I find the speech MLK gave a day before he was killed much more relevant today.
He calls for unity and challenges our ideals. He spoke on April 3, 1968 and was assassinated the next day (Chilling sometimes as he discusses his own death).
To quote the concluding sentences for those who haven't read the whole speech, and which stand on their own as much as any words do...
> "Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.
And I don't mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
And so I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!"
powerful and chilling. it is as if he knew. he knew his fate. and he sensed it coming soon. and yet he continued his work anyway. exemplar of American heroism
I don't disagree with you. But the "I have a dream" speech will live forever as one of the greatest political speeches, if not THE greatest political speech, both in rhetorics, impact, and content. I remember reading that speech in English class (I'm German), and it left me deeply impressed. The only other speech I read that came close to this was Richard von Weizsäcker's speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of Germany's surrender, ending World War II.
MLK was one of those very, very rare figures where the power of their ideas (and ethics!) was matched by the power of their voices. I'd really love to know what the world would look like today if he had not been murdered.
Not OP, but MLK was a pretty radical antiwar socialist who spoke of riots as "the language of the unheard," and stated that most Americans are unconscious racists.
The final bit of his "I Have a Dream," speech is all most people know of his words today, but before he was assassinated, he was attempting to call people to much greater action.
It is a good speech ( I have misgivings about the ornate start, but different times and different audience ). My favorite fragment is the following:
"If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly."
We tend to only hear the 'dream' speech, which is a shame ( doubly so since MLK estate is still milking it[1]).
I wouldn’t say it’s a shame. Most people, even enormously consequential people, don’t have any of their own words passed down to history. Which of George Washington’s speeches is wildly read today?
“I have a dream” is an amazing speech delivered by an amazing orator. That this once in a generation talent also delivered other great speeches is unsurprising but there’s no need to denigrate the special place that IHaD has in our society out of some hipster-esque desire to demonstrate true fandom. It deserves its spot.
> You're imputing a lot of motives based on nothing in the parent comment.
To be fair, OP is responding to an ambiguity. Was GP's point that "I Have a Dream" is great and it's a shame that the wider public doesn't know more of MLK's great speeches? Or was the point that "I Have a Dream" is subpar when compared to the other speeches and thus misrepresents his output?
tldr; Was GP saying "I Have a Dream" is the "Beethoven's 5th" of speeches, or "Ravel's Bolero" of speeches?
Upshot-- OP is not being generous by jumping on the more divisive interpretation. However, since it is a valid interpretation OP's lack of generosity is based on something and not nothing.
I will admit that I never thought about it like that. The image of fedora wearing individual stating he only listens to unedited audio and insisting that anyone listening to 'dream' speech is part of pop-culture popped into my head .
It is funny.
I apologize if my comment sounded that way. That was definitely not my intention. I think I am just still a little cranky since kid woke me up early and coffee didn't kick in.
Cynically I think there has been a political project to expunge most of King’s ideas from the public memory, leaving only those that everyone is comfortable with. The public image of the man has been watered down to merely opposing segregation and legal discrimination, and all of his more radical economic proposals and opinions tend to be politely ignored. The March on Washington also included a demand for a $2 minimum wage ($17 in 2020 dollars) and self governance for Washington DC, funny how that isn’t mentioned often.
Hell, he was helping support a strike when he was assassinated. How many people were taught that before?
> Cynically I think there has been a political project to expunge most of King’s ideas from the public memory, leaving only those that everyone is comfortable with.
I don't think so. I think it's more that things get distilled and simplified in public memory naturally. How much of all of all the activities of other greatly-remembered figures are actually all fully remembered and talked about? Do you think the public has anywhere near a complete perception of all the ideals of Gandhi, Mother Theresa, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln?
Unless you are a scholar in the area, you have done specific research out of curiosity, or you have been personally affected by it, most of what you see is the stuff that echos in the public memory, which is the largest events and purest distillation of the ideals and character of the person in question. Human memory is built on patterns, symbols, and stripping of what seems to be unnecessary extraneous information, and this seems to be much more extreme in cultural memory.
I don't think there has been any conscious effort to remove the other ideals that King had, it's just not what he did that people care about most right now.
Imo, memory of other great figures and greatly influenced by politics. And often very intentionally, people using their names have agendas. That includes the three people you mentioned.
That's because ideas shouldn't be bundled together just because a person said them. The I Have A Dream speech is famous precisely because it is the most important/widely agreed upon of his ideas: evaluate individuals according to their own character independently of whatever collective you might otherwise assume characteristics of. That's a good idea. People like that idea.
We don't talk about King's socialism as much, because what he said in that arena wasn't particularly revolutionary, and many people don't find socialism to be compelling (myself included). Hence, remembering ideas.
> That's because ideas shouldn't be bundled together just because a person said them.
I think the exact opposite. I think if you’re cherry picking pieces of thought from a figure and ignoring the bits you don’t like then you’re just using them as a prop.
There is of course some complexity when someone changes over the lifetime and renounces early beliefs. But that isn’t the case here, we’re talking about people ignoring a large chunk of a celebrated man’s work because it makes them uncomfortable. I don’t think you can actually do that, and I think it does him and his legacy a great disservice to even try.
> We don't talk about King's socialism as much … and many people don't find socialism to be compelling (myself included).
Thank you for proving my point.
> Hence, remembering ideas.
What, so the rest of what he said wasn’t ideas? Or that the rest of them have less value because someone said so? If so, who decides which ideas are the real ones to be remembered? You? Me? Our political chattering classes?
Here’s the thing, powerful people and instituons have long had a use for editing and celebrating dead radicals as a way to reinforce their legitimacy while also signaling that Those Times are Now Gone. You see the exact same behavior out of the July Monarchy in their rewriting the history of the three glorious days (see Mike Duncan for more). For King it is extremely convenient to make his story the story of official segregation and legal discrimination and nothing more. That neat narrative of “first segregation, then MLK made it all better, end story” only works if you ignore the rest of his work on war and poverty. Because if that is brought into the light then his work looks only half done, rather than done and finished.
> I think the exact opposite. I think if you’re cherry picking pieces of thought from a figure and ignoring the bits you don’t like then you’re just using them as a prop.
I'm not using anybody as a prop, nor am I ignoring anything. If you want to talk about King's positions regarding socialism, I'll tell you why I disagree with them. If you want to talk about his position regarding color-blindness, I'll tell you why I think it's the single most important notion to arise from the civil rights movement.
This doesn't "prove your point" that I'm somehow erasing the other positions he held or using him as a prop, I simply don't agree with all of his positions. You seem to be of the opinion that there is some sort of contradiction inherent in that, whereas the position of color-blindness actually has nothing to do with socialism. In fact, the most prominent advocates of socialism today specifically advocate AGAINST color-blindness.
> What, so the rest of what he said wasn’t ideas? Or that the rest of them have less value because someone said so? If so, who decides which ideas are the real ones to be remembered? You? Me? Our political chattering classes?
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Of course the rest of what he said were ideas, the point is that arguments/positions aren't bundled together arbitrarily simply because you would like them to be. If I say "the sky appears blue, I think it has something to do with the way light is scattered through the atmosphere, and that probably means there is a god," hopefully you understand that I've actually made 3 arguments, 2 of which you might agree with. Agreeing that the sky appears blue doesn't mean you have to agree that there is a god. Regarding which have more or less value...you're free to venerate whichever ideas of Dr. King you'd like to, nobody is stopping you. There is no political chattering classes demanding that you do anything regarding which positions of his you found compelling.
> You seem to be of the opinion that there is some sort of contradiction inherent in that, whereas the position of color-blindness actually has nothing to do with socialism.
Please point where I said that. I think you made that up out of whole cloth.
> Of course the rest of what he said were ideas, the point is that arguments/positions aren't bundled together arbitrarily simply because you would like them to be.
They’re bundled together because they’re all part of one man’s body of work. Specifically the body of work for a man whose holiday were commemorating today. So yes, everything he said and did is bundled together when we are discussing him, and if we cherry pick what he said and did when we’re discussing his work, then we’re not being honest to him and history. Literally my entire point is that his legacy and quotes are cherry picked in a suspicious way when we discuss him.
If we’re discussing color blindness in the abstract unrelated to MLK, then sure, you’d be right. But we aren’t, and it’s incredibly clear that my original point had everything to do with MLK specifically, not color blindness in the abstract.
> Agreeing that the sky appears blue doesn't mean you have to agree that there is a god.
