Note: I need to start by saying that John Lewis (D-GA) is an iconic yet humble warrior for freedom, my friend, and the Congressman of our 5th Congressional District here in Atlanta, Georgia. Lewis is unique in United States history for his exemplary role in demanding freedom as well as standing and acting forthrightly for justice. He doesn’t sit around and talk when he’s concerned. He takes action!!
The 2017 King Holiday marks the 31rst year of the event. When it was first celebrated, on January 20, 1986, I was directing the Non-Violent Social Change Program for Mrs. King at the “King Center for Non-Violent Social Change” in Atlanta.
I had attended meetings in the mid-1980s that Mrs. King held at the Center with Water Fauntroy (District of Columbia House of Representative member), John Lewis and others as they reported and strategized on what was happening in Congress regarding the establishment of the King Holiday.
John Lewis in the 1980s served on the Atlanta City Council. Later, in 1986, Lewis ran successfully for the House of Representatives to represent Georgia’s 5th Congressional District. He has been re-elected 14 times and only once going under 70% of the vote which was 69% over Dale Dixon in 1994 (Wikipedia).
While on the Atlanta City Council, however, John Lewis was a consistent visitor at the King Center to attend meetings with Mrs. King and also to help me with the teaching of the Non-Violent program. He helped educate the youth about the civil rights movement and to also visit some of the critical sites, such as Selma and Montgomery, Alabama.
The March 7, 1965 Selma, Alabama action to demand voting rights was where Lewis almost lost his life. He was beaten unconscious by the Alabama State Patrol. This occurred as John and others began to walk across Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge to the renowned Alabama Highway 80 on their trek to Montgomery and the headquarters of Alabama’s Governor George Wallace. It was to demand their constitutional rights and the registration of Black voters in Alabama. Here’s an apt description of it all:
Lewis became nationally known during his prominent role in the Selma to Montgomery marches when, on March 7, 1965 – a day that would become known as “Bloody Sunday” – Lewis and fellow activist Hosea Williams led over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. At the end of the bridge, they were met by Alabama State Troopers who ordered them to disperse. When the marchers stopped to pray, the police discharged tear gas and mounted troopers charged the demonstrators, beating them with night sticks. Lewis’s skull was fractured, but he escaped across the bridge to Brown Chapel, the movement’s headquarter church in Selma. Before Lewis could be taken to the hospital, he appeared before the television cameras calling on President Johnson to intervene in Alabama. Lewis bears scars from the incident on his head that are still visible today (Wikipedia).
John told me, as we stood at the top of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1985, that all he could observe on the other side of the bridge, when he and others began the march in 1965, was a “sea of blue” – the uniforms of the Alabama State Patrol.
In response to this disastrous violence in Selma, on March 21, 1965 Dr. Martin Luther King, .Jr. led what swelled to some 25,000 marchers in a federally protected “Selma-to-Montgomery March”. This then soon generated the passage of the “Voting Rights Act” on August 6, 1965 (Stanford).
At the end of the March 21 “federally protected march” in 1965, however, Alabama resumed it’s violent, discriminatory reputation:
Afterward a delegation of march leaders attempted to deliver a petition to Governor Wallace, but were rebuffed. That night, while ferrying Selma demonstrators back home from Montgomery, Viola Liuzzo, a housewife from Michigan who had come to Alabama to volunteer, was shot and killed by four members of the Ku Klux Klan. Doar later prosecuted three Klansmen conspiring to violate her civil rights (Stanford).
Later in 1965, on December 10, Martin Luther King, Jr. gave one of his renowned speeches at the Human Rights Day at Hunter College in New York City. In it he compares the civil rights struggles in the United States and the fight for freedom in South Africa. Much of what he stated is still, unfortunately, relevant today given especially the present political situation in the United States. As King asks below, who are the brutes and savages in Africa? They are not black, he says, but white Europeans. Further, he notes, “To assert white supremacy, to invoke white economic and military power, to maintain the status quo is to foster the danger of international race war.” King also honors whites who join in the struggle for justice, of which he says there are many. As he wisely states at the end:
Negro and white have been separated for centuries by evil men and evil myths. But they have found each other. The powerful unity of Negro with Negro and white with Negro is stronger than the most potent and entrenched racism. The whole human race will benefit when it ends the abomination that has diminished the stature of man for too long. This is the task to which we are called by the suffering in South Africa, and our response should be swift and unstinting. Out of this struggle will come the glorious reality of the family of man.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Hunter College, New York City
Human Rights Day, December 10th, 1965
Africa has been depicted for more than a century as the home of black cannibals and ignorant primitives. Despite volumes of facts controverting this picture, the stereotype persists in books, motion pictures, and other media of communication.
Africa does have spectacular savages and brutes today, but they are not black. They are the sophisticated white rulers of South Africa who profess to be cultured, religious and civilized, but whose conduct and philosophy stamp them unmistakably as modern-day barbarians.
We are in an era in which the issue of human rights is the central question confronting all nations. In this complex struggle an obvious but little appreciated fact has gained attention-the large majority of the human race is non-white-yet it is that large majority which lives in hideous poverty. While millions enjoy an unexampled opulence in developed nations, ten thousand people die of hunger each and every day of the year in the undeveloped world. To assert white supremacy, to invoke white economic and military power, to maintain the status quo is to foster the danger of international race war . . . What does the South African Government contribute to this tense situation? These are the incendiary words of the South African philosophy spoken by its Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd:
“We want to keep South Africa white. Keeping it white can only mean one thing, namely, white domination, not ‘leadership’, not ‘guidance’, but control, supremacy.”
The South African Government to make the white supreme has had to reach into the past and revive the nightmarish ideology and practices of nazism. We are witnessing a recrudescence of the barbarism which murdered more humans than any war in history. In South Africa today, all opposition to white supremacy is condemned as communism, and in its name, due process is destroyed; a medieval segregation is organized with twentieth century efficiency and drive; a sophisticated form of slavery is imposed by a minority upon a majority which is kept in grinding poverty; the dignity of human personality is defiled; and world opinion is arrogantly defied.
Once more, we read of tortures in jails with electric devices, suicides among prisoners, forced confessions, while in the outside community ruthless persecution of editors, religious leaders, and political opponents suppress free speech -and a free press.
South Africa says to the world: “We have become a powerful industrial economy; we are too strong to be defeated by paper resolutions of world tribunals; we are immune to protest and to economic reprisals. We are invulnerable to opposition from within or without; if our evil offends you, you will have to learn to live with it.”
Increasingly, in recent months this conclusion has been echoed by sober commentators of other countries who disapprove, but, nevertheless, assert that there can be no remedy against this formidable adversary of human rights.
Do we, too, acknowledge defeat? Have we tried everything and failed? In examining this question as Americans, we are immediately struck by the fact that the United States moved with strikingly different energy when it reached a dubious conclusion that our interests were threatened in the Dominican Republic. We inundated that small nation with overwhelming force, shocking the world with our zealousness and naked power. With respect to South Africa, however, our protest is so muted and peripheral it merely mildly disturbs the sensibilities of the segregationists, while our trade and investments substantially stimulate their economy to greater heights.
We pat them on the wrist in permitting racially mixed receptions in our Embassy and by exhibiting films depicting Negro artists. But we give them massive support through American investments in motor and rubber industries, by extending some forty million dollars in loans through our most distinguished banking and financial institutions, by purchasing gold and other minerals mined by black slave labor, by giving them a sugar quota, by maintaining three tracking stations there, and by providing them with the prestige of a nuclear reactor built with our technical co-operation and fueled with refined uranium supplied by us.
When it is realized that Great Britain, France and other democratic Powers also prop up the economy of South Africa-and when to all of this is added the fact that the USSR has indicated its willingness to participate in a boycott-it is proper to wonder how South Africa can so confidently defy the civilized world. The conclusion is inescapable that it is less sure of its own power, but more sure that the great nations will not sacrifice trade and profit to oppose them effectively. The shame of our nation is that it is objectively an ally of this monstrous Government in its grim war with its own black people.
