PDA

View Full Version : Notes on "A Letter from Birmingham Jail"



AuntShecky
01-16-2011, 03:44 PM
Notes on Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”


Yesterday would have been the eighty-second birthday of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and tomorrow Americans will celebrate a federal holiday in his honor. For his monumental work as a dynamic social activist through non-violent means, Dr. King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but he was first and foremost a minister. His deep understanding of and commitment to Christian thought encompassed every positive action he effected in this world.

In recalling all of his worthy accomplishments – such as his inspiring “I Have a Dream” speech and his undeniable influence on American politics and social progress to this day, we should also remember his uniqueness as a thinker – a philosopher, if you will– in his ability to assimilate Christian theology and secular thought into tangible, pragmatic results in the real world. This is not to say that our country has fully achieved racial and economic equality –far from it! Yet much of the progress concerning the rights of minorities and the poor which the country has achieved in the last half century began with the guidance, painful labors, and ultimate sacrifice of Dr. King.

One must also add – and not merely as footnote – that Dr. King was a highly effective writer, simultaneously accessible and elegant. Among his writings, within modern American literature, his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” could –and most assuredly should– be considered exemplary.

Dr. King had led a peaceful demonstration to protest both official and de facto segregation in the city of Birmingham, Alabama, where as a result of his efforts, he had been incarcerated. On April 16, 1963 he wrote his famous letter to his fellow ministers ostensibly as a response to their criticism of Dr. King’s actions as “unwise and untimely.” But in a way, the missive was intended for a much broader audience, his letter to the world, in a way, for Dr. King says he feels “compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond his particular hometown”:

I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned with what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow provincial “ outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives in the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere in this country.

Early in his communication, Dr. King justifies his actions with crystal clear reasoning:

We have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and non-violent pressure. History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals . . .

[F]reedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

A bit later on in the highly readable letter, Dr. King explains that he would have preferred the path of “negotiation” but had been forced to apply more pressure, through non-violent demonstrations, because the other side had been completely unwilling to negotiate. The letter also includes a beautifully logical explanation on the difference between just and unjust laws and how, regarding the latter, “an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law.”

Additionally, the letter addresses two criticisms of Dr. King’s movement at the time. The ministers themselves and so-called “moderate” dignitaries had urged the leaders of the civil rights movement to progress more gradually and incrementally; in response Dr. King cogently explains why the issue was much more urgent, why “we can’t wait.” Toward the end of the letter he expresses his disappointment toward some of his so-called “supporters,” who agreed with Dr. King philosophically but disdained his “methods”–even though these methods were always non-violent (!) Dr. King found these fair-weather friends, who constantly advised waiting for a “more convenient
time,” to be “paternalistic” in their belief that they “can set the timetable for another man’s freedom.” Dr. King admits his disappointment, but the heartbreak between the lines is unmistakable: “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Dr. King’s efforts to lift a specific class of Americans from oppression alone would be enough to canonize him as a secular saint in our nation’s history. But his broader non-violent credo, rooted in the ideal of Christian love, ultimately defines Dr. King’s message as a significant one for all humankind.


{PLEASE, if you have time, read the entire letter and post your comments.}

Here is the link:

http://www.mlkonline.net/jail.html

Cunninglinguist
01-16-2011, 07:42 PM
It's, in some ways, very reminiscent of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and shares many of the same ideals. He also mentions Buber, who was also influenced by Thoreau and, in particular, Civil Disobedience.

Personally, I hesitate to qualify this polemic as philosophical. Surely it employs many ideas about morals and politics that would be categorized as philosophical, but none, or close to none, of them are original. Further, his logic in some areas is not highly rigorous (I do not posit this as a complaint, per se; just as an observation); for example, in one section he states: "A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law." Yet, would/could a law devised purely from the "majority" (white folk) which granted the minority in question the right to vote be considered unjust? That a law might not have been chosen democratically is not a legitimate criterion for deeming it unjust. For it is also equally evident that an unjust law might be instituted in democratic fashion. Nevertheless, we do see his point, that what is legal is not always just and what is just is not always legal, and to quibble over such subtleties would be all in all quite silly.

Surely in reading this letter, one gets the sense that they're hearing the words of one of the strongest men to ever walk the face of this earth; that he is a mighty pillar holding up the highest of ideologies under which we may now peacefully reside.

AuntShecky
01-17-2011, 02:35 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Dr. King did, in his other writings and speeches, include Thoreau and especially Gandhi as among influences:


It's, in some ways, very reminiscent of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and shares many of the same ideals. He also mentions Buber, who was also influenced by Thoreau and, in particular, Civil Disobedience.

Personally, I hesitate to qualify this polemic as philosophical. Surely it employs many ideas about morals and politics that would be categorized as philosophical, but none, or close to none, of them are original. Further, his logic in some areas is not highly rigorous (I do not posit this as a complaint, per se; just as an observation); for example, in one section he states: "A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law." Yet, would/could a law devised purely from the "majority" (white folk) which granted the minority in question the right to vote be considered unjust? That a law might not have been chosen democratically is not a legitimate criterion for deeming it unjust. For it is also equally evident that an unjust law might be instituted in democratic fashion. Nevertheless, we do see his point, that what is legal is not always just and what is just is not always legal, and to quibble over such subtleties would be all in all quite silly.

Surely in reading this letter, one gets the sense that they're hearing the words of one of the strongest men to ever walk the face of this earth; that he is a mighty pillar holding up the highest of ideologies under which we may now peacefully reside.

Wouldn't an "ideology" per se be philosophical in nature?

Cunninglinguist
01-17-2011, 03:01 PM
Wouldn't an "ideology" per se be philosophical in nature?

It would, and I admit that the letter entertains philosophical content in my original post, but I hesitate to call his work philosophical literature mostly because his ideas on morality and politics aren't original, merely what differs between him and others with the same is the application. When a politician or activist endorses a certain political and/or moral philosophy is s/he then, in this virtue, necessarily considered a philosopher? But really, I also admit that my hesitation is more founded on a gut feeling than anything, and there is definitely an argument to be made against it.

AuntShecky
01-18-2011, 04:10 PM
for example, in one "A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law." Yet, would/could a law devised purely from the "majority" (white folk) which granted the minority in question the right to vote be considered unjust? That a law might not have been chosen democratically is not a legitimate criterion for deeming it unjust. For it is also equally evident that an unjust law might be instituted in democratic fashion. Nevertheless, we do see his point, that what is legal is not always just and what is just is not always legal, and to quibble over such subtleties would be all in all quite silly.



As an example, in this very letter, Dr. King brings up Germany during the Third Reich. By no stretch of the imagination would anyone think the "laws" which caused death and oppression to so many were just, because those laws were so contrary to the concept of Natural Law, regardless of how anyone defines the term.