I read a horrific quote today by a journalist who manipulated the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) to justify rioting, looting and assault. He writes, a riot is the voice of the unheard, and people only rob and hurt others when they lose faith in non-violence. Thats why they resort to violence against those who prevent non-violence from working. Forgive me for working backwards through time, to excavate the philosophical lineage here, so we can understand the origin of MLKs non-violence approach and what it REALLY meant, and why this journalists distortion of MLKs perspective is absurdly grotesque... MLK, after studying the peaceful protects of Mahatma Gandhi, was quoted as saying, It was a marvelous thing to see the amazing results of Gandhis non-violent campaign. The aftermath of hatred and bitterness that usually follows a violent campaign was found nowhere in India... Later during a radio interview, he stated that, a non-violent campaign is the most powerful weapon for oppressed people. Gandhi learned his approach from a contemporary of his in Russia, Leo Tolstoy, with whom he corresponded. Reading Tolstoys The Kingdom of God is Within You convinced Gandhi to avoid violent resistance and espouse peaceful protest, a debt Gandhi acknowledged in his autobiography, calling Tolstoy the greatest apostle of non-violence that the present age has produced. If you read the letters between Tolstoy and Gandhi (which can be fun since they were both dyslexic and creative in their language), you find the lineage that MLK absorbed. Tolstoys primary influence was the Sermon on the Mount and in particular the notion of turning the other cheek - a call for total nonresistance to the point of facing aggression against oneself. But that is only the veneer of this amazing philosophy. Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, describes the historical context of the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time. Wink explains that at the time of Jesus, striking someone, who had been deemed to be of a lower class, with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person turned the other cheek, the discipliner was faced with a significant socio-political dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed as a taboo. The only alternative would be to slap with the open hand as a challenge (or to punch the person), but this was seen as a statement of equality WITH the persecuted. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted demanded equality from the persecutor. This is pure psycho-social genius! But it is an aptitude lost in todays literal world with the investigative stamina of a newborn. Rioting, looting and assault are not tools which must be used because there are those in power who prevent non-violent protest. Not only are rioting, looting and assault essentially defeating of the call for social change, but moreover, they subjugate those who commit these acts to a socially admitted inferior position. Non-violent means are a hardline statement demanding equality from those who would presume to be superior. Resorting to violence and claiming that the persecutor made ya do it is no different than saying that you are lesser to those supposed superiors. Hold within you, the (individual and collective/national) capacity for self-protection, but that innate right for self-defense differs entirely from rioting, looting and assault; nor is it self-protection to attack innocents as retribution or proaction. To make a social impact and affect change, consider the actual lineage of Martin Luther King, Jr., his teacher Mahatma Gandhi, his teacher Leo Tolstoy, and his teacher, Jesus of Nazareth in the Sermon on the Mount.
Posted on: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:02:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015