Martin Luther King Jr Day: January 16, 2006

[Pathless]

"Life's persistent and most urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity and freedom for their spirits."
--Dr. King in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, 1964

During his lifetime, Dr. King sought to forge the common ground on which people from all walks of life could join together to address important community issues. Working alongside individuals of all ages, races and backgrounds, Dr. King encouraged Americans to come together to strengthen communities, alleviate poverty, and acknowledge dignity and respect for all human beings. Service, he realized, was the great equalizer.

On January 16, 2006, as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday, Americans across the country will celebrate by honoring the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will remember and memorialize Dr. King by participating in service projects in their communities. Together, they will honor King’s legacy of tolerance, peace, and equality by meeting community needs and making the holiday “A day ON, not a day OFF.”

For those interested in getting involved with events in local communities, check here.

"So, I conclude by saying again today that we have a task, and let us go out with a divine dissatisfaction. Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and and anemia of deeds. Let us be dissatisfied until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort and the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. Let us be dissatisfied until those that live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security. Let us be dissatisfied until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history, and every family is living in a decent sanitary home. Let us be dissatisfied until the dark yesterdays of segragated schools will be transformed into bright tomorrows of quality, integrated education. Let us be dissatisfied until integration is not seen as a problem, but as an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity. Let us be dissatisfied until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character and not on the basis of the color of their skin. Let us be dissatisfied."
--Dr. King, 'Where Do We Go From Here?' SCLC Presedintial Address; August 16th, 1967

[lunamoth]

Great post, Pathless. Thank you for the reminder. May we all remain dissatisfied--and work toward MKL Jr's goals of equality and justice for all.

peace,
lunamoth

[truthseeker]

Dr. King stated that there is a word in psychology that is probably used more than any other word in psychology - maladjustment. He called upon the world that we should all be so maladjusted that we should not adapt to homelessness, racial injustice, malnutrition, poverty, religious intolerance - among others.

I am proud to say that I am being mentored by the NAACM group - National Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment.

[wil]

Great post, Pathless. Thank you for the reminder. May we all remain dissatisfied--and work toward MKL Jr's goals of equality and justice for all.

I say hear, hear lunamoth and DITTO

I think it is imperative that we do not let the assinations of Dr. King and Ghandi go unnoticed as well. For the two that most exemplified nonviolence the 64 day Season for NonViolence was proclaimed eight years ago. The link I'm providing will give you 64 ways to celebrate nonviolence in the 64 days as well as an elementary school program and plenty of more information.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Dr. King stated that there is a word in psychology that is probably used more than any other word in psychology - maladjustment. He called upon the world that we should all be so maladjusted that we should not adapt to homelessness, racial injustice, malnutrition, poverty, religious intolerance - among others.

I am proud to say that I am being mentored by the NAACM group - National Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment.

I like this idea. Question for you truthseeker: Are you seriously being mentored by a group called NAACM, or was that a joke, playing off of the NAACP?

I had a fairly eventful weekend commemorating Dr. King, civil rights, and "multiculturalism." My curiousity was stimulated and I am currently doing some research into this period in American history. I am fascinated by a movement contemporary to King's nonviolent activism towards integration, but also contrary to it: the Black Power movement. Stokely Carmichael, who criticized King for his policy of nonviolence, urged a complete rejection of the values of American society, and issued "a call for black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, and to build a sense of community."

Considered black rascists by some, people in the Black Power movement have a radically different conception of black culture and rights than the proponents of civil rights and integration. International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement is a radical organization that calls for self-determination, black ownership, community, and reparations from the U.S. government. InPDUM expresses its highest value in the statement that "self determination is the highest expression of democracy. The underlying charge is that African culture has been robbed of its history, spirit, and unique qualities through assimilation into the overwhelmingly white American culture.

The position being taken by InPDUM and Black Power movements reminds me of tribalism; in tribal cultures, diversity was so valued that cultural integration would be seen as cultural death. For example, the indigenous populations of pre-colonial America were many separate and distinct units, and individuals were defined by their tribes. Although marriages may unite tribes to some extent, the idea that all tribes would come together as an integrated culture was unthinkable and would run counter to the tribal way of life. Similarly, people who advoate Black Power seem to me to be wishing to reject standard American values in order to establish autonomy and rediscover their own, unique culture.

Food for thought...

Thoughts?

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Pathless

I like this idea. Question for you truthseeker: Are you seriously being mentored by a group called NAACM, or was that a joke, playing off of the NAACP?