Our default is all the more grievous because one of the blackest pages of our history was our participation in the infamous African slave trade of the 18 th century. The rape of Africa was conducted substantially for our benefit to facilitate the growth of our nation and to enhance its commerce. There are few parallels in human history of the period in which Africans were seized and branded like animals, packed into ships holds like cargo and transported into chattel slavery. Millions suffered agonizing death in the middle passage in a holocaust reminiscent of the Nazi slaughter of Jews and Poles, and others. We have an obligation of atonement that is not cancelled by the passage of time. Indeed, the slave trade in one sense was more understandable than our contemporary policy. There was less sense of humanity in the world three hundred years ago. The slave trade was widely approved by the major Powers of the world. The economies of England, Spain, and the U.S. rested heavily on the profits derived from it. Today, in our opulent society, our reliance on trade with South Africa is infinitesimal significance. No real national interest impels us to be cautious, gentle, or a good customer of a nation that offends the world’s conscience.
Have we the power to be more than peevish with South Africa, but yet refrain from acts of war? To list the extensive economic relations of the great Powers with South Africa is to suggest a potent non-violent path. The international potential of non-violence has never been employed. Non-violence has been practised within national borders in India, the U.S. and in regions of Africa with spectacular success. The time has come to utilize non-violence fully through a massive international boycott which would involve the USSR, Great Britain, France, the United States, Germany and Japan. Millions of people can personally give expression to their abhorrence of the world’s worst racism through such a far-flung boycott. No nation professing a concern for man’s dignity could avoid assuming its obligations if people of all States and races were to adopt a firm stand. Nor need we confine an international boycott to South Africa. The time has come for an international alliance of peoples of all nations against racism.
For the American Negro there is a special relationship with Africa. It is the land of his origin. It was despoiled by invaders; its culture was arrested and concealed to justify white supremacy. The American Negro’s ancestors were not only driven into slavery, but their links with their past were severed so that their servitude might be psychological as well as physical. In this period when the American Negro is giving moral leadership and inspiration to his own nation, he must find the resources to aid his suffering brothers in his ancestral homeland. Nor is this aid a one-way street. The civil rights movement in the United States has derived immense inspiration from the successful struggles of those Africans who have attained freedom in their own nation’s. The fact that black men govern States, are building democratic institutions, sit in world tribunals, and participate in global decision-making gives every Negro a needed sense of dignity.
In this effort, the American Negro will not be alone. As this meeting testifies, there are many white people who know that liberty is indivisible. Even more inspiring is the fact that in South Africa itself incredibly brave white people are risking their careers, their homes and their lives in the cause of human justice. Nor is this a plea to Negroes to fight on two fronts. The struggle for freedom forms one long front crossing oceans and mountains. The brotherhood of man is not confined within a narrow, limited circle of select people. It is felt everywhere in the world; it is an international sentiment of surpassing strength. Because this is true, when men of good will finally unite, they will be invincible.
Through recent anthropological discoveries, science has substantially established that the cradle of humanity is Africa. The earliest creatures who passed the divide between animal and man seem to have first emerged in East and South Africa. Professor Raymond Dart described this historical epoch as the moment when man “trembled on the brink of humanity”. A million years later in the same place some men of South Africa are again “trembling on the brink of humanity”; but instead of advancing from pre-human to human, they are reversing the process and are traveling backward in time from human to pre-human.
Civilization has come a long way; it still has far to go, and it cannot afford to be set back by resolute, wicked men. Negroes were dispersed over thousands of miles and over many continents, yet today they have found each other again. Negro and white have been separated for centuries by evil men and evil myths. But they have found each other. The powerful unity of Negro with Negro and white with Negro is stronger than the most potent and entrenched racism. The whole human race will benefit when it ends the abomination that has diminished the stature of man for too long. This is the task to which we are called by the suffering in South Africa, and our response should be swift and unstinting. Out of this struggle will come the glorious reality of the family of man.
URL: A Ripple of Hope