Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

If you read my September 2 post about young Aiden Vasquez’s refusal to physically defend himself against bullies, you may remember that I placed part of the blame for his attitude toward self-defense on our society’s overly rosy view of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s pacifism. I promised a four-part series expanding upon the parts of Dr. King’s philosophy that I find problematic. This is Part 1 of that series.

The Right will often praise Dr. King for his commitment to non-violent forms of protest and contrast this with Malcolm X’s “by any means necessary” philosophy. (By the way, I do not believe that Malcolm X was as willing to use violence as his critics argue, but that topic will have to wait for future posts.) I think that Dr. King’s right-wing admirers often forget (or just ignore) that he did not limit his definition of “violence” to things like murder, rape, and throwing Molotov cocktails. When I read Dr. King, I get the impression that he considered all forms of physical self-defense to be violent and unacceptable. I ask the Right, who are you more comfortable with on this issue?:

     -A man who, if he followed his principles perfectly, would watch his wife and children be assaulted or murdered without attempting to fight off the assailant; or

     -A man who, when speaking of the rifle that he owned, said this: “I have taught my wife to use it, and instructed her to fire on anyone, white, black, or yellow, who tries to force his way inside.”

In case it wasn’t obvious, Option 1 was Dr. King, and Option 2 was Mr. Shabazz. When it comes to Malcolm X, it seems like, speaking broadly, the Left acts like they own his legacy, and the Right avoids him like the plague. The reality is that both men, especially Malcolm X, had complex worldviews that did not fit neatly into “Right/Left” or “conservative/liberal” categories. And frankly I am disappointed in the unwillingness of so many on the Right to appreciate certain aspects of Malcolm X’s philosophy. Liberals often talk about how much they admire him, but there is a good reason, as demonstrated above, that many of them never talk about his views on guns (and none talk about his views on sex).

Right-wing admirers of Dr. King love to talk about what a devout Christian he was and how his commitment to non-violence stemmed from his Christian beliefs. I find this very ironic considering that they don’t share his interpretation of Christ’s teachings regarding non-violence. Dr. King’s admirers on the Right see a distinction between violent protests and physical self-defense. As I stated at the beginning, it is my belief that Dr. King himself saw no such distinction. And I think it can be argued that Mahatma Gandhi was a bigger inspiration for Dr. King’s views on non-violence than Jesus Christ was. Dr. King had an admiration for Gandhi that, in my view, sometimes bordered on idolatry. (That, incidentally, will be the subject of the next installment of this series. And just in case some of you are curious about why I believe that physical self-defense, including armed physical self-defense, is 100% compatible with the moral law and Christianity, that will also be unpacked further in future posts.)

There are a lot of right-wing articles floating around the Internet that attempt to argue that Dr. King was a supporter of gun rights because he owned a gun at one point. The funny thing is many of these articles make no effort to conceal the fact that he later got rid of it once he became convinced that using a firearm for self-defense was unacceptable. When it comes to both Dr. King and Mr. Shabazz, the Right prefers to focus on how they started rather than how they finished. I think this is primarily due to an unwillingness to face some uncomfortable truths. If they evaluated Mr. Shabazz on how he finished, they would have to admit that he was showing a willingness to work with Dr. King and even with whites on civil rights issues. And if they did the same for Dr. King, they would have to admit that he kinda went “full socialist” near the end of his life. (Spoiler alert: Dr. King’s beliefs that reek of socialism will be the subject of Part 3 of this series.)

Another argument that I am seeing in the right-wing blogosphere is that Dr. King couldn’t have been an opponent of gun rights because he employed armed guards for protection. This doesn’t tell me that he believed in gun rights. This just tells me that he may have been like one of these Democrat politicians (or, let’s be honest, Pope Francis) who will talk about how evil guns are while accompanied by their very own, very armed security details. And I am sure that many of these same right-wing bloggers have called out the Democrats and Pope Francis for this hypocrisy. So why does Dr. King get a pass on this point? If it’s because he was murdered, why doesn’t Mr. Shabazz get a pass for some of his unpalatable views?

Many would point out that Dr. King only employed these guards at the insistence of others and that he was very uncomfortable with their presence. I do not doubt that this is true. I am also not opposed to “outsourcing” your personal security in this way. What I am opposed to is an attitude of “I have reached a level of enlightenment where I realize that all forms of physical self-defