QuoteReplyTopic: MARTIN LUTHER KING JR - CONTRADICTION Posted: 18-Dec-2005 at 18:31
This is my first time using
this post so and if my topic is not in the right category then I apologize.
I just wanted to know what
everybody thinks of a quote my Martin Luther King Jr:
Freedom is never voluntarily
given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The problem that I have with
this quote of his is that he did not DEMAND FREEDOM for African Americans
but instead he ASKED for FREEDOM.
The quote itself is very simple
and is something that everybody understands quite easily. It is one
of the lessons that humanity has learned from history, which is freedom
never comes easy.
The reason why I conclude that
MLK is CONTRADICTING himself is that he never actually demanded his
freedom but simply asked for it which are two different things. Firstly
I will try defining what really can constitute asking compared to demanding.
Asking is not as harsh nor independent from the reaction of the oppressor
as would be demanding. For example, if asking someone the right to execute
your constitutional freedoms, you allow them the final decision as to
whether you get your freedom or not, because by asking (by default)
you give them the authority to make the final decision on whether or
not they allow you to execute this right. Thus, by asking the final
decision lies in there hands, the one with the power or authority and
not the one asking.
This is exactly what MLK did;
he did not demand his freedom but rather asked for it. Anyone who knows
about his non-violent, passive resistance theory (which he adopted from
Mahatma Gandhi), understands that it is dependent on the natural ability
of the oppressor to have compassion for the oppressed. Thus by leaving
the power in the hands of the oppressor the oppressed are not DEMANDING
FREEDOM but rather ASKING for FREEDOM.
Since I have tried to exemplify
what it means to ask for freedom I would like to exemplify what it entail
to demand freedom. Unlike asking, demanding does not depend on the reaction
or position of the oppressor. When you demand something you leave the
final decision and authority to yourself, by not putting importance
on the reaction or stance of the oppressor. For example, in an interview
in one of the movies on the life and times of topic, he states in an
interview that if Im poor and standing outside a huge house where
I can hear theres a party going on, and people are eating to
there hearts content..etc..And I knock on the door and ask can I please
have some food, and get no response after a while I will get louder
and louder. After further time elapsed I might start knocking on the
door harder and then finally I will say either give me some food or
I'm coming in there and taking it even if I have to take you out. Just
as a disclaimer tupac did not use these exact words, but Im just
using it as an example since Im quoting it out of memory.
The importance of this is that
at the beginning or initial stages the person will ask and then finally
start demanding and demanding is a much more aggressive form of achieving
something than is asking.
Demanding gives the other two
choices; either you give into what I say or else.
An example would be when Malcolm
x said "either the ballot or the bullet" meaning either u
give us our freedom and rights to vote etc.. or we will end it with
a bullet.
I might not have been as clear
as I wanted to be, but I feel this adequately proves that MRK CONTRADICTS
HIMSELF...since he doesnt practice what hes preaching. Anyway,
I would appreciate responses by people whether they are by those who
disagree with me and those who agree..
You seem to say that King begged for Freedom what seems indeed like a
contradiction... but oly as you state it, as you seem to misunderstand
it.
I am more familiar with the theory and praxis of Ghandi than with that
of the Nordamerican minister, so I will focus in nonviolent resistence
as defined by the Indian pioneer.
First, it's not a nonviolent passive resistence. No.
It is nonviolent active resistence. Resistence can't be passive, that's
a misconception that is not only erroneous but misleading and
insulting. Passivity is shown by those that don't resist: by those that
submit to the stabilshed order of things.
Ghandi said that the main difference is not between those that fight
with material weapons and those that fight with the satyagraha but
between those that fight and those that submit.
Then he pondered the advantages of nonviolent struggle: basically that
with simmilar effort gets much more sympathizers, not among the
opressors themselves (which may be the case anyhow) but among those on
whom the opressors rely, destabilizing their very cimentations and
forcing them to cede ground.
Instead violent resistence, while possibly legitimate and occasionally
effective, poses normally much larger risks and costs for the party of
the resisters.
The main advantage of violent resistence is that it's sort of
instinctive: it's a natural canalization of anger, so it's easier,
specially in cases of huge abuse, to gather militants.
Yet it is prone to become abusive itself and therefore to damage its own bases.
Violent resistence is more likely to work (partly) when the conditions
are unbearable and the opressor has no shame nor balances. In cases
like Nazism it would seem like armed struggle was the only option
available. I really don't think that any nonviolent activist, as
Ghandi, King or so many others could have objected to it.
When there is no public opinion, no (relatively) free media, probably
nonviolent struggle has no options. But where the situation is not as
bad, surely well organized nonviolent resistence has the upper hand.
Welcome to AE, Jamukha!!! (I am pretty new to here too actually.) What do you think MLK would have done differently if he had DEMANDED, not asked for, freedom? Do you think if he had demanded freedom, he should have embarked on a more violent compaign?