Please point out where I said that you were obligated to agree with everything thing King said because you agree with him on one thing. I’ll wait.
If your point is that by celebrating him today we're celebrating the entirety of his work, please consider a day like Presidents day. We celebrate Washington's birthday despite him having been a slave owner. If you think that it's impossible to compartmentalize people, so be it.
If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it. I'm capable of compartmentalizing, and the reason I choose to venerate Dr. King on this day are for his contributions towards moving us towards liberalism and color-blindness. You seem to think that means that I'm "using him as a prop," whereas I simply find him to be an extremely important contribution to the advancement of civil rights, and feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs.
> If your point is that by celebrating him today we're celebrating the entirety of his work, please consider a day like Presidents day.
It's genuinely really funny that you thought that this would be a rebuttal. Based on this entire conversation, what do you think my opinion about President's Day is? I'll give you two guesses, first doesn't count.
> We celebrate Washington's birthday despite him having been a slave owner. If you think that it's impossible to compartmentalize people, so be it.
I think Washington is an even easier case to argue here than MLK. This isn't a simple case of not agreeing with every aspect of someone's entire body of work. This is a case of a man waxing poetic about freedom and the rights of man while at the same time engaging in crimes against humanity by buying and selling human beings as property. This fact isn't merely inconvenient, it bathes his life's work in a hypocrisy that is impossible to ignore.
Personally I wish we didn't celebrate his birthday. I think in general it's a bad idea to put people on pedestals for a variety of reasons, including if they turn out to be monsters in some ways. For Washington this specifically puts us all in the invidious position of explaining why we're venerating a man who could look another human being in the eyes and then sell them off like property.
> If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it.
I'm split on whether this is fantastically bad reading comprehension on your part, or a bad faith interpretation of what I've said. It's 50/50 for me. Because at no point did I indicate that MLK even made a contribution to socialism, or even that I thought he was a socialist. All of that is entirely a fabrication on your part, completely unsupported by what I said.
My entire point is that I find it a bit sus that after MLK's death people only ever seem to engage with one very specific aspect of MLK's work and legacy, and it's I think the part that is selected is politically convenient for those in power. That's it. That's my entire point.
> feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs.
Again, I never said you had to agree with everything that he said. You've made that up to get angry at me about.
> It's genuinely really funny that you thought that this would be a rebuttal
I'm illustrating the examples under which people can be celebrated without celebrating the entirety of their person, understanding full well that you personally find this to be impossible or somehow hypocritical. Gandhi slept with underage girls and was a racist. MLK was cheating on his wife when he was killed. JFK frequently cheated on his wife, and his sister was lobotomized. The example of Presidents day is simply to illustrate that many (most) people are entirely capable of celebrating people as a token of a certain set of beliefs/virtues/behaviors that exists independently the of the whole historical person.
I don't care who you celebrate or why, but you cannot go around inferring that people are somehow ignorant or hypocritical simply for venerating people in a differ manner than you do...particularly when you appear to be in the minority in this regard.
> My entire point is that I find it a bit sus that after MLK's death people only ever seem to engage with one very specific aspect of MLK's work and legacy, and it's I think the part that is selected is politically convenient for those in power. That's it. That's my entire point.
And MY entire point is that this is very often how most people celebrate the legacy of most figures.
It is kind of funny you should say this. Right after I read this post I saw a tweet by the Icelandic minister of foreign affairs—who is also the vice president of the conservative party and avid supporter of capitalism and NATO—quoting MLK presumably in a context of COVID restrictions getting in the way of our liberties[1].
this would be laughable if it weren't such blatant propaganda. highly recommend reading more about the FBI/Hoover's hatred for MLK and their tireless effort to destroy his reputation (and his life) through surveillance, harassment, and outright lies.
With all flashy racial movements and Amendments, US still somehow makes it to the bottom 10 countries for racial equality, even worse than a totalitarian country. There is nothing wrong with US racial system. The survey is wrong. You are doing great. Keep heading to that direction.
I’m not surprised that people perceive the US to struggle with racial equality when it (a) has indeed struggled with racial equality since founding and through civil war and (b) airs its dirty laundry pretty openly.
"I've Been to the Mountaintop" https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemou...
A nice special from Democracy Now: https://www.democracynow.org/2022/1/17/mlk_day_special_2022