Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!akgua!sb1!diy
From: diy@sb1.UUCP (DENNIS YOUNG)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: WAS KING A MAN OF PEACE?
Message-ID: <149@sb1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Oct-83 17:22:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: sb1.149
Posted: Wed Oct 19 17:22:56 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Oct-83 20:39:14 EDT
Lines: 103


This is a *very*  toned down response to Larry Cipriani's article in which
a letter a friend of his wrote questioned whether King was really non-violent.
I cannot argue with someone's belief that they don't want a holiday...it's
our right!  But I take considerable exception to distortion of FACTS to
support one's argument.  I'd like to address that.  I don't know how many
or even if anyone PARTICIPATED in the activities King led, but I did.  I was
in elementary school and then high school during those years, and was active
in marches and sit-ins.   Let me state right now students WERE NOT allowed
to do anything during school hours, so so much for King taking kids out of
school.

Gee Larry I wish your friend was able to defend his views here on the net, and 
I have no idea where you stand on it, but here goes.  

>In considering the goals, methods, and accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther
>King, we should dispose of a myth -- that King was a man of peace.

Let's see...

	I am non-violent.  I will protest the fact that a black lady has to
	give up her seat on the bus to a white man.  It is a law that says
	she has to do that, and I will protest that law.

	I will demonstrate against that law by calling attention to it and
	getting thosewho made that law to change it.  We have tried before,
	but it hasn't changed.  I will call attention by marching and meeting
	and appealing to the conscience of those who can help us make that
	change.

	I will NOT allow us to carry any weapons.  If we are met with resis-
	tance, we will turn the other cheek.  I know that I am breaking the law
	by sitting at the Woolworth counter because I am black, and blacks
	cannot sit at the counter.  I also that another law says that all
	men are created equal.  So I will sit there and get arrested, time
	after time until the unfairness of the law is so plain that it has
	to be changed.  I will go to jail, but I will not tell my supporters
	that we should take up arms and REALLY get their attention.

	So I march, and sit in the white only section.  And the dogs and the
	hoses are loosed.  I got to jail.  I'm released and I do it again.
	I EXPECT to get jailed, I pray for no violence, but if I do, I'll
	TURN THE OTHER CHEEK. (Can anyone tell me how many cops were killed
	during that time?)  It is the price I and my followers feel we must
	pay to be treated like men.

Now here's some more of Larry's friend's comments...

>King repeatedly turned to the government as a mechanism for social change;
>and behind the acts of government, one ultimately fifs the policeman's gun
>and the prison guard's nightstick.  King did not employ violence directly,
>but sought for the government to use coercion.
>Of course, the use of force can sometimes be justified and necessary.  But
>when employed, it should be recognized as such, not cloaked with the mystique
>of non-violence.

So then, I'm non-violent!  I won't carry weapons, but I will march. If I
know that I'm going to encounter violence (NOT ENCOURAGE, mind you) then that
makes me VIOLENT.  If I DO carry weapons, then I am VIOLENT!

I have your paycheck.  You need your paycheck.  you ask me for your pay-
check.  I say no, and I let the dogs and the hoses loose.  You ask me again.
You have not threatened me with bodily harm, you carry no big stick. I still
say no, and let you have the dogs again.  Who's violent, who's not?  Who's
taking the peaceful approach???

King turned to the government and the PEOPLE for social change.  The only
coercion King looked for was a change in the LAW, not a knot on the head!!
The gov. made the law...could it not change that law???  King NEVER said
that those who protested would have to eventually use force, and he
never justified it.  He did say that if it menat getting kicked in the head
to be removed from second-class citizenship "TURN THE OTHER CHEEK!!!"

>With the illusion of pacifism removed, it becomes possible to view the life
>of Dr. King more clearly.  He was a man possessed of great courage, who
>often struggled valiantly for justice.  But he had inadequate regard for
>individual rights or economic reality; much of what he called for would
>subvert the human dignity that he sought to champion.

This is where I realy wish the author could answer this, but again, there
may be those on the net who agree.  If I associate the words correctly,
I read that statement to say "Hey, he was really a good guy at heart,  but
he didn't think about what would happen ot blacks, that is, put them on
welfare and thus "subvert...human dignity".  If course we've all heard
that folks on welfare, and blacks in particular, have no "dignity", so
I don't think I'm too far off target.

Well, King never marched for welfare.  He marched for basic freedoms which 
were denied the black folks.  I speculate here, but I don't think he would
object to welfare.  Remember, he was a minister and as such VERY religious.
Religious in the sense of helping others.  But hey, that's speculation.

As I stated earlier, I participated in the activites of the 60's.  I sat
at the counters.  The activities I took part in stressed NON-VIOLENCE.
I did it because I felt that I was just as good as a white kid my age, and 
I should live accordingly.  I did not join the Black Panthers, who wanted
that same right via different means.  I can not and will not let others
distort, or destroy that effort.

Hey, Gene Spafford, you can have your soapbox back.  I didn't mean to keep
it so long.  :-)

Dennis