Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 30, 2017)
August 30, 2017 Page 13 Opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views of the Portland Observer. We welcome reader essays, photos and story ideas. Submit to news@portlandobserver.com. O PINION On the Power of Love in Times of Hate King showed we can’t ignore problem of racism J ose -a ntonio o rosCo As someone who regu- larly teaches about the po- litical philosophy of Mar- tin Luther King Jr., I often spend time discussing with students the ways in which King’s ideas are taken out of context and turned into sound bites in order to support positions he would not himself have taken. The most obvious example is how his most memorable line from the “I Have a Dream” speech about not judging peo- ple based on the color of their skin but the content of their character is used to justify attacks on affirmative action—a policy he definitely endorsed—or cited in a way to claim that the best path forward for racial justice is to somehow ignore race and be- come colorblind. The white supremacist violence in Char- lottesville is proof that we cannot simply try to ignore the problems of racism now. All across the country, marches and vigils are by scheduled to honor the victims of racist vio- lence and to stand against the surge of white nationalist groups in the United States. Peo- ple are seeking guidance about how to think about the public and proud resurgence of this form of bigotry. Inevitably, the words and ideas of Dr. King are being invoked, especially his thoughts on the power of love in times of hate. One of his quotes, often bandied about, is this: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” But the hard question is what does it mean to love and not hate in the aftermath of Charlottesville? Does it mean it’s somehow wrong to feel angry or violated about people proudly brandishing neo-Nazi symbols on their weapons and shields? Does it mean the best response is to forgive the purveyors of violence like the young man who ran down protestors, killing Heather Heyer in Charlot- tesville? In the speeches in which King talked about love, he often spent time explaining what he meant; love has several meanings. In saying that supporters of racial justice had to have love in their hearts, he didn’t mean that they had to be continually positive and upbeat, or that they had to approach racists in friendship. That’s the kind of love we share with intimates or friends. King said the love that we ought to have in the struggle for justice is the kind that ac- knowledges all people, even the white su- premacists, as human beings. And human be- ings are capable of making their own moral choices and being held responsible for their actions. We aren’t called upon to like or be friendly to those who are racist. It means we ought not to dehumanize or kill them as part of our fight for justice. Someone asked me recently if, out of love, King wouldn’t have asked to sit down with a white supremacist and try to listen to their concerns and understand where they were coming from, in hopes of some kind of rec- onciliation and dialogue. I thought about this and realized that the answer was probably no. King never asked, for instance, to meet with Bull Connor, the rabidly racist police chief in Birmingham, Ala. who sent police dogs to attack protestors. He never called for public meetings with ordinary black and white cit- izens to dialogue. Instead, he called for marches, boycotts, and urged legislation that would halt business as usual in that city, deplete the pocketbooks of segregationist business owners, and crim- inalize racist attacks and intimidation. He wrote in 1963: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is im- portant also.” This is not to say that fellowship and di- alogue are not important, especially when friends approach one another to talk about their fears, hopes, and biases. But in think- ing about responses to white supremacy in the country today, we ought to be clear that King’s emphasis on love did not mean only sticking to individual efforts and trying to change the implicit racism of our friends and relatives. Toward the end of his life, he called for a revolution of values that would utterly transform the United States and its commit- ment to materialism, racism, and militarism at institutional levels. The fight against white supremacy must be tied to issues of poverty, jobs, reducing our military and nuclear weapons, curbing police brutality, and providing decent health care and education for everyone. These were all issues of concern for King; this is what he meant by love. José-Antonio Orosco, Ph.D, writes for PeaceVoice and is Associate Professor of Philosophy: School of History, Philosophy, and Religion Director, Oregon State Univer- sity Peace Studies Program. Condemning the Message but Not the Messenger Hypocrisy taints reaction to bigotry d r . r on d aniels The vicious assault on counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Va. by a volatile amalgam of Neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, Alt Right and other white nationalist forces was one of the most horrific acts of domestic terrorism in American history. The day after a Klan-like torch light, racist and anti-Semitic show of force on the campus of University of Virginia, a white nationalist terrorist used his car as a weapon and ploughed through peace- ful protesters killing Heather Heyer and seri- ously injuring several other people. The words of former Ku Klux Klan Im- perial Wizard David Duke captured the motive and aspirations of the largest gath- ering of White Nationalists in recent histo- ry: “We are determined to take our country back……. We are going to fulfill the prom- ises of Donald Trump.” Much of America and the world was shocked by this vile and ugly show of force in the “land of the free and home of the brave.” Predictably, there was almost universal expression of outrage and condemnations of the hateful white nationalist army that perpetrated the deadly acts of violence in Charlottesville. Divisions between Demo- crats and Republicans were swept aside as political leaders of both parties came for- ward to vociferously denounce these acts of terrorism by white supremacists, that is by except the President of the United States. Donald Trump initially condemned the hatred and violence on “all sides,” thereby equating the righteous protests of the count- er-demonstrators with the white supremacist terrorists; equating those who were standing for the vision of an inclusive multi-racial, multi-ethnic society with freedom and jus- tice for all irrespective of race, ethnicity, na- tionality, culture, religion, gender or sexual orientation with those who wish to “Make America Great Again” by turning the clock back to the good old days of white male he- gemony. The condemnations of Trump were swift and furious. There was a strong push for Trump to use the moral authority of the pres- idency to condemn the white supremacists by name. Political leaders, pundits and com- mentators suggested that he was missing his moment to pull the nation together and heal its racial divisions. When he eventually did speak-out, Republicans in particular breathed a sigh of relief that Trump had finally done that which was “politically correct.” But, oops, the sigh of relief was short- lived. In an impromptu press conference at Trump Tower in New York, Trump went off script and unleashed a tirade, angrily dou- bling down on his original contention that there was blame on both sides. From my vantage point the condem- nation of Trump by the Republicans rings hollow and hypocritical. Republicans en- abled Trump by refusing to repudiate him decisively during the campaign and after his election to the White House. Despite a vile and vicious campaign, clearly Republicans made a calculated de- cision that power is more important than principle. They have stood with Trump de- spite his erratic and often hurtful behavior as president in hopes of implementing their rightwing, reactionary agenda. They know who Trump is. He is the orig- inator of the racist birther movement that relentlessly questioned whether President Barack Obama was born in the U.S. This is the Donald Trump who cemented his credibility with xenophobic, anti-immigrant adherents by blatantly labeling Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers; the same Donald Trump who castigated and insulted an American Judge of Mexican descent; the same Donald Trump who claimed he did not know who David Duke was and equivocat- ed on condemning him; the same Donald Trump who brought an Alt-Right, White nationalist Steve Bannon into the White House as his “Chief Strategist!” Now their lack of principle and moral courage has exploded in their faces like a pus-infected wound. By and large they have refused to condemn and abandon Trump. They know him; they enabled him, and they own him and should suffer the consequenc- es of their blatant hypocrisy! Actually, hypocrisy runs deep in the “conservative” ranks of the Republican Party. While Richard Nixon was the first to unveil the “Southern Strategy,” Lee At- water employed it with devastating effec- tiveness as a strategist for Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president. The strategy was designed to use code words to fuel and en- flame anti-black sentiment in the South and was used to appeal to the disgruntled sup- porters of Alabama Gov. George Wallace. The real deal is that the rightwing reac- tionaries have courted, appealed to and ap- peased white supremacist sentiments and forces for decades. The only difference is that Trump made the mistake of doing it openly. Trump brought the bigots and hat- ers that conservative Republicans have been courting under the table, from the fringes, from the margins into the mainstream of American politics; from “the outhouse to the White House.” Charlottesville may well represent the dying gasp of the hard core, reactionary, white supremacist adherents who are now a formidable force within the Republican Party. They must be confronted and defeat- ed. But, they will not succumb willingly or easily. They are emboldened and energized by the blessing of Donald Trump and the complicity of the shriveling, equivocating hypocrites who have placed power over principle in their quest to impose their reac- tionary agenda. In this crucial moment, those who stand for a progressive vision of America must build a powerful social movement uti- lizing protests, economic sanctions, civil disobedience and the ballot to righteously overwhelm the racist and reactionary forc- es. And, then we must compel this nation to confront its original sins and hypocrisy and repair the centuries of damages inflicted on Native peoples and people of African de- scent as the basis for creating a “more per- fect union.” Dr. Ron Daniels is President of the In- stitute of the Black World 21st Century and Distinguished Lecturer at York College City University of New York
