|
One of the most famous documents from the 1960s is Martin Luther King, Jr's "Letter from Birmingham City Jail." A group of ministers had asked King, "Why direct action? Why sit-in, marches, etc? Isn't negotiation a better path?" Martin responded, "You deplore the demonstrations .... But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. i am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at efforts, and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative." King's April 16, 1963 letter remains a classic, while those clergy who questioned him are but footnotes in history.
Four years later, Rev. King combined civil rights with the anti-war movement. On April 4, 1967, he delivered "A Time to Break Silence" (aka "Beyond Vietnam") at the Riverside Church in New York City. King quoted the opening line from the Clergy & Laymen Concerned about Vietnam's statement, "A time comes when silence is betrayal." He noted that as he moved to break the betrayal of his own silence, that many warned him that he was damaging the civil rights work he had done. "And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirerers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live."
A civic group called King's speech "an extremist tirade" that pandered to Ho Chi Minh and insulted "the intelligence of all Americans." FBI documents noted the speech as evidence that king was "a traitor to his country and to his race." Some in the White House and Congress called him "a Commie," trained by Peking and Hanoi. Newsweek said King was in "over his head," and accused him of having "simplistic political judgement." Life said he was advocating "surrender." A NY Times editorial was titled "King's Error." Carl Rowan said Martin had "delivered a one-sided broadside about a matter on which he obviously has an abundance of indignation and a shortage of information."
In his book "Let the Trumpet Sound," author Stephen B. Oates notes that the vicious attacks hurt Martin. His friends said that he "sat down and cried." (page 422) But Martin forgave those who attacked him. And he continued to tell the truth. He paid for his stance with his life.
Two of the most intense and haunting figures of the Vietnam era were the revolutionary Jesuits, Daniel and Philip Berrigan. They were involved in the Plowshares movement. Their willingness to go to prison for extended periods for their beliefs was difficult for many -- including their supporters -- to understand. One of the best recent accounts can be found in James Carroll's "House of War."
Things were not always translated in simplistic terms. There is a 1972 book "The Eloquence of Protest: Voices of the 70's," edited by Harrison Salisbury. In it, there is a 1970 letter from Daniel to the Weathermen. Both Daniel and the Weathermen were on the "underground" at the time, being sought by the FBI. Many people who supported some of what Daniel did were offended that he would "break bread" with the Weathermen.
What I find interesting in the book is "A Doctor's Letter to His Son," by Paul Williamson. The letter was published in a medical journal, then widely reprinted. In it, the good doctor informs his son that the students killed at Kent State got what they deserved, and if the son attended an anti-war protest, the doctor and his wife would "grieve but we will gladly buy a dinner for the National Guardsman who shot you."
Many Americans found a distraction from things political when a rock & roll group called The Beatles came to sing "She Love You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand." But the mop-tops grew up, and one in particular questioned society. When John Lennon married Yoko Ono and protested wars, people attacked him. If one watches the movie "Imagine," there is a great scene with a journalist telling John how she always liked him, but .....
Those who bought John & Yoko's "Wedding Album" have a 20-page, album-sized booklet full of copies of newspaper articles and political cartoons, most of which are vicious attacks aimed at John. The title of one of my favorites is "These phoney stunts that call for no sacrfice," by Herbert Williams. In it, he writes, "The contrast between the cosiness of the Lennon-Yoko lie-in, and the agony of Vietnam and Biafra is such that to claim that one has any bearing on the other is a piece of colossal insensitivity." John's anti-war stance brought out more negative press than had his earlier "scandal" with some Christians.
I think of all these things when I read the "I like Cindy, but ..." comments on DU. I can appreciate that there is plenty of room for people to have honest disagreement with her. (Or, with Daniel, Martin, or John.) You ask that others not be offended by your disagreeing with her. I would ask that you be as open-minded in considering how you sound to us.
I know that Cindy isn't Daniel, Martin, or John. None of them was propelled to fame when their son was killed in Iraq. Nor is she Dr. Williamson -- her son really did die. And since that time, she is doing her best to force Americans to look closely at the war, and to search for ways to bring the American participation to an end. She is sure to make many people uncomfortable with her tactics. Some of her stances may seemed confused, or confusing. And she may even make a mistake at some point or another.
|