tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post8656051764444876607..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: How Glenn Beck distorts the Christian teachings that inspired the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77176113337197431542010-09-09T09:05:41.308-06:002010-09-09T09:05:41.308-06:00@Tom_Van_Dyke
"…broke the Dixiecrat filibust...@Tom_Van_Dyke<br /><br />"…broke the Dixiecrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is so important---not so much that he was a Republican, but to illustrate that at that moment, when the walls of Jim Crow came tumbling down, we were a fairly united people, as much as is possible, anyway."<br /><br />Eh, no. There were cracks already evident in the New Deal coalition. Civil Rights legislation shattered it, tore the nation's political map asunder, as LBJ correctly assessed when signing. See Rick Perlstein's excellent Nixonland for a great chronology.<br /><br />"The confusion and dishonesty has been in equating racial equality and "social justice" progressive politics"<br /><br />How much MLK have you have actually read/heard?<br /><br />They were almost totally tied together, and furthermore, the backlash against was fanned and deployed by Nixon and Republicans under guise of "law and order" but more essentially predicated (don't take my word for it — hear the words of Kevin Phillips and other Republican architects of "Southern Strategy") on casting aspersions and reinforcing the evil and inferiority of "the other".<br /><br />That posters of MLK don the screens of evangelical churches and Republican politicians doesn't change the fact that MLK and progressive politics were sewn together at the hip. And it really was never a D/R deal, and only when LBJ swayed that way for a brief time did it go Democratic, but then the adamant protest against Vietnam alienated MLK from party leadership. <br /><br />But then soon after, Republicans embraced the "Southern Strategy", which is why to this date, in presidential elections, the Republican candidate now garners less than ~10% of vote, no doubt, the most significant demographic disparity.Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29231081606510903492010-09-06T23:01:01.555-06:002010-09-06T23:01:01.555-06:00Oh, JRB, I meant fisking accurately. That is your...Oh, JRB, I meant fisking accurately. That is your style, to hit the books to test my every assertion that seems counterintuitive or contrary to the prevailing narrative.<br /><br />I am indeed wrong once or twice a year, and was wrong here, but hopefully only in our comments section, not the formal argument of our mainpage. I carelessly let pass the assertion I read somewhere that MLK was planted as a figurehead to an already-running Civil Rights Movement without confirming it independently. As you proved, he hit the ground right on Rosa Parks' heels, initiating the Montgomery bus boycott.<br /><br />Just the way I like it. Our comments section is the most valuable part of this here American Creation blog to me, where we float our ideas and the results of our studies in a collegial fashion, not as bloodsport.<br /><br />In fact, Mark David Hall chose AC [among many other individuals but few other venues] to roadtest his latest scholarly paper for accuracy. So again, thx for being you, and once again, cheers to all of us here gathered. Between the substance we examine and unearth by going back to the source materials---fisking all our assumptions--- and our commitment to joint cooperation toward the truth no matter what our individual POV is, well...<br /><br />To echo Washington and Madison about the achieving of the American Constitution, if this blog isn't a miracle, it's a near-miracle at least.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65686939950794058672010-09-06T22:36:50.391-06:002010-09-06T22:36:50.391-06:00Although Branch isn't a trained historian, he ...Although Branch isn't a trained historian, he is university degreed and started out as a journalist. I would think that after decades of researching King and the civil rights movement he'd be considered a leading authority on the subject (the first of the trilogy, Parting the Waters is coptrighted 1988). <br /><br />His three works on King & CRM have received vast kudos and I haven't seen any negative reviews - which makes me unhappy since they're very useful.<br /><br />I would certainly value his perspective on the Beck/King thing - I read it quickly but will have to read it again.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60632722079727690442010-09-06T22:28:20.303-06:002010-09-06T22:28:20.303-06:00I count on you for fisking my every statement.
