Jackson Free Press

No matter what pop culture tells us, we need to know that Martin Luther King Jr. fought for more than racial integration; he believed in an ideal of America without poverty and class distinction. He was a radical and a revolutionary; many called him a communist.

In his August 1967 "Where Do We Go From Here?" speech, he responded to a privileged culture that seemed to believe that, with state-sponsored segregation dying off, African Americans and others committed to civil rights should be "satisfied" and stop stirring things up. And his answer was clear:

If you will let me be a preacher just a little bit: One night, a juror came to Jesus and he wanted to know what he could do to be saved. Jesus didn't get bogged down in the kind of isolated approach of what he shouldn't do. Jesus didn't say, "Now Nicodemus, you must stop lying." He didn't say, "Nicodemus, you must stop cheating if you are doing that." He didn't say, "Nicodemus, you must not commit adultery." He didn't say, "Nicodemus, now you must stop drinking liquor if you are doing that excessively." He said something altogether different, because Jesus realized something basic - that if a man will lie, he will steal. And if a man will steal, he will kill. So instead of just getting bogged down in one thing, Jesus looked at him and said, "Nicodemus, you must be born again."

He said, in other words, "Your whole structure must be changed." A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will "thingify" them - make them things. Therefore they will exploit them, and poor people generally, economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. What I am saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, "America, you must be born again!"

So, I conclude by saying again today that we have a task and let us go out with a "divine dissatisfaction." Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds.

Let us be dissatisfied until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort and the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice.

Let us be dissatisfied until those that live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security.

Let us be dissatisfied until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history, and every family is living in a decent sanitary home.

Let us be dissatisfied until the dark yesterdays of segregated schools will be transformed into bright tomorrows of quality, integrated education.

Let us be dissatisfied until integration is not seen as a problem but as an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity.

Let us be dissatisfied until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character and not on the basis of the color of their skin.

Let us be dissatisfied.

Let us be dissatisfied until every state capitol houses a governor who will do justice, who will love mercy, and who will walk humbly with his God.

Let us be dissatisfied until from every city hall, justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Let us be dissatisfied until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together. and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.

Let us be dissatisfied. And men will recognize that out of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth.

Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout "White Power!," when nobody will shout "Black Power!," but everybody will talk about God's power and human power.

I must confess, my friends, the road ahead will not always be smooth. There will still be rocky places of frustration and meandering points of bewilderment. There will be inevitable setbacks here and there. There will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair. Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted. We may again with tear-drenched eyes have to stand before the bier of some courageous civil-rights worker whose life will be snuffed out by the dastardly acts of bloodthirsty mobs. Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future.

Previous Comments

ID

103141

Comment

He was a radical and a revolutionary; many called him a communist. In other words, he was a real Christian. You took the words right out of my brain! I can't believe I missed this post. If folks would at how radical Jesus was in his day, they would see how far we are from what he really wanted us to do. Corralling ourselves into specific groups and thumbing our noses at others who don't fit our "mold" has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Sounds more like the Pharisees, but don't tell anyone I said that. ;-)

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-01-16T20:18:02-06:00

ID

103142

Comment

"[MLK] believed in an ideal of America without poverty and class distinction." I'm not much of a pedantic nitpicker (well, most of the time, at least), but is there any reliable record of what King meant by "Without poverty" and "[without] class distinction"? It seems the standards for poverty are, at least to a degree, relative. I think everyone would agree that living in a house not up to building code standards and not having enough food for adequate nutrition and medical care would be poverty. But what if the household has inexpensive but decent quality food, clothing, access to easy transportation (if not own a vehicle), rents a $400 per month apartment, has at least $50K health insurance coverage AND manages to save 5 cents of every dollar they earn? Most people in the suburbs (not necessarily Madison by any means) would seem to believe that household is poor. On the other hand, in West Jackson, this would likely be considered reasonably well off. Don't even talk about those stuck in the middle of those archetypical groups. Who is correct in their definition of poverty? As for King himself, I don't recall anything suggesting he advocated abolition of private property. Would he be considered a Social Democrat of the modern European type? "He was a radical and a revolutionary; many called him a communist." Go here for an actual definition of Communism (not to you, Tom, but to any lurkers with ..how can I say this...an excessively broad definition of Communism). As for radicals and revolutionaries (again, to certain lurkers) ... Democracy itself was considered 'radical' at one time (Picture the aristocrats saying "Those blacksmiths and artisans are too stupid to know what's good for them, so we, the elites, have to guide them! Democracy! ). Besides, this country itself was born of a revolutionary group. Enough Said! Oh, I forgot, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was, by definition theistic in his beliefs...specifically Christian. Marx explicitly advocated atheism (remember "religion is the opiate of the people"?). So I'd be hard pressed to call MLK a true Communist on that count alone (though I believe he was strongly influenced by economic philosophies that ultimately derieved from Marx, he clearly rejected the atheistic and antidemocratic aspects of Marxism)

Author

Philip

Date

2006-01-17T00:26:29-06:00

ID

103143

Comment

oops http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism for a description of true communism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrat for a description of Western European type of social democracy (or at least the Social Democratic parties. Essentially, they believe in true democracy and social welfare, also believe in private ownership of property, though they firmly believe in active goverment intervention to narrow income gaps)

Author

Philip

Date

2006-01-17T00:29:53-06:00

ID

103144

Comment

Yeah, well, you know that all you've had to do in these parts traditionally to be called a "commie" is believe in helping the poor. The actual definition of communism has carried little weight. I've found that many people STILL do not know the meaning of the word. I don't think that Dr. King was anymore communist than I am, for instance, but that doesn't stop the intellectually vacant folks from calling one names that make no sense if one actually understand said meanings of those names. BTW, thank you L.W. for pulling Tom's posting on this speech of Dr. King's back up. I was looking for a thread to pull my editor's note together this week and re-reading this tonight provided it as you'll see. Thanks for getting my back. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-17T00:42:52-06:00

ID

103145

Comment

Ah, and you're all so right. Democracy is the most radical idea on the planet. Only radicals believe in true freedom. Viva la radicalism! (Watch that phrase be lifted out of context without a link on some moronic blog dedicated to hatred of the JFP. )

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-17T00:44:35-06:00

ID

103146

Comment

Donna, I'll be interested in seeing your Editor's Note. I had several different blog entries in mind for MLK Day, then realized that what I really wanted to say, I'd said a few months ago in this entry. Latasha, thanks for giving it a bump. :) When I hear politicians--of both parties--praise MLK now while doing all they can to turn his message into something that doesn't challenge authority, that doesn't challenge power, it makes my blood boil. He would not have approved of a message that ending segregation was enough, or even that racial equality--remote a prospect as that may be--was his only ultimate goal. He really was an American Gandhi. And the Indian Gandhi, too, is whitewashed--folks remember what he did for Indian independence, but forget why he was so austere, forget his political beliefs, and forget his commitment to overthrowing the entire caste system. Radical, indeed. And MLK was a radical. I riffed on the word a week or two ago in a different context, but the truth is that it really does mean the root--solving a root problem. Doing something that requires tearing things out by the root. And that's just it. It's all too tempting to make a career out of pruning kudzu. It's a fight we know we can win. But MLK was willing to get himself shot for a cause he knew he wouldn't live to win. Not just some ephemeral "eternal" cause, but something we're supposed to realize in the here and now. Not just pretty words, but actions. Dr. King gets made into a nice little non-threatening plastic saint. But he's got good company, because so does Gandhi. And so does that Jesus guy. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-17T02:47:38-06:00