Melville CookeBy Public Law 98-144, the third Monday in January of each year has been designated as a public holiday in honour of the Birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. Ronald Reagan, November 2, 1986.
THE US holiday designated in honour of Martin Luther King Jnr. does not mean much to me. I listen to him speak almost every day; I read excerpts from The Wisdom of Martin Luther King Jnr. nearly as often.
Every day is MLK's day for me.
However, while the excerpt from the "I Have A Dream" speech is the best known clip, I tend to listen to "Why I Am Opposed To The War In Vietnam".
But while I enjoy his delivery, admire his expression, imbibe his wisdom and believe in his objectives, I believe that Mr. King was wrong about non-violent resistance.
If somebody is willing to hurt or kill you for what you believe in, you must be willing to hurt or kill them in order for your objectives not to be defeated.
Not that I think Mr. King was a coward. Of course not (although the TV stations like to play that clip of him flinching when gunshots are being fired). It takes greater courage to face physical danger with not only no intention of resisting, but also without a weapon, just in case you change your mind when "lick start fire".
As he said in The Strength to Love, "Courage faces fear and thereby masters it. Cowardice represses fear and is therefore mastered by it."
He faced a lot of fear in his life, was stabbed, had his home bombed and was eventually shot and killed. Mr. King's role model for non-violent resistance, Mohandas Gandhi, was also murdered.
I much prefer the Malcolm X philosophy, that if I cannot walk down the street in peace, you cannot walk down the street in peace. I much prefer the Black Panther approach, that black people acquire weapons to defend themselves against a police force which is determined to trim their numbers.
I seriously doubt if we will see the United States mark Malcolm X and Huey P. Newton's (Black Panther founder) birthdays. Turning the other cheek has never made much sense to me. It simply means you are going to get hit again.
But black people have been turning the other cheek so long that we mistake a slap for a love pat.
If the ANC had taken the path of non-violent resistance Mandela would have rotted in prison. If the Maroons had resisted passively they would have been exterminated. If the Palestinians had decided to show love, the Israelis would have taken care of them a long time ago. If the Irish did not give back "blood for blood" (to quote Oku Onoura), the British would have chalked them up as another victory over the uncivilised years ago.
Martin Luther King Jr. saw the contradiction of how the press (white, naturally) treated his non-violent stance when he applied it to the Vietnamese situation:
"America and most of its press applauded me in Montgomery when I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my home was bombed and said 'you can't do it this way'- They applauded us on the freedom rides when we accepted blows without retaliation- There is something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say be non-violent towards Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say be non-violent towards little brown Vietnamese children. There is something wrong with that press" April 4, 1967, Riverside Church, Manhattan.
Yes there is, Mr. King, there is.
The oppressor will always elevate the diplomatic, non-violent hero above the one who is prepared to take up arms for his or her cause, because the former is not as effective. And in the end, negotiating your freedom is not quite the same as fighting for it.
Which is not to say that MLK did not fight, in his non-violent way. But a person or persons who oppress another need to feel fear.
If I cannot walk down the street in peace, you cannot walk down the street in peace.
It's a nice dream, Dr. King, but that is what non-violent resistance, if it is the only method employed, is. A dream.
(And waking up from the dream, over three decades later, white cops shoot an unarmed Amadou Dialo 41 times. And walk free).
George W. Bush was asked, after the September 9 attacks, why do they hate us so. He replied that it was because the US was prosperous and they were the target of envy. I prefer Martin Luther King's words.
This is the role that our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment. Riverside Church, Manhattan, April 4, 1967.
Next week: Afghanistan.
Melville Cooke is a freelance writer.
