MLKjr DAY: From 'good-will' to 'good society' ...

“Why Martin Luther King, Jr.?” This question, as asked by our parents' generation (meaning, “Why did they have to kill this powerful, eloquent catalyst of social unity and hope?”) will inevitably become the one asked by our children, who will have experienced neither King nor those who were touched by his voice and his actions (where it will mean, “Why have all fifty states been celebrating his birthday as a human rights memorial since the year 2000?”).

If the children ask me, this is what I will tell them:

“Martin Luther King, Jr., understood how to connect human ideals to human actions, and how to communicate that energy to other people with a clear and well-supported logic, a vivid and desirable imagery, and an honest and practical human face. He was not merely a cantor. Neither was he just a critic.

Rather, he was a leader, connecting everlasting human values to immediate and practicable principles. He was a teacher, helping people to coordinate their thinking/emotional minds with their acting/reflexive limbs in ways that felt really good in the heart, made real sense in the mind, and created visible change in life—song by song, step by step, city by city, and law by law. And he was a good man. He polished his patchworks of evidence, argument, and simple-wise catchphrases in public, and earned his influence by standing on the shoulders of revered scholars and philosophers and workers—appealing commonly to all factions of society, to unite everyone in a steady, nonviolent push toward realizing some basic values {trust, validation, belonging, purpose} in daily life.

Martin Luther King, Jr., believed that every person alive in this world has a right to stand where there is room enough, to grow where there is opportunity, and to belong equally with every other person in society—contributing with their heart's compass, their mind's map, and their will's fuel to a shared good.

From a thousand good wills—realized in a thousand-times-a-thousand principled displays, show-and-telling a million personal translations of a few shared values and goals—arises a good society.”

*

In light of a newly released recording (unearthed from the Pacifica Radio archives, a 62-minute MLK speech recorded by Saul Bernstein in London, 7 December 1964) I'll let Dr, King expound on those details; on the struggle of moving ourselves from what is to what should be:

~ ON THE MYTHS THAT DELAY ~

POSITIVE SOCIAL ACTION

“They like to talk about the cultural lag in the negro community. … But I think there is an answer to that. And that is that there is cultural lag in the negro community, and there certainly is. This lag is there because of segregation and discrimination. It's there because of long years of slavery and segregation. Criminal responses are not racial, but environmental. Poverty, economic deprivation, social isolation, and all of these things breed crime whatever the racial group may be. And it is a torturous logic to use the tragic results of racial segregation as an argument for the continuation of it. And so it is necessary to see this, and to go all-out to make economic justice a reality all over our nation. 

 

… Now I would like to mention one or two ideas that circulate in our society/and – they probably circulate in your society and all over the world – that keep us from developing the kind of action programs necessary to get rid of discrimination and segregation. 

One is what I refer to as the myth of time. There are those individuals who argue that only time can solve the problem of racial injustice … 'You've got to wait on time.' And I know, they've said to us so often in the States and to our allies in the white community, 'Just be nice and be patient and continue to pray, and in a hundred to two hundred years the problem will work itself out [laughter].' We've heard and we've lived with the myth of time. The only answer I can give to that myth is that time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. I must honestly say to you that I am convinced that the forces of ill-will have often used time much more effectively than the forces of good-will. We may have to repent in this generation – not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people, who sit around saying, 'Wait on time' … somewhere along the way it is necessary to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers of God; and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. 

 

And so we must help time, and we must realize that the time is always ripe to do right: this is so vital, and this is so necessary.

Now the other myth that gets around a great deal in our nation, and I'm sure in other nations of the world, is the idea that you can't solve the problems in the realm of human relations through legislation … you've got to change the heart. We had a presidential candidate just recently who spoke about this a great deal. And I think that mister Goldwater sincerely believed that you couldn't do anything through legislation because he voted against everything in the senate [laughter], including the Civil Rights bill. And he said all over the nation throughout the election that we don't need legislation, that legislation can't deal with this problem. But he was nice enough to say that you've got to change the heart. Now, I want to at least go half way with brother Goldwater, on that point I think he's right – if we're gonna get this problem solved in America and all over the world, ultimately people must change their hearts where they have prejudices… And I'm sure that if the problem is going to be solved ultimately, men must be obedient not merely to that which can be enforced by the law, but they must rise to the majestic heights of being obedient to the unenforcible. 

