Beautiful story. Thanks.
Great story RWS, that's why I come to your place! Thanks for that.
ah, Jenjus revealed. An interesting lad at that.
Thanks Jay. The internet. It changes everything, doesn't it? You get to know someone you never would have. Even across the pond.
Good story... I linked to it cause I don't have any stories like that. I just spent the morning making fun of protesters and liberals.
I made fun of them the other day. Did you read it?
Glad we can be nicer in this 'room.' Hopefully no offense taken in our debate in the other comments section? Even accross the pond, anonymously, my intention is to discuss, not offend. You're right about he internet - makes this whole thing possible. But I still have manners!
Yes, of course I read it... although, I have to limit reading your blog at work.. all the pink makes it obvious as to what I'm doing... not working...
I'll be on messenger after 5:30pm (EST)... no messenger at work... no email... firewall won't let me.
I'm suprised we get this much internet access.
Hector.
Well, I guess work is more important......
Just tell them if they ask.."Haven't you ever seen a pink spreadsheet before???"
That'd get me rightfully smacked in most cultures. In fact, just having Pink on my screen is bad enough. No offense to your choice of templates, but pink is not exactly a guys best friend when it comes to colors hanging around his cubicle.
Should I change my color?
I chose pink cuz I am all girly girl.
Seriously, what do yall think?
keep the pink, it fits you..
Pretty pink to match you sparkles.
I wonder what color a duck would choose?
Pink is you!
Nice story.
I feel compelled to point out that the MLK quote that adorns your blog title is from a section of a speech given by Dr. King in which he extols the virtues of NON-VIOLENCE. If you haven't already, you should read the whole thing.
Speech at the Great March on Detroit
Although the context of this quote concerns the civil rights movement, the message of his philosophy is in direct contradiction to much of what you advocate on your blog.
Corpus;
Are you reading what you are seeing?
Or are you seeing
the essence of the being
That hides inside your mind?
corpus collapseum fold your tent and go.
Oh yeah, cc, I am ALL about violence! I beat the crap out of some old lady just yesterday, cut in line in front of me in the grocery store you old biddy and that's what you get.
CC, If your referring to war, which is the only thing you could be referring to....*see WWI and WWII.
If we didn't defend the world then violence would be a part of ALL of our lives today.
Pink it is! Cz SOME people (well, just one well known blogger) told me that he DETESTED the pink color. but I didn't care what he thought.
wes, wow. cool poem there. I'm impressed.
I didn't say I detested it. Just don't like pink. I would read your blog no matter what color... just have to save more of the reading for later.
And Corpus, without Order, there is chaos. But without Chaos, there can be no Order.
Duck? Did someone call for a duck?
Yes. I did. Now roast yourself and shove in some potatoes under you gut. Make sure you spice yourself good. I want golden brown here pal.
Hector, I thought without Chaos there could be no Control.
Corpus, thanks for the link. I did read MLK's speech again. The following are some quotes from it. Unlike you I find nothing that contradicts what RWS says in her blog. And remember, his talk of nonviolence was for an internal audience that had much to lose if the struggle became violent. To somehow superimpose that onto the situation to free Iraq or Afghanistan seems ludicrous. I suppose you are then against the American Revolution as well since it was of course violent.
From MLK's speech:
--greatest demonstration for freedom
inspiration for all of the freedom-loving people
--no longer willing to accept racial segregation
--segregation is not only sociologically untenable, it is not only politically unsound, it is morally
wrong and sinful
--his religion revealed to him that God loves all of his children, and that all men are made in His image
God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race.
--if physical death is the price that some must pay to free thei
cont
--if physical death is the price that some must pay to free their children and their white brothers from an eternal psychological death, then nothing can be more redemptive
Isn't control the same thing as order? Unless you mean something else which I'm not getting right now.
I was making an obscure joke regarding the old TV series Get Smart.
I date myself....
RWS:
"Oh yeah, cc, I am ALL about violence!"
Uh - ouch. I didn't say anything remotely similar to this. And yes, I am referring to the war
HP:
These are all good quotes.
But I can see y'all are not convinced by the text of this speech which, as I pointed out, has the civil rights movement as its context. My own reading leads me to believe that this was one part of a much larger philosophy that Dr. King held.
I hope you'll give one more lengthy speech a full read:
Beyond Vietnam
You could argue again that this is a different context and doesn't apply. But try mentally substituting "Iraq" for "Vietnam" as you read. I don't think it's too difficult to extrapolate what Dr. King's position would be on the current Iraq crisis.
Corpus, I will read the speech after work, but won't be able to comment until later today.
Duck...what do you think about the Sparkles color?
Don't worry about about Hector he's really a Vegan.
Good post. If you feel so led, read my post on MLK Day here. And, BTW, keep the pink. Heh.
Hector, I wasn't referring to you! No, this certain blogger "detested" my blog pink and all. (he is a conservative blogger and that is all I'm gonna say)
"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live."-Martin Luther King
CC, Sometimes we die for something we believe when fighting in war. In fact that is how MOST of those who die for what they believe in die.
I have no idea what Dr.King would say about Iraq. I think he would be astonished that we have a black Sec. of State, Natl Sec Advisor (about to be the 2nd black Sec. of State) and another black Supreme Court Judge and they are all Republican. But he would also be sadden greatly by the failures of the Jesse Jackson's of the movement and how so many have squandered the rights and freedoms that so many, such as himself, died for.
Okay Corpus, I’ve read Dr. King’s speech on Vietnam. First, this reply is going to be rather long, somewhat tedious, and probably isn’t of interest to anyone but Corpus. Thanks again for the link, I had not read or heard this speech of MLK’s before.
In my reading of the speech some things are very clear but others such as your assertion Corpus of what Dr. King would have thought of the war in Iraq are more murky.
It is evident from reading the speech that MLK came out very strongly against the Vietnam war in 1967. But whether that translates into a condemnation of all wars or even a war such as Iraq is something different. I will say that much of what he said regarding Vietnam I can agree with, but some I do not (this is not relevant to the discussion at hand but I wanted to note it).
cont
A couple of points before I look at the speech in detail.
First, if MLK was coming out against ALL war, then my basic question to him would have been: “then I suppose you are against the Civil War that ended slavery, resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment.” I do not believe he would have agreed with that statement but rather would have said something like: “some wars are regrettably necessary” (my words).
Second, in his speech MLK uses specific example after specific example of why the Vietnam war was the wrong war to be involved in. He does not for the most part use generalities such as “all wars are evil.”
So I don’t think you can use his speech against the war in Vietnam to draw a conclusion about how he would have felt about the war in Iraq unless there is a clear parallel in the arguments he was making in his speech.
cont
I will look at some of the things he said. The quotes I use will be out of context in that his speech is very long. If there are quotes that support your POV that I don’t use its because I’m only trying to make the point that you cannot assume what MLK would think about the current war.
Quotes from his speech (my comments follow his with a ***)
“when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict” ***he was saying that the underlying issues of the Vietnam War are very confusing. This is not so in the current war. The issue is crystal (terrorism).
“I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam” ***we are rebuilding Iraq rather than destroying it.
“the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam” *** sounds a bit like Kerry saying that we need more of Europe onboard but there are more allies in the current war whereas in Vietnam we were truly alone.
cont
“life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides” ***this is only a partially true statement as there are instances where there is no give or take and yet the conflict is resolved (WWII for example). But as it applies to Iraq, what TRUSTFUL give or take would have been possible with Saddam?
“I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor.” ***this is the main point of his speech. That the Vietnam war is wrong because it wastes resources that could be used to help the poor. How does this apply to today? Do you think that the war in Iraq is using funds that would have gone to the poor?? Yeah and pigs fly.
cont
“We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools” ***another main point of his speech. Why should blacks die for a war to guarantee liberties and rights that they did not have at home? Again hardly relevant to today.
“I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor” ***again notice he is concerned with the effect of the war on the poor. Our soldiers today are not draftees but enlistees. And it is not a war being fought by the poor.
cont
“I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government” ***in the context of the civil rights movement of the sixties his comment is understandable. However after viewing the torture chambers, rape houses, and mass graves of Saddam, would he have thought the US of today more violent than Saddam’s Iraq?
“They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945……Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence..” ***how is this equivalent to what we are doing in Iraq? Iraqi’s didn’t declare independence and then we refuse to recognize them. Rather it is we who are giving them independence.
cont
“The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North…but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace…The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support…” ***here MLK is referring to the corrupt regime in South Vietnam that we were supporting. Since we are not supporting any regime in Iraq but rather free elections, how does this relate to the current war? Today the ruthlessness was Saddam’s regime that we defeated not the regime we are supporting as in Vietnam.
cont
I could go on Corpus, but my point is that MLK drew specific examples in his speech to Vietnam, the poor, the corrupt Diem regime, the lack of civil rights at home, violence of our own government against blacks, etc as a reason why he did not support the Vietnam war. These reasons do not hold much water today.
I don’t know what he would have thought about the war in Iraq, and neither do you.
HP:
You're welcome for the link. And excellent job on your reading and responses to the speech. To paraphrase a line from more than a few recent movies: "Finally, a worthy opponent."
