Hot News!
• PR v. 9x: Can Charter have it both ways?
• The Small Donor-Fallacy: Don’t believe the hype!
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 Saturday July 12, 10 am-12 pm Quarterly GET-TOGETHER BRUNCH for LOCAL PEACE AND JUSTICE GROUPS @ Peaslee Neighborhood Center (215 E 14th St - free parking lot next to center) - John Davis from Sojourners Cincinnati is the coordinator and the facilitator for this session Topic: “Poverty in Cincinnati”
1) Status of Poverty in Cincinnati – John Davis - Sojourners Cincinnati
|
July 12-17 NAACP Annual Convention - Power, Justice, Freedom, Vote
|
July, 19am - 12pm Immigration
|
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Beyond (Iraq): Is Dr. Martin Luther King’s Antiwar Speech Silenced 40 Years Later?
Posted by Justin Jeffre
April 4, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King gave one of his least known and most important speeches “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.” It was King’s declaration of independence from the war and where he called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” He was assassinated one year to the day later. What might Dr. King say today? Here’s an excerpt from his landmark speech, you can listen or read the full transcript here.
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.:
If we do not stop our war against the people of (Iraq) immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in (Iraq), that we have been detrimental to the life of the (Iraqi) people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in (Iraq), we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war and set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from (Iraq) in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.
Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any (Iraqi) who fears for his life under the new regime, which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary. 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 and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in (Iraq). We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.
These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
Now, there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in (Iraq). I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.
The war in (Iraq) is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about (Venezuela) and (Iran). They will be concerned about (Syria) and (Bolivia). They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
05 Apr 2007 at 12:01 pm | #
By your interjection of the word “Iraq” in place of Vietnam throughout Dr Kings speach, in order to further your agenda, is a bullshit way to try and give your agenda credibility.
05 Apr 2007 at 02:43 pm | #
JFD, please explain why, seriously. You don’t believe that Dr. King would have supported the war in Iraq, do you?
Here’s the original text of what Dr. King said.
It seems to me that King was pretty clear that Vietnam was but a symptom of a far deeper problem. It’s the same problem that has us in Iraq and “beyond”. If you want to talk about a BS way to try and give an agenda credibility, lets talk about the fabricated WMDs, links to Bin Laden and the other lies that were used take us into war. (Or the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us into Vietnam.) Iraqi’s and the Vietnamese were never a threat to Americans. Do you really think these small defenseless countries would try to attack a superpower?
The real reasons we’re in Iraq and “beyond” are because the Bush administration is marinated in oil and filled with war profiteers. Condi Rice had a Chevron oil tanker named after her, Chenney and Haliburton (war profiteers), Bush and the Carlyle group (war profiteers). Do you see the pattern?
These wars are for corporate profits. They want permanent military bases and a corporate global empire. These wars are not for the security of the American people but to protect the corporate interests from democracy and human rights. In fact, they’ve increased terrorism in the world.
The military has to manufacture consent for war with lies and propaganda to further their agenda. That’s why war profiteers like GE own media outlets like NBC and MSNBC. It’s a small part of their profits but a huge part of their propaganda machine. My agenda already has credibility with the majority of Americans. Does yours?
05 Apr 2007 at 09:09 pm | #
I don’t have to explain why, or why not Dr King would, or would not have supported the war in Iraq. He was speaking about Vietnam; and for you to suppose that his comments were meant to be used for the war in Iraq, which he is not here to dispute; is bullshit on your part. If you wish to quote his words to reinforce an agument you have against the war in Iraq, then quote him. For you to use his speach with minor interjections of your own agenda seems alot like plagurism.
05 Apr 2007 at 09:11 pm | #
The passage above is presented in the form of a quote, with a link back to the source transcript. The new word is in parenthesis, so documentation is sufficient to avoid any claims of plagiarism.
Only an idiot would not understand the commentary provided by Justin.
Oh… wait…
05 Apr 2007 at 09:26 pm | #
And Dr Kings thoughts on your use of his speach are what?
06 Apr 2007 at 11:25 am | #
JFD, I think Dr. King called the speech “Beyond Vietnam” because he new we would be engaged in similar actions in the future. Our war in Iraq is our next major occupation with many smaller wars in Latin America. Did you actually read or listen to his speech? I only ask because that’s what my agenda is.
