It’s that time of year again. The celebration of Martin Luther King’s birthday is my favorite holiday, probably because I’m a teacher and have very strong political beliefs and opinions. Also, because I’m a teacher and have my own 6th grade classroom, I get to teach it my way.
Dr. King is one of the Great Triumvirate, along with Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington. The contribution of these three men to American history and to the American conscience is immeasurable. They were, every one of them, true Americans and they loved this country enough to devote their lives in the betterment of it.
In his time, each one of them stood in contrast to another who sought to accomplish the same purpose, but who in fact had a very different message. For Frederick Douglass it was William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison was a white abolitionist who first brought Douglass to the attention of the American people. They both fought slavery, but Garrison hated the U.S. Constitution and saw it as a pro-slavery document. He orchestrated demonstrations in which he burned copies of the Constitution publicly. He was one of those myopic individuals who set themselves on a good course, but fail to think things through thoroughly. As a result, his policies did more harm than good.
Douglass, on the other hand, saw the U.S. Constitution as a powerful weapon against slavery. He said, “the Constitution of the United States, standing alone, and construed only in the light of its letter, without reference to the opinions of the men who framed and adopted it, or to the uniform, universal and undeviating practice of the nation under it, from the time of its adoption until now, is not a pro-slavery instrument.” This still stands in contrast to the assertions of many self-appointed, self-anointed “civil rights leaders” even today. Douglass had actually been a slave, held by a cruel master, and certainly had the more reason to hate the country his master represented than the white Garrison who claimed to have the slaves’ best interest at heart, but execrated the government document that made it possible to set them free.
Booker T. Washington stood in contrast to W.E.B. DuBois. The argument here was Washington’s plan that slaves should gradually assimilate into the mainstream society by means of education and hard work, against DuBois who felt that such assimilation was too slow and advocated a more militant and immediate approach.
According to Washington, “Our greatest danger is that in the great leap from slavery to freedom we may overlook the fact that the masses of us are to live by the productions of our hands, and fail to keep in mind that we shall prosper in proportion as we learn to dignify and glorify common labour and put brains and skill into the common occupations of life... No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities.” While one may debate that Washington’s goals may have been better realized had they been seasoned with a little civil disobedience, he certainly had the more accurate assessment of American philosophy and opportunity in the face of adversity.
DuBois, on the other hand, eventually embraced communism, extolled the virtues of Nazi Germany, and called Stalin “great” and “courageous”. While Mao Tse Tung was busy murdering 60 million of his own people through torture and hard labor, DuBois saw in that country, “a sense of human nature free of its most hurtful and terrible meanness and of a people full of joy and faith and marching on in a unison...inconceivable in the United States.” It is hard to imagine how one so intelligent could be so grievously wide of the mark.
King’s thorn in the side was the Nation of Islam, the chief spokesman of which was Malcolm X, who was later murdered for turning against that organization. (Malcolm X was no sheep, and the “Nation” was in want of sheep.) Elijah Muhammed characterized King’s efforts to unite the races in a bond of mutual respect and love as “ignorant.”
It is most interesting that, at the end of Malcolm X’s life, he and King were beginning to come together in their ideals. King was beginning to see that his purely Ghandian approach lacked a much needed edge; “I am not sad that Black Americans are rebelling... Without this magnificent ferment among Negroes, the old evasions and procrastinations would have continued indefinitely,” he wrote. Personally, although he advocated violent means “when necessary,” Malcolm was essentially a man of peace, and never personally used violence himself to achieve his ends.
How might our country look today if Martin and Malcolm had been allowed to live, to talk, to perhaps even reconcile? They had a mutual respect for each other even when they were bitterly opposed. We’ll never know.
But Martin’s dream can still be accomplished in those who believe, as passionately as he did, that the power of True Compassion trumps the natural evil that men create. We must bend our efforts to the same task, winning the war against racism not by meeting hate with equivalent hate, but by overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:21).
Recent Comments