Opinion B4
YOU SAID IT ONLINE “One of our most precious rights as an American it our right to own private property. If a person wants to raise animals to hunt, they should be able to. Why do ranchers raise cattle, to put them in a petting zoo?” – Missoulian.com reader comment on hunts on private land
NEWSROOM 523-5240
WEDNESDAY, August 28, 2013
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., MARCH ON WASHINGTON
Triumph, fury, defiance The power of words before and after ‘I Have A Dream’ rings through eternity By CHRISTINE M. FLOWERS Philadelphia Daily News
judgment, from those who manned Auschwitz in 1944.”
I
t seems almost trite to say, but sometimes the truth – like evil – ends up being banal: words can be stronger than weapons in a drawn-out battle. Perhaps the man whose heart is pierced by a sword would disagree that the pen is mightier, and there are indeed some pens that spill worthless ink. But by and large, words are powerful currency in the marketplace of freedom. We only have to look back over the last 50 years, five eventful decades filled with anger and jubilation, riot and reconciliation, trespass and redemption. The struggle that started well before Martin Luther King Jr. looked out upon the Mall and said “I Have A Dream” was marked with legendary words. Words of triumph. Words of fury. Words of defiance. Words like those written by the great American, Langston Hughes. This was a fierce yet simple voice that spoke on behalf of the silent millions who saw their dreams deferred if not dashed on the rocks of a racist reality. Here is how he spoke to that reality: “I too sing America/I am the darker brother/They send me to eat in the kitchen/When company comes/But I laugh/And eat well/And grow strong/Tomorrow/I’ll be at the table/When company comes/Nobody’ll dare/Say to me/“Eat in the kitchen” then/Besides/They’ll see how beautiful I am/And be ashamed/I, too, am America.” Poets are easy to love, lawyers not so much. But here is the legal poetry that began to snap the chains of bondage, from Brown v. Board of Education:
Here is the apology of a Baptist minister, W.A. Criswell who once called desegregation “a denial of all that we believe in” but eventually realized that God is colorblind: “(What happens if) down one of these aisles … comes a little girl … and she is black? The First Baptist Church of Dallas is now and forever a Philadelphian church of the open door … I don’t think that segregation could have been or was at any time intelligently, seriously supported by the Bible.”
BILL HUDSON/Associated Press
Police lead a group of black schoolchildren to jail after their arrests for protesting against racial discrimination near city hall in Birmingham, Ala., on May 4, 1963.
“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. … Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” And still, more voices, this time from a man who later, and sincerely, repented: “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the
feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” George Wallace’s 1963 Inaugural Address was delivered on January 14, 1963, a mere seven months before Dr. King gave his speech at the Mall. It is not unlikely that the words from Alabama’s governor gave impetus and fire to the reverend’s address. It is equally likely that they were in his mind as he wrote these words from a Birmingham jail cell: “I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are presently understood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our
It takes more than civil rights to catch up to MLK’s speech of 50 years ago
T
he 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, and of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.’s memorable “I Have a Dream” speech, is a time for reflections – some inspiring, and some painful and ominous. At the core of Dr. King’s speech was his dream of a world in which people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by “the content of their character.” Judging individuals by their individual character is at the opposite pole from judging how groups are statistically represented among employees, college students or political figures. Yet many – if not most – of those who celebrate the “I Have a Dream” speech today promote the THOMAS directly opposite approach of SOWELL group preferences, especially those based on skin color. How consistent King himself was as he confronted the various issues of his time is a question that can be left for historians. His legacy to us is the “I Have a Dream” speech. What was historic about that speech was not only what was said but how powerfully its message resonated among Americans of that time, across the spectrum of race, ideology and politics. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted in Congress for both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To say that that was a hopeful time would be an understatement. To say that many of those hopes have since been disappointed would also be an understatement. There has been much documented racial progress since 1963. But there has also been much retrogression, of which the disintegration of the black family has been central, especially among those at the bottom of the social pyramid. Many people – especially politicians and activists – want to take credit for the economic and other advancement of blacks, even though a larger proportion of blacks rose out of poverty in the 20 years before 1960 than in the 20 years afterward. But no one wants to take responsibility for the policies and ideologies that led to the breakup of the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and generations of discrimination. Many hopes were disappointed because those were unrealistic hopes to begin with. Economic
and other disparities between groups have been common for centuries, in countries around the world – and many of those disparities have been, and still are, larger than the disparities between blacks and whites in America. Even when those who lagged behind have advanced, they have not always caught up, even after centuries, because others were advancing at the same time. But when blacks did not catch up with whites in America, within a matter of decades, that was treated as strange – or even a sinister sign of crafty and covert racism. Civil rights were necessary, but far from sufficient. Education and job skills are crucial, and the government cannot give you these things. All it can do is make them available. Race hustlers who blame all lags on the racism of others are among the obstacles to taking the fullest advantage of education and other opportunities. What does that say about the content of their character? When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pending in Congress, my hope was that it would pass undiluted, not because I thought it would be a panacea but, on the contrary, because “the bitter anticlimax that is sure to follow may provoke some real thought in quarters where slogans and labels hold sway at the moment.” But the bitter anticlimax that did follow provoked no rethinking. Instead, it provoked all sorts of new demands. Judging everybody by the same standards was now regarded in some quarters as “racist” because it precluded preferences and quotas. There are people today who talk “justice” when they really mean payback – including payback against people who were not even born when historic injustices were committed. The nation has just been through a sensationalized murder trial in Florida, on which many people took fierce positions before a speck of evidence was introduced, basing themselves on nothing more than judging those involved by the color of their skin. We have a long way to go to catch up to what King said 50 years ago. And we are moving in the opposite direction.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His column appears each Wednesday in the Missoulian.