 

But after saying all of that I must go on to the other side. … It may be true that you can't legislate integration, but you can legislate desegregation; it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated; it may be true that the law can't change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless; it may be true that the law can't make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me/and I think that's pretty important also [laughter, applause].”

~ ON THE PRINCIPLES OF LOVE AND NONVIOLENCE, ~

FOR ENGAGING IN POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGE

“Now as you know, we have been engaged in the United States in a massive struggle to make desegregation and finally integration a reality. And in that struggle there has been an undergirding philosophy: the philosophy of nonviolence; the philosophy and method of nonviolent resistance.

And I'd like to say just a few words about the method, or the philosophy, that has undergirded our struggle. And first I want to say that I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. It has a way of disarming the opponent, exposing his moral defenses. It weakens his morale and at the same time it works on his conscience, and he just—doesn't know how to handle it. If he doesn't beat you, wonderful; if he beats you, you develop the quiet courage of accepting blows without retaliating. If he doesn't put you in jail, wonderful – nobody with any sense loves to go to jail – but if he puts you in jail, you go in that jail and transform it from a dungeon of shame to a haven of freedom and human dignity. Even if he tries to kill you, you develop the inner conviction that there are some things so dear, some things so precious, some things so eternally true, that they are worth dying for. And if a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. And this [applause] is what the nonviolent discipline says. 

 

And then the other thing about it is that it gives the individual a way of struggling to secure moral ends through moral means. One of the great debates of history has been over the whole question of ends and means. And all the way back in the days of Plato's dialogs, coming on up through Machiavelli and others, there have been those individuals who argued that the end justifies the means. But in a real sense a nonviolent philosophy comes along and says that the end is pre-existent in the means; the means represent the ideal-in-the-making and the end-in-process. And so then, in the long run of history, immoral means cannot bring about moral ends. Somehow, man must come to the point that he sees the necessity of ends and means cohering, so to speak. 

 

And this is one of the things that is basic in the nonviolent philosophy at its best – it gives one a way and a method of struggle, which says that you can seek to secure moral ends through moral means.

It also says that it is possible to struggle against an evil, unjust system with all your might and with all your heart and even hate that unjust system, and yet you maintain an attitude of active good-will and understanding, and even love for the perpetrators of that evil system. 

 

And this is the most misunderstood aspect of nonviolence. And this is where those who don't want to follow the nonviolent method say a lot of bad things to those of us who talk about 'love.' But … I'm not talking about a weak love. I'm not talking about emotional bosh here; I'm not talking about some sentimental quality; I'm not talking about an affectionate response. It would be nonsense to urge oppressed people to love their violent oppressors in an affectionate sense, and I have never advised that. When Jesus said, 'Love your enemies,' I'm happy he didn't say 'like your enemies'—it's pretty difficult to like some people [laughter]. But 'love' is greater than 'like'; love is understanding creative, redemptive good-will for all men. Theologians talk about this kind of love with the Greek word 'agape,' which is a sort of overflowing love that seeks nothing in return. And when one develops this, you rise to the position of being able to love the person who does the evil deed while hating the deed that the person does. 

 

And I believe that this can be done.

Psychiatrists are telling us now that hatred is a dangerous force, not merely for the hated but also the hater. Many of the strange things that happen in the subconscious, many of the inner conflicts, are rooted in hate. And so they are saying 'love or perish.' … And so it is wonderful to have a method of struggle where it is possible to stand up against segregation, to stand up against colonialism, with all of your might—and yet not hate the perpetrators of these unjust systems. …

 

If the United Kingdom and the United States decided tomorrow morning not to buy South African goods, not to buy South African gold, to put an embargo on oil; if our own investors and capitalists would withdraw their support for the racial tyranny that we find there, then apartheid would be brought to an end. [applause] Then the majority of South Africans of all races could at last build the shared society they desire. … 

You know there are certain words in every academic discipline that soon become stereotypes and cliches; every academic discipline has its technical vocabulary. Modern psychology has … the word 'maladjusted.' … certainly we all want to live well-adjusted lives in order to avoid neurotic and schizophrenic personality. But I must say to you this evening, my friends, as I come to a close, that there are some things in my own nation and there are some things in the world [to] which I'm proud to be maladjusted … 

I never intend to become adjusted to segregation, discrimination, colonialism, and these particular forces; I must honestly say to you that I never intend to adjust myself to religious bigotry; I must honestly say to you that I never intend to adjust myself to economic conditions that will take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few. 

I must say to you tonight that I never intend to become adjusted to the madness of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence—for in a day when Sputniks and Explorers are dashing through outer space, and guided ballistic missiles are carving highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can win a war. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence; it is either nonviolence or nonexistence. ...

 

You see, it may well be that our whole world is in need, at this time, for the new organization – the International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment; [laughter] men and women [applause] Men and women who will be … as maladjusted as the late Abraham Lincoln, the great president of our nation, who had the vision to see that the United States could not survive half-slave and half-free; as maladjusted as Thomas Jefferson, who in the midst of an age amazingly adjusted to slavery could etch across the pages of history words lifted to cosmic proportions, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'; as maladjusted as Jesus of Nazareth, who could say to the men and women of his day, 'He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.' 

 

And through such maladjustment, we will be able to emerge from a long and desolate midnight of man's inhumanity to man, into the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice. … I still believe that mankind will rise up to the occasion. In spite of the darkness of the hour, in spite of the difficulties of the moment, in spite of these days of emotional tension when the problems of the world are gigantic in extent and chaotic in detail, I still have faith in the future. And I still believe that we can build this society of brotherhood and this society of peace.”

~A REMINDER GOING FORWARD, ~

FOR PERSISTENCE

“We have a song that we sing in our movement, and we have joined hands to sing it so often beyond behind jail bars … 'We shall overcome, we shall over come. Deep in my heart, I do believe—we shall overcome.' And somehow I believe that mankind will overcome, and I believe that the forces of evil will be defeated.

I believe this because [Thomas] Carlyle is right, 'No lie can live forever'; I believe that we shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant is right, 'Truth crushed to earth will rise again'; I believe that we shall overcome because James Russell Lowell is right, 'Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne'—yet that scaffold sways a future, and behind the damn unknown standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own./ With this faith, we will be able to adjourn the counsels of despair and bring new light into the dark chambers of pessimism; with this faith, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace and brotherhood;/with this faith, we will be able to speed up the day when all of God's children – black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, Hindus and Muslims, theists and atheists will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old negro spiritual: 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God a'mighty, I'm free at last.'

We have a long, long way to go before this problem is solved. But, thank God, we've made strides; we've come a long, long way. So I close by quoting the words of an old negro slave preacher, who didn't quite have his grammar and diction right, but who uttered words of great symbolic profundity: 'Lord, we ain't what we wanna' be; we ain't what we aughta' be; we ain't what we gonna be. But, thank God, we ain't what we was.'

Thank you.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. – 7 December 1964, London.

NEW YEAR'S MESSAGE: What matters …

This has been a rough year for the world and for my home-country, the U.S – contentious, I think, would describe it well.

(The vibrant face of unrest...)

When you look at what we have, as a human society – in medicine, agriculture, transportation, communication, information – the power and flexibility-of-choice that those supports provide make our possible realities goose-pimplingly exciting.

(Sometimes, in small moments, we seem so close to perfect...)

And this possibility, this palpable, immediate potential brings into a stark spotlight the REALITY of what we do do, what we choose to do within our vast possibility, as a society.

We slip into thinking about our own yards, our own pockets, the playthings and distractions of this current day, rather than the pressing and inevitable needs of tomorrow and of the next generations. We break into argumentative factions, ignoring information and valid perspectives that are presented to us, rather than seeking some clear common ground as one species and building on that.

(actual mail ...)

And where our voices are used in an official manner, we conventionally conceal our feelings and motives under pseudo-rational slogans and catchphrases, rather than stating plainly and compassionately what is being done and what is desired. Anyone with internet access could collage together a well-supported essay on each of these topics, or a book of the total phenomenon that is – essentially – human nature's present iteration.

(Eric Garner embodying peaceful protest ...)

*     *     *

Every generation has its version of these familiar critiques: what is U.S. presence in Iraq was U.S. presence in Vietnam, was Columbus in America and Alexander into Thrace, Britain in India and Rome into the West, and each man-made fire against every dark forest. But parsing out history's relevance to present-day frustrations is not my goal.

(History is not gentle to our hopes for humanity...)

What I have to offer is a prologue to what is, and an epilogue about what can be in our human existence to come.