A more detailed response will follow, but for now let me say that I think you are in essence correct that neither of us know what Dr. King would have thought about the war in Iraq - at least, not with any certainty.
Also, I didn't mean to imply that there is a clear one to one correspondence between his statements about Vietnam versus the current Iraq situation.
I can see that the crux of the disagreement we will most likely have about this will boil down to interpretation of current events, policies, motivations, etc. When I get a spare minute I'll respond to some of your specific points, and list a few quotes from the speech that support the idea that he would have been opposed to the way in which we are handling the Iraq crisis.
Again, thanks for the detailed response.
Quick. Gotta get this in here before the thread slips off into the oblivion of the archives…
HP:
Sorry for the long delay on this response. Too many big work projects recently. It’s getting harder and harder to find “spare minutes” for blog commentary
In an attempt to keep the quotes clear I’ll use initials before quotes to distinguish between those of HP and MLK. My statements are the ones with no quotation marks.
HP:
“…reply is going to be rather long, somewhat tedious, and probably isn’t of interest to anyone but Corpus.”
cont.
You should give yourself more credit than that. Your commentary is some of the more interesting on this blog (that is, when you’re not jumping into some silly pile-on of an abrasive lefty). And I think the readers of this blog SHOULD be interested in this. As bloggers and commenters we’re constantly using references to iconic events, concepts and historical personages. MLK is certainly a worthy figure for reference and comparison, even if in the end it all just seems like a thought-experiment around a question for which we’ll never have the definite answer (What would MLK think of the current war in Iraq?)
So, the main thrust of your commentary is to show that MLK wasn’t definite enough in his statements for us to assume that he would be against all wars or even against a specific kind of war. Yet you suggest your own interpretation of how he would feel about armed conflict:
cont.
HP:
“…but rather would have said something like: “some wars are regrettably necessary”
This assertion is just as uncertain as the one suggesting he would be against the war in Iraq.
HP:
“He does not for the most part use generalities such as ‘all wars are evil’.”
With one exception, you are correct; he does not make an obvious direct statement to that effect. The exception is this:
MLK:
“A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just."
Although he says “not just”, not “evil”.
He also says, “War is not the answer.” But you could argue that this was for the specific context of Vietnam, or the struggle against communism – although it COULD be interpreted as a blanket generalization.
cont.
For the most part, extrapolation of his underlying intent is a matter of interpretation. But there are a number of statements that indicate that he felt deeply that armed conflict was not the way to resolution in any conflict:
MLK:
“…life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.”
“…social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, "What about Vietnam?" They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.”
cont.
“I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of man.”
But the one that most clearly states his intent is this next one, in which he makes it clear that non-violence is part of his spiritual calling, philosophy, and way of being. I interpret this as a hard-core belief that transcends the specifics of the conflict:
cont.
MLK:
“But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men-for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?”
cont.
This does not qualify, as you put it, as a “a clear parallel in the arguments he was making in his speech.” But I think it is crystal clear that he took his obedience to the word of Christ literally. That “obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them” was not just rhetoric for him, but a call to a way of being and acting.
The following paragraph also gives a clear statement of intent and belief:
MLK:
“Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.”
cont.
Now I know I am going to take some flak for my next statement, but so be it. In the current crisis, the rhetoric demonizes anyone who falls into the “terrorist” category. Statements like “all they want to do is kill as many of us as possible and destroy any hope of democracy” are all over the media - mainstream and otherwise. I disagree with this simplistic view, and I think MLK would have as well. I think he would have asked how these people came to the point where they are willing to use these hideous terrorist methods. The answers to that question would give some idea of how to approach the situation with “trustful give and take on both sides”. A non-violent approach isn’t possible without asking this question. It is deeply disturbing that more attention isn’t given to this most basic of questions about the conflict.
On a different note, I think MLK was sensitive to the politics of imperialism (another word that, just by mentioning it, virtually guarantees an onslaught of criticism):
MLK:
“The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation.”
“In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution.”
cont.
MLK:
“… the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”
cont.
Well, really, I could quote the whole rest of the speech starting at the point of the above paragraph. It is a radical anti-imperialist speech.
We could argue for years about whether this applies to the current situation. The big question is, are we making the same mistakes again, or have we evolved to a different, more enlightened approach, even as it contains violence? It is a difficult question and contains great ambiguity. The possibilities for democracy exist in our current actions – but there is no certainty that democracy imposed from the outside will work or last. And our behavior in the reconstruction effort in Iraq unfortunately supports the imperialist notion. (To support this idea, I’ll find a site that quotes percentages of Iraq vs. American businesses getting the reconstruction contracts – it is radically imbalanced.)
cont.
