[Back to top of page]

The 30th anniversary of the shooting of Martin Luther King was marked last year (1998) on the 4th April. In the spring of 1968, King had decided to show his solidarity with black employees of the state refuse department in Memphis, Tennessee. He was shot dead by a white racist just before he was about to begin reciting hymns before a mass congregation on the evening of the 4th of April. (King died aged 39. (...). King's popularity had reached an all-time low at the time of his assassination. He was no longer regarded as one of America's top ten most admired people. The once-hoped for "apostle of non-violence" and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate had become an "unwanted person" for many during the last two years of his life. Avid in his fight for America's disadvantaged and sharply criticizing many of America's politicians, he had been calling for massive action and civil disobedience.

Today, this same man is celebrated officially as an American national hero. A Martin Luther King national holiday has been held in his memory (on the first Monday following his birth date on the 15th January) since 1986. King now belongs to one of the ten "20th Century Christian Martyrs" honored by a statue in London's Westminster Abbey. (...) There is clearly a danger that the memory of King could become a cliché. This cliché of the "non-violent martyr", however, often results in a shortening of King's political views and a tendency to make harmless his remaining challenge on us. Indeed, precious little remains of the "dangerous memory" (J.B. Metz). We also have to ask ourselves: Which Martin Luther King do we want to remember? Bearing in mind our usual patterns of thinking and acting, is he still a role model? Do we look back at his work with wonderment, or rather at times past? Or does he still inspire us to brave contemporary action amidst the pressing problems of today?

I would like to start by answering the question as to who Martin Luther King Jr. was. King was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 15, 1929, the eldest son of Martin Luther King, Sr., a Baptist minister, and Alberta Williams King. Although he grew up in a protected and relatively well-off family, he identified strongly with the fate of his fellow blacks. He enjoyed an education available to only a handful of Afro-Americans. He studied theology in universities in North America between 1948 and 1954 - he became Pastor at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery/Georgia aged 25. He decided against a possible university career. Only a year later, King, who had until now only dealt with pacifist and non-violent concepts in a purely theoretical way, was to be faced with an unusual challenge. A spontaneous bus boycott was called in the racist town of Montgomery in December 1955. The town's humiliated black population was no longer prepared to accept spiteful racial treatment on Montgomery's buses. They refused to sit at the back of the bus and to vacate their seats for whites when the rest of the bus was full. The little-known priest called Martin Luther King was elected president of the Boycott Committee. The fact that he was an "unknown quantity" politically in the eyes of white citizens proved to be his advantage.

But it wouldn't be long before this speaker for a civil rights movement based on non-violence would gain national fame. Following a bomb attack on his house and family, he promised his fellow blacks: "We have to answer violence with non-violence. Think of the words of Jesus: "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Jesus calls us from centuries past: "Love your enemies"! We have to live this" King, like most Americans, owned a firearm for self-defence (he was refused permission to carry a firearm in his car). He decided to remove all weapons from his house following the bomb attack.

The majority of civil rights activists came from black church communities. Their goal was to achieve the lifting of racial segregation in public buildings - this they did in a non-violent way: Through mass demonstrations, sit-ins, prayer vigils, shop boycotts and by filling the prisons. They practiced non-violent resistance in their churches, often with the help of social dramas.

[Back to top of page]

King interpreted non-violence as "Christianity in action". "The spirit and the motivation" - according to King - comes from Christ, while the methods come from Gandhi. "Gandhi was probably the first person in history to raise the ethics of Jesus above that of just interaction between individuals to an effective large-scale social power". Reflecting on the Montgomery bus boycott, King described the basic aspects of the action:

1.) "It must be emphasized that nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly nonviolent."
2.) Non-violent resistance does not intend to "crush or humiliate the enemy. .. The aim is reconciliation."
3.) "A readiness to accept humiliation without seeking revenge, to accept blows without hitting back" is a part of non-violent resistance... "Undeserved suffering is redeeming. In suffering lies a powerful educational and transforming power".
4.) Non-violent resistance is based on the belief that the universe stands on the side of justice. This means that those with belief in non-violence have a deep belief in the future"

King became an assistant priest in his father's church, the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, in 1960. This meant that he could now dedicate more of his time to the civil rights movement. Taking a lead from the Montgomery bus boycott, further non-violent action was organized in other southern cities. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) under the leadership of Martin Luther King carried out action which became famous between 1961 and 1965 in Albany, Birmingham and Selma. As a result of this action, racial segregation was lifted in most public facilities. The number of Afro-Americans entitled to vote increased markedly. Many blacks had won a new confidence in themselves and had learned to "walk tall".

King regarded the use of non-violent methods as breaking free from the constraint to imitate the prevailing values of western industrial society and the values in the society in which he lived. He was interested in breaking the cycle of violence. By using non-violence, he hoped to involve his opponents in a process of political education. He emphasized that: Non-violence should bring about freedom for both the oppressed and the oppressors.