“And Dr Kings thoughts on your use of his speach are what?”
My point was we should remember his speech because it never gets mentioned as one of his great speeches and I think it is. The last three years of his life don’t get remembered. Why do you think that is? He didn’t go on vacation.
Amy Goodman says;
She says an alert viewer might notice that the chronology jumps from 1965 to 1968. Yet King didn’t take a sabbatical near the end of his life. In fact, he was speaking and organizing as diligently as ever. Almost all of those speeches were filmed or taped. But they’re not shown today on TV.
She says in the early 1960s, when King focused his challenge on legalized racial discrimination in the South, most major media were his allies. Network TV and national publications graphically showed the police dogs and bullwhips and cattle prods used against Southern blacks who sought the right to vote or to eat at a public lunch counter. But after passage of civil rights acts in 1964 and 1965, King began challenging the nation’s fundamental priorities. He maintained that civil rights laws were empty without “human rights”—including economic rights. For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow.
Noting that a majority of Americans below the poverty line were white, King developed a class perspective. He decried the huge income gaps between rich and poor, and called for “radical changes in the structure of our society” to redistribute wealth and power. By 1967, King had also become the country’s most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. King was in Memphis, Tennessee to support striking sanitation workers as he built momentum for a Poor Peoples March on Washington.
06 Apr 2007 at 05:01 pm | #
Justin
My issue is that you hijacked Dr Kings words in a way that was meant to give your anti-Iraq war agenda, credibility. Clearly you belive he would be in agreement with you, and I can’t say that he wouldn’t, but he is not here to say one way or the other. While technicly not plaugerism, I think it is a cheap literary trick that you used his words and credibility, in place of your own. It just seems that the people at the Beacon are all over anyone else’s journalistic ethics and for you to use his words in this manner, makes one think that the rules only apply to others.
06 Apr 2007 at 05:08 pm | #
Everyone knows King’s speech was not about Iraq. Everyone knows what Justin’s point was in using the parenthesis.
If this is unethical, please explain how.
In the words of JFK, “Ask not what (The Cincinnati Beacon) can do for you; ask what you can do for (The Cincinnati Beacon).”
06 Apr 2007 at 08:26 pm | #
JFD - BFD
07 Apr 2007 at 01:26 pm | #
i didnt think the beacon allowed personal attacks?
07 Apr 2007 at 03:32 pm | #
formely f, you must not have been reading much. Justin and the Dean get attacked all the time.
08 Apr 2007 at 04:46 pm | #
JFD, I haven’t hijacked Dr. Kings word’s, I’ve highlighted them and again that was my agenda. As the Dean has repeatedly pointed out, I clearly marked the words I updated to give the excerpt a modern context. If you had bothered to read or listen to his speech (which I linked to)you would understand that he wasn’t just talking about Vietnam. He was talking Beyond Vietnam.
I was reading a speech from Howard Zinn and though he wasn’t referring to King’s speech he summed it up pretty well with this paragraph.
“We have to think beyond Iraq and even beyond Iran. We don’t want to have to struggle against this war and then against that war and then against the next war. We don’t want to have an endless succession of antiwar movements. It gets tiring. And we need to think and talk and educate about the abolition of war itself, you see.”
Dr. King isn’t here but his words and his message still are and because I highlighted them hopefully you and others will think about them and their relevance today.
It is unfortunate that I had to “trick” you into reading King’s speech, but if the media wouldn’t “black out” this speech and the last three years of his life every year during his “celebration”, I wouldn’t have felt the need to draw attention to it. Did you read or listen to his speech?
“It just seems that the people at the Beacon are all over anyone else’s journalistic ethics and for you to use his words in this manner, makes one think that the rules only apply to others.”
I certainly didn’t plagiarize his words, so I reject your critique. His words are clear and all those that were close to Dr. King and carry on his legacy oppose this war based on lies just as Dr. King opposed the Vietnam war (also based on lies) and beyond. It’s too bad our history books and corporate media still ignore the last three years of his work and silence some of his most important words 40 years later.
The peace movement is the majority in this country. It is Bush, the GOP, the Democrats and the corporate media that doesn’t have any credibility. Please explain why we went to war in Iraq again!