http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/04/304/
[quote]by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
It’s become a TV ritual: Every year on April 4, as Americans commemorate Martin Luther King’s death, we get perfunctory network news reports about “the slain civil rights leader.â€
The Martin Luther King You Don’t See on TV
Moderator: EG Members
-
Shaka Zulu
- Buzkashi wannabe
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:26 pm
- Location: Zulu Land
We used to discuss this quite a bit in International relations and sociology classes. Simply put, the teach highlighted quite well how MLK was glorified and and patted in the back...aslong as he kept it safe and in the tolerated subject.
They wanted him to be more or less an obedient front figure for one cause only and nothing but (racial equality) they knew that couldnt be fought eventually and went with the program (or the changing times). But other issues of how he questioned equal rights in general or questioning military actions was way too much for the status quo (not to sound like a conspirator, but its quite obvious he wasnt killed by some sole loon or racist, but that he just simply voiced his concerns too much) .
MLK being a "radical" (in their definition because he questioned the govt, yes people even MLK himself was called anti-american...) is something that is kept quiet quite alot when talking about him. They only highlight the gentle PC civil activists, the docile preacher man side of him. The one who only spoke of one subject, like that was the reality. Because it was a big no-no for him to choose which injustice he should speak, and was criticized and censored at the time when he brought up these issue that was deemed issues he shouldn't concern himself with (his supporters warned him that they would lose the popular support and funding they got, if he "branched" out to other topics, that he wouldnt the countries darling anymore).
I guess this has been quite a well hidden side of him, because this wasnt thought in the school books (My teach brought it up because we were discussing historic figures that werent how they are perceived as). What was thought is the typical shallow image most have him of being the nice and powerful civil rights activist, which generic papers are written about, and the only speech you see of him is the 60 seconds highlight of I have a dream speech (and hence the darling of everyone). Its seldom he is talked about in a deeper sense other then to glorify him by naming schools and streets and national days after him.
Regarding speeches, His I have a dream speech isnt even the most impressive (even though its the most iconic), the mountain top speech is better, and the anti war and vietnam speech is as brilliant as a speech can get. You'll be depressed of how current the issues he brings up are, how it shows history repeating itself. Its a bit unorthodox speech to hear because as said, it will change your image of him if that image is the inspiring and colorful (in how he describes things) preacher who talked about an Utopia on earth (and the status quo didnt like him talking anything else but this). He rips the US govt to pieces ( I mean litterally, its embarrassing to even think to counter the clear arguments he presents against the govts actions and hypocracy), and talks of the general social class difference in US and around the world.
Hearing him like this suprised me at least. Never even thought he talked about these issues (anti-vietnam), had a more non-radical image, diplomatic and docile (glad I saw the real side of him, because I truly respect him instead of him being an iconic figure for justice you should respect).
Here's the speech, its long, but so worth it. The opening is quite different if you are only used to hearing the I have a dream quote
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U
They wanted him to be more or less an obedient front figure for one cause only and nothing but (racial equality) they knew that couldnt be fought eventually and went with the program (or the changing times). But other issues of how he questioned equal rights in general or questioning military actions was way too much for the status quo (not to sound like a conspirator, but its quite obvious he wasnt killed by some sole loon or racist, but that he just simply voiced his concerns too much) .
MLK being a "radical" (in their definition because he questioned the govt, yes people even MLK himself was called anti-american...) is something that is kept quiet quite alot when talking about him. They only highlight the gentle PC civil activists, the docile preacher man side of him. The one who only spoke of one subject, like that was the reality. Because it was a big no-no for him to choose which injustice he should speak, and was criticized and censored at the time when he brought up these issue that was deemed issues he shouldn't concern himself with (his supporters warned him that they would lose the popular support and funding they got, if he "branched" out to other topics, that he wouldnt the countries darling anymore).
I guess this has been quite a well hidden side of him, because this wasnt thought in the school books (My teach brought it up because we were discussing historic figures that werent how they are perceived as). What was thought is the typical shallow image most have him of being the nice and powerful civil rights activist, which generic papers are written about, and the only speech you see of him is the 60 seconds highlight of I have a dream speech (and hence the darling of everyone). Its seldom he is talked about in a deeper sense other then to glorify him by naming schools and streets and national days after him.
Regarding speeches, His I have a dream speech isnt even the most impressive (even though its the most iconic), the mountain top speech is better, and the anti war and vietnam speech is as brilliant as a speech can get. You'll be depressed of how current the issues he brings up are, how it shows history repeating itself. Its a bit unorthodox speech to hear because as said, it will change your image of him if that image is the inspiring and colorful (in how he describes things) preacher who talked about an Utopia on earth (and the status quo didnt like him talking anything else but this). He rips the US govt to pieces ( I mean litterally, its embarrassing to even think to counter the clear arguments he presents against the govts actions and hypocracy), and talks of the general social class difference in US and around the world.
Hearing him like this suprised me at least. Never even thought he talked about these issues (anti-vietnam), had a more non-radical image, diplomatic and docile (glad I saw the real side of him, because I truly respect him instead of him being an iconic figure for justice you should respect).
Here's the speech, its long, but so worth it. The opening is quite different if you are only used to hearing the I have a dream quote
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U
Until the lion learns to speak, the tales of the hunt will be(weak) told by the hunter