Because standing up for non-violence is often laughed upon as being naive, I would like to emphasize: In no way was King a naive, "ethically minded" dreamer. He wasn't blind to institutionalized power or the power of the status quo. Indeed, he pointed out that the existence of ghettos and unemployment also represented a form of force against those affected. He was scathing in his criticism of politicians, who, while supporting the war in Vietnam, reminded blacks in ghettos of the importance of non-violence. Those advocating non-violence to defend the existing balance of power against any criticism being voiced by minorities should not cite Martin Luther King! King declared in his Christmas sermon: "We have put the importance of non-violence to the test in the struggle for racial equality in the US, but now... the time has come to put non-violence to the test in all areas of human conflict, and that means non-violence at an international level" (...).

King and his fellow campaigners advocate the following: Where people come together to take direct non-violent action and to offer resistance against injustice, and in so doing project conflicts into the public arena, even minorities can have an impact on change. Of course, this does not mean that they will not experience defeat. But we should not and need not harden in these hard times! We should and can get involved in the conflicts of our times in order to come closer to the goal of more justice. The movement represented by King constantly cited basic rights and constitutional principles contained within the American constitution. "Be true to what you said on paper!" - a constant appeal to white Americans. I am convinced: We can learn from King, if we develop a "constitutional patriotism" that, firstly, prevents us from having a low opinion of the basics of our laws, our constitution and our constitutional state and, secondly, encourages us to demand and to defend the human rights and basic rights anchored in the constitution.

[Back to top of page]

When looking for the relevance of King's heritage for us, it is not enough to remember his basic principles and his creative non-violent methods. Those looking for the importance of King for us today - over 30 years after his death - should not disregard the statements and actions of the "late" King between 1966 and 1968. Disregarding these years could lead to misinterpreting King as just a harmless "apostle of non-violence" or as a "holy" figure monopolized by many interests. In what way was the "late" King (1966-1968) different to the "early" King 1955-1965)?

Following serious unrest in the ghettos during 1965, and while taking stock of the impact that the first decades of the civil rights movement had actually had, he was forced to concede: The situation for Afro-Americans living in large-city ghettos, especially in the northern US has gotten worse. The lifting of racial segregation in public buildings and facilities had had little or no impact on the economic disadvantages, the high unemployment levels and the catastrophic living and school conditions in the ghettos. The tried-and-tested methods of non-violence had failed to have an impact in these areas.

[Back to top of page]

a) The problem of poverty

King transferred the focus of his criticism from the problem of racism to the problem of poverty. He also made clear that the problem of poverty was an international one. "We in the west have to bear in mind that the poor countries of the world are poor because we have exploited them using a political and economic form of colonialism". King demanded a "revolution of values" across the western industrial nations. "We have to begin quickly to move from a material-orientated society to a people-orientated society. When machines and computers, profit making and property rights are regarded as more important than people, then the giant trio of racial mania, materialism and militarism cannot be defeated...Of course, it is also our responsibility to be the compassionate Samaritan for all those who have fallen by the wayside. But that is just the beginning. We have to realize that the entire road to Jericho has to be changed, if men and women are not to be perpetually beaten and robbed along their life's journey. ..A real revolution of values would regard the gaping contrast between poverty and wealth with alarm. .. A people that has put more money into defence than into social reform is nearing its spiritual death." King was convinced: "A building that creates beggars has to be rebuilt."

Only a few months before his death, King developed a plan for the political mobilization of all America's under privileged. A "Poor People's Campaign" was planned to confront the citizens of America with the poverty in their own country. The campaign was planned to begin in the spring of 1968 and was intended to unite the poor across the ethnic divide. Its aim was: "Power for the poor people" (...).

[Back to top of page]

b) King's criticism of the war in Vietnam

From the end of 1966, King spoke constantly of the connection between racism, poverty and war: "We have to face the fact that the evil of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all connected". This belief projected King into the front ranks of the anti-Vietnam protesters. Despite being the member of a pacifist "reconciliation association", he had initially held back from voicing public criticism about the war in Vietnam. Leading civil rights leaders were quite rightly fearful that direct criticism of the government's policy in Vietnam by King would endanger the political and financial support of the civil rights movement. In addition to this, many Afro-Americans were also afraid that they would be branded as unpatriotic. King decided to break with his present position with the belief: "Sometimes a time comes when silence means betrayal." "I have been preaching non-violence for years. Would it not be inconsistent, were I not to speak out against the war in Vietnam?"

Exactly a year before his death, King said at an impressive anti-war speech at the New York Riverside Church: "I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them...We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers".

King was prepared to pay the price for his "creative non-conformist behavior". An advisor to the president described King's speech as "right on song with the commies". Time magazine called it "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." (...)

[Back to top of page]

c) The ecumenical dimension to King's speeches and actions

As well as his philosophical and practical belief in non-violence and his reference to the connection between racism, poverty and militarism, I believe that when looking for the meaning of King's legacy for us we have to highlight a further aspect: The ecumenical dimension to King's speeches and actions. This black Baptist parish priest has, quite rightly, been called a "prophet of ecumenical Christianity". I would like to supply evidence for this with my own reference to King's ecumenical commitment that stretched across confessions

Looking back at the Montgomery bus boycott, King wrote: "A praiseworthy aspect of the Montgomery movement was the fact that Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopates and all others came together with a will to break through denominational boundaries...they...sung and prayed together in a united fight for freedom and human dignity". Leaders of the leading civil rights movements coordinated the program for the so-called march on Washington in 1963 together with a trade union leader and a representative from each of the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish religious communities. A US journalist commented after the event that the March had managed to bring the "three leading religions closer together than any other issue in the history of peacetime America."

Pastors, priests, rabbis and community leaders came together to form a coalition called "Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam", of which King was a member of the presiding committee. This coalition was active in its campaign against the Vietnam War. The coalition came to reflect a kind of "new ecumenicalism" that was made up of whites, blacks, Protestants, Catholics and Jews, whose moment of unity represented the political and practical interpretation of the biblical meaning of peace. Indeed, it was the way in which they stood up jointly for the elementary interests of the disadvantaged and suppressed - in this case mostly non-Christian people in Vietnam - rather than an interest in the administrative or doctrinal unity of the confessions that led to the creation of this new ecumenicalism

[Back to top of page]

d) King's understanding of the church: "Voice of the voiceless"

King regarded the church's most important task as being the voice of the voiceless: "Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment... We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers".

King and his followers made this understanding of the church to a criterion in belonging to the church of Jesus Christ. With regard to the Afro-American freedom movement, King spoke of "the many people that have been with us since the beginning of our fight,...who have been the true apotheosis of the Christian faith... some are members of the church, but many are not." "Some churches" - according to King - "have recognized that in order to have meaning in moral life they have to make equality a commandment. The basis for an alliance with these churches is strong and long-lasting. But for the all the churches that avoid or talk around this issue, that remain quiet or are fearful of addressing social and economic issues, we are no more than strangers, even if we do sing the same chorales in the worship of God".

[Back to top of page]

e) King's dream: "I Have a Dream"

The fact that King, a man rooted in the tradition of the black Baptist Church, had a tendency to think in an ecumenical way was no accident. His understanding of Christian existence was one that stretched across confessional boundaries and was a consequence of his "dream". And so I come to one of the most important aspects of King's legacy for us today: King was driven by a "dream". This dream initially concerned American blacks and their opponents, as he made clear in his famous speech in 1963 during the March on Washington:

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

During the course of his work in public over thirteen years, King's vision, his dream, expanded beyond a limited national goal of achieving equality for blacks in the USA to a vision of a worldwide "beloved community, a "world house", in which all people - freed from the evils of racism, poverty and militarism - would live together as brother and sister. In line with this, he demanded: "A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. "Our responsibilities to truth transcend race, clan and our nation, and this means: We have to develop a world perspective.

Using integrating concepts such as "house of the world", "table of brotherhood", "the promised land" and the "exodus out of Egypt, King summed up the hopes and desires of his audience and managed to break down a feeling of impotence against the prevailing political and social circumstances. These concepts posessed mobilizing power because they were able to break through the spell put upon them by the bad state of present conditions. King's dream was a "dream of progression"

[Back to top of page]

It is clear from looking at Martin Luther King's thirteen years of work in public that he was a man on a mission. He was an alert and sensitive contemporary, who was always ready to rise to new challenges in both his thinking and his actions. Indeed, his first action in Montgomery had been only to demand polite treatment of blacks rather than to demand the lifting of racial segregation! Thirteen years later he was ready to organize mass demonstrations and campaigns of civil disobedience at the door of government. If he received a great deal of public recognition in 1964 in collecting the Nobel Peace Prize, he risked social hatred in his last two years because of his prophetic criticism of those in power

Martin Luther King was not an uncontested hero. Towards the end of his life, he spoke on several occasions about the danger of his dream becoming a nightmare. Indeed, only his death prevented him from giving a sermon in Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church called "Why America May Go to Hell". A man well known for his humor, King was often plagued by depression. A man regarded by many as an undisputed moral authority suffered from bouts of guilt because of extramarital affairs. He was being monitored by the FBI who thought him close to suicide

I suspect that Martin Luther King is closer to us in his incompatible and contrasting nature than in the holy shrines of a King cult (...) Three decades after his death, King's vision of a brotherly world community remains unrealized. Yet when we speak up - encouraged by his memory - "for those without a voice" his dream remains alive in us.

[Back to top of page]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods