Daniel, Martin and John.

One of the most famous documents from the 1960s is Martin Luther King, Jr's "Letter from Birmingham City Jail." A group of ministers had asked King, "Why direct action? Why sit-in, marches, etc? Isn't negotiation a better path?" Martin responded, "You deplore the demonstrations .... But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. i am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at efforts, and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative." King's April 16, 1963 letter remains a classic, while those clergy who questioned him are but footnotes in history.

Four years later, Rev. King combined civil rights with the anti-war movement. On April 4, 1967, he delivered "A Time to Break Silence" (aka "Beyond Vietnam") at the Riverside Church in New York City. King quoted the opening line from the Clergy & Laymen Concerned about Vietnam's statement, "A time comes when silence is betrayal." He noted that as he moved to break the betrayal of his own silence, that many warned him that he was damaging the civil rights work he had done. "And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirerers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live."

A civic group called King's speech "an extremist tirade" that pandered to Ho Chi Minh and insulted "the intelligence of all Americans." FBI documents noted the speech as evidence that king was "a traitor to his country and to his race." Some in the White House and Congress called him "a Commie," trained by Peking and Hanoi. Newsweek said King was in "over his head," and accused him of having "simplistic political judgement." Life said he was advocating "surrender." A NY Times editorial was titled "King's Error." Carl Rowan said Martin had "delivered a one-sided broadside about a matter on which he obviously has an abundance of indignation and a shortage of information."

In his book "Let the Trumpet Sound," author Stephen B. Oates notes that the vicious attacks hurt Martin. His friends said that he "sat down and cried." (page 422) But Martin forgave those who attacked him. And he continued to tell the truth. He paid for his stance with his life.

Two of the most intense and haunting figures of the Vietnam era were the revolutionary Jesuits, Daniel and Philip Berrigan. They were involved in the Plowshares movement. Their willingness to go to prison for extended periods for their beliefs was difficult for many -- including their supporters -- to understand. One of the best recent accounts can be found in James Carroll's "House of War."

Things were not always translated in simplistic terms. There is a 1972 book "The Eloquence of Protest: Voices of the 70's," edited by Harrison Salisbury. In it, there is a 1970 letter from Daniel to the Weathermen. Both Daniel and the Weathermen were on the "underground" at the time, being sought by the FBI. Many people who supported some of what Daniel did were offended that he would "break bread" with the Weathermen.

What I find interesting in the book is "A Doctor's Letter to His Son," by Paul Williamson. The letter was published in a medical journal, then widely reprinted. In it, the good doctor informs his son that the students killed at Kent State got what they deserved, and if the son attended an anti-war protest, the doctor and his wife would "grieve but we will gladly buy a dinner for the National Guardsman who shot you."

Many Americans found a distraction from things political when a rock & roll group called The Beatles came to sing "She Love You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand." But the mop-tops grew up, and one in particular questioned society. When John Lennon married Yoko Ono and protested wars, people attacked him. If one watches the movie "Imagine," there is a great scene with a journalist telling John how she always liked him, but .....

Those who bought John & Yoko's "Wedding Album" have a 20-page, album-sized booklet full of copies of newspaper articles and political cartoons, most of which are vicious attacks aimed at John. The title of one of my favorites is "These phoney stunts that call for no sacrfice," by Herbert Williams. In it, he writes, "The contrast between the cosiness of the Lennon-Yoko lie-in, and the agony of Vietnam and Biafra is such that to claim that one has any bearing on the other is a piece of colossal insensitivity." John's anti-war stance brought out more negative press than had his earlier "scandal" with some Christians.

I think of all these things when I read the "I like Cindy, but ..." comments on DU. I can appreciate that there is plenty of room for people to have honest disagreement with her. (Or, with Daniel, Martin, or John.) You ask that others not be offended by your disagreeing with her. I would ask that you be as open-minded in considering how you sound to us.

I know that Cindy isn't Daniel, Martin, or John. None of them was propelled to fame when their son was killed in Iraq. Nor is she Dr. Williamson -- her son really did die. And since that time, she is doing her best to force Americans to look closely at the war, and to search for ways to bring the American participation to an end. She is sure to make many people uncomfortable with her tactics. Some of her stances may seemed confused, or confusing. And she may even make a mistake at some point or another.

:)

do I win a cookie?

:hi:

A dozen or more.

I have printed off your latest for later reading.

TEACHER'S PET!!

:)

On a day when a woman becomes speaker for the first time and when it is a woman who has the courage to follow in the giant footprints of Dr. King, and take a stand that makes people uncomfortable.

My daughters are enjoying watching the news with the old man tonight!

and you're right. Glad to recommend.

Just last night someone on another thread opined that Cindy was no MLK, and I responded:

I'm not sure about that. Who was MLK? He was an "ordinary" man who was inspired by horror over blatant injustice to do extraordinary things, at great risk to himself, and in doing so sparked a movement for social justice that ultimately produced real progress by preventing the appeasers from sweeping outrage under the rug.

Who is Cindy Sheehan? She is an "ordinary" woman who was inspired by grief and horror over blatant injustice to do extraordinary things, at genuine risk to herself, and in doing so provided the spark that enabled a dispirited peace movement to coalesce into a potent force.

I am not at all sure that Cindy is that different from MLK in her efforts and effects.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3033888&mesg_id=3037533

I dare say that he would be supporting Cindy.

for beautifully articulating what I think as well.

Accidental duplicate reply.

and great points.

but like my other hero, Cynthia McKinney, I will not sit down and I will not shut up. :-)

cast a lot of light on this situation for me.

Some of his friends were concerned after his death that the real Martin would be largely forgotten, and a plaster saint or a stained glass window would sooth people's consciences. Martin believed in creative tension. And even before he was killed, he paid a heavy price. There's the old saying about how your friends can hurt you in ways that your enemies never can. Martin suffered from the abuse of those people who had that old, "I like Martin, but I don't like when he ...." They wanted the Martin that made them as comfortable as their ability to project him as being an extension of themselves. When his behavior was his own, they were upset. They demanded the plaster saint.

Great post!

Then go do your own thing to stop the war in Iraq and bring the troops home. Who knows? Maybe you will look like the Reasonable Person Who Can Be Negotiated With when compared to Cindy Sheehan, and what we all want will be accomplished.

Just be gracious when you get to Stockholm for your Nobel and acknowledge your debt to the great groundwork Ms. Sheehan did to prepare the way for you.

Thank you!

All I know is this war must end and Cindy does all that she can to blaze that trail....

In Olbermann special comment the other night, he all but demanded listeners who agreed (and really, who can't agree) to his opening remarks to go out and 'do something' about it.



Cindy is intervening on my behalf. I can't afford the time or cost to do what she's doing. But I feel that she's doing it for me and for all those who oppose this war. She may be saving lives at the cost of her own personal well-being and freedom. I really don't understand her detractors.

Thanks again for yet another thoughtful and well-timed post.

She is so right. The war is illigal. It needs to be ended. The thing that should be questioned is why are'nt there more supporters for her honesty.

and stand up for one's convictions. Inaction at a time of conflagration is inexcusable."
-- Gandhi

The Mahatma knew that "nonviolence, which is a quality of the heart, cannot come by an appeal to the brain." I think that is why some people instinctively understand what this lady is saying. And why other people do not .... yet. But I am confident that they will.

My post was on Martin, Daniel, and Fredrick Douglass... and mario savio.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3044252

I really had not seen yours until now. Way cool.

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! Mario Savio, a man who did not wait patiently for "liberals" to do the right thing.

I always thought his "rage against the machine" speech was wonderful.

People who but the corporate line about those who speak truth to power. Not sure if they are mere fools or willing tools. In either case, they are wrong.

while i forever appreciate your words even as i do here, John admitted as much many times over, that he was pulled up & out of his station in life, his hand painted Rolls Royce, mansion, the pop scene sitting round with the guru smoking dope, the whole nine, by an otherwise soft spoken jewish kid named Zimmerman, and the social conciseness he brought to a flat-line commercial radio format ruled by The Beatles, Herman's Hermits, The Dave Clark 5, and The Beach Boys, etc...

when you're already a millionare...are epiphanies a dime a dozen too? or are they bought by the lot?

i am with you regarding the Daniel & Martin ref; though while i appreciate John, i was looking for a different John, another John; perhaps even John The Baptist however,

with the inclusion of this John we have in my opinion apples & oranges...

by tossing Cindy into the mix above we are trending imo, and this speaks to the greater tabloidization of Cindy herself: apples, oranges, and a bag of peanuts on Jet Blue

When watching fireworks they all leave an impression.

welcome to du, jaksavage

it could be Cindy, it could be something else (and it will be), it could be a shiny thing, a titillating phrase, an excuse to snark attack and abdicate all responsibility.

...it takes a life of its own and shapes the populace instead. This is especially true of American politics where it's all about conflict and control. By definition, politicians must be directed, like unruly children, to do the right thing. This isn't always a dignified process, indeed it's made difficult precisely because elected officials don't like to be told what to do, despite the nature of the profession centering around implementing the will of others and listening to a constituency.

Ironically, while nearly everyone in politics seems to understand this, few outside have grasped the full implications.

Government must be tamed. People like Bush are made to be broken and digested by the body politic. He should have been nothing more than a democratic candy bar - a quick snack for better candidates on the road to the presidency. A latter day Dan Quayle. Instead, we have an imperial presidency born from a political dynasty that should have been removed from the levers of power decades ago. In a real sense, we have the government we deserve.. or perhaps more precisely, the party we deserve. One cannot sit and hope that elected officials will do what you want. They must be compelled to do as the electorate wishes.

No one escapes the septic DC environment intact. It's the job of the people, and formerly the media, to keep that infectious influence from becoming terminal illness. If we were a country of laws instead of men, then the institutions created to safeguard our nation from these abuses would be more powerful than those who would wish to corrupt it. Sadly, this is not the case. We are decidedly a government of men, as the Bush presidency proves beyond any shadow of a doubt. In light of this, the duty falls upon us to to effect the changes we wish to see by whatever methods are appropriate and effective, even when others may find them distasteful.

Kicked and recommended.

I think the last 6 years has been an important 're-learning' for most of us (or at least me) on how to participate in the governing of ourselves at all levels - national, state and local. The concept that elected officials work for us had been lost prior to that and is slowly coming back. They work for us - they are not there to be idolized or fawned over, they are not rock or movie stars.

We and Cindy have every right to ask these elected leaders publicly, privately what are they doing for us now and to remind them of concerns such as a war that has killed 3/4 of a billion people.

This is a government of men AND women who need to remember to look to their constituency for guidance on the direction WE THE PEOPLE want to proceed.

"Government must be tamed." Oh, how I like that.

Democracy should always be viewed as an on-going process, not something that was accomplished in the past that is handed down like some heirloom collecting dust on a shelf, only to be brought out to admire every 4th of July. It must be alive. Struggle and conflict are the blood pressure and the life breath of the living democratic state .... not in a violent sense, internally, which is a sign of an illness .... but in the sense of the debates over the control you mention, with those debates taking place in the various "public commons": the voting booth, the newspapers, the town hall, the class rooms, and the public demonstrations encouraged by that Bill of Rights.

The most obvious measure of the weak state of our democracy is the very low percentage of Americans who vote. Of course, this is largely a symptom of that control issue: large groups feel they have no control, that only a small and powerful group "controls" society, and they see no connection between not voting and their daily circumstance.

The most positive potential that I see right now is a younger generation that appears, to me, to be taking more of an interest in the political and social landscape today that any group since the late 1950s and the '60s. They recognize that many of the older generation -- people of my age group -- had resisted being sucked up by the absorbable delusion that the Nixon and the Reagan-Bush1 administrations had anything to do with democracy, any more than cancer has to do with health. The older generation bought into far too many lies. Large doses of social novocaine reduced us to passive spectators while the enemies of democracy have attempted to rip the teeth out of the Bill of Rights. The young people I talk to today wonder why the 60's generation has become so comfortable, when there is blood dripping down their chins.

Older people like myself need to be investing in the efforts of this younger generation to spark that much-needed debate in the public commons. We need to work with them to expand the efforts into the neighborhoods where most folks do not think their vote counts. I think that Martin's Poor Peoples Campaign is the unfinished business that needs our focus: it was an attempt to bring the connection between the issues of poverty and lack of opportunity in the US, with the war in a foreign land.

in one way or another. This preoccupation seems curious at first, but in actuality it illuminates a central paradox of our national character. The U.S. is not designed around rigid precepts that break when pressured or collapse when tainted by corrupting influence. The structure of our government is designed to enable both depots and egalitarians almost equally.

This open model of governance provides us with the building blocks for every type of political landscape, from dictatorship and corporatism to democracy and socialism. We are both saint and sinner, sometimes simultaneously. America is whatever you want it to be.

The framers recognized that in such an environment, apathy is toxic. As men of action and passion, they understood that you cannot turn your back on this country, in either sense of that phrase, and expect good to come of it. They wrote of this often.

Involvement is key. The good or the evil of a generation can be wiped away by purposeful, diligent hands, making all past achievements, no matter how great, subject to change. That was our founders’ gift to us, and their curse. We can remake ourselves from ashes, but at the same time, we can never be truly secure.

It seems the price for our freedom is indeed eternal vigilance.

I think that we have to give the devil its due: the rabid, right-wing republicans came to understand that political power included not only the corporate structure, but also organizing on the grass-roots level. They took over the school boards, then the village, town and city councils. They got their people in the county and state government level, and not just in the highest profile positions.

We need to do the same thing. Democracy isn't something that can be one by fighting on any one front from time to time. It requires men and women of good will to fight on many fronts, in a constant and coordinated manner.

Last November's elections were a good thing. But those elections alone are not going to result in significant changes in people's daily lives. People must make changes in their daily lives, in order to achieve the significant changes on the higher political levels, necessary to make positive and progressive changes in all of this land.

We always seem to expect our heroes to be perfect, and we are unusually harsh in our criticism when they fail to live up to the super-human standards we set for them. I'm sure that any one of us in Cindy's shoes would make mistakes, but few of us are willing to step up and make the huge sacrifices that Cindy has made to get her message out.

I rarely post, as I don't feel I have much to add most of the time, but DU is my "go to" place throughout each and every day. There are a handful of members I look for, to see what they have to say about this and that or what they're posting for others to see and discuss, and you are one of them.

Many thanks - you are greatly appreciated.

I do appreciate that.

for injecting some history into the current debate about Sheehan.

She is acting with urgency and impatience precisely because the situation is urgent, and because all of us should have already lost our patience.

:yourock:

Cindy is someone I admire and respect as she has committed herself to ending the illegal occupation of Iraq and bringing home her son's brothers and sisters in arms. As a result of reading your OP I was interested to see what others had to say about criticism and action and found these:

Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Eleanor Roosevelt

Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
Elbert Hubbard

Words without actions are the assassins of idealism.
Herbert Hoover


I find it interesting there are those who were willing to cheer Cindy when the object of her actions were the political "opposition" yet quick to cast aspersions when her actions involved those the critics support. Cindy's main cause was never to get one party elected over another although removing the repubs is a part of the solution, her cause, focus, passion, commitment is to bring an end to the illegal occupation of Iraq and bring the soldiers home.

To quote Shakespeare:
Strong reasons make strong actions.