General Music Chat

Well I have to admit that it was friend of mine who is a jazz cat that sent me an email today in memory of this great man. So I thought it would be alright to put this up today, along with an excerpt from a speech.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Opening speech at the 1964 Berlin Jazz Festival

"God has brought many things out of oppression. He has endowed his
creatures with the capacity to create - and from this capacity has
flowed the sweet songs of sorrow and joy that have allowed man to cope
with his environment and many different situations....."

What a blessing music, in all it's many forms, is to us all...

Awesome! Thanks!

Hey, no prob! I should clarify however that the anniversary is April 4th...I'm not sure how to adjust the time on here, so when I posted this it was the evening of the 4th but it registers as early morning on the 5th...right now it is 9am, but the post will be about 5 hours ahead or so...

Hey, no prob! I should clarify however that the anniversary is April 4th...I'm not sure how to adjust the time on here, so when I posted this it was the evening of the 4th but it registers as early morning on the 5th...right now it is 9am, but the post will be about 5 hours ahead or so...

LOL

We all watch alot of news here. Especially us older farts.
Don't worry about it.

I'll probably get slammed on this, but I had mixed feelings about MLK...it wasn't his fault, really, it was just what he was used to...

I think it was that whole Southern Baptist way of speaking that really got ppl all fired up...it was close to inciting them to violence...and then he'd say in a low voice something along the lines of "but we must do it peacefully"...it was genius, in its own way, yet some of the ppl still had a tough time following his abrupt change of mood.

It's tough for me to explain, but obviously, some of his followers were incited to riot & violent behavior...but then again I ask myself, what else could he have done? Or what else could his followers done, for that matter?

A great man, a powerfully influential man, with great vision...but the times were different, his audiences were different than they would be today, & it's hard to apply peaceful solutions to seemingly unchangeable situations...

In some ways he scared the crap out of me, & I got pounded a bit in school for being stupid enough for saying so.

He was a fiery preacher, there is no doubt...but this brings up an interesting irony in a constant criticism that is thrown at the liberal/left - that they are "God haters". In truth, the whole neoliberal/civil rights movement is soundly based in religious principle.

John Brown, the famous American abolitionist/revolutionary (see Harper's Ferry) was a wild eyed, Bible thumping preacher who went to the gallows with the conviction that all men - Black White or Whatever - are to be free.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Baptist Preacher, was the spearhead and leader of a civil rights movement that changed the nation.

Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero, assassinated by a paramilitary hit squad in El Salvador in 1980, was a vocal advocate for something called Liberation Theology, which held that it is God's Law that people remain free from poverty and oppression.

Remember that the next time you hear some lugnut calling the civil rights advocates or the liberal/left a bunch of "Godless" people.

In truth, the whole neoliberal/civil rights movement is soundly based in religious principle.

Ultimately, pretty much anything we would call "moral" is religious based. Morality is simple the practice of "right conduct". The question is...who defines what is "right" (or good) and what is "wrong" (or evil)? If man is the ultimate authority, then there is a potential problem, since society often changes what it considers acceptable or not, over time. History shows our extremist leanings, as society rushes toward excess, and anything goes, sees the chaos and emptiness this brings, and unfortunately rushes right toward the opposite extreme, in a seemingly, neverending cycle.

Because of this changing nature in man, a higher and more permanent authority is usually sought. Namely God, a higher power, something beyond ourselves, and presumably, less apt to flow with the wind in one direction or another. Morality is derived from religious beliefs, because it is seen as more "absolute" and less fluctuating.

So, of course, liberals are not always "anti-God" but they are often seen as such, because liberals are generally more "permissive" and some of them do see "religion" often as the enemy of permissiveness. And it often is.

Additionally, the calls to include "God" in the classroom, are almost always opposed by liberals. Personally I happen to agree with such a stance, as I oppose religious theocracy. But this would be seen by many as an attack on God directly.

So, some of the historic complaints against liberals may be justified, while others certainly are not. Democrats are a hugely mixed bag though. I often perceive the party as a hodge podge of "leftovers". A quite diverse mix of groups, which span the gammut from religious to anti-religious, who have different agendas, but try and unite on basic principles and join forces to have a significant representation, than would not be possible on their own. Kind of like "I don't agree with every group that claims to be a Democrat, but I damn sure know that my beliefs have no place in the Republican party!"

