It’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (though you wouldn’t know it here at Notre Dame Law School, as we have class today), but I haven’t yet had a chance to do my annual tradition of spending 16 minutes of my day with Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. I will later, though… and for those who’d like to do the same, here’s a video clip:
Mindsurfer, on the one hand, I agree with you. There is still far too much racism and inequality of opportunity in this country based on race, which is to say that there is more than zero.
That said, I disagree with — and resent — those (and I am by no means suggesting that you are one of them) who annually use Martin Luther King’s birthday as an excuse to exaggerate the extent of racial injustice in this country, in a cynical attempt to serve their own political interests by encouraging people to “drink from the cup of bitterness and hatred,” which Dr. King so wisely cautioned against.
The reality is that overt racism is no longer accepted by the mainstream in this country, and while there is covert racism that sometimes passes for legitimate politics/policy, there is also a lot of non-racist politics/policy that is falsely portrayed as racist, sometimes by well-meaning but misguided folks whose worldview is distorted by bitterness and hatred, and other times by charlatans whose interests are best served by divisiveness — and many of those folks, the ones feeding the flames of resentment instead of working toward positive change, still are, unlike the overt racists, in the mainstream (or did I dream that Al Sharpton spoke in prime time at the 2004 Democratic convention?).
It isn’t just politics, either. There are many people in academica and journalism and other fields who insist on making make race the defining feature of every debate, who routinely jump to the conclusion that racial animus is always the most plausible explanation for anything and everything, and who consider the speaker’s race a qualification (or disqualification) for even participating in the debate about racial matters — i.e., the people who are reading this comment right now and thinking, “Loy doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he’s not qualified to have an opinion about racism because he’s a privileged white boy.” The misguided individuals who think this way are themselves failing to live up to Dr. King’s grand ideals, because they are judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character (or of their arguments), and are allowing bitterness and hatred and anger — however initially justified those emotions might have been, with regard to certain specific situations — to distort their whole worldview. Dr. King wisely recognized this danger, but alas, many well-meaning people today do not.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not attempting to downplay the degree to which racism is still a real problem. I recognize that it is one, very much so — and perhaps even moreso, that the legacy of overt past racism lives on, and continues to impact the lives of blacks and other minorities in ways both obvious and subtle. I realize all that. But on a day like today, virtually everyone realizes and acknowledges that. What I’m attempting to articulate, about the “flip side of the coin” if you will, is less often clearly stated, and that’s why I’m focusing on it.
I guess what I’m saying is, there are a lot of people on both sides of this country’s racial dialogue who aren’t living up to Dr. King’s dream. And that’s a damn shame, because I honestly think truer words were never spoken than the ones he spoke in that speech. I certainly haven’t heard any. I’m a word-parser and a nitpicker, so it’s very, very unusual for me to listen to a 16-minute speech and find that every single word rings absolutely true. And yet that’s what happens every year when I listen to Dr. King’s speech.
P.S. There are also, I hasten to add, numerous situations in which reasonable people can disagree over whether racism — overt or covert, obvious or subtle — is at play in a political/policy matter. By no means do I pretend to have all the answers. (I may, at times, come off as overconfident in my own position when arguing about specific situations, but that comes with the territory when you’re a law student with pretty good argumentation skills and an ego to match. :) In the bigger picture, however, I recognize that I’m not always right about this stuff.)
In such cases, where the role of race is debatable, what bothers me is that, often times, people who suggest anything other than a racial explanation are dismissed out of hand, or even called racists themselves. This goes back to my point about people who “routinely jump to the conclusion that racial animus is always the most plausible explanation for anything and everything.” They won’t pay serious attention to alternative explanations, because their mind is already made up: the explanation must be that somebody’s a racist bastard. This is a poisonous attitude, unworthy of Dr. King’s great dream.
“I guess what I’m saying is, there are a lot of people on both sides of this country’s racial dialogue who aren’t living up to Dr. King’s dream.”
IMHO, Dr. King’s dream was that we could look PAST skin color, that we could reach a point where the color of your skin was of as little consequence in judging your character as the colors of your eyes or hair (then again those firey trouble making readhea…oh Hi Brendan :D).
Sadly there are people who feel that instead of looking past skin color, that they must band together with people of their own color to promote their agenda (see groups like the Congressional Black Caucus etc). How does that help anyone? It just makes other groups more bitter towards you, because it creates an “Us vs. Them” antagonism.
As much as people like Mel Gibson and Michael Richards are part of the problem, so too do I see people who treat someone of their ethnic group as some kind of “traitor” for dating outside their race as part of the problem.
We can, we must confront racist members of the majority group and condemn them in no uncertain terms, but so too must minority groups cast aside the “Us vs. Them” mentality if they ever truly want to live in a colorblind society. Anything less is not fighting against racism, its merely replacing which group is the dominant one.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
January 15th, 2007 at 5:25:22 pm
Brendan, I love that you post this every year. Listening to the speech is always moving…
January 15th, 2007 at 7:14:05 pm
I agree Alphadog. I just wish we could live up to it.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:54:10 pm
“No, we are not satisifed, and we will not be satisified until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream!”
Just awesome.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:15:47 am
Mindsurfer, on the one hand, I agree with you. There is still far too much racism and inequality of opportunity in this country based on race, which is to say that there is more than zero.
That said, I disagree with — and resent — those (and I am by no means suggesting that you are one of them) who annually use Martin Luther King’s birthday as an excuse to exaggerate the extent of racial injustice in this country, in a cynical attempt to serve their own political interests by encouraging people to “drink from the cup of bitterness and hatred,” which Dr. King so wisely cautioned against.
The reality is that overt racism is no longer accepted by the mainstream in this country, and while there is covert racism that sometimes passes for legitimate politics/policy, there is also a lot of non-racist politics/policy that is falsely portrayed as racist, sometimes by well-meaning but misguided folks whose worldview is distorted by bitterness and hatred, and other times by charlatans whose interests are best served by divisiveness — and many of those folks, the ones feeding the flames of resentment instead of working toward positive change, still are, unlike the overt racists, in the mainstream (or did I dream that Al Sharpton spoke in prime time at the 2004 Democratic convention?).
It isn’t just politics, either. There are many people in academica and journalism and other fields who insist on making make race the defining feature of every debate, who routinely jump to the conclusion that racial animus is always the most plausible explanation for anything and everything, and who consider the speaker’s race a qualification (or disqualification) for even participating in the debate about racial matters — i.e., the people who are reading this comment right now and thinking, “Loy doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he’s not qualified to have an opinion about racism because he’s a privileged white boy.” The misguided individuals who think this way are themselves failing to live up to Dr. King’s grand ideals, because they are judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character (or of their arguments), and are allowing bitterness and hatred and anger — however initially justified those emotions might have been, with regard to certain specific situations — to distort their whole worldview. Dr. King wisely recognized this danger, but alas, many well-meaning people today do not.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not attempting to downplay the degree to which racism is still a real problem. I recognize that it is one, very much so — and perhaps even moreso, that the legacy of overt past racism lives on, and continues to impact the lives of blacks and other minorities in ways both obvious and subtle. I realize all that. But on a day like today, virtually everyone realizes and acknowledges that. What I’m attempting to articulate, about the “flip side of the coin” if you will, is less often clearly stated, and that’s why I’m focusing on it.
I guess what I’m saying is, there are a lot of people on both sides of this country’s racial dialogue who aren’t living up to Dr. King’s dream. And that’s a damn shame, because I honestly think truer words were never spoken than the ones he spoke in that speech. I certainly haven’t heard any. I’m a word-parser and a nitpicker, so it’s very, very unusual for me to listen to a 16-minute speech and find that every single word rings absolutely true. And yet that’s what happens every year when I listen to Dr. King’s speech.
God bless him.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:21:13 am
P.S. There are also, I hasten to add, numerous situations in which reasonable people can disagree over whether racism — overt or covert, obvious or subtle — is at play in a political/policy matter. By no means do I pretend to have all the answers. (I may, at times, come off as overconfident in my own position when arguing about specific situations, but that comes with the territory when you’re a law student with pretty good argumentation skills and an ego to match. :) In the bigger picture, however, I recognize that I’m not always right about this stuff.)
In such cases, where the role of race is debatable, what bothers me is that, often times, people who suggest anything other than a racial explanation are dismissed out of hand, or even called racists themselves. This goes back to my point about people who “routinely jump to the conclusion that racial animus is always the most plausible explanation for anything and everything.” They won’t pay serious attention to alternative explanations, because their mind is already made up: the explanation must be that somebody’s a racist bastard. This is a poisonous attitude, unworthy of Dr. King’s great dream.
January 16th, 2007 at 2:18:21 am
“I guess what I’m saying is, there are a lot of people on both sides of this country’s racial dialogue who aren’t living up to Dr. King’s dream.”
Kinda like this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-_K0Hlvyys&mode=related&search=
January 16th, 2007 at 6:58:47 pm
IMHO, Dr. King’s dream was that we could look PAST skin color, that we could reach a point where the color of your skin was of as little consequence in judging your character as the colors of your eyes or hair (then again those firey trouble making readhea…oh Hi Brendan :D).
Sadly there are people who feel that instead of looking past skin color, that they must band together with people of their own color to promote their agenda (see groups like the Congressional Black Caucus etc). How does that help anyone? It just makes other groups more bitter towards you, because it creates an “Us vs. Them” antagonism.
As much as people like Mel Gibson and Michael Richards are part of the problem, so too do I see people who treat someone of their ethnic group as some kind of “traitor” for dating outside their race as part of the problem.
We can, we must confront racist members of the majority group and condemn them in no uncertain terms, but so too must minority groups cast aside the “Us vs. Them” mentality if they ever truly want to live in a colorblind society. Anything less is not fighting against racism, its merely replacing which group is the dominant one.