Cleverly taken from the NAACP synonym, of course .It was a statement taken from one of Dr. King's speeches against the war in Vietnam.
[quote]
I had a fairly eventful weekend commemorating Dr. King, civil rights, and "multiculturalism." My curiousity was stimulated and I am currently doing some research into this period in American history. I am fascinated by a movement contemporary to King's nonviolent activism towards integration, but also contrary to it: the Black Power movement. Stokely Carmichael, who criticized King for his policy of nonviolence, urged a complete rejection of the values of American society, and issued "a call for black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, and to build a sense of community." ['Quote]
I happen to believe that it was all a black power movement. Just different ways of approaching different problems, is all. Dr. King was concerned with with a form of human rights that will be an indefinate battle. The way he handled it was most effective because it didn't violate the civil rights of others or any laws within the constitution - though it awoke America to the ugliness within and forced people to question their own morals. But you know, you get tired of being calm when your family is in danger and you don't have an eloquent speaker like Dr. King keeping you around to maintain your calm. The cities of the North, East, and West were not as family oriented as the towns of the South. So youth were getting restless of the domination of policemen and city officials who sought to keep them down and hopeless situation of their children because of the poverty. Young mean of these neighborhoods united to discover themselves. If they were nothing like the white man, they had to identify with who they are. Not only that, there is something awfully depressing and oppressive about getting beaten for just standing around in 'the land of the free, home of the brave'. Black power movements were formed to give the people a sense of self without the need to beg from a government that didn't recognize them as citizens or a society that would take priviledge over morals.

Considered black rascists by some, people in the Black Power movement have a radically different conception of black culture and rights than the proponents of civil rights and integration. International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement is a radical organization that calls for self-determination, black ownership, community, and reparations from the U.S. government. InPDUM expresses its highest value in the statement that "self determination is the highest expression of democracy. The underlying charge is that African culture has been robbed of its history, spirit, and unique qualities through assimilation into the overwhelmingly white American culture.

There are some situations in which you must be extreme to get your point across. In every city there is a neighborhood for different cultures. Los Angeles has a China Town, a Little Armenia, a Little India, a Little Tokyo, and some others. Watts and Leimert Park is a black community. There are a lot of movements that take place at Leimert Park in which the philosophy that you quoted is shared and on that philosophy, the community is doing quite well. It is teeming with African American culture and the property value is very good. There are blacks ranging from lower class to upper middle class and there is a neighborhood of blacks that looks like Beverly Hills and they are very active in the community.

The position being taken by InPDUM and Black Power movements reminds me of tribalism; in tribal cultures, diversity was so valued that cultural integration would be seen as cultural death. For example, the indigenous populations of pre-colonial America were many separate and distinct units, and individuals were defined by their tribes. Although marriages may unite tribes to some extent, the idea that all tribes would come together as an integrated culture was unthinkable and would run counter to the tribal way of life. Similarly, people who advoate Black Power seem to me to be wishing to reject standard American values in order to establish autonomy and rediscover their own, unique culture.

There is a cultural death in integration of cultures. However, I think that the only way Blacks can reject standard American values is to move out of the United States. There were many Blacks during the 60's who moved to Alaska and to West Africa.There, they felt they could be who they are (Black, which really was a problem for Blacks in America, then and now, socially and economically). Nonetheless, I believe that part of the American culture was established by Blacks. The extreme view is because so many Blacks have a problem with being Black and it creates a low esteem that creates the problems exists within the communities. Thing about it is, that, everyone should just be who they are and resist conforming to a particular group just for the sake of trying to belong to something. The strongest people are those who just 'be' even in the face of adversity, which everyone has regardless of social class, culture, gender, sexual preference or race.

[lunamoth]

This reminds me of an article in the Sunday NYT this week about covering by Kenji Yoshino. The author is gay and talks about the social pressure on uncloseted gays to avoid stereotypical 'gay' behavior, and also about how all groups of people with 'outsider identities' (non-mainstream) including blacks, latinos, religious minorities, people with disabilites etc. feel pressure to confrom their self-expression to fit the norm. He describes it as the next frontier of civil rights, in a way, except that it is outside the scope of law.