I think Maju's distinctions between violent and non-violent and active and passive were very well-made. Even if MLK had DEMANDED freedom, his tactics would still have been non-violent ACTIVE resistance. And given the social climate of his time, I think he did a wise thing.
"For while the
non-violent resister is passive in the sense that he is not physically
aggressive towards his opponent, his mind and emotions are always
active, constantly seeking to persuade his opponent, that he is wrong.
The method is passive physically but strongly active spiritually. It is
not passive non-resistance to evil, it is active nonviolent resistance
to evil." - Essential Writing and Speeches of Martin Luther King
Jr.
From the above quote it is reasonable for one to deduct that
"non-violent resistance" is not active but passive. The reason why
Ipurpose this is that MLK adapted an ideology that demonstrated
'active resistance' in the spiritual and not physical sense. The main
focus here should be that if something is passive physically then it is
irrelevant what ones conditions are spiritually, since to be active
spiritually only is to be inactive physically. This physical inaction
is what makes something passive otherwise it would be active. For
example, if someone decides to punch me and I do not physically respond
and mentally concoct thoughts pertaining to my desire not to respond
and the goodness existing within the aggressor; is passive resistance.
Passive since I am not physically resisting but mentally thinking of
resistance, non-violent since there is no violent reaction on my part,
and resistance since it the resistance takes the form of mental action
and not physical which makes the resistance passive and not active.
Instead violent resistance, while possibly legitimate and
occasionally effective, poses normally much larger risks and costs for
the party of the resisters.
I totally agree with this statement since violent resistance poses more
of a threat to the resisters because they are more of a threat to the
establishment and have more odds of being successful. The reason for
this is that violent resistance is PHSYICALLY ACTIVE. For example, if
during a march people allow officers to brutally assault them, the end
result will be that they will be left bruised and not having imposed
any real damage on the establishment or oppressor. However, if during
the march the participants retaliate and try to resist the brutal
attack on them, they will have imposed a greater level of damage to the
oppressor (compared with not retaliating) at the cost of their own
welfare. The reason for this is that the oppressor will react more
aggressively and resist the progression of those that are more
effective in achieving their objectives than those that are not. Since
those who oppose oppression with the option of either using non-violent
but also violent means to achieve their ends, have an extra weapon to
fight oppression that the non-violent route does not offer. This dual
threat makes it more harmful and dangerous to those its opposing.
I hope this helps to clarify why Martin Luther King adopted a theory
that was passive non-violent resistance and not active, since the
precondition for it to be active would be physical resistance and not
mental or spiritual. Thus, the resistance takes the form of mind and
not body. Although I understand MLK and his advocates argue that it is
active non-violent resistance, I feel that conclusion is inaccurate.
The precondition for asking is a question and a precondition for
demanding is a statement, which are two distinct characteristics.
Since Kings ideology willingly lets the oppressor execute authority
makes it an ideology of asking and not demanding, since an ideology
based on demanding would take its freedom and not have it given (not to
say that demanded freedom cannot be given, which is a possibility, just
one not seen often in history). In terms of more clearly identify the
difference between and ideology that asks and one that demands, I have
tried to convey those particulars in my initial post.
What do you think MLK would have done differently if he had
DEMANDED, not asked for, freedom? Do you think if he had demanded
freedom, he should have embarked on a more violent campaign?
In terms of how I think King could have adopted an ideology that was
more demanding than asking would have not required that he be violent
or advocate a purely violent resistance, but have the use of physical
violence as an option. It simply implies that "if you do not give it I
will take it", and not "if you don't give it I will bear it".
A book definitely worth reading that is relevant to this topic would be
Huey P. Newtons "Revolutionary Suicide". One of the key aspects of a
revolution that Huey identifies is the need to distinguish between
effective use of violence and self-destructive violence. He explains
how violence is needed at times but is not need other times depending
on the stage and development of that particular revolution. I totally
agree with this since violence is not always the answer, but it often
times is need as a tool for progression. Depending on the particulars
of the situation violence might not be a crucial aspect of the
resistance but it inevitably is still apart of the whole ideology
governing the resistance.
Simply, VIOLENCE must REMAIN an OPTION.
Well guess that King's wrong understanding of Satyagraha explains why he is much less famous and quoted than Ghandi.
Nonviolent resistence is definitively active: when resisters go to the beach to publically break the law making salt out of the water, they are being clearly active.
You misunderstand instinct with activity... and it's not the same.
Also you misunderstand physical damage with political damage. Obviously, in most occasions, violent resisters inflict much less political damage to the stabilishment than non-violent resisters. This is becasue nonviolent activists set very much clear that justice and reason is on their side, while the physical damage caused by violent activists actually makes things more unclear.
You misunderstand instinct with activity... and it's not the same
I am assuming that you are saying instinct is violence?
Yes I totally agree instinct is not the same as activity, but you seem
to relate violence with instinct which is definitely a misunderstanding
if that is what you are equating.
Violence is not instinctive since the reality is if it was an
instinctive characteristic even in times of danger it would be
demonstrated by the masses. To use violence to achieve freedom is
something that requires mental training and contentment with the fact
that one might end up loosing their life. The whole concept of using
violence to cause change is that one must use it in its most effective
manner. This requires much calculation, planning and contemplation for
it to merely be instinctive.
In terms of the African American population in the United States they
have (at least at the time of King) internalized this concept of
submission to injustice and oppression. The reason for this is
due to slavery and how the mothers felt the need to raise their
children so that they would not gather courage and fight for freedom.
As a result it made the next generation more submissive and less ready
to react violently to oppression. Its much more complex than what I
have tried to summarize but if you get a chance you should try to read
Willie lynch's "making of a slave", all you have to do is google it.
Some people argue that Willie never existed but there's no doubt his
theory or systematic method of enslavement did. This can be
substantiated by numerous African Americans who tried to uplift the
position of their people in the United States such as Mumia Abu-Jamal,
George Jackson, and Huey Newton.
Also you misunderstand physical damage with political damage.
Obviously, in most occasions, violent resisters inflict much less
political damage to the stabilishment than non-violent resisters. This
is becasue nonviolent activists set very much clear that justice and
reason is on their side, while the physical damage caused by violent
activists actually makes things more unclear.
This is further deviating from my original asking or demanding issue,
and definitely could take up a separate topic in the forum.
To really analyze non-violent resistance we would have to look at its
historical success and contrast that with violent resistance. This
would be a very long discussion so I will quickly summarize what I have
to say, which is that Gandhi was a failure and misled his people. This
can be also stated about King, but to a much greater extent since at
least Gandhi had some good quotes, while King contradicts himself using
his own quote.
In terms of it causing more damage I feel that it is an overstatement.
Since we have to understand that the political sphere is just one of
the many ways in which Capitalism and Democracy distinguish itself from
previous ideologies, and claim that change can be achieved through
political means. This is a possibility for such trivial matters as
environmental support etc, but in terms of the elimination of the
oppression and deprivation of a people, the political realm is not very
successful. Using this exclusive political sphere is what partially
makes it an ASKING ideology.
I think Max Webers theory on change and revolution would definitely be
worth stating here, since it might help to explain why the political or
bureaucratic sphere would be ineffective. Unlike Marx, Weber believes
that change would be brought about by bureaucratic means and not
violent protest, but due to this he said that eventually people would
lead themselves into an iron cage of bureaucracy. Meaning that this
political or bureaucratic form of change and revolt would be the main
means the masses would go to display their discontent. However the iron
cage exemplifies reality which is that bureaucratic means have no real
affect and everything becomes caught in this bureaucratic cage.
I don't mean that instinct is violence but that the instinctive answer to an agression is to either flee or fight back. Nonviolence reply is obviously not based in instnctive answer but in planned and willing rebellion.
Nonviolence is an active mean of affirmation and self-determination. The main problem is not in its essence but in the way how the system tries to absorb it and sometimes achieves it, deforming the essence of nonviolence: changing action into passivity, resistence into indifference, subversion into nonsense... I've seen that already.
This is because the essence of nonviolence is this: disobedience.
In fact, going into violent struggle without having first the wide support of the population (due to the abuses and ilegitimity of the stabilishment) is the biggest stupidity that anyone can do: it is doomed.
I think the essence of all resistance whether that be violent or non-violent could be classified as disobedience.
In fact, going into violent struggle without having first the wide
support of the population (due to the abuses and ilegitimity of the
stabilishment) is the biggest stupidity that anyone can do: it is
doomed.
Thats definetly the outcome if violent resistance could really be an
option without the support of the masses nor could nonviolence pose
much of a diplomatic threat if it was not supported by the masses.
The reason why i feel that Kings ideology is flawed from its essence is
not only because of how the oppresor absorbs this resistance, but due
to its emphasis on compassion as a tool to fight oppression.
Victory nor freedom are realistic outcomes if you dont use aggression
to fight oppression.
The nonviolent resister has a setback prior to thier resistance, since
they refrain from violence, which has to combined with the nonviolent
option depending on the development of the movement and its particular
stages.
Yes, MLK's statements were contradictory and flawed. What matters is that this contradictory and flawed person did great things. Btw, if somebody is interested in MLK's history, there is a wiki tour map with places where he lived, studied and worked.
Yeah, it may seem he acted in a different way that he said, but we don't know what was the situation. He expressed his thoughts, namely what he thought was the best. But if the situation doesn't allow to do what you think is the best, you choose from other options.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum