by Metta blogger Philip Wight
In late August 1963, during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his most-remembered oratory address: the “I have a Dream” speech. The most influential speech of the American Civil Rights Movement, King’s passionate call for racial equality needs no reproduction here. However King’s “dream” speech is merely his most vocalized vision; an early version of his philosophy that is tame, digestible, and inoffensive today. To understand King as a prophet of peace, we must rediscover his philosophy of radical and visionary nonviolence.
Popular history speaks for itself, but radical history needs illumination—and King was a radical. Called an “apostle of militant nonviolence” by one historian, King accepted being called an extremist, qualifying himself as an extremist for peace, “love…and the extension of justice.” As the Civil Rights Movement grew beyond political rights and social equality, King focused on two problems plaguing Americans: militarism and poverty.
The 1964 Nobel Peace Prize recipient understood “we have guided missiles and misguided men.” Because the destructiveness of modern war and nuclear weapons “totally rules out the possibility of war ever serving again as a negative good,” King argued humanity had two choices: “either nonviolence or nonexistence.” This wasn’t an argument intended just for foreign powers though, as this radical pacifist believed his own government was the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” Asked what he would do if drafted to fight in Vietnam, King’s answered unequivocally: “I would be a conscientious objector.”
King’s passion for nonviolence and justice shaped his economic views as well. While he fought for economic security and prosperity for all, King understood that “violence has been the inseparable twin of materialism, the hallmark of its grandeur and misery.” He argued the “giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism” were only capable of being “conquered” when humanity evolved from a “thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.” Because America’s economic system of free-market capitalism enshrined the “profit motive” as the highest virtue and advanced “cutthroat competition and selfish ambition,” King (along with other nonviolent visionaries like Albert Einstein and E.F. Schumacher) called for a more-humane system of “democratic socialism.”
So on this occasion when we remember King’s “dream” of racial equality, let us not forget his prophetic vision of radical nonviolence and economic justice—even in the face of violence and inequality.
After all, King understood when “our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.”
To learn more about Martin Luther King, Jr., visit the King Research Institute at Stanford.
I agree with King. Nonviolence or nonexistence is true. However, we have to live in the real world, not a fantasy world. The reality is there’s evil in the world. People understand they must defend themselves or else die. Nonviolence is, in a sense, suicide. The death of the body will result from taking nonviolence to its logical conclusion. If you believe in a spiritual life, a soul, or God, then you may not be concerned about your material life, and so can then happily advocate nonviolence. But this is an extreme teaching that most people cannot accept. For example, in WW II, should we have just let Hitler and the Nazis exterminate us all? If the allies hadn’t fought back, that’s what would’ve happened. God bless the Metta Center and its message of peace. Just keep in mind that if you’re going to preach nonviolence, you’d better practice what you preach.
Dear Colin,
Nice to see you commenting again. Your response demonstrates that you are somewhat new to nonviolence. If you are interested in learning more, we recommend the lectures from the Peace and Conflict Studies course which you can find on our homepage by clicking on that middle bar. Also, you might be interested in doing some more research on a few good books on the topic of nonviolence. One you might find very interesting is a quantitative study of nonviolent and violent transitions to democracy which reveals nonviolence as actually faster and more effective as a method for waging struggle. IT’s by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan called “Why Civil Resistance Works.” But the point is, you have to first have a real working definition of how nonviolence works and you seem to be operating from some very shaky assumptions. Nonetheless, we value your interest in learning more and thank you for wishing us well…
Best regards,
Stephanie
I believe in God and the soul, and I believe in nonviolence. I was simply pointing out that it’s not always easy to put it into practice, Stephanie.
Best,
Colin
P.S., Probably suicide was not the right word to use. Martyrdom would’ve been a better word.
Nice job, it