Is the civil rights leader self-contradicting in advocating for a ceasefire in Vietnam?
When Dr. Martin Luther King voiced his stand against the United States’ waging war in Vietnam, he as a civil rights leader was challenged and questioned whether this stand “hurts the cause of his own people” (King, 1967). Indeed, it seems that King’s firm support of “direct action” in the civil rights movement which he righteously stated in his famous letter from the Birmingham jail (King, 1963) is contradictory to his opposition of the United States’ direct military involvement——the former seems to be advocating for the infliction of tension and disturbance of “order”, while the latter opposes such actions. Yet in his speech Beyond Vietnam, Dr. King artfully brought those two stands into unity under his personal identities as a peacemaker (who has won the Nobel Prize of Peace), an American citizen, and a clergyman, not only saying that the ceasefire in Vietnam and the civil rights struggles are entangled in realistic terms as they compete for resources and public attention, but also stating that both are essentially oriented towards “the movement for peace” (King, 1967), the “integrity and life” (King, 1967) of the United States as a nation, and the core values and pursuits of Christianity. Such arguments successfully organized Dr. King’s political stands into a consistent framework in relation to who Martin Luther King personally is.
At the very beginning of his essay, Dr. King detailed the direct relationship between the Vietnam War waged abroad and the civil rights struggles taking place domestically in the United States——that the former is a hindrance and obstacle of the latter, so that he must break the silence to address it as a civil rights leader. To begin with, Dr. King stated that the war in Vietnam acted as a “demonic destructive suction tube” (King, 1967), drawing men, skills and money away from the domestic poor people (which obviously includes the historically disadvantaged black community). This posed devastating effects on programs focusing on the rehabilitation of the poor and ruined their hope for a promising future. Furthermore, beyond the orientation of energy and resources away from the disadvantaged at home towards foreign military actions, Dr. King also saw further exploitation of the poor and the black people——they were sent to the battlefield to fight and die for a country which was never able to offer them justice or equality, which Dr. King referred to it as a “cruel irony” and “cruel manipulation” (King, 1967).
While the writers from the New York Times might not agree that a reasonable linkage had been made by Dr. King between a ceasefire in Vietnam and the progress of, or in other words, gain of resources for the civil rights movement, I do believe that the connection was made quite clear and valid. As stated in the commentary, the writers believed the United States “could afford to make more funds available to combat poverty” without ceasing fire, while “there is no certainty that the coming of peace would automatically lead to a sharp increase in fund” (New York Times Editorial, 1967). Such arguments seem to be rather chicanery to me. The war in Vietnam and the domestic poverty relief programs were clearly in a tradeoff or “competitive” relationship back then——as the total resources of the nation, both financial and intellectual, was limited. Thus, if one gains, the other loses. Even if we acknowledge the editors’ statement that funds for combating poverty can increase “with” the ongoing war, it is clear that they can increase even further “without” the war. The domestic struggle against inequality can always use some more resources and more importantly – more public attention. If funds do not increase “automatically”, then it is again the responsibility of people like Dr. King’s to make that happen. Dr. King is taking a stance that the benefits of the domestic poor should be prioritized against controversial outgoing warfare (among others). When the former is far from being fulfilled, not even a penny, let alone the lives of the poor, should be contributed towards the latter. It seems to me that this linkage is not only valid, but justified.
Yet even those explicit and realistic economic and social connections between the civil rights struggles and the war in Vietnam are only a relatively superficial narrative compared to the deeper ideological entanglements between them. According to Dr. King, pro-civil rights and anti-war movements share common purposes of 1) pursuing peace and 2) saving “America’s soul”.
Though being an advocate for direct action and igniting social tension while leading the civil rights movement, Dr. King continues to hold a firm belief that “social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action” (King, 1967). For him, being a civil rights activist is nowhere against being an advocate for peace. Through his leadership in the civil rights movement, he has been urging the black community to avoid using violence while striving for their rights of equality and justice. Yet if we may use Dr. King’s famous line with some mild modifications, violence anywhere is a threat to peace everywhere. To convince the black community to work against oppression in the nation with peaceful approaches, the nations’ own “massive doses of violence” (King, 1967) on other continents must first be ended. Dr. King is an extremist for justice, but he is at the same time an extremist for peace—— this purpose and self-identity is consistently reflected in both his leadership in the civil rights movement and his dissent of the United States’ waging war in Vietnam.
Peace is not the only demand of Dr. King. As an American citizen, he makes the statement in his speech that “no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war” (King, 1967). Dr. King believes that the United States’ waging war in Vietnam is a sign of the “deadly Western arrogance” (King, 1967), which he defines as the feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. It is this attitude which leads the nation to “deny the people of Vietnam the right of independence” (King, 1967) and to judge them as “not ready for independence” (King, 1967). Such arrogance is making America into an image of violence and militarism instead of one of revolution, freedom and democracy which it is meant to be. In his own words, “If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam” (King, 1967).
Dr. King believes this arrogant attitude must be changed, and it must be changed from its root cause——a positive “radical revolution of values”, which is a shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society, must take place (King, 1967). The moral and spiritual revolution might be the way to stop the war in Vietnam, as the United States will then be willing to give up “the privileges and the pleasures that come from immense profit of overseas investment” and make peaceful revolutions possible around the world, including Vietnam (and extending to other regions Dr. King mentioned, such as Guatemala and Peru, Thailand and Cambodia, etc.)
If we now consider Dr. King’s firm stand against racism and his activeness in the civil rights movement, it will be evident that the seemingly contradictory stand is in fact oriented towards the same destiny. If we are to conquer racism, this revolution of values must also take place——the benefit of people, including the poor and the black community, must be prioritized over economic benefits. They must not be exploited in the name of so-called economic productivity and efficiency. Justice and equity must be offered to them even at the price of such benefits.
As stated by Dr. King, the concurrent value in the United States (at least in King’s era) which values things such as machines, profits and properties as more valuable and important than people is the actual root cause of “the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism”. Both by struggling against racism within the United States and by speaking up against militarism in (and probably and beyond) Vietnam, the one true purpose of King’s commitment is to bring about the transformation in values, so that the United States will be able to achieve the freedom and democracy it was built towards, so that the United States will not be the leader of the world in terms of “spiritual death”, but in terms of positive spiritual and social transformation.
So far, we have discussed the unity of Dr. King’s leadership in the civil rights movement (which involves direct action) and his voiced opposition of the United States’ military actions in Vietnam in light of the realistic entanglements between the two events, and Dr. King’s self-identity as a “advocate for peace” and an American citizen. However, there is one more identity of Dr. King which may not be ignored——he is a Baptist minister, a believer of Christ. The speech Beyond Vietnam is made in the Riverside Church, and within its audience are clergymen and Laymen. With such context of the speech, it is indisputable that we shall also examine Dr. King’s arguments under the light of his religious belief in Christianity, and see how his viewpoints unite as a whole under his religious identity.
As Dr. King faithfully stated in his speech, “my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them” (King, 1967). This statement is referring back to Jesus Christ who was voluntarily crucified in order to bring about the salvation of those who were against him and put him to death. By saying so Dr. King argues that in light of Christianity, what people should do to their seeming enemies is to offer love, compassion, and undoubtedly, non-violence. This idea of “loving your enemies” (King, 1957) which comes from the faith in Christianity is central to Dr. King’s arguments both considering the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war. He believes the black community should be in conversation with the oppressors and segregationists who are their “enemies” instead of waging violence to achieve integration and racial justice, and so he constantly lifts his voice against violent actions as a civil rights leader. On the other hand, he believes that violent military actions in Vietnam are futile defense against communism. Instead, “we must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soils in which the seed of communism grows and develops” (King, 1967). In other words, the solution is universal community, equality and love.
Such a solution of love for social justice both domestically and globally can only be achieved under another idea central in Christianity belief: “brotherhood” and the God-bestowed human dignity. Dr. King believes that he is called to “work for the brotherhood of man” and “speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers” (King, 1967). It is this concept of brotherhood which keeps motivating Dr. King to speak up for both issues. The Black and the poor should not be any more disadvantaged in terms of social and economic rights, and they shall not be exploited in any ways because they are brothers and sisters of whites. Likewise,the government of the United States shall not destroy the families and villages of those in Vietnam because they are brothers and sisters of the people of the United States. We shall not behold that Western arrogance because we should “learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition” (King, 1967), as Dr. King stated in his speech Love Your Enemy (King, 1957) that we are able to see Christ in every single individual. And most importantly, we should undergo the social revolution to value “people” over all others “things”, because humans behold their dignity that we are all made in God’s image and likeness.
The Christian narratives which state that love and community are the most powerful of all in terms of bringing about positive changes, and that all human beings are with the same dignity given by God is the underlying moral for Dr. King to advocate for an end of domestic racism as well as the racial segregation, injustice and the loss of human rights it brings about via direct action. It is the same moral which made him break the silence against the Vietnam war, calling for an end of violence, arrogance and exploitation brought about by the war via ceasefire and active negotiation. Those two stands he’s taking regarding the socio-political landscape of his era both adhere to his identity in relation to the church and the Christian belief.
To conclude, though Dr. King’s stands for direct action in the civil rights movement and against direct military actions in the Vietnam war seems contradictory to one another (the former inflicts tension and the latter seeks to ease tension), they are in essence in unity with each other, and are both consistent with Dr. King’s self-identities. He continues to seek a balance in the struggles towards justice and the principal of non-violence as a peacemaker, pushes the United States to undergo the “positive revolution in values” to uphold the nation’s integrity and life as an American citizen, and actively practices the core values of “love”, “community”, “brotherhood” and “human dignity” in Christianity as a clergyman and a believer of Christ. Dr. King is consistently striving to achieve social justice and revolution while holding on to compassion and respect in both the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war. Though the means seem to be part ways (supporting direct action versus calling for ceasefire), the underlying principles and morals are the same and the ends converge.
Bibliography
M. L. King (1967). “Beyond Vietnam”. (Chosen reading to focus on)
M. L. King (1963), “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”.
M. L. King (1957), “Love Your Enemy”. King Institute Stanford. Retrieved October 13, 2024, from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/loving-your-enemies-sermon-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist-church
New York Times (1967), “Dr. King’s Error”.