EDITORIAL Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi MARTIN LUTHER KING AND HIS CHALLENGE TO WHITE MEMORIAL TO DR. KING by Harry E. Brennecke MARTIN LUTHER KING IN HISTORY by Benjamin Quarles THE AMERICAN DREAM by Martin Luther King, Jr. IN MEMORY OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. EDITORIALS FROM NEWSLETTER by Martin Luther King, Jr. FROM THE BIRMINGHAM JAIL letter by Martin Luther King, Jr. THE ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. The Negro History Bulletin is published monthly except June, July, August and EDITORIAL martin luther king, jr. Martin Luther King Jr., black man of the United States, and Mahatma Gandhi, brown man of India, were alike in many respects in their dreams, visions and ideals, and we who are touched by the same divinity, have become their inheritors and the recipients of their legacies. They were both misunderstood, arrested, and jailed, but India received its rights as a nation in 1947, and British rule was a part of history. Both of these voices have been silenced by the hands of assassians, but we must ve heed to their words, for they were the movers and shakers of their world, it would seem, for social change. King and Gandhi were men who were dedicated to the oldest of man's collective dreams-universal brotherhood. King refused to accept the idea "that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life which surrounds him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the star-less midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality". Ghandhi was India's philosopher whose language was not always understood by the people, and as Jawaharlal Nehru said "was almost incomprehensible to an average modern." But he also believed that Gandhi had "an amazing knack of reaching the heart of the people," and he was "a great and unique man and a glorious leader." And thus Nehru and hundreds of thousands of others read the verses ' recited every evening the ashram prayers of Gandhi. The Hindu, the untouchable, and the Muslim were brought together for Indian unity through the personal example of their Mahatma, and he became for them "a symbolic expression of the confessed desires of the people," in non-violent revolts against British Authority. King and Gandhi were apostles of non-violence. and mahatma gandhi Both of them had anger but not hatred against their white overlords, one the white British and the other the white American. There was no complete unity of support for either of them, and there were those, small in number, who took sides against them and opposed their movement. With the concept of brotherhood, Gandhi and King gave character and background to nonviolence. As King said so well of America, "Let's take her like she is and rebuild her. We must maintain and advocate and promote the philosophy of nonviolence." Gandhi wrote in his famous article, "The Doctrine of the Sword", I do believe that when there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor, than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless victim to her own dishonor. But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment-I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of nonviolence is not meant for the Rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute, and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law to the strength of the spirit." He wanted India to practice nonviolence with the consciousness of her strength and powers and not because it was weak. King and Gandhi believed in love not hate, in building not destroying. In terms of this belief King declared, "If you think I came to tell you to hate white people you have the wrong man. Our goal is not to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and love." This did not mean a surrender of one's independence of thought and action. King said in this connection. "The beauty of nonviolence is that you can struggle without violence. It says that the organized code of dedicated souls possess more power than Molotov cocktails, or atom bombs. On another occasion he added, "we need an alternative to riots and to timid supplication. Nonviolence is our main potent weap on." With these views King remained impatient, but he was also a mark of humanity, and of silent indignation. And yet, he could say, "we know through painful experience that freed m is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it n. t be demanded by the oppressed." The legacies of these two great man of our century call for a rededication to their principles of freedom, justice, peace and opportunity. Gandhi's mantle fell on Nehru, who carried it with him to the victory of India's independence by adding other methods and not. slavishly following his prophet. King's mantle has fallen upon Ralph Abernathy who is to carry it on to our victory. Abernathy said to the defiant Memphis power structure "bring on your tear gas, bring on your grenades, your new supplies of Mace, your state troopers and even your National Guard. But let the record show we ain't going to be turned around." This may not continue to be in violence in burning and in looting. Enough of this should have now taken place to show the evidence of resentment against the white power structures in scores of cities. But do property rights have values beyond and above the rights of man? Which are the more enduring? Will the victory of commercial interests The first part of the marchers. Selma to Montgomery. Dr. and Mrs. King, Ralph Bunche, Ralph Abernathy in the front ranks. iead to the ultimate defeat of our nation as it is, or will a victory be gained in terms of the American thic of the rights of man? These questions now affect the heritage of King as once they did of Gandhi. The answer to these questions are in the minds and hearts of all white and black racists. The continuance of violence might prove to be a desecration of the King legacy. Passing a Civil Rights Bill in 1968 with such immediacy is no evidence of a change of heart by white America. All of us, black and white, should look deeply into our hearts, wipe out the evidence of hatred and distrust of black people or of white people, and find ways to begin the creation of a single society of white and black, rich and poor, suburbanite and inner city dweller, the educated and the unlearned, the cultured and the uncultured. Then, perhaps the two societies described in the Kerner Commission's report of "racism" will become a matter of history and not a fact of our present and future. It can be said as we rebuild, "King is not dead for he will live in the legacy which we shall keep alive." These men, Gandhi and King, left legacies which can be kept alive, as one now is being maintained primarily by the brown people of India; and the other primarily by the black people of America. White Americans have a stake in this legacy, too, for King spoke to all America in his endeavors. to save it. We can do this, even though their voices were stilled by their assassinations, while we give attention to their spirit, their words, and their deeds as guardians of his trust. Then each of us can say in the words of Georgia Douglass Johnson's The Black Runner. I'm awake, I'm away, I have jewels in trust. Immediately following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the President of the United States issued a statement declaring that the people of goodwill everywhere joined him in deploring the tragic murder of Dr. King. Since that time it has been the policy of public figures to include these "people of goodwill" in every statement they have issued. The attitude of expressing sorrow for people of goodwill, indicates the plight of our nation, and white America in particular. Why is it necessary to qualify statements in deploring a tragedy which affects every citizen of this country? Why is it necessary to divide us into a nation of men of goodwill and those, by implication, not of goodwill? The answer to this is obvious-we in white America fall into ategories ranging from bitter racists, to well-meaning liberals, to and including, a few who have an abiding and active interest in achieving justice and equality. When a nation is torn and divided; when murder can be committed wantonly, when people can be relegated to the lowest economic and social status because they are black, it is evident that these people of goodwill whom our leadership refers to are proportionately few in number. It is difficult to analyze intellectually this period of death and mourning because it was one of great emotional stress no matter on which side one chooses to stand. The fear that had been in the ghetto has moved to the suburbs. The hate that once reigned in the suburbs has swept to the ghetto. Historians of the future may be more capable of placing these days in their proper prospective. For us, who are today faced with the response to Dr. King's challenge the problem is not necessarily one of scientific historical measurements, but one of understanding and dedication. Many members of the white community have been educated to the plight of the ghetto; have acknowledged that black people should have their undefined "rights," but have refrained from actively upsetting the status quo. Others, and a minority, have deep and passionate objections to black justice and equality. It is this group that presents the challenge to the white community. We have intellec tually committed ourselves to various aspects of the total movement. Some of us have moved into the area of Negro History and related studies because of the opportunity we felt it afforded in bringing about the necessary changes in this country. To this particular group comes the special challenge-that of placing the knowledge we have acquired at the disposal of the white community. To press, intelectually and with reason, for the full equality of all Americans before the country becomes so comletely divided that revolution does in fact occur. The challenge of the past has been how long A can contain a segregated society. The challenge the future is how rapidly we can act to eradicate these elements of a dual society and bring to ruition the premises on which the country was Jounded. Much emphasis has been placed on teaching Negro History to the black community. There has been a universal cry for improving the image that placks have of themselves. Historians, educators, and sociologists have studied Negro History, Negro schools, Negro family patterns, Negro cultural life, Negro attitudes and just about every other related tonic. Certainly enough of this type of information ha- been printed in newspapers and magazines to give every American the impression that he, too, is an expert in the field. It appears that though much has been written, little has been accomplished. Martin Luther King, Jr. stands as a symbol of all that white America declares that the Negro must He was educated, one of the values we hold nost dear. He was a man of God, and we claim to be a nation founded on belief in God. He was non-violent, and we extoll to all the world our belief in peace. He was without fear, and we hold this to be one of our great freedoms. He was a family man, and we place much emphasis on morality. His life was a complete disclaimer to all the statistics, studies and analyses that we have conIcluded about black America. What then killed him? Did the manner of the man threaten us because we could not place him in a stereotype category? Of all the Negro leaders, he represented more of what white America expects and likes to see of itself than any other. His strengths became our weaknesses. It can be hoped that in his death, our ruptured ego can be replaced with insight into our blind addiction to Negro inferiority. It has been interesting these days since Dr. King's murder to watch the reactions of white America. First came the immediate response of major politicians, some of whom had never indicated much interest in Dr. King or the movement. The House of Representatives suddenly decided that Negroes living next door to them in the suburbs was a most desireable tribute to a man who died for the poor. Guilt that has been stored in the hearts of many was unsheathed in a fury of anger when Negroes, in futility and frustration, began to burn their rat infested ghettoes. Even people of responsibility, such as one governor, saw this as an opportunity to spank the black community for wayward behavior, rather than reach out to it with programs for jobs and better homes. This is only half the story, however. The day the open housing bill passed the House, a white woman, acknowledging her own racial prejudice, stated that she was glad the bill had passed and now she and others would have to get used to it. Many "Letters Honorary degree awardees at Central State University on June 8, 1958, were; (from the left) Rabbi S. Ruslander, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Todd Duncan and Judge Roscoe Walcutt. Dr. Charles Wesley has just awarded the degree 01 Doctor of Humanities to Dr. King. |