I think the nature of the ambiguity is in the possibility that one side in a conflict may refuse to consider a peaceful solution. I.e., if one side insists on violence and destruction, no matter what, then is the only way to meet that violence with armed intervention?
cont.
When my wife and I saw the movie “Hero” we had a terrific argument afterward about the movie’s conclusion. (Spoiler alert – I’m about to give away the ending.) She thought the main character (played by Jet Li) truly was a hero because he sacrificed his own life to allow a violent solution to take place that he knew would ultimately unite the warring factions of medieval China. I argued that, yes he did sacrifice himself for this cause, but wasn’t there another alternative that could have avoided the violence? My wife argued that the warring factions would never give up their violent behavior, and only the strongest force could unite them through defeat of the weakest. I questioned how they could know what the impact of a non-violent approach would be if they hadn’t tried it. We went round and round… It was interesting, because normally she is vehemently anti-violence, but she looked at the portrayal of that situation and thought it was the only answer.
cont.
I think MLK would have said it is our deepest responsibility to find a way to resolve these crises that doesn’t resort to violence.
The rest of your commentary compares specifics of Vietnam vs. Iraq. I disagree with some of your assertions, but again I think this is mostly a matter of how we interpret what is currently happening.
HP:
“The issue is crystal (terrorism).”
I think there are more issues than that involved. Our access to oil is certainly an issue. The overall political climate of the Middle East, and our ability to influence it, is an issue.
cont.
HP:
“We are rebuilding Iraq rather than destroying it.”
We are destroying quite a bit of it in the process of liberating it. Ultimately we and they will rebuild it, but the rebuilding process has hardly begun.
MLK:
“the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam””
I think he was talking about a North/South resolution here, not a solution involving “allies”.
HP:
“…what TRUSTFUL give or take would have been possible with Saddam?”
cont.
Seems pretty clear that Saddam fits the profile of a ruler where TRUSTFUL give and take were not possible. That doesn’t mean that armed intervention was the only solution. The situation with Saddam is further complicated by the fact that we supported him for years before Gulf I - a fact that is strongly analogous to MLK’s statements about the history of Vietnam. See the paragraph that includes, “…the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem.”
HP:
“this is the main point of his speech. That the Vietnam war is wrong because it wastes resources that could be used to help the poor.”
This is not the MAIN point of his speech. It is one of many points, all equally important.
cont.
HP:
“Do you think that the war in Iraq is using funds that would have gone to the poor?? Yeah and pigs fly.”
Hmm… I don’t think pigs fly – but maybe they levitate a little. I don’t think the funds being used in Iraq would have gone to the poor – BUT THEY COULD HAVE. It is a sorry statement that they aren’t.
HP:
“***another main point of his speech. Why should blacks die for a war to guarantee liberties and rights that they did not have at home? Again hardly relevant to today.”
Unfortunately this is quite relevant to today. It’s not a direct correspondence, but I think we do have what has been referred to as a “poverty draft”.
cont.
HP:
“However after viewing the torture chambers, rape houses, and mass graves of Saddam, would he have thought the US of today more violent than Saddam’s Iraq?”
I don’t think he would have made a “more” comparison. But I think he would have been against the violence of both.
HP:
“Iraqi’s didn’t declare independence and then we refuse to recognize them. Rather it is we who are giving them independence.”
cont.
Again, it’s not a one to one correspondence. What we did do was support a tyrant for many years who denied them their independence. Then we pursued a sanctions policy that crippled them so badly that they had no hope of an internal uprising against the tyrant we had supported. And now in the latest chapter we are “giving them independence” – an independence in which there is no clarity that it won’t turn out to be a form of imperialism. (Careful – there’s that ugly word again. I admit that I’ve been influenced by Chalmers Johnson’s book, “The Sorrows of Empire”.)
cont.
HP:
“Today the ruthlessness was Saddam’s regime that we defeated not the regime we are supporting as in Vietnam.”
I think there isn’t any real question that the new government in Iraq will be better than Saddam’s rule. But I don’t think it will be as altruistic as you imply. And it may turn out to not be the kind of government that the Iraqis actually want – in which case they may come to view it as different form of oppression, and one that must be overcome.
cont.
Well – I’m out of “spare minutes”. But once again – thanks for your commentary. Just one more MLK quote – one which I think we can both agree is true regardless of our different interpretations.
MLK:
“We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”
Message to self:
Hey buddy, if you're going to ramble on in these endless treatises, get your own damn blog. 
You are invited to visit some relevant pages dedicated to online gambling online gambling http://www.alleghenydist.net/online-gambling.html ...
You may find it interesting to check some information dedicated to party poker party poker http://www.newclassicalguitar.com/party-
poker.html ...
Commenting by HaloScan