In many ways, that kind of unity on central issues, is more advanced than the Republican party, but in other ways it is limiting. One thing is for sure. There are WHACKOS on BOTH sides of the aisle, and I think this necessitates the advancement of a third, more independent, and more mainstream party. It has been almost impossible though, to break through the power structure currently in place.

Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero, assassinated by a paramilitary hit squad in El Salvador in 1980, was a vocal advocate for something called Liberation Theology, which held that it is God's Law that people remain free from poverty and oppression.

Liberation Theology has it's strongest base in Catholicism. The Popes have always discouraged it though. This has not changed to my knowledge. The problem is, that, it is not merely an intellectual exercise, the idea of "liberating the poor" but it is literally a "call to arms" to accomplish this. So it is violent in nature. It had been used successfully, by people like Che Guevera and many others, to encourage "revolution" among the poor. It is Marxist in nature, and therefore, not in accordance with democratic philosophy.

Interestingly, and usually conveniently forgotten by Christian ministers, the early Christian movement, practiced basically a form of socialism, where all property and monies were donated to the group, and used for the good of the group, as well as assisting the poor.

But for those suggesting that socialism is ordained by God, because of this history, there are a few important caveats, namely:

1) This was voluntary. Not state sanctioned.

2) The society in which the early church developed may have necessitated this practice, whereas society has changed profoundly in the several millenia since this time.

3) The early church needed to prostyletize, and it required funding for travels to foreign lands to spread the gospel. The early church grew from simple, basically impoverished peoples. Now however, a quarter of the world's population considers themselves Christian. The massive amounts of donations received worldwide, I would suspect, amount to trillions of dollars. Money is not the problem. It is what churches do with the money. And the lack of unity within Christian denominations.

Remember that the next time you hear some lugnut calling the civil rights advocates or the liberal/left a bunch of "Godless" people.

Hell, I would never say that, Even if some lefties really are godless, I know that you personally worship enough on your own to make up for them!

You're right about the nature of Liberation Theology, regarding its willingness to take up arms if necessary. And fankly, I agree with that stance. Freedom and the elimination of oppression is completely worth armed struggle if necessary and all other tactics to achieve it have failed.

There were a certain group of British colonists some time ago who felt the same.

I fear that Mao was right. See, political power does, eventually, flow from the barrel of a gun.

I'll probably get slammed on this, but I had mixed feelings about MLK...it wasn't his fault, really, it was just what he was used to...

I think it was that whole Southern Baptist way of speaking that really got ppl all fired up...it was close to inciting them to violence...and then he'd say in a low voice something along the lines of "but we must do it peacefully"...it was genius

You are mistaken. It is an interesting hypothesis, from a superficial examination of facts, but if you study Dr. King's writings and beliefs, you could never come to that conclusion.

His greatest influences in his beliefs on how to exact change in society, are based on the actions of two figures... Jesus and Ghandi.

He saw in them, two personalities, rooted in religion, that succeeded in making phenomenal and world-changing successes. He realized that they accomplished this through the power of non-violence. He came to understand that it was truly a "power", a "force" for change, that was not antithetical to religious principles.

It required no weapons. No military alliances.

It required one thing...

Suffering

King did not happen upon the method of non-violence haphazzardly. It was brought about as a personal conviction over time, while studying theology in seminary. King desired to bring about change for good, and being African American, naturally, this centered on race relations, on the injustices suffered by people of color. While he believed in the biblical principles of "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek", he came to a belief that these principles were practical in personal relationships, but not in the context of national or global issues. In other words, if we just love our enemy and turn the other cheek, this is effectively, a license for those in power to continue abusing the weak. Why change the circumstances of the black or the poor? "Look at them, they love us. They take whatever we ask of them without complaint."

He realized that society would never change like that. That resistance to evil was neccessary, where these kinds of larger issues were involved, that acceptance of our circumstances was not a practical option for change.

The question was "How do we resist?" and being a man of God, "How we do resist in a godly way? A way that is compatible with belief in God?"

In studying Ghandi's teachings, he came across the term satyagraha, according to Ghandi, meaning truth-force, love-force and soul-force. This struck him profoundly. And he came to believe that the power of Ghandi's non-violent approach, was in the christian doctrine of "love" working THROUGH the technique of non-violence. It was love through non-violent protest, that empowered it.

He came to believe this was the ONLY way to create change.