I ...<i>I count on you for fisking my every statement.</i><br /><br />I should point out to other readers that "fisking" can have a positive conotation. :) And technically, not <i>every</i> statement.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52200332993228338282010-09-06T15:34:07.307-06:002010-09-06T15:34:07.307-06:00Thank you, JRB. I stand corrected. I count on yo...Thank you, JRB. I stand corrected. I count on you for fisking my every statement. Although I'm thorough in the comments section [see above, re Rev. Bevel], I can only check my every statement for mainpage-level pontifications.<br /><br />Historian [journalist?] Taylor Branch looked interesting, what with his trilogy on the CRM. His rather sympathetic remarks about Glenn Beck re MLK may deserve serious consideration.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05branch.html?_r=1&ref=opinionTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60608451154259463992010-09-06T14:46:32.615-06:002010-09-06T14:46:32.615-06:00“Abernathy [Ralph] stayed with King in the Atlanta...<i>“Abernathy [Ralph] stayed with King in the Atlanta family home. At 2:30 A.M. on January 10, the day the conference was to begin, Mother King [MLK’s mother] shook Abernathy awake to take an emergency phone call. “Ralph, they have bombed our home,” said a shaky Juanita Abernathy from Montgomery. “But I am alright and so is the baby.” She reported that the porch and front room of the house were practically demolished, and that the arriving policemen seemed frightened too, because other blasts had been heard since. They said the Hutchinson Street Baptist Church was destroyed, its roof caved in. People were calling or driving around the street in dumb panic, some too afraid to go outside and others too afraid to go home.</i><br /><br /><i>“The King home in Atlanta was lit up and buzzing as Abernathy worried out loud about the First Baptist [Church in Montgomery]. “I don’t want reverend Stoke’s church bombed,” he said plaintively. Daddy King [MLK’s father] was pacing the floor angrily. “Well, they are going to bomb it,” he said. Abernathy grew so agitated that he tried repeatedly to get a call through to his wife. When he finally succeeded, he learned that the panic in Montgomery was growing worse. There had been another blast, loud enough to be heard all over town. It was definite that Hutchinson Street Baptist Church had been hit – people had seen the ruins – and the Graetz home had been bombed again. Mrs. Abernathy went off the line briefly and came back to say that another one had gone off, close to their home. She felt the rumble. And another church had been hit. She was not sure which church and had no idea yet where the latest bomb had struck.<br />“Later reports confirmed Abernathy’s fears that it was First Baptist. He and King, leaving Coretta and Rustin to run the Atlanta conference, departed before dawn for Montgomery, where they surveyed the night’s total of four bombed churches and two houses. Of the churches, First Baptist was the least severely hit, as the bomb had torn apart the basement but done little damage to the sanctuary above. Still, city authorities condemned it as structurally unsound for use.</i><br /><br /><i>“King returned hastily to Atlanta, where the assembly of preachers voted to form an organization that, after several name changes, would be called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. They elected King president.”</i><br /><br />King and everyone else involved in the struggle were acting heroically in the name of civil rights against what we would call today, a reign of terror – evil incarnate I believe they call it. King was not “brought aboard” because he could talk pretty. As the kids say, he earned his chops and deserves due recognition and respect.<br /><br />Pinky, do the passages above help to convey the humanity?jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82563596411366278472010-09-06T14:41:16.560-06:002010-09-06T14:41:16.560-06:00TVD - Anywayz, thx for being you, JRB.
