Hillary's History Lesson: Intro to MLK 101

Today we'll celebrate the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. During the past week, Dr. King's accomplishments were seemingly called into question, touching off a litany of exchanges between two contenders for the Democratic nomination. Never mind a truce has been called for the greater good of the party; the legacy of Dr. King should not have been besmirched in the first place.

Typically, I celebrate Dr. King's birthday by attending the annual tribute at Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM). Featured guest speakers in the past have included Hillary Rodham Clinton during her then-Senate campaign. So imagine my astonishment over Sen. Clinton's recent comments about Dr. King. She said, "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done." Shortly thereafter, Sen. Clinton began to backpedal, saying that her remarks failed to capture what she attempted to convey.

But the fallout from Sen. Clinton's remarks was already underway. There was Donna Brazile, former adviser to Al Gore, voicing her disappointment over the comments. Representative James E. Clyburn (D-SC), the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, cautioned against minimizing the contribution and accomplishments of this time period in history. He said, "I encourage the candidates to be sensitive about the words they use." I watched Cong. Clyburn this past Monday night as he weighed in further on the issue on PBS television's Charlie Rose.

It is easy to comprehend why members of the African-American community take offense to Sen. Clinton's comments. Attempts at hinging Dr. King's accomplishments on President Johnson's passage of the Civil Rights Act not only diminishes the sacrifices made by Dr. King and other civil rights activists, but also reeks of cultural misappropriation -- that is, the indiscriminate or exploitative adoption of elements of another culture's tradition or, in this case, another culture's history.

When I think of Dr. King, the memory that most readily comes to mind is the "I Have a Dream" speech he delivered on August 28, 1963 at the massive march he organized in Washington, D.C. In the speech, Dr. King outlined his vision for a future America. Ironically enough, forty-five years after his speech was delivered, we've inched closer to the realization of the dream. Notably enough, this year a woman and an African-American man are two main contenders for the Democratic nomination, thanks in large part to the efforts of Dr. King. Lest we forget, let's give credit where credit is due.

Comments

[Justtellthetruth]

I finally figured out what Hillary meant when she compared herself to LBJ in relation to MLK. She means that in her opinion, experience trumps simple vision and inspiration. Now, sure, that sounds pretty bad, no matter HOW you look at it, when you try to apply this logic to MLK, who literally died in his effort to make the US a place that actually keeps its promises.


However, her only crime here is that she chose a very clumsy and racially insensitive way of articulating her otherwise important theory.



As a favor to the Clinton Campaign, I will reconoiter the comparison to a less racially sensitive analogy which is a much better fit for Hillary on a variety of levels.



Jesus was the one of the ultimate dreamers and inspirational speakers. He really wanted to change things in this world and even beyond, but alas, he was simply not very skilled in roman politics. Jesus knew that regardless of all of his preaching and miracles, if he was not crucified unjustly, he would not be able to make the ultimate sacrifice and bring forgiveness to all mankind.



So even in Jesus' case, it took a seasoned Roman politician like Pontius Pilate to get the job done.


So you see, even Jesus needed the help of a sleazy, corrupt, amoral insider like Pilate to get the job done, and Hillary can be YOUR sleazy, corrupt, amoral insider if you will just let her.

Hey, perhaps when she says that nothing should be left off the table when she talks about war with the Iranians, she means that we should crucify them, as opposed to engaging in nuclear war.

[StephenDedalus82]

Why does Obama get to subtly compare himself to all the great figures in American history, and if someone calls him on it, the conversation isn't about experience (which is what Hillary originally wanted to talk about), but race. Conveniently for Obama the media stopped talking about the experience issue and yapped on eternally about a non-controversy involving race which, again conveniently, benefited Obama by swinging black voters to his side.

[jpshotwheels]

Attempts at hinging Dr. King's accomplishments on President Johnson's passage of the Civil Rights Act not only diminishes the sacrifices made by Dr. King and other civil rights activists, but also reeks of cultural misappropriation -- that is, the indiscriminate or exploitative adoption of elements of another culture's tradition or, in this case, another culture's history.

I completely agree with you on this, although I give President Johnson credit for having the courage to do what he did and remember he also passed a law to allow the Black Community the right to Vote. However, President Johnson never had to make the horrible sacrifices that Kings made.

I found Hillary's comment, as if she were giving more credit to Johnson than to King.

The black community had a right to be upset with her comments. I think what made me more upset was how the media twisted this into a racial issue, and that is exactly what they did. Hillary started this, the media blew it way out of proportion, but Obama is getting the raw end of the deal here. Just as he is on the Reagan comments, in which he was absolutely correct in his statement.