He then developed six points, he considered essential within the strategy of non-violent resistance. Things like... non-violence is perceived as weakness, but it is not weakness, as it requires incredible strength to absorb suffering, while resisting, and not respond back in violence. The person is not merely taking beatings from a position of weakness, but they are NOT giving in, they are RESISTING. In doing so, another of his points, is that this would have to result in moral outrage eventually. Basically "moral shame" would result, which was another of his six points.

So, King truly believed in non-violence. He had no agenda to the contrary, secret or otherwise. The fact is, that for King, violence would DEFEAT the very principles and strategy he was staking his life, and the lives of others on. This, in King's mind, would rob them of victory.

You are right, that King's sermons and speeches are meant to charge the listener emotionally, but you are wrong about it's purpose. King had to pump up those participating in non-violence, to STRENGTHEN them, not toward violence, but to be able to ENDURE suffering. He had to remind them, of the goal. Equality. Not just for them, but for successive generations of people of color, their children and grandchildren. He strengthened them with his words, so they would continue to endure the suffering, and not lose faith in the cause.

One of the famous marching song's main lyrics...

"Keep your eyes on the prize... hold on"


This song, adapted from an american folk song "Keep Your Hand on the Plow" was meant for the same purpose, and holds the same message... "Endure, endure, don't quit before we get victory!"


This was the purpose of King making rousing sermons. King knew, that every time violence errupted, it set the movement back, and just made things longer and more difficult for them. King NEVER desired violence to occur. The synthesis he saw in Ghandi's teachings and Christian love, was profound, and even sacred to him. He constantly demanded of his followers, not to betray the strategy, in his mind, the ONLY strategy, that would bring victory to the cause.

I never said I was afraid of his message. I quite agreed with it then as I do now.

If he had spoken as Ghandi did, with humility, quietly, he would most likely have never been heard in this country.

It was the passion, his tone, which could incite others to violence in spite of his message of peace, that I found fearsome. I am also very aware that he had no intention of creating violence with his words, but I also say that it happened, for good or ill.

I also think that the violence did in fact help the cause, in the long run. It brought the plight of his ppl to national attention even more than his rousing sermons and speaches.

I, in my little secluded safe totally white suburban world, had no idea what others were going through in this country. I'd have been indifferent to the words of any preacher that didn't speak in my own church. In my youth I innocently & naively thought that all our social ills had been addressed by our constitution & our laws. That's what I had been taught in school.

The riots brought to my attention that, no, things WEREN'T perfectly AOK in the USA. I'm almost ashamed to be thankful that they happened, but I'd never have known, would never have cared, without the riots.

The years of his sermons, & those of his contemporaries, were when I was 6 or 7 to 13 years of age. All I had to go on to establish my opinions were things my parents, friends & neighbors said. They weren't very enlightened, as I look back.

The snippets I saw on TV were when he was banging his fist, sweating profusely...yeah, he was an imposing figure, obviously passionate about his message.

Yeah, it scared me. No reason it shouldn't, considering what I "knew" at the time.

Interesting comments. I think it's a common cultural feature of White society in this country to get a bit rattled when they see a Black man exhibiting some power. This also reminded me of something that was said once, I believe by Angela Davis. I'm paraphrasing:

"When they were dragging us out of our homes and hanging us from trees, the White man was not afraid. When we went to the voting polls and get beaten down for it, the White man was not afraid. When we started marching in the streets, the White man got a little concerned. When we started showing up in black leather and with guns (The Black Panthers), the White man got terrified."

I think it's a common cultural feature of White society in this country to get a bit rattled when they see a Black man exhibiting some power.

I think you've hit it on the head.

White preachers can make just as loud, rousing and animated sermons. Does anyone accuse them of "inciting to violence"? Not usually.

Perhaps not, but they scare the hell outta me, too...LOL

Perhaps not, but they scare the hell outta me, too...LOL

LOL


That's what they're trying to do.

Sadly, many ministers focus on the fire and brimstone and forget that Jesus' fundamental request of his followers, known as the "Great Commission", and found in all 4 gospels, was that his followers spread the "Gospel", which means "good news".

Frightening people toward Jesus, is dubious. Love is a more sincere and longer lasting motivator than fear is. Jesus' disciples were moved by His love, not because they were scared to death.

I get a little nervous when any group of ppl at all get all "uppity"...christians, blacks, punkers, gangs, women, mexicans, republicans...the list goes on & on...I like a peaceful life where only I am the one causing all the trouble!