Well, to q...TVD - <i>Anywayz, thx for being you, JRB.</i><br /><br />Well, to quote one eminant 20th century philosopher, " I Yam What I Yam." There are a couple of things that I passed up that I'd like to coment on. One being:<br /><br />TVD - <i>...and MLK came aboard [the CRM] as its figurehead for his impressive rhetorical powers.</i><br /><br />This is inaccurate and demeaning. MLK, JR., although renowned for his rhetorical skills, was also an active key leader in the CRM, starting with his ministry at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL., his early invlovement in the NAACP, and his leading role in the Montgomery bus boycott - "<a href="http://www.sclcnational.org/core/item/page.aspx?s=25461.0.0.2607" rel="nofollow">The boycott</a> was carried out by the newly established Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA). Martin Luther King, Jr. served as President and Ralph David Abernathy served as Program Director. It was one of history’s most dramatic and massive nonviolent protests, stunning the nation and the world." (See also Taylor Branch's <i>Parting the Waters</i> chapters 4 & 5.) <br /><br />To set the ambiance, I'm going to quote at length from Branch - me being me (p. 198-199): <br /><br /><i>“In Montgomery [following the success of the bus boycott], after shotgun snipers fired on an integrated bus, King issued a statement calling on city authorities to “take a firm stand” against such violence. City Commissioner Parks, one of the few whites to speak up in response, announced that the city would suspend bus service if the shootings continued – a statement that dismayed King’s followers because they believed that stopping the only integrated public institution in Alabama was precisely what the snipers wanted to accomplish. Two days later, bushwhackers fired another volley at an integrated bus, this time sending a pregnant Negro woman to the hospital with bullet wounds in both legs. The city commissioners halted night bus service.</i><br /><br /><i>“King sent out invitations to what he called the first Negro Leaders Conference on Nonviolent Integration. Sixty preachers from ten Southern states responded, gathering in Atlanta at Ebenezer [Baptist Church in Atlanta] early in January of 1957. They represented a pitifully small portion of the Negro preachers in the region, but their ranks included many of the most influential mavericks. Fred Shuttlesworth came from Birmingham, and Rev. C.K. Steele from Tallahassee, Florida, where he was leading a Montgomery-inspired campaign to integrate the buses. William Holmes Borders attended from Atlanta, where his own non-violent bus demonstration provoked Georgia’s governor to put the state militia on standby alert just before the conference. Bayard Rustin came down from New York to work quietly on drafting resolutions and an organizational charter.</i><br /><br />(cont below)jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41335649651278386682010-09-06T14:07:33.360-06:002010-09-06T14:07:33.360-06:00The movement had stalled, MLK was discouraged. Be...The movement had stalled, MLK was discouraged. Between the weather and the half-empty hall, MLK didn't even want to go speak. But the faithful were stoked up enough that Ralph Abernathy called and talked him into coming.<br /><br />MLK was assassinated the next morning.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44786940890251781822010-09-06T13:36:22.517-06:002010-09-06T13:36:22.517-06:00.
Here is MLK as he truly was:
http://www.afscme.....<br />Here is MLK as he truly was:<br /><br />http://www.afscme.org/about/1549.cfmPhil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26857450186847919312010-09-05T17:09:43.194-06:002010-09-05T17:09:43.194-06:00Dirkson made a popular recoding.
I can't reme...Dirkson made a popular recoding.<br /><br />I can't remember it now; but, it was a pretty popular item back then.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34282252418930982782010-09-05T16:29:28.683-06:002010-09-05T16:29:28.683-06:00Cool. Dirksen's is really a moving speech, an...Cool. Dirksen's is really a moving speech, and worth reading in toto. However, the opening will do for now, sentiments and ideas that are surely shared by all of us but the unAmerican:<br /><br /><i>"It is said on the night he died, Victor Hugo made this closing entry in his diary: “There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world; and that is an idea whose time has come.” Later it was put in more dramatic form: “Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose hour has come.” This is the issue with which we have been wrestling for months. There will be continued resistance for one reason or another. There will in some quarters be a steadfast refusal to come to grips with what seems an inevitable challenge which must be met. The idea of equal opportunity to vote, to secure schooling, to have public funds equitably spent, to have public parks and playgrounds equally accessible, to have an equal opportunity for a livelihood without discrimination, to be equal before the law—--the hour for this idea has come and it will not be denied or resisted."</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34225079156618546032010-09-05T16:19:18.466-06:002010-09-05T16:19:18.466-06:00.
