After re-reading your piece Dan, I have to admit that you did present good examples of political action informed by individual ethics (e.g. anti-Vietnam protest, need for action). I will still stand by my concern, however, for this particular quotation and its possible historical meaning. Also, I think it contradicts, even if subtly, the political message that precedes it.

Shaun

I would like to add an historical gloss on this discussion of Martin Luther King, Jr. and, in so doing, hopefully raise what I consider to be a failure of mere ethical instruction. Namely, in addition to inspiring others to lead from their current roles in society, I think this message must be accompanied by the hope of leading a better life, materially and emotionally. In my opinion, this requires social mobilization and politics.

First, the historical gloss. It is well known the Martin Luther King, Jr. drew many of his ideas about civil disobedience from Gandhi. The quotation that you selected from a speech of Dr. King’s could easily have been taken from any number of Gandhi’s discussions about Hinduism. For example, Gandhi stated,

“ I do not advise untouchables to give up their trades and professions. One born a scavenger must earn his livelihood by being a scavenger and then do whatever else he likes. For a scavenger is as worthy of his hire as a lawyer or your president. That according to me is Hinduism. “( Harijan 6th March, 1937)

Admittedly, King does not explicitly endorse the idea of caste in his quotation, while Gandhi does. Still, King’s speech, I am afraid, leads inexorably to the same conclusion that Gandhi’s does– that if you are born into a specific social status, you should accept that status and be a model member of that caste. E.g. if you can’t be a tree, be a bush.

Let me put it more bluntly: King is suggesting to his largely black audience (although, I am sure this message comforted much of his white audience, too) that they go about their own business as “good blacks.”

To further connect the politics of King to Gandhi, note that Gandhi, like King, also uses the word “sweeper” (the lowest caste in India) and opposes their political organization to fight for better wages from their municipalities:

“Mr Bhagwan Das has referred this narrative many times how Gandhi was against the strike of the sweeper and every time he gave them moral lessons of Varna Ashram Dharma. That way, Gandhi damaged the cause of the emancipation of Dalits with his brutal immoral morality.” See Rawat, Vidya, India’s Shame, 2006, Countercurrents.org.

While I do not doubt the motives of either of these great men, their powerful philosophical movements foster a political disposition that accepts the status quo and fails to conceptualize a pragmatic political solution to the difficulties of social strife, such as racism, poverty, or caste. I worry that in counseling people with the quotations of Dr. King, that the message misses 50% of the solution and may chill people’s participation in on-the-ground politics or from participating in the existing majority-based political system since it counsels micro instead of macro thinking. (I am sure this is a constant theme encountered in spritual teaching- since we normally prefer to leave the messy business of politics to the politicians). Still, I think it needs to be raised.

This comment does not suggest that the inspirational, almost divine, force of these teachings should be rejected. Rather, it suggests that this discourse is incomplete as applied to how we act in life. We can internalize the values, but externalize a political force consistent with these values.

Finally, I find the theme of these quotations extremely pertinent to the on-going economic upheaval facing Michigan. How would Michiganders receive a speech today in which they were told, “accept your role in the economy and do a good job in it.” I think the better message would be something like, “be the best of whatever you are and never give up believing in and fighting for the world as you wish it to be.”

Shaun

You have answered my conclusionary statement with a conclusionary statement of your own. I am hoping others will weigh in with some of the objective data that will help us look at this question and be honest with ourselves. The data I have seen on health status, environmental quality, and education — especially in cities, and especially in lower income neighborhoods (not always African American) — show substantial disparities. In my admittedly anecdotal experience mentoring and volunteering in city schools, the children there are substantially less advantaged than those in suburban schools. And the rates of imprisonment of African American men are terribly disturbing. If you have children I’d ask: would you be happy changing places with those who are currently trapped by income in poor, inner city schools?

As a white man, I have moved away from early feelings I had that were defensive (or sometimes combative and aggressive) when I heard blacks express their hurt and anger about their feelings of being victimized. The causes are complicated and often subtle. I didn’t do it personally. But I know I benefit from subtle and deep forms of bias. As a white man I don’t think most people suspect me; police don’t; my peers don’t; my teachers didn’t. I don’t think the same thing can generally be said about my black counterparts. They face suspicion - and obstacles - often.

I sense that you want us to get color blind, and I really do, too. But I think to get there we can’t close one eye and pretend that things are fair in America. Who is it — Chris Rock? — who asks, “would your average white person trade places with me?…And I’m rich!” That kind of question pierces to the heart of unfairness. Most of us if we were transported into a “poor black neighborhood” would be shocked at what it feels like and at the advantages we take for granted. That bothers me. I want the American dream to be real for all kids.

Well, I ramble on. But again I so appreciate your candor in entering into the conversation. Hope you’ll continue to weigh in.

Dan

With all due respect, I think the line: “especially in our times, where being born black in America generally means being born less healthy, less safe, less supported by community resources, and more likely to be suspect in way too many ways” Is absolutely NOT true today!

I think that statement sends the wrong message as well. This is not the 1950’s or 60’s, and black people (or African-American) in general are NOT less healthy, less safe, etc! It’s time people move on and don’t begin with a “woe-is-me” or “I-was-doomed-before-I-was-born” attitude. Dr. King did!