Bill Moyer's Journal as always, has a great way of putting everything into perspective, as he did on his show yesterday, and just as you have done in this article. Watch all of it, because it also puts into perspective what Obama was saying about Reagan.

Thank you for your comments.

[GreatFutureForAll]

Lets take a step back and recall how we all felt PRIOR to Hillary Clinton's now infamous take on Martin Luther King's dream.

Everyone (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) ALL felt good about what occured in Iowa. No matter who you were or what political stripe you idetified with, you were impressed and maybe even overjoyed with Obama's victory in Iowa. It made us all feel good as it reaffirmed our belief in America.

This good feeling resonated all around the world; into Europe, Africa and Asia. It made an Australian intellectual rethink our so called "racial divisions."

We smiled. We felt good. We were proud to be Americans. Some of us LOOKED FORWARD to this holiday in 2008.

OK. Now, lets take a look at ourselves AFTER Clinton's horrendous mistake in judgment: The good feeling we had is gone. Western Europe is starting to say "AHA! Told you those Americans were racist bigots!"

African-Americans feel so alienated from Hillary that 80% of those that voted in Michigan essentially voted for "ABC" or "Anything But Clinton." (It would not surprise me if some of them vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee). Only 14% of African-Americans supported her in Nevada, which is partly why Obama won 13 delegates to her 12.

Clinton, BY MISTAKE (yet another mistake in judgment for her along with the Iraq and Iran votes), not only injected "race" into what was a discussion over issues, she has compromised the entire general election for the Democrats.

She's jeopardized many key states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Missouri, Florida, Texas, California, etc). NO Democrat can win the White House without getting 80% of the African-American vote.

Hillary may not even get half of that vote. Her pathetic judgment has made for a sad King holiday and a very complicated time for Democratic candidates at every level (which is why so many endorsed Obama even before this latest Clinton disaster).

[independentrepublicrat]

Quote from the AP: [Obama's] campaign manager, David Plouffe, was far more pointed in a written statement that accused the Clinton campaign of "an entire week's worth of false, divisive attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself."Whatever the hard feelings, Clinton told supporters they would fade by the fall general election campaign. "We will all be united in November," she said, as the crowd chanted "HRC, HRC." [end quote] ---------------------------------------------------- I have said this time and again. The Clintons believe that no matter what lies, dirty politics, race-baiting, xenophobia inciting, lying, misreprensenting, amoral campaign they run, that Democrats in general---and Blacks specifically---will have no choice but to support them in November if they are successful in stealing this nomination. I beg to differ. I hope all intelligent Democrats of good conscience will vote for a change in the political party by NOT supporting her if she robs the public of a chance at an honest debate and a substantive choice for president. Don't vote for Billary in the fall under any circumstance; make a stand about your morals and your values as a party. Blacks more than others should always stand up for right because they, since inception, have been the true moral conscience of this nation; FACT!

[vonlogan2]

"THE LAST TEMPTATION IS THE GREATEST TREASON: TO
DO THE RIGHT DEED FOR THE WRONG REASON.

[elion10]

Yet another post urging that Clinton's comments be viewed as a threat to MLK's memory as a great leader of racial justice. Her words were no such thing.


Your claim of "cultural misappropriation" is particularly offensive and ironic on MLK's day.

Lest we forget, MLK did not exist in your culture (black) or my culture (white)but in OUR culture.. American culture,

Lest we forget- that was his point. That was his dream.

For all your feverant "ownership" of MLK's legacy- your words betray it.

[sebocd]

The message of the Clintons seems to be be: "After all we did for you, now your getting uppity and think you can do a better job helpping yourselves than we can!"
And to Andrew Young: don't look now, but I think Bill Clinton just decided he dosn't want to be black anymore. God knows he tried, but it just didn't workout.

[ktthecarguy]

Ms. Roberts, I find your title and post very condescnding. As if Hillary had never heard of MLK. And you are wrong about belittling President Johnson's importance to the civil rights movement. Without laws to be enforced, civil rights would be like a tiger without teeth.

Think of the civil rights movement as a one-two punch: it takes a groundswell of movement (provided by MLK) to get politicians to take a chance on passing potentially unpopular legislation (provided by Johnson). Neither is subservient to the other.

