Martin Luther King Jr’s message matters today more than ever

MLEGACY artin Luther King Jr. has come to be revered as a hero who led a nonviolent struggle to reform and redeem the US. His birthday is celebrated as a national holiday. Tributes are paid to him on his death anniversary each April 4, and his legacy is honoured in multiple ways.

But from my perspective as a historian of religion and civil rights, the true radicalism of his thought remains underappreciated. The “civil saint” portrayed nowadays was, by the end of his life, a social and economic radical, who argued forcefully for the necessity of economic justice in the pursuit of racial equality. Three particular works from 1957 to 1967 illustrate how King’s political thought evolved from a hopeful reformer to a radical critic.

For much of the 1950s, King believed that White southern ministers could provide moral leadership. He thought the White racists of the South could be countered by the ministers who took a stand for equality. At the time, his concern with economic justice was a secondary theme in his political advocacy.

King had hope for this vision. He had worked with White liberals such as Myles Horton, the leader of a center in Tennessee for training labour and civil rights organisers. King had developed friendships and crucial alliances with White supporters. His vision was for the fulfillment of basic American ideals of liberty and equality.

By the early 1960s, at the peak of the civil rights movement, King’s views had evolved significantly. In 1963, during the Birmingham campaign he issued a masterful public letter explaining the motivations behind his crusade. It stands in striking contrast with his hopeful 1957 sermon.

His “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” responded to a newspaper advertisement from eight local clergymen urging King to allow the city government to enact gradual changes.

In a stark change from his earlier views, King devastatingly targeted White moderates willing to settle for “order” over justice. In an oppressive environment, the avoidance of conflict might appear to be “order,” but in fact supported the denial of basic citizenship rights, he noted.

“We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive,” King wrote. He argued how oppressors never voluntarily gave up freedom to the oppressed — it always had to be demanded by “extremists for justice.” He wrote how he was “gravely disappointed with the White moderate … who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom.”

By 1967, King’s philosophy emphasised economic justice as essential to equality. And he made clear connections between American violence abroad in Vietnam and American social inequality at home.

He angered crucial allies. King and President Lyndon Johnson had been allies in achieving significant legislative victories in 1964 and 1965. Johnson’s “Great Society” launched a series of initiatives to address issues of poverty at home. But beginning in 1965, after the Johnson administration increased the number of US troops deployed in Vietnam, King’s vision grew radical.

King continued with a searching analysis of what linked poverty and violence both at home and abroad. His “I Have a Dream,” speech in August 1963 serves as the touchstone for the annual King holiday. But King’s dream ultimately evolved into a call for a fundamental redistribution of economic power and resources.

He remained, to the end, the prophet of nonviolent resistance. This remembering matters more than ever today. Many states are either passing or considering measures that would make it harder for many Americans to exercise their fundamental right to vote. It would roll back the huge gains in rates of political participation by racial minorities made possible by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At the same time, there is a persistent wealth gap between Blacks and Whites.

Only sustained government attention can address these issues – the point King was stressing later in his life.

King’s philosophy stood not just for “opportunity,” but for positive measures toward economic equality and political power. Ignoring this understanding betrays the “dream” that is ritually invoked each year.— The Conversation Paul Harvey is Professor of American History, University of Colorado

He thought the white racists of the South could be countered by the ministers who took a stand for equality