Right.
.
Thanks for the clarification.
..<br />Right.<br />.<br />Thanks for the clarification.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1078061439306921652010-09-05T15:59:31.486-06:002010-09-05T15:59:31.486-06:00Actually, Pinky, it's a very necessary clarifi...Actually, Pinky, it's a very necessary clarification---separating the very real problem of racial discrimination of the 1960s from the very soggy claiming of MLK and the Civil Rights Movement for today's "social justice" and progressive politics.<br /><br />That's why Senator Everett Dirksen's landmark and sadly overlooked <br /><br />http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/everett-dirksens-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-speech/<br /><br />that broke the Dixiecrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is so important---not so much that he was a Republican, but to illustrate that at that moment, when the walls of Jim Crow came tumbling down, we were a fairly united people, as much as is possible, anyway.<br /><br />The confusion and dishonesty has been in equating racial equality and "social justice" progressive politics [with the corollary that opposing progressive politics is somehow racist].<br /><br />Now that we have cleared that confusion and slander up, we may continue our studies.<br />___________________<br /><br />A pretty well-respected historian named Taylor Branch gets the Beck thing right [at last!] in today's NYT:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05branch.html?_r=1&ref=opinion<br /><br />It has actual facts about how it all went down, facts I've seen nowhere else.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24056179353972911482010-09-05T15:35:47.315-06:002010-09-05T15:35:47.315-06:00.
Don't even mention race then.
..<br />Don't even mention race then.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78988276789252647732010-09-05T14:00:48.209-06:002010-09-05T14:00:48.209-06:00Not stuck, Pinky, having no problems.
The questio...Not stuck, Pinky, having no problems.<br /><br />The question of clarity is between MLK the man [a "progressive"] and MLK the universally admired American leader [content of their character, not the color of their skin].<br /><br />Martin Luther King Day honors the latter.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18179605028938342072010-09-05T07:44:50.330-06:002010-09-05T07:44:50.330-06:00.
The problem you guys are having is related to wh....<br />The problem you guys are having is related to what JFK had to say about race having no place in our society.<br />.<br />Once you get to figuring that MLK was a human being the same as each of us, you can get a handle on the humanity involved.<br />.<br />Otherwise, you're stuck.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20192608238172570522010-09-04T21:56:57.484-06:002010-09-04T21:56:57.484-06:00Anywayz, thx for being you, JRB. Knowing you'...Anywayz, thx for being you, JRB. Knowing you're there to keep me honest---and also interested in the truth of the thing, which makes it worth writing atall.<br /><br />I learned a lot more than I wrote here, how Jesse Jackson was a leader of Chicago's Operation Breadbasket, and how he still uses its tactics today in what we skeptics call his corporate "shakedowns."<br /><br />Also how MLK and the entire CRM converged on Chicago in 1966 for socio-political action, not just Operation Breadbasket [which largely worked], but a comprehensive agenda of social "action" [which did not]. <br /><br />Mayor Daley and the powers-that-be in Chicago killed the CRM where even the combined forces of Lester Maddox, George Wallace and Bull Connor could not.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12076321587178444792010-09-04T21:24:29.919-06:002010-09-04T21:24:29.919-06:00This is apparently misattributed. It appears that ...<i>This is apparently misattributed. It appears that it was a speech/statemnt made by a MLK, Jr. aide in August 1965, James Bevel at the SCLC national convention (here (p. 85), here (p. 150), and here (p. 168))</i><br /><br />Upon further review---on my own, mind you, because you have come to value my credibility and thoroughness---I deleted my comment with the misattribution, and reposted with the correct one of Bevel. You were clearly writing your comment while the erroneous attribution was still up.<br /><br />I have a POV, yes, but I'm more interested in accuracy and clarity, as you have no doubt learned to trust.<br /><br />As for what MLK believed, I haven't questioned that his was a "progressive politics," although he might have grown more progressive as he asked himself and the CRM, "Where Do We Go From Here?"<br /><br />My argument is more on how he was perceived and received by the greater American public---what made him an American saint---sort of like the diffence between the "true" Locke vs. the "Locke as the Founders understood him" inquiry.<br /><br />The last link I posted [a sympathetic book] goes into great detail on the cratering of the CRM, its being subsumed by not only the Black Power movement on one side, but LBJ's Great Society programs on the other.<br /><br />It's a Google Book preview, and so I was able to read much of the relevant material for free. I hope our readers will give it a look.<br /><br />The book notes that besides the black radicals, the Gallup polls had white America leaving the national consensus on civil rights of 1963: "white backlash" was a term so often used post-1965 as to be a cliche. [I dimly remember the phrase, meaning it was a popular one.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66585208090496605492010-09-04T20:43:02.976-06:002010-09-04T20:43:02.976-06:00Given the above, I'm not sure how the quote wo...Given the above, I'm not sure how the quote would reflect on King. The potential for the movement to be taken over by the far more radical and potentially violent black nationalists, as King referred to them, was there in 1963as can be seen in his <a href="http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html" rel="nofollow">Letter From Birmingham Jail</a>: <br /><br /><i>You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil." </i><br /><br /><i>I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do-nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.</i><br /><br />King foreshadowed the showdown. The tensions were there in 1963 as well as in 1967. Although the later apparent success of the radical element certainly reflected a fundamental strategic and tactical split and a struggle within the CRM and a challnege for King and the SCLC, I don't see that King or his vision was fundamentally changed.<br /><br />Given that and the change in the overall mood of the country to a more conservative reaction against the new radicalism of the mid 60s, Yes, King and the SCLC struggled to have their voice heard but that does not mean that they became irrelevant.<br /><br />Anyway, it's been good to delve into King and go back along memory lane, but it's time to get on with the weekend. Have a good one.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76321158230436810292010-09-04T20:23:44.460-06:002010-09-04T20:23:44.460-06:00TVD - MLK was too radical for white folks, and not...TVD - <i>MLK was too radical for white folks, and not radical enough for many blacks. </i><br /><br />Well that's not a bad way to put it. The times they had been a changin'.<br /><br /><i>"There is no more civil rights movement. President Johnson signed it out of existence when he signed the voting rights bill."</i><br /><br />This is apparently misattributed. It appears that it was a speech/statemnt made by a MLK, Jr. aide in August 1965, James Bevel at the SCLC national convention (<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=0BafgsBIlrwC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=%22There+is+no+more+civil+rights+movement.+President+Johnson+signed+it+out+of+existence+when+he+signed+the+voting+rights+bill.%22&source=bl&ots=HYVbv5xK9T&sig=ljW345GeBDAwryJZ5nU9_Olc00Y&hl=en&ei=8eqCTMWOG4P6lweOr63iDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=existence&f=false" rel="nofollow">here (p. 85)</a>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=HXLODbWedaUC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=%22There+is+no+more+civil+rights+movement.+President+Johnson+signed+it+out+of+existence+when+he+signed+the+voting+rights+bill.%22&source=bl&ots=LoC2unE1WY&sig=wiYqI4Y5Q9AHe_Gz0BGqJGJyeuE&hl=en&ei=8eqCTMWOG4P6lweOr63iDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22There%20is%20no%20more%20civil%20rights%20movement.%20President%20Johnson%20signed%20it%20out%20of%20existence%20when%20he%20signed%20the%20voting%20rights%20bill.%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">here (p. 150)</a>, and <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=dM_enWzoghoC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=%22There+is+no+more+civil+rights+movement.+President+Johnson+signed+it+out+of+existence+when+he+signed+the+voting+rights+bill.%22&source=bl&ots=6cEjrcsICp&sig=BMaYoM4jxl6PnX06v-a4yin8zro&hl=en&ei=8eqCTMWOG4P6lweOr63iDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22There%20is%20no%20more%20civil%20rights%20movement.