Sunday, August 29, 2010

No, Dr. King Would Not Be Proud

On the occasion of helping lead a right-wing rally on the Mall on the anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream Speech", Sarah Palin declared her hope that "Dr. King would be so proud of us."

In his famous speech, Dr. King answered those who asked "When will you be satisfied?" He replied:
We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

As my friend notes, some of these, like the exclusion of Blacks from hotels, the "Whites only" signs, and the flat prohibition on Blacks voting in the South, have been rectified. Others, though -- like police brutality and rampant residential segregation, have not.

Has Sarah Palin spoken out on the issue of housing segregation? Has she spoken out on the issue of police brutality? Not that I can recall. Those aren't her issues. Those aren't her passion. And I doubt she knows or cares enough about the legacy of Dr. King to even know her short-comings.

I wrote several years ago that, for much of America, the only "good" civil rights leader was, quite literally, a dead one (Dr. King). There is a reason why the same admiration the right bestows upon Dr. King hasn't been granted to any of his surviving lieutenants.
Being dead, he can't contest or contextualize the actual content of his beliefs. Being dead, he can't remind audiences of the criticisms and abuse he was subjected to during his campaigns, and how it is eerily reminiscent of the charges foisted upon contemporary Black leaders. And being dead, he is no longer a political threat, and thus is a safe person to prop up upon an altar and praise. Were he alive, we might be faced with the uncomfortable prospect that this great hero of American history might demand we actually fulfill our covenant with Black citizens, and that would require actual change and reform and sacrifice. Dead people tell no such tales.

I firmly believe that, if Dr. King were alive today, Sarah Palin and her cohorts would believe he is a radical agitator, a socialist sympathizer, maybe someone who once had some important ideas, but whose time had effectively passed. It is quite fortunate, then, that he is dead, so he can be stripped of his essence and turned into a icon.

So no, I don't think Dr. King would be proud to be treated in this manner. I don't think he would be proud to have his legacy abandoned -- contorted as some abstract paean to "equality" rather than as a concrete struggle for justice. Sarah Palin can change that, by actually adopting Dr. King's agenda. But she won't. And he is not proud to be used as a tool by the likes of Sarah Palin..

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I watched the first few minutes of Palin's speech as it was all I could stomach. I was embarrassed as an American and appalled as a human being.

N. Friedman said...

I think, contrary to what you believe, David, that Dr. King would be happy that conservative forces in the US are not advocating segregation. He would see it as a victory that integration is the consensus view.

The rest of what you write is conjecture. No doubt, he would not be a Palin or Beck fan since they are rather demagogic and short sighted. That, however, does not mean he would not be proud of the progress made in our society so that both parties see it in their interest to speak under his banner.

Which is to say, you are too partisan in your understanding of King's agenda.

joe said...

N. Friedman-

Oh give me a break. How many civil rights leaders do you really think would be proud to be adopted as the Black Friend of people who, in terms of economic and social justice, views of war and peace, reproductive rights (in spite of the nonsense put out there by King's right-wing niece), and penal policy, could hardly be farther apart?

See, whenever someone like David writes a blog entry like this my instinctive reaction is "well, duh..." But then I see the kinds of denial blindness in the comments sections that prove these explicit observations are necessary.

N. Friedman said...

Joe,

The issue here is what is no longer on the table. You are just too young to realize that. Which is to say, the progress in our society is remarkable so that those who might, just a few decades back, oppose integration no longer object and even relish in it.

troll_dc2 said...

N. Friedman, you wrote: "Which is to say, the progress in our society is remarkable so that those who might, just a few decades back, oppose integration no longer object and even relish in it."

There certainly is a lot less overt racism than there used to be. But you paint far too rosy a picture.

Do you ever take public transportation? I ride a commuter train every day from a mostly white suburb. It is quite interesting to see the number of seats available even in a pretty full car because the person already sitting there is black. It does not much matter whether the person is old or young, male or female, well-dressed or otherwise. A significant number of white riders will look elsewhere for a seat or, instead, stand. This is a benefit for me, of course, since I get a seat that might otherwise not be available. So why do you think the seats are empty despite the presence of people who could sit in them?

joe said...

N., that is not the issue. (Neither is your age or mine when we have a wealth of primary sources from the 50s and 60s and the critical thinking tools necessary to interpret them.) Palin was speaking of her masturbatory gravy-train cult--uh, I mean her far right fellow travelers. Even if we assume King would be proud of the social progress made overall rather than lamenting it as falling short of expectations (to say nothing of moral duties), that doesn't mean he'd be proud of the damn Tea Party for not being more racist than it is!

Rebecca said...

Uh, racism?

Speaking as a white person, I still hear racist comments about blacks from other white people, and I still have to suppress my own racist thoughts and actions that flow from those thoughts. Racism is definitely not dead in America, even if it's not as blatant as it used to be.

N. Friedman said...

troll_dc2,

I do not suggest that racism has disappeared. My point is about public policy, with fairly right wing groups embracing at least part of the integrationist King's agenda, not opposing his entire agenda.

Joe,

I said that I rather doubt that King would embrace demagogic speakers like Palin or Beck, which might suggest to you that I agree that he would not embrace the Tea Party movement. On the other hand, King's main issue was the integrationist movement. So, he would certainly be thrilled that spoke people for the right see the need to embrace him, not the anti-integrationist agenda.

Rebecca,

Racism is certainly a fact of life. King, you will note, focused primarily on government policy, with an aim to repeal all aspects of Jim Crow. I rather doubt that he thought that racism would disappear anytime soon.

Nonetheless, the degree of progress towards abating the impact of racism in the US is remarkable. One need only compare the US to Europe, where racism and Antisemitism are far greater issues in public life and politics than in the US.

Rebecca said...

I think I'd rather listen to black Americans telling me whether they think anti-black racism is still a significant factor in their lives, rather than concluding that from a discussion between some white people like myself and NF. I like Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog at the Atlantic for this reason, as he's a very interesting voice and has lots of good commenters.

I think it's important for people belonging to the targeted group (Jews in the case of anti-semitism, American blacks in the case of American anti-black racism) to speak up about their experiences of prejudice and discrimination against them. If we Jews want others to listen to us when we say that a certain action or speech is antisemitic, we need to give others the same courtesy. And very few black people belong to the Tea Party movement or attended Glenn Beck's rally in Washington (despite the attempt to appear non-racist by putting a few people of color on the stage), which I think is significant when considering whether Dr. King (or anyone else) would be proud of what Beck and his cohorts have to say.

David Schraub said...

I'd be fascinated to know which concrete agenda items of Dr. King's "integrationist agenda" Republicans support. Anyone, of course, can support an abstract vaguery like "equality". Anyone, too, can support an issue that is no longer "live" in America (like no more "colored only" signs). But Republicans do not, in fact, support integration (find me the Republican outcry over Parents Involved or the Republican plan to end residential housing segregation) -- the best we can say about them is they oppose de jure segregation, but there is literally no evidence they support integration. Republicans don't care about police brutality. Republicans certainly don't adopt Dr. King's anti-war stance. And, the overall perspective of most Blacks in America -- and it seems most of Dr. King's surviving lieutenants -- is that Republicans don't really respect Black people as people (cf. our good friend superdestroyer). Nominal paeans to how awesome "equality" is and cliched citations to "I have a dream" are not the same thing as actual support.

N. Friedman said...

David,

You write: "the best we can say about them is they oppose de jure segregation."

If you put on your historian's cap, you will find that eliminating de jure segregation was King's main issue. That was what moved him and it was what he worked for his entire life. So, to suggest that is of no consequence and that it means nothing that both political parties - including the right wing of the Republican party - now have adopted integrationist politics is basically to ignore what motivated King.

Please do not re-write history. In the latter years of his life, he adopted, at least publicly (and, such may have been his views all along), a more re-distributionist vision for solving society's problems. He also came out against the Vietnam war - in fact, I was at the rally in NYC where he gave his speech on the topic. I remember it vividly.

However, the central issue that moved him was the elimination of Jim Crow - the legal structure that prevented the integration of Blacks into society. To fail to realize how deeply seated into our political system the integrationist ideology has pushed - that even a right wing Republican from the part of the party which was neither keen on integration nor on the legislation which, in fact, had moderate Republican and considerable support from Democrats (although, n fact, a fair number of Democrats opposed the end of Jim Crow, along with many Republicans) - is to live on another planet. I'm sorry, David, but you are way off base here and need to read some history.

N. Friedman said...

Rebecca,

We are talking past each other. Again, I would not deny that racism is part of today's America. My point was quite different and related to Jim Crow, which was undone and which was the moving factor in Dr. King's life.

David Schraub said...

I have, in fact, read history about civil rights (indeed, I've done substantial research on the matter and have written on the topic before), including both primary source literature from leaders at the time, and secondary source commentary (e.g., Branch, Tyson, Von Eschen, Lee, Dudziak, Bell, Mack, Polikoff, Strauss, Schmidt....). I would be very surprised if you have the advantage over me in terms of depth in this field.

De jure segregation was obviously the first thing Dr. King concentrated on, because it's tough to get to de facto before you abolish de jure. But to say that he'd just chillaxed once the formal de jure barriers were abolished is flatly false (for example, his marches in Chicago 1966 were largely against privately-enforced segregation, for instance). Your view of Dr. King's agenda is far too thin, historically untenable, and one that both he and his surviving lieutenants rejected adamantly. Dr. King was exceptionally clear regarding the need for true integration, not simply a shift in facial appearances. "We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one."

N. Friedman said...

David,

The problem with your view is that you are projecting backwards. That is not history. It is politics.

King died in the 1960's, as you know. Hence, he did not grow with his movement after that. And, the politics of the movement he did so much to grow did evolve - as occurs with all movements. How he would have evolved had he lived is really less certain than you think. To say otherwise, is to play politics.

He did not even live to see de jure segregation entirely eliminated, although he did see large chunks of it knocked down. I rather doubt that he would expect that, a mere 40 or so years after his death, the country would not only rid itself of de jure segregation but elect a black as president. He, frankly, could only find that wondrous and, in fact wonderful. And, were he to listen forward to those who, had they been around in his time, might not have celebrated de jure integration, now embracing that part of his agenda, he could only find that wondrous.

We really do not know the direction that King would have taken, had he lived through to today. We do not know how King would, following the matter over time, have come down on with reference to the issues raised by the former Senator Moynihan. Many in the integration movement, as you know, called Moynihan a racist while others embraced the issues he raised. Some people initially rejected Moynihan's report, later to change their mind. So, I think you are being simplistic and political, not analytical or historical.

David Schraub said...

I'm taking King at his own words ("We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.") and his own actions (Chicago, '66); and doing the best to project his future ambitions based on the career trajectories of his closest compatriots. You, on the other hand, have provided no warrant for your position that Dr. King would support the modern Republican Party's standpoint on race except for ... no, you just have nil.

Despite the strides the nation had made in the 1960s, King was growing more radical, not less, as time went on (folks have observed that he and Malcolm X were converging, as King grew more radical and Malcolm turned more mainstream). None of this is inconsistent with him thinking that the nation had made strides since 1950, or that it was great that Obama was elected. One can, I'm amazed I have to say, think Obama's election was wonderful and still think that the Republican Party's agenda regarding racial equality is retrograde. It is overwhelmingly likely that Dr. King would take just that view.

Put simply, my beliefs regarding King's racial positions are supported by the weight of historical evidence, the behavior of King's surviving colleagues, and King's own words and actions. Yours are based on idle speculation and fancy -- barely more than dressed-down Broderism.

N. Friedman said...

David,

Nowhere did I say that King would support the Republican version of race or anything of the sort. Boiled down to essentials, I said he would be thrilled that even his political opponents would embrace his integrationist agenda.

So far, you do not seem even to understand what I have written, much less shown anything wrong with it.

David Schraub said...

I said Dr. King would not be proud of Sarah Palin's views on race. You disagreed, saying that King would be proud that they don't support de jure segregation (if you weren't actually disagreeing with my post, then we have yet another instance of you posting random non-sequitors in my comments and then complaining when folks mistakenly link your views to the topic under consideration. It's really passive-aggressive, really obnoxious, and it's time to knock it off). Given that King explicitly said he wouldn't be satisfied until several as-yet-unmet conditions were met, I doubt that, 45 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Dr. King would give a cookie to Sarah Palin for not explicitly calling for the restoration of Jim Crow (again, the Republican Party does not embrace King's "integrationist agenda". They, at most, embrace an anti-de jure segregation agenda. Parents Involved demonstrates that conservatives are as hostile to integration as ever, and that's an area where I think Dr. King would have severe hostility to the modern GOP).

N. Friedman said...

David,

Again, you are posting past me. You completely misunderstand what I wrote.

Yes, I did disagree with your conclusion in your article. However, my point was certainly not that King would embrace the Republican agenda but that he would, rather, be thrilled that Republicans embrace the most important part of his agenda. Your posts suggests otherwise.

N. Friedman said...

David,

If I have strayed from your original post, that is accident. I apology for doing that, if I have done so.

I might note, as a bit of constructive criticism, that you tend to interpret disagreement very personally, even when it is not intended other than in a constructive way. That results in you getting your arch up, defending a point by reaching for straws. Again, King lived long enough ago that, while we can say for sure that he would not embrace the Palin agenda, that does not mean he would not look at our era, where a black can be president, and the right wing of the country, which embraces de jure integration and feel very good about the matter, even while disagreeing with the Palins of this world.

joe said...

Let's assume for a moment that your assertion is true. So what? David's argument is King wouldn't be proud of Beck/Palin rallies. Just because he'd be happy that public defense of Jim Crow had been pushed out of the mainstream doesn't mean he'd be proud of some public figure solely for keeping their stated views within the mainstream, broadly construed (which is ultimately a totally self-interested judgment).

Think of it this way: Slavery now is widely reviled. If I slavery is alright most people I know will see me as a kook and a bigot, and they'll probably shun me. If I say slavery was wrong, I won't get much argument. So, how much credit do I as an individual really deserve for not expressing the fringe view in this situation? I'd argue not a lot.

Sarah Palin wasn't talking about the long arc of history here. She was saying that the people in her audience should pat themselves on the back. That's what David is refuting. So you're either arguing that "yes, as a matter of fact Dr. King would be really proud of Palin as an individual" or you're straying from the topic of the original post.

N. Friedman said...

Joe,

I am arguing that Dr. King would be proud that public discourse has changed.

There is a difference between embracing the political agenda of opponents and admiring how much of your agenda has been accepted by those opponents. That is something for him to celebrate, most especially when that agenda, at least generally speaking, is largely embraced by the opposition. That was my point and I believe it is well within the topic raised by David.

N. Friedman said...

As a bit of irony, given our discussion, The Washington Post reports that one of Dr. King's relatives, one Alveda King, not only attended the Palin/Beck rally but spoke at the rally.

Note: that is not something pertinent to what I wrote. I merely thought it rather ironic.