MLK and the 4,000 > SundayPaper.com > The Sunday Paper

MLK and the 4,000

Dr. King opposed war, but...

U.S. military personnel attend an Easter sunrise service in Baghdad.
CREDIT: Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty Images
By Stephanie Ramage

This week on April 4, Americans will mark 40 years since the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. It’s an appropriate time to ask ourselves if freedom, equality and ultimately peace are worth dying for.

As events in our country’s history go, Dr. King’s personal sacrifice brought about more change than almost any other. In my mind, I can see the monumental milestones of my nation laid out in sequential order: The signing of the Declaration of Independence; the American victory in the Revolutionary War; the Civil War; the Emancipation Proclamation; the Great War; the Great Depression; the New Deal; World War II; Rosie the Riveter enters the workforce; the Civil Rights movement; Vietnam; the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

It wasn’t until more than 20 years after his death that Dr. King’s birthday was observed as a holiday by all 50 states. Today we commemorate it with a great deal of pomp and circumstance. Lofty dignitaries and celebrities come here to his hometown, lay wreaths at his tomb, make speeches and sing in his church, and we stand shivering in Atlanta’s peculiarly bone-chilling January cold, craning our necks to see them. It is fitting to note the day in such a way, as it conforms to the way that people around the world in various religions and cultures observe the birthdays of their martyrs. And, because MLK was very much a vessel of the Christian tradition, it also follows the custom of commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ in the fantastic celebration we call Christmas.

Easter pales in comparison. Births are so much easier for us to deal with in this humanist culture, where many believe that nothing is worth dying for.

I imagine that there will be those who take offense at my comparison of Jesus and MLK, and I’d like to apologize for any writerly clumsiness that might convey to Christians the idea that I equate their divine prophet with a mortal man—something that MLK himself would not agree with. But the heart of the matter is that they both died for an idea. We tend to believe that death is a defeat. People like MLK prove to us that there can be triumph even in death, just as Jesus showed us.

People who knew Dr. King often say that they believe he knew that he would be murdered. So it stands to reason that he could have averted this if he had just quieted down, stayed home, waited for someone else to pick up his duties and accepted that the enormity of his task was too great. Certainly, if he had dwelled on how his death would affect his wife and children, I imagine it would have been easy for him to call his closest councilors and say, “We’re not going to Memphis. I have decided that I can do more by being here for my wife and taking care of my children.” He could have reasoned that such a task was meant for someone younger—a single guy, someone without a family. If Dr. King had stayed home on April 4, 1968, no one would have held it against him.

But he didn’t. In the final analysis, the measure of a hero is his understanding that if you leave the difficult and frightening work to someone else, it may never get done. Martin Luther King Jr., a beloved son, brother, father and husband, put on his shoes that day like any other man and stepped out the door to walk to his fate and change the course of history with his sacrifice.

There is no doubt that his tragic death has bought the equality of his people. The battle is not yet won, but much progress has been made. A case could certainly be made for how, if he had lived, he might have done more. But when we look at history, one of the things that stands out with gut-wrenching clarity is how social progress has leapt forward through sacrifice. The kind of courage that motivated MLK to go to Memphis, the courage that spurs activists and soldiers alike to risk their lives for an idea, is the courage that historic progress requires.

Dr. King opposed war, but I believe that he could understand more about the willingness of a soldier to die for his country than any of us who’ve never put ourselves in danger.

When day breaks on April 4, when we remember that day in Memphis, we might also spare a moment to think about what is worth dying for in Tibet, in Myanmar and Gaza, and what is worth the sacrifice of 4,000 American soldiers’ lives in Iraq. Will their lives ultimately be wasted in defeat or redeemed in triumph? Were they wasted anyway? Is 4,000 too many? One death is too many if you don’t believe that the United States finally decided after more than 20 United Nations resolutions spread out over more than 10 years that no one else was going to stand up for Iraqis who desperately needed help.

Did things go awry? Yes, they certainly did. Has the war been used as a means of profit for some immoral corporations? Undoubtedly. Is it too late to redeem ourselves? That is up to us and the Iraqis. I have a dream that Iraq’s present turmoil and misery will give way to peace, that Shiite and Sunni will equally enjoy justice in courts that uphold an enlightened constitution of their own, and that the day will come when Iraqis will build a monument to the Americans who died for them as a reminder of the ideals of those soldiers, even as we build monuments to MLK to remind us to honor the ideals for which he sacrificed his life.

In his 2007 book, “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts,” author Robert Kaplan relates the words of Army Col. Jim Linder of Fort Lawn, S.C.: “I will fortify the high moral ground. People will attack me with stories about Abu Ghraib and the killing of Filipino civilians a hundred years ago by American troops, actions I cannot defend. And I will respond that my troops can build a school, or fix a little girl’s cleft palate at a MEDCAP [medical civilian action program], whereas all the guerrillas of Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah can offer is a suicide vest. I will build my fortress on deeds, because I know that the only force protection I have is the goodwill of civilians. All the guns in the world won’t keep an IED from going off.”

I think Dr. King and Col. Linder would have had a lot in common. SP

COMMENTS

Comment by Stanley | Sunday, March 30, 2008, 11:24 AM

Just as a reminder: After the first Gulf War the Shia stood up and revolted. But because we (the U.S.) didn't want Iran to overly influence the region we let Saddam use his superior firepower and crush them. Had we stopped him from using his gunships and flying in reinforcements this invasion may have never been necessary.

Another difference from Dr. King's efforts: He hadn't help put in place the evil that was troubling his people. We helped raise Saddam's profile and power. So invading was actually dealing with our own creation.

And speaking on the subject of U.N. resolutions, what will we say if Russia decides to step in on behalf of the Palestinians against Israel, which has defied multiple resolutions from the U.N. regarding the illegality of the occupation? Whose side will be the righteous ones?

I say none of this to diminish the efforts of our troops, sailors, and airmen who have done their duty as directed. But I must ask about the terrible cost we have inflicted on those we would set "free". The Sunni and Shia aren't the only ones that have inflicted heavy casualties on civilians.