One hundred thousand people, with one hundred thousand faces, progressed as one in Monday’s MLK Day March. The multitudinous mass was diversified in color, age, gender, religion, physical ability, and sexual preference. But no matter the difference, those marching in unison demonstrated their ability to come together in a peaceful manner.
Yet of all the signs, placards, and banners to be seen the most poignant piece of communication was found upon a t-shirt written:
“Do you understand The Dream?”
This question stuck with me as we encountered the sights and sounds along the three-mile route to Pittman-Sullivan Park on San Antonio’s Eastside.
Some spectators signified their solidarity through handing out food or celebrating with music along the route. Choosing not to participate in the march, others seemed to stand in opposition by protesting their own particular issues.
Among these independent groups was found the San Antonio Family Association, who could be seen by all promoting traditional marriage near the Interstate 10 overpass. Aside from the fact that their sign said “Man + Woman = Marriage,” I was struck by their manner as much as their message. Both are not unfamiliar to myself, however on this day of days, I couldn’t help but ask the question, “do you understand the dream?”
I was also perplexed by the presence of several private corporations who were participating in the march, whose business practices seemed to run counter to the message of Dr. King. Lenders like Citigroup (who have been in the news for their associations with Enron, excessive CEO bonuses from TARP monies, and predatory lending practices towards low-income and minority consumers in the subprime market) were seen holding double sided posters advertising their bank on one side and celebrating King on the other. When I remarked about the capitalization and co-opting taking place around us, a friend replied, “this is America, man. People will always find ways to make a profit.”
During a speech entitled “Beyond Vietnam,” given at the Riverside Church in New York City in 1967, Dr. King said:
“We must rapidly begin the shift from a ‘thing-oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’ society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”
The struggle for civil rights continues in this country. Even though we have twice elected an African-American to the Presidency, the dream has yet to be realized. While we celebrate our advancements we must also peacefully protest our lack of progress as a community.
As long as Texas remains the state with the highest percentage of immigrant detainees housed in privately operated “for profit” detention centers, we have not realized the dream. As long as African-Americans make only $66 for every $100 made by whites and Hispanics are three times as likely to live in poverty than their white neighbors, we have not understood the dream. As long as women make less then men, doing the same jobs, and as long as discrimination against homosexuals continues–as long as our communities are comfortable with racially segregated schooling–we have not understood the dream. Unfortunately the list of injustices goes on.
The 1960’s were a tumultuous time of change. Whether for good or for bad, the “counterculture” movement seemed to embody anyone or anything antithetical to the status quo of the time. Sometimes such phrasing was used by outsiders to dismiss those advocating for civil rights, and other times it was embraced by insiders who sought out change. Leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. understood that Americans could not rely upon the dominant society to make the moral choices necessary for our own progress.
The paradox of maintaining the belief that we are the “greatest country in the world” because of our freedoms while also denying the freedoms of minorities through oppressive structures is sometimes referred to as the “tyranny of the majority” or as the “American dilemma.” Others just call it hypocrisy.
White Christian culture continues to maintain its privilege in the status quo, and like MLK’s time, we seem to be unable to carry the moral authority to make the changes necessary for ethical progress. Yes, I say “we” because I too am a white-Christian-straight-male, but allow me to speak some truth. History shows that the dominant group often imposes its cultural norms and values upon everyone else. This is not done through mutual community, but most often done over and against minorities. Instead of embracing lived out community with those who are different, we have embraced setting them apart from us by what we call “normal.”
Although we often lack awareness of our own privilege, we have historically justified the oppression of others. It was our culture that justified slavery, racism and segregation in the name of God. Our churches remained silent during the devastating horrors of lynching in post Civil War America. We have participated in the segregation of schools and have taken part in the “white flight” from public education. It is our culture that justifies paying men more than women, and it is we who continue to deny homosexuals the same basic rights as straight individuals.
History condemns the majority of our actions against the “least of these,” but there is still hope.
What remains to be seen is whether we, as people of faith, can admit our moral failings and instead embrace our brothers and sisters as Christ did. But before we attempt to speak truth to the “triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism” that King spoke of, as Christians we need to acknowledge that these same powers were involved in the lynching of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was born into a scandalized family. Joseph initially wanted to divorce the pregnant Mary because he wanted to spare her from “public disgrace.” (Matthew 1:16- 20) As a son of a single mother, Joseph adopted Jesus. Fleeing from violent militarism (Matt. 2:16), Jesus and his family immigrated to Egypt as political refugees before returning home.
Jesus was not considered a citizen by the government of his time, and was a laborer. Unlike ancient elites who were distinguished from their counterparts by being named for the polis and oikos that they belonged to, Jesus was a peasant living in a backwater village, in an obscure Roman province.
Anyone who understands the Biblical concept of Jubilee understands that Jesus often spoke out against the economic injustices of his day. After Jesus drove the moneylenders from out of the Temple, the powers of materialism began to plot out his murder. (Matt. 17:24-25; 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18)
And Jesus was oppressed by the majority of his day as well. He was ridiculed as a friend to sinners and other social pariahs of his day. He was mocked for being an insignificant peasant from Galilee, ridiculed for loving and sharing table fellowship with prostitutes and tax-collectors, and was violently murdered because he threatened the establishment.
So the question remains: will people of faith choose to love and be agents of reconciliation in the Beloved Community, or will we choose to be a part of the power structures which conquer and divide? The choice is up to us.
Tyler Tully is a Senior Theology Major at Our Lady of the Lake University. Graduating in the Spring of 2013 and pursuing graduate studies in Theology, Tully is interested in Christian ethics and writes frequently on faith in everyday life. He is active in promoting the Irish culture in San Antonio and was named as one of the Irish Echo Magazine’s “40 Under 40” in 2013.
Related stories on the Rivard Report:
Reflection on the March: Why San Antonio Has One of the Biggest MLK Day January 2013
Every Word Counts: Marching with MLK Toward a Better America January 2013
Well said, Tyler!
Thanks for this thoughtful meditation, Tyler. It’s a powerful call for societal self-reflection and a reminder that not all aspects of our culture are consistent with the dream. I hope that, as a community, we will challenge ourselves to, as you put it, “choose love.”
Tyler, I appreciate your point that some people may be losing sight of what MLK stood for, just as many people have taken Christ out of Christmas. But when you say that you are perplexed by the MLK-parade participation of several unworthy corporations (why do you only mention Citi?), I am perplexed that you think the parade should be reserved for only those with cleans hands – i.e., no history of militarism, racism, or materialism. If you exclude those who live in segregated neighborhoods or go to segregated churches or send their kids to segregated schools, you will not have a parade of 100,000 people.
With respect to the San Antonio Family Association (SAFA), you say that their manner troubled you as much as their message, but then you fail to say anything about their manner. An accompanying photo suggests that an anti-SAFA protester stood in front of their sign, which I find troubling. Although I am nonviolent, I would be tempted to get physical with someone who blocked my sign.
And finally, you seem to suggest that the only thing preventing your perfect world of justice and equality is the oppressive majority of white Christians. That fails to recognize that this is San Antonio, a city with a majority of Hispanics, unless you are suggesting that whites are responsible for oppressing Hispanics in San Antonio, too.
Hi Mike,
I pointed out Citi only because I saw them with my own eyes. I’m certain, out of the 100,000 attendees, there were probably more. I happened to be aware of the ethical record regarding Citi’s practices and kept that in mind when I saw their marketing at the parade.
Thanks for pointing out the crux of my relfection–indeed, is it honest for us to promote segregated school districts, prop up powers that oppress, and then pat ourselves on the back for attending a parade? I think that’s a question worth reflecting upon.
The SAFA simply held up a sign, and did not (from what I could see) marched with the parade. It seemed to indicate to me that they were content to simply display their opinions while at the same time not living in solidarity with the marchers. The SAFA is obviously entitled to their freedoms of expression (which I support) but I thought it telling that many of us with privilege refuse to roll up our sleeves and live in community with those we disagree with instead of simply telling them why they are wrong. Yes, there were many marchers who stepped out of the parade and decided to stand in front of the SAFA sign. A few even took pictures. Eventually the SAFA group took to higher ground, in a peaceful way, and did not confront any of the protestors. I think we should appreciate the fact that two opposing groups excercised their right to protest on MLK day, and they did so (at the same time) in a peaceful manner. Seems appropriate, especially given the day.
History has shown that those with privilege make the rules and often prop up structures that maintain their dominance. The US will continue to evolve in this manner even though we will soon experience a “minority majority” in America. I did not mean to indicate that “white Christians” were the only stumbling block towards justice, I did mean to indicate that the privileged majority are a stumbling block towards justice as long as they refuse to accept responsibility for how they treat others. And as Christians, especially the “least of these” which I argue, would include minorities.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Tyler
I wouldn’t go as far as saying that Anglo-Americans are responsible for oppressing – the word carries strong connotations – Hispanics however a segment of Anglo population who have deep familial ties to the San Antonio area share the bigotry of those ties. The good old boy network is a good example of this bigotry. It is prominent in various parts of the city (and within various organizations) and has affected a good number of Hispanics and African Americans. This network and the bigots are still around. The push back has been seen in history with the confrontation between COPS and the Good Government League (GGL) that took a good portion of political power away from from the league and its powerful Anglo farmers and businessmen.
The march and the people of San Antonio have come a long way but more needs to happen before we can truly understand MLK’s dream!
David, the battle between the GGL and COPS took place before I arrived in SA in 1987, and the composition of the current City Council clearly shows that the Anglos are not in charge anymore. Indeed, you could argue that Anglos are under-represented. Also, the “good old boy network” that you refer to seems to be synonymous with the term “old money,” and I suspect the old money is reluctant to share its money and power with anyone, not only Hispanics and African-Americans. In any event, especially if the old money is racially bigoted, let’s hope for the adage “A fool and his money are soon parted.”