[In honor of
Martin Luther King Jr. Day, my annual post on how we can better remember King
in all his complex and impressive depth. Kicking off a series on one of my
favorite recent cultural works about the African American experience, Netflix’s
Luke Cage!]
On the limits to
how we currently remember King, and how to get beyond them.
It probably puts me at significant
risk of losing my AmericanStudies Card to say this—and you have no idea how
hard it is to get a second one of those if you lose the first—but I think the
“I Have a Dream” speech is kind of overrated. I’m sort of saying that for
effect, since I don’t really mean that the speech itself isn’t as eloquent and
powerful and pitch-perfect in every way as the narrative goes—it most
definitely is, and while that’s true enough if you read the words, it becomes
infinitely more true when you see video and
thus hear audio of the speech and moment. But what is overrated, I think,
is the weight that has been placed on the speech, the cultural work that it has
been asked to do. Partly that has to do with contemporary politics, and
especially with those
voices who have tried to argue that King’s “content of their character”
rather than “color of their skin” distinction means that he would oppose any
and all forms of identity politics or affirmative action or the like; such
readings tend to forget that King was speaking in that culminating section of
the speech about what he dreams might happen “one day”—if, among other things,
we give all racial groups the same treatment and opportunities—rather than what
he thought was possible in America in the present.
But the more significant
overemphasis on the speech, I would argue, has occurred in the process by which
it (and not even all of it, so much as just those final images of “one day”)
has been made to symbolize all of—or at least represent in miniature—King’s
philosophies and ideas and arguments. There’s no question that the speech’s
liberal univeralism, its embrace (if in that hoped-for way) of an equality that
knows no racial identifications, was a central thread within King’s work; and,
perhaps more tellingly, was the thread by which he could most clearly be
defined in opposition to a more stridently and wholly Black
Nationalist voice like Malcolm X’s. Yet the simple and crucial fact is that
King’s rich and complex perspective and philosophy, as they existed throughout
his life but especially as they developed over the decade and a half between
his real emergence onto the national scene with the 1955 Montgomery
Bus Boycott and his assassination in 1968, contained a number of similarly
central and crucial threads. There were for example his radical perspectives on
class, wealth, and the focuses of government spending, a set of arguments which
culminated in the last years of his life in both the “Poor People’s
Campaign” and in increasingly vocal critiques of the military-industrial
complex; and his strong belief not only in nonviolent resistance (as informed
by figures as diverse as Thoreau and Gandhi) but also in pacifism in every
sense, which likewise developed into his very public opposition to the
Vietnam Year in his final years. While both of those perspectives were
certainly not focused on one racial identity or community, neither were they
broadly safe or moderate stances; indeed, they symbolized direct connections to
some of the most radical social movements and philosophies of the era.
To my mind, though, the most
significant undernarrated thread—and perhaps the most central one in King’s
perspective period—has to be his absolutely clear belief in the need to oppose
racial segregation and discrimination, of every kind, in every way, as soon and
as thoroughly as possible. Again, the contrast to Malcolm has tended to make
King out to be the more patient or cautious voice, but I defy anyone to read “Letter
from a Birmingham Jail”—the short piece that King wrote in April 1963 to a
group of white Southern clergyman, while he was serving a brief jail sentence
for his protest activities—and come away thinking that either patience or
caution are in the top twenty adjectives that best describe the man and his
beliefs. King would later expand the letter into a book, Why We Can’t Wait, the very title of
which makes the urgency of his arguments more explicit still; but when it comes
to raw passion and power, I don’t think any American text can top the “Letter”
itself. Not raw in the sense of ineloquent—I tend to imagine that King’s first
words, at the age of 1 or whenever, were probably more eloquent than any I’ll
ever speak—but raw as in their absolute rejection, in the letter’s opening
sentence, of his audience’s description of his protest activities as “unwise
and untimely.” And raw as well in the razor sharp turn in tone in the two
sentences that comprise one of the letter’s closing paragraphs: “If I have said
anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable
impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates
the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for
anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”
I guess what it
boils down to for me is this: to remember King for one section of “I Have a
Dream” is like remembering Shakespeare for the “To Be or Not to Be” soliloquy
in Hamlet. Yeah, that’s a great bit,
but what about the humor? The ghost? The political plotting and play within the
play? The twenty-seven other great speeches? And then there’s, y’know, all
those other pretty good, and very distinct, plays. And some poetry that wasn’t
bad either. It’s about time we remembered the whole King, and thus got a bit
closer to the real King and what he can really help us see about our national
history, identity, and future. Luke Cage
series starts tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What do you
think? Other thoughts on King you’d share?
No comments:
Post a Comment