On April 16, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter commonly known as “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” to white clergy men in response to their criticism. In this long letter, King answers to the criticism of his direct actions as being “unwise and untimely.” The 8 white clergy men believed the proper way to deal with injustice was through the courts, with patience and indirect action. While sitting in the Birmingham jail, King decided to write a response to these men to explain and defend his actions, as well as attempt to move them to see their unjust attitudes as well.
Being a clergy man himself, King knew that to argue his position to the white clergy gentlemen, would take specific references to the Bible and other sources they would find credible. For example, King compares his duty to carry the message of freedom “beyond his home town” to Paul’s journey from Tarsus to carry the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. King is trying to get them to see that he cannot sit by “idly” and do nothing when there is much work to be done. The cause he is fighting for, he sees as worthy enough to give his life just as Paul did. King believed as did the clergy men, that Paul was doing the will of God by spreading the truth to people who did not have it. Similarly, King is saying that he must spread the truth of freedom to those who cannot see their injustice. King goes on to cite Socrates’ belief in the importance of creating tension in the mind of individuals to push them to seek truth, and compares it to the need to create tension in society to push people to awareness and action against the racism. He argues that nothing will change unless people do something. Hence, indirect action will get them no where.
King continues to argue that simply having patience and waiting for a situation to change is not possible. People who are doing the oppression will never be moved to stop oppressing unless they are forced to give it up. For example, Adolf Hitler would have continued to oppress millions of Jews and “unworthy” people had no one stepped in and put an end to the corruption. If the world had sat by and had “patience” that the evil killing would stop, who knows how long it would have continued. In the same way, King argues, people need to nonviolently take action so that negotiation can then occur and change can come about. He addresses the clergymen’s criticism about breaking the law by giving examples from the Bible and from history. He says that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego broke the law of King Nebuchadnezzar when they refused to worship another God. Our country broke the law during what became known as the Boston Tea Party, to take action to get the attention of the public. King wanted the clergymen to see that it is sometimes necessary to break laws which are unjust and morally wrong. By supporting his argument with Biblical and historical examples, he is able to strongly state why his behavior is not in the wrong, in a manner that will speak to the clergy.
Another point King touches on is his categorization as an extremist. He says that initially he was disappointed to have been called that, but then he realized that some of the greatest men were extremists for love and justice. Jesus was an extremist for love, Amos for justice, Paul for the Christian gospel, Lincoln for freedom, and Jefferson for equality. King says that if he can be an extremist for justice, freedom, and love than he is doing what he needs to be doing. Again, King is able to prove his point by finding powerful examples of stories that mirror his behavior.
After reading this letter, I was even more convinced that Martin Luther King’s strategies were just what was needed and were justified. I never disagreed with him, but I found it interesting to read his direct thoughts and hear his explanation behind his arguments. If I were one of the white clergymen, I would have been both convicted and convinced by King’s letter. I’d say King’s attempted at explaining, defending, and proving his point was successful and done in a professional, respectful manner.
Being a clergy man himself, King knew that to argue his position to the white clergy gentlemen, would take specific references to the Bible and other sources they would find credible. For example, King compares his duty to carry the message of freedom “beyond his home town” to Paul’s journey from Tarsus to carry the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. King is trying to get them to see that he cannot sit by “idly” and do nothing when there is much work to be done. The cause he is fighting for, he sees as worthy enough to give his life just as Paul did. King believed as did the clergy men, that Paul was doing the will of God by spreading the truth to people who did not have it. Similarly, King is saying that he must spread the truth of freedom to those who cannot see their injustice. King goes on to cite Socrates’ belief in the importance of creating tension in the mind of individuals to push them to seek truth, and compares it to the need to create tension in society to push people to awareness and action against the racism. He argues that nothing will change unless people do something. Hence, indirect action will get them no where.
King continues to argue that simply having patience and waiting for a situation to change is not possible. People who are doing the oppression will never be moved to stop oppressing unless they are forced to give it up. For example, Adolf Hitler would have continued to oppress millions of Jews and “unworthy” people had no one stepped in and put an end to the corruption. If the world had sat by and had “patience” that the evil killing would stop, who knows how long it would have continued. In the same way, King argues, people need to nonviolently take action so that negotiation can then occur and change can come about. He addresses the clergymen’s criticism about breaking the law by giving examples from the Bible and from history. He says that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego broke the law of King Nebuchadnezzar when they refused to worship another God. Our country broke the law during what became known as the Boston Tea Party, to take action to get the attention of the public. King wanted the clergymen to see that it is sometimes necessary to break laws which are unjust and morally wrong. By supporting his argument with Biblical and historical examples, he is able to strongly state why his behavior is not in the wrong, in a manner that will speak to the clergy.
Another point King touches on is his categorization as an extremist. He says that initially he was disappointed to have been called that, but then he realized that some of the greatest men were extremists for love and justice. Jesus was an extremist for love, Amos for justice, Paul for the Christian gospel, Lincoln for freedom, and Jefferson for equality. King says that if he can be an extremist for justice, freedom, and love than he is doing what he needs to be doing. Again, King is able to prove his point by finding powerful examples of stories that mirror his behavior.
After reading this letter, I was even more convinced that Martin Luther King’s strategies were just what was needed and were justified. I never disagreed with him, but I found it interesting to read his direct thoughts and hear his explanation behind his arguments. If I were one of the white clergymen, I would have been both convicted and convinced by King’s letter. I’d say King’s attempted at explaining, defending, and proving his point was successful and done in a professional, respectful manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment