Skip to main content
It's MLK, Jr. Day here in our beloved United States. Whether it should be a federal holiday or not has lost a bit of salience because many businesses continue to operate. And it is indeed separate from the question of King's importance and legacy, despite some attempts to equate not supporting the creation of the holiday with the very racism that King opposed. I would surmise that King would oppose a holiday about himself. Here is a curious article. Would we not expect that King would lose support as he took stands that reflected a particular political ideology? In spite of his many flaws, King is to me an American hero. He has (rightly) been appropriated as a symbol by nearly everyone--right, left, and center--and by people in other nations. But I can say that I differ with Dr. King with respect to the Vietnam War, Ali, and probably economics, as well. Must I have been in lockstep with him politically at all times to share his 'Dream'? I should say not! It seems to me that King understood that the most vital aspects of his message involved civil rights long promised and long denied, and that he had to frame it as an American problem, as a national identity crisis, touching us all. The very thing that makes King so inspiring is that he saw the problem in this way, and helped us all to see it this way, too. He was not in fact the leader of black Americans, demanding rights for black Americans; (Though that is part of the story.) King was an American, asking fellow Americans of all colors and creeds to look in the mirror. "Which America sounds like the one you love?" he seemed to ask. And we decided that his vision of America, by and large, was the right one. He would have known that his later activities were premised on less universal themes, that his solutions were more transparently ideological than the highest points of the civil rights movement. This is what I'd like to think, anyway. The March on Washington, I'd like to think, included future Goldwater supporters. All that is to say that King united many kinds of people around American ideals in fighting for civil rights, a coalition that would not hold through all of King's endeavors. And that's OK, even natural.
His widow, Coretta Scott King, makes no secret of her progressive politics. It is to the credit of progressive ideologues that their ideas have, in the minds of many, become synonymous with fidelity to civil rights and the civil rights movement. But that is a detriment to King's dream, and to the country in the end. The idea that only those who agreed entirely with MLK, Jr.'s agenda throughout can claim him, or look to him for inspiration is frankly illiberal and immoral. I hope that he would see my opposition to affirmative action and other preferences based upon race as a testament to his dream partially realized, not a reflection of a recalcitrant racist.
Anyway, the fact that Americans view King's entire legacy and career differently, but are nearly unanimous in holding that it was significant, and (on balance) positive demonstrates that Americans are capable of a nuanced view of even our heroes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar