than just answering questions. King sees an opportunity and decides to break with his tradition and clearly has been preparing for this moment. The following paragraphs set forth a point-by-point defense of King, the Civil Rights Movement and the role of the rebel in our society. I hope you will follow along with me as we move forward! |
AuthorMrG_Unit Archives
June 2017
Categories |