In the article Yoshino points out that the legal system makes the distinction between mutable and immutable traits:

In such cases, the courts routinely distinguish between immutable and mutable traits, between being a member of a legally protected group and behavior associated with that group. Under this rule, African-Americans cannot be fired for their skin color, but they could be fired for wearing cornrows. Potential jurors cannot be struck for their ethnicity but can be struck for speaking (or even for admitting proficiency in) a foreign language. Women cannot be discharged for having two X chromosomes but can be penalized (in some jurisdictions) for becoming mothers. Although the weaker protections for sexual orientation mean gays can sometimes be fired for their status alone, they will be much more vulnerable if they are perceived to "flaunt" their sexuality. Jews cannot be separated from the military for being Jewish but can be discharged for wearing yarmulkes.

This distinction between being and doing reflects a bias toward assimilation. Courts will protect traits like skin color or chromosomes because such traits cannot be changed. In contrast, the courts will not protect mutable traits, because individuals can alter them to fade into the mainstream, thereby escaping discrimination. If individuals choose not to engage in that form of self-help, they must suffer the consequences.

So what do you think about the pressure for people to conform to cultural expectations? Is it a subtle form of discrimination? Is there anyone who does not sacrifice some self-expression to fit in? Do some make more sacrifices than others and is this unfair?

lunamoth

[Pathless]

Thank you both, truthseeker and lunamoth, for the thoughtful and thought-provoking replies. You both, in different ways, bring up points about American culture being fairly homogenous and hegemenous. As much as people talk about "multiculturalism" (a nice politically correct term), there is a certain culture that is uniquely American. It's hard to put your finger on, of course, because it's not a particular religion--although we are fairly steeped in Christianity--or a particular skin color--although some would say that we are still a nation of white power. It's not exactly consumerism or capitalism, although these are defining features. It's not pop culture, trash TV, the 6 o'clock and 11 o'clock news; it's not apple pie, grandma, and hamburgers. It's hard to define and seems to shift, but I feel that there is a dominant culture in America. It makes itself known and redefines itself daily through television, newspapers, radio. Are we a culture of media? I think in a lot of ways we are defined by the reflections we see of ourselves on TV, the voices and songs on the radio, the thoughts and facts presented to us in newspapers.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

So what do you think about the pressure for people to conform to cultural expectations? Is it a subtle form of discrimination? Is there anyone who does not sacrifice some self-expression to fit in? Do some make more sacrifices than others and is this unfair?

Good, tough questions. I think we do all sacrifice our self expression to conform to those images on TV, etc. Some people don't notice it; they seem to enjoy playing that game and getting the goodies, the paychecks and the shiny baubles of consumerism. Others feel the sacrifice, and it pains them. These people may tend to be the minorities that have been mentioned: gays and lesbians; people of color: African Americans, indigenous peoples, Orientals, Hindus, Muslims, and you fill in the blanks. They may tend to be these people, but not necessarily; there are gays and lesbians, African Americans, indigenous peoples, Orientals, Hindus, Muslims, etc who are all willing to mute their self-expression, sacrifice heritage, culture, or individuality, so that they can play the cultural game of America. But I think it's the people that live their culture, who boldly express their sexual orientation, who create and live their own mythology, who vocalize their emotions and passions which do not fit into the cultural American norms of the moment; it's these people that suffer from the hegemony of the moment.

Is it discrimination? I would say not exactly or directly, although this kind of hegemony and homogony definitely creates conditions for discrimination against those who don't fit the norm. Yes, that's unfair, in my opinion. So, what can be done about it?

[wil]

Seems to me all sorts of 'sacrifices' are made so we can coexist. If you are only going to live in Miami, you can get by on Spanish, and if you intend to stay in Maine, or the Bayou, or the inner city you can get by with the heavy colloquial speech patterns...but if you are to travel across the US and work and communicate, one needs to be able to speak more clearly.

The same with dress, piercings, tattoos, hair styles. If you wish to be unique in your ways, be they cultural, social or rebellious, you limit your access to the conventional world.

I see this affects those who wish to retain their heritage from any culture, or those that wish to push the envelope. Of course when there are enough of those of a different culture or pushing the envelope the system changes, albiet slowly. Drive to the southwest or Florida and see the signs in Spanish, or in any major cities Chinatown and see the Chinese characters.

So we can have our uniqueness, and limit our own horizons, vertical and horizontal.

Seems to me that Martin Luther King chose to have his words heard by the masses, so he also chose to dress and speak so the masses would listen.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by wil

So we can have our uniqueness, and limit our own horizons, vertical and horizontal.

Ah, but there are those that would respond that by dressing and speaking the way that he did, King made some sacrifices to his cultural heritage, thereby also limiting himself. Another question: by assimilating into mainstream American culture, do we, as unique individuals or representatives of other cultures, limit our horizons of unique cultural expression, political impact, or spiriitual experience?