Before telling any story of what is, it is incumbent upon us as storytelling creatures to acknowledge what matters, to narrow down the field and focus that narrative arc on something of value. So what matters? To a sociopath, there is only one person that matters {self} and only one objective {the successful control of power}. But they are only about 4% of humanity, so here's for the rest of us: what matters is the species {humans} and the health of its context {all the dynamically living and nonliving elements that, if supported, will support us}.

*

What does this mean for us, for the story we tell? It means that:

1. We have to tell this story together. The human world is too interwoven now for an “us/them” to be appropriate or efficacious. When your vote affects them, your trash poisons them, your waste deprives them – when California's air quality is influenced by China's pollution and 1990's car exhaust is contributing to 2010's atmospheric carbon – “them” and “us” is a false dichotomy: “we” are the story.

2. We have to remember what it is, qualitatively, that we value. The world population is going to be about 7.7 billion by the year 2020 (that's 3 times what it was when my dad was 20). And I volunteer in a high-kill dog shelter where we try every week to keep as many alive as funds will permit … but we still have months where I see 30 dogs “humanely” stripped of their consciousness. When population exceeds the support of resources, people have to make smart and difficult choices to minimize suffering. Apply that principle to the human animal – which our species-biased brains mark as a graver matter – and you begin to see where our every life choice “Do I drive or walk? Flush or let the water stand? Bear two children or adopt one who has no family?” becomes a matter of principle.

(Everyone you touch, for better or for worse, absorbs your energy a little...)

3. We have to imagine one another's perspective. This is the hardest visionary muscle to exercise. But if this is to be a “we” story, which it must be in order for us to deal effectively with the immanent and superhuman dangers at our door, then the storytellers have to maintain a perspective that is male and female, young and old, dark and light, thin and thick, with different mental and physical proclivities (weak knees or breast cancer, addiction or Alzheimer's), and each having some resources to offer and others lacking (oil but no water, trees but no steel, fields but no energy). Imagining this begins with an understanding of what we share: a desire for love and safety, a commitment to our kin, a hunger for personal significance and purpose in this life. As independent persons we are nothing compared to a rising sea level, an infections and contagious pandemic, a dry well and a burnt field. But as a species marked by its ingenuity and and cogent adaptations, we may be able to invent a story that travels beyond those dark swells.

(You don't have to be a perfect character in this world, or a main one. just a good one...)

And what can we be? Here, in this age of growing environmental severity and resulting social tension?

At this point, I'd like to offer my general coping strategy, which I use whenever I'm confronted with unknowns that make me fret: I imagine the worst, then the best – consoling myself first by noting that reality seldom reaches its worst possibilities (so mankind for all its folly has not ended yet), and tempering myself second by acknowledging that moments of perfection are rare and fleeting (as they must be in order to sustain their high value).

The worst we can be is finished: not just insecure, or corrupt, or oppressed, or decimated, or endangered, but finished, with no remaining tellers and no remaining audience, a finally silent story. And the best we can be is simply what we should be – not equivocated by the normative measures of progress and gain, nor by the conventional "rightness" of the reigning status quo (which in the US once included chastising disabled persons, disenfranchising women, exploiting children, endangering factory workers, violently breaking protective unions, enslaving foreigners, and staying quiet about family abuse).

The best we can be is our principles embodied, with clear ideals and congruously ethical actions. If we believe that we, the species, truly benefit from health, safety, education and empowered citizenry; community effort, social support, kindness, and respectful validation of a spectrum of belief styles, abilities, and methods. And if we believe that we, as individuals, have the capacity to imagine beyond ourselves and our immediate perceptions … then we should start closing our eyes, picturing what the best possible shared world would look like, and come the next day – and years of days – start doing / talking out / planning / supporting what we wish everyone else were doing for the ground that we all walk on.

(a thoughtful detail that makes a survey worth its time...)

(A refrain of purpose that raises others' long, hard work from trivial to meaningful...)

(A sense of adventure, appreciation, humor that makes your learning curve -- even fun...)

(A sense of choice, and of power in that, that makes your decision -- every decision --
a statement, a model, a step forward...)

*I know, I know. I've been thinking it to myself: “You could have just said 'See the Golden Rule.'” But axioms claimed without strategies Are like thread without a spool – That is to say, an all-over mess.

Happy new year, my crest and kin. Satan spur, Earth feed, and God bless.

~ 27 December 2014 ~