%20President%20Johnson%20signed%20it%20out%20of%20existence%20when%20he%20signed%20the%20voting%20rights%20bill.%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">here (p. 168)</a>)<br /><br />Apparently in August, 1965 at the SCLC convention in Chicago, a caucus of <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=WFSgLg1S7gIC&pg=PA344&lpg=PA344&dq=August+1965++James+Bevel+SCLC+convention&source=bl&ots=eac6ZJSX4l&sig=YpFZlr-awTG9UFhV2Qdbnk1nRWk&hl=en&ei=gPOCTOGSD4aBlAeckc3fDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDUQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=August%201965%20%20James%20Bevel%20SCLC%20convention&f=false" rel="nofollow">radical black nationalists (p. 344)</a> managed to maneuver their way into and take over the convention. Neither King nor Bevel was amused. King only remained at the convention for a day but Bevel and some others stuck it out. Given the circumstances, and until the quote's put into the context of the rest of Bevel’s speech/statement, there’s no way to attach a meaning to it. <br /><br />(cont below)jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60798535515108808372010-09-04T19:37:43.418-06:002010-09-04T19:37:43.418-06:00This is getting more interesting. It must be admit...<i>This is getting more interesting. It must be admitted that Glenn Beck has opened a can of worms.<br /><br />That is what the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., [actually, Rev. James bevel of the SCLC] meant when he said in early August 1965, "There is no more civil rights movement. President Johnson signed it out of existence when he signed the voting rights bill."<br /><br />Obviously, the civil rights movement did not go out of existence. Instead, most civil rights leaders redefined their objectives and abandoned their long commitment to the principle that, as John F. Kennedy had put it, "Race has no place in American life and American law." Civil rights leaders began to argue that African-Americans had been denied their "fair share" of income, wealth, good jobs, political offices, and seats in institutions of higher learning, and that the only effective remedies were racially preferential policies. The riots that erupted across the land between 1965 and 1968 were part of the explanation for this transformation. Dr. King spoke on the eve of the great riot that exploded in the Watts section of Los Angeles on August 11,1965. Over the next three years, by one count, 329 "important" racial disturbances took place in 257 Cities, resulting in nearly 300 deaths, 8,000 injuries, 60,000 arrests, and property losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars.</i><br /><br />That particular bit of spin would be from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Still, it shows how MLK had lost control of the CRM [and indeed, admitted it was over with the accomplishments of 1964-65]. I was wondering why in 1967-8 MLK was still insisting on nonviolence.<br /><br />Part of the reason was the riots, and of course, MLK was losing out to radical chic, and the new head of the Student Non-violent Co-ordinating Committee's Stokely Carmichael and his "Black Power" and "by whatever means necessary."<br /><br /><i>"When you talk of black power, you talk of building a movement that will smash everything Western civilization has created," he told black audiences.</i><br /><br />http://www.interchange.org/Kwameture/nytimes111698.html<br /><br />MLK was too radical for white folks, and not radical enough for many blacks. This was not the MLK of 1963, when he had the ear or Americans of all races.<br /><br />See also <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=HXLODbWedaUC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=%22There+is+no+more+civil+rights+movement.+President+Johnson+signed+it+out+of+existence+when+he+signed+the+voting+rights%22&source=bl&ots=LoC2unD8-Y&sig=es4voF8NAicMFsx3C2Qq_-b4eeU&hl=en&ei=9-mCTMj7Lo_SsAOJ4dX2Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22There%20is%20no%20more%20civil%20rights%20movement.%20President%20Johnson%20signed%20it%20out%20of%20existence%20when%20he%20signed%20the%20voting%20rights%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">this excellent book</a>, which argues the Civil Rights Movement met its Waterloo in mayor Daley's Chicago, in 1966-67.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28915348274290735542010-09-04T18:11:42.804-06:002010-09-04T18:11:42.804-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30301790160499487962010-09-04T16:37:05.443-06:002010-09-04T16:37:05.443-06:00Well, I've been catching up on my MLK, because...Well, I've been catching up on my MLK, because I was dissatisfied with the prevailing narrative. [Soory, John. I spared you this at your blog, but I didn't think much of your article.]<br /><br />Once MLK became increasingly concerned with means rather than ends, he ceased to become a "national leader." Yes, he was a <i>Black</i> leader, and a community organizer, and still a bit of a social analyst, but after 1964-65 he and the SCLC struggled for not only for relevance, but focus.<br /><br />"Where Do We Go from Here?" was the title of a largely forgotten 1967 book, and also of his speech to the SCLC.<br /><br />There's good stuff in there, but not the clarity that characterized the MLK of 1963. And again, it was a speech to his base, not to America as a whole.<br /><br />http://www.famous-speeches-and-speech-topics.info/martin-luther-king-speeches/martin-luther-king-speech-where-do-we-go-from-here.htm<br /><br />For the record, he explicitly rejects Communism and Marxism here. However, my core point remains, that even though his use of "love" can be translated as "Christian charity," "social justice" is becoming more a question of political means than universal ends.<br /><br />"Now, don't think that you have me in a "bind" today. I'm not talking about Communism.<br /><br />What I'm saying to you this morning is that Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated."<br /><br />It's said by many that MLK didn't start the CRM---it had been fought since the 1950s [and before]---and MLK came aboard as its figurehead for his impressive rhetorical powers. As he expands his agenda to economic "exploitation" rather than against [job, housing, and educational] discrimination, and to foreign policy as well [Vietnam], the CRM is becoming indistinguishable from the politics of the Left.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62309109203891171882010-09-04T16:36:23.125-06:002010-09-04T16:36:23.125-06:00TVD - The MLK of 1963 and "I Have a Dream&quo...TVD - <i>The MLK of 1963 and "I Have a Dream" is not the MLK of 1967, when he took time off to write "Where Do We Go from Here?"</i><br /><br />I agree that he was redefining direction and largely in response to circumstance that he saw as eroding the core of the movement (the war as sapping resources) but my point was that his core goal was justice, whether considered as social, racial, economic or moral justice.<br /><br />TVD - <i>MLK had gone from ends [racial eq1uality] to means [progressive politics] and there is a huge difference in their importance to the nation---and universality.</i><br /><br />It occurred to me this afternoon while running errands that I may not have been addressing what you were saying; that I wasn't sure of what the distinction was that you were making. <br /><br />I can see what you mean by a split between ends and means. I just don't see that King ever stopped focusing on the ends. His opposition to the war was mostly about resources being diverted away from fighting poverty and what he saw as the injustice of the burdens of the war falling disproportionately on young black men but also on the poor in general. He's been described as fulfilling the role of the prophet, the spiritual leader challenging the moral compass of the nation, the exact opposite of the role of politician or policy advocate. <br /><br />Of course, this meant that others in the civil rights movement and their political supporters did take up the challenge of the means and now I understand the distinction between what I would understnd as the early phase of the movement and the latter. This is largely the tension that existed between King and the leadership of the movement in 67-68.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29442039639497878632010-09-04T16:07:12.388-06:002010-09-04T16:07:12.388-06:00KOI, this passage including Raushenbusch was just ...KOI, this passage including Raushenbusch was just to make a connection with King and the strain of Christian social gospel. I don't know of anything that suggests that King would have endorsed the taking of property* - to the best of my knowledge he preached against Communism. Niebuhr was also an influence on King and I don't think he would be considered a Communist - I just don't know that much about him.<br /><br />*of course it depends on the definition of "took." Some define taxation of any kind as a tyranical confiscation.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.com