destiny is tied up with the destiny of America.” More words. My father, who traveled south to Mississippi in 1967 the year before King was assassinated, kept a journal. These are his thoughts, after standing on the steps of a Hattiesburg courthouse trying to register black voters: “In the course of the next few seconds, we were called ’white niggers,’ ‘nigger lovers’ and a few other names unworthy to print. I was amazed by all of this and couldn’t help looking over at them. The expression on their faces mirrored an intense hatred of us personally, and of everything we stood for. Even the small children seemed to wish us dead. It made me feel ill to know that there were people in America who differed very little, in my
And then, finally, the Dream speech, words that would forever change the way we would look at ourselves, even if they didn’t immediately change our hearts: “I have a dream that some day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” It was a dream unrealized in King’s lifetime. A few months later, three young boys would be murdered in Philadelphia, Miss., for heeding the call of brotherhood, dumped in a ditch and made to pay for the sins of their elders. Four years later, King would die at the hands of a man who thought he could stop the freedom train with a bullet. But those words, and all of these words, were more powerful than any gun, or water hose, or flaming cross. Like the human spirit, they are eternal.
Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer and columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News. Readers may send her email at cflowers1961@gmail.com.
Murderers silence Mexico’s journalists Dallas Morning News
A
Two others have disappeared, and 10 others have been attacked in the past eight years. Nationwide, 85 journalists have been killed and 20 more have disappeared. Only 12 cases have resulted in convictions. On June 25 in San Antonio, hundreds of U.S. investigative journalists sat spellbound as Turati described her profession’s dire situation. One Mexican reporter was strangled in her home. Another was killed as he took his daughter to school. One newsroom was attacked by gunfire three times. A hand grenade exploded in another. Cartel leaders dictated the stories that they required newspapers to publish. She recounted one story in which a reporter in Veracruz received word that he was on a hit list. A colleague asked how she could help. The reporter asked for a pistol. “A pistol? ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘it isn’t to kill them, it’s to kill myself if they come for me. Because now they don’t just kill you — they torture you as well,’ ” Turati recounted. Citizen reporters have tried to fill the gap, posting YouTube videos and establishing websites such as Valor por Tamaulipas. But cartel leaders target them, too, and soon the silence returns. Americans might not have much in the way of power to stop what’s happening in Mexico. But as Turati admonished her colleagues in San Antonio, we must not accept silence as the final answer. Most of all, we must never forget.
commendable new report by Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission documents a horrific increase in the number of killings, disappearances and threats against journalists over the past 13 years. The mounting danger for Mexican journalists coincides with growing turf battles between that country’s drug cartels as they jockey for control of major export routes. Make no mistake about the motives behind these threats and attacks: The drug cartels recognize that news reports help alert the public about the criminal menace in their midst. News media scrutiny puts pressure on state and local authorities to crack down, which is especially embarrassing if those officials are secretly colluding with the cartels. By silencing journalists, the cartels gain a much freer hand to do their dirty work. “The battle to control information is underway at this very moment,” says Marcela Turati, a reporter for the weekly investigative magazine Proceso. In America, press freedoms often are taken for granted because U.S.-based journalists rarely face the kinds of danger that Mexican reporters, editors and photographers encounter on a daily basis. In Mexico, reporters have been tortured and beheaded. Prosecutions are rare, which adds to the sense of impunity. The human rights report lists the state of Tamaulipas, on Texas’ southern border, atop all other states in terms of violence This editorial first appeared against journalists. In Tamaulipas alone, 12 journalists in the Dallas Morning News on Monday. have been killed since 2000.