[nk007]

With all due respect to H.R.Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bill Moyers, Congressman Charles Rangel, all of whom I have the highest regard, I think the troubling aspect of of Senator Clinton's remarks about Dr. King and Pres. Johnson seemed to imply that sen. Obama, with his emphasis on hope that America could be transformed to overcome racism, sexism, ideological divisions, fear of immigrants, and the neo-conservative imperialist wars, was an idealist like Dr King who needed a practical realist like Lyndon Johnson ( a.k.a Hillary Clinton) to realize his dream. undoubtedly, Senator Clinton's observation are historically accurate with regard to Pres. Johnson pushing and signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was able to do that because in 1964 African Americans were not allowed to vote in many parts of the country. Not only could they not vote, but it would be hard to contemplate any African American running for President. My point is that while Lyndon Johnson should be praised for his courage as a politician, I do not see the relevance of Clinton's remarks in the current presidential contest. Unless, of course, her intention was to suggest that you still need a seasoned white political leader, and not an African American leader with all these dreams of "hope," to continue to advance the civil Rights of African Americans. If this was not her intention, someone has to explain to me exactly why she introduced the analogy of the King/Johnston situtition to the current competition between her and Baraka Obama.

[homovivens]

Beleive it or not, this past Friday, on Bill Moyer's Journal, Bill Moyers characterized this whole affair as "a tempest in a teapot" and "much ado about nothing," to which I responded:

Bill, I treasure your journalism and the uncommon and wise voices you champion in your Journal, but, I have a boil with what you consider "a tempest in a teapot"-- getting it right about the history of the civil rights movement.

MLK's and LBJ's contributions to the enactment of civil rights legislation differ not only in degree but in kind. MLK was the sine qua non of our nation"s civil rights history; LBJ was cautiously and, eventually, courageously compliant with the exigent forces of its history that were unleashed by a movement MLK led. MLK came to embody these forces; LBJ, as stand-in for our reluctant nation, succumbed to them.

What I, again, bristle at is your (like too many others") misapprehension of the meaning of the words, "...but it took a president to get it done." That phrase is idiomatic in our American lexicon, inferring something like this: "Here! Step aside! You"re not doing it right. Let me handle it." Of course, Hillary is no bigot, no racist. Her words were at best, a gaffe; at worst, an indication of overreach of potential Presidential powers. Only in that sense does your unfortunate use of Shakespeare"s tired quotes: "much ado about nothing" or "a tempest in a teapot," apply.

[NYSF]

If Barack is truly taking the gloves off, then he must directly challenge Hillary on each issue that her campaign has called him on. Do it in a dramatic fashion right at the start of the Debate tomorrow. Then call her on her Goldwater upbringing. Really go after her hard. Then while she is backpeddling, he should go STRAIGHT to the issues. Really have some substance to one of his ideas. Its time to get down with this evil family.

[factanonverba]

Please your post is shameless. It is a false controversy and you know it. Look at what Bill Moyers said on Friday night about this. You can catch a recast on PBS.org.

The fact remains that without LBJ's efforts in arm-twisting of Congress neither the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor the Voting Rights would have past. This is not to discount Dr. King's leadership nor the role of anybody in the civil rights movement but only to acknowledge that LBJ played a role.

The attacks on Mrs Clinton was wholly unnecessary and are being made by people to fail to capture the historical relevance of other actors. Are they shunting the role of LBJ because he was a white southern? Is that not racist? LBJ was in 1964 an accidental president and though he had never shown much interest in civil rights prior to becoming President, LBJ did meet with Dr. King a few times and LBJ listened to Dr. King and was persuaded to do more on behalf of a just cause. Listen to Bill Moyers. He was there in the room because he was LBJ's press secretary.

Those of who you are attacking the Clintons might to do well to look at their American history books. What is it about Americans that I who am not an American keep on having to correct you on the historical accuracy of your comments on more than one blog. Americans, I must conclude, are just plain stupid.

[Lisette]

Come out and say it.
The Clintons are not nice people.
They only care about winning.
NOTHING else matters to them.
Why anyone wants these 2 drama queens back in the White House is a complets mystery.

[independentrepublicrat]

I feel sorry for the Clintons. This blantant race baiting by the Clintons themselves as well as their campaign, advisors, and supporters---such as the infamous media whore Bob Johnson---is beyond offensive and pathetic. I hope that the black community brings about a reckoning if she is successful in her electronic vote tampering and injection of racial division to steal the democratic nomination. I say it here and I will say it everywhere there is a black pair of ears to hear me. If she gets the nomination in such an unscrupulous and Bushian manner, blacks should vote with all the might and power of their constituency for either Huckabee or Bloomberg. If they can't hold their noses long enough to vote republican, then stay at home on election day in November and don't vote for Hillary at all. MLK and supporters eventually took a stand and stopped riding the bus when forced to sit in the back and black people should not stay on the racist, electronic vote tampering Hillary train in the general election. The Clintons are expecting that no matter what racist, divisive tactics they use against Obama, blacks will have no other choice but to vote democrat; however, there is another choice and it is to not vote for Hillary or at all in a general election. Now is the current generation's time to make a stand against this kind of racism and oppression that the Clintons are harkening us back to. Make a stand against supporting her ilk in November if she steals her way to the nomination with the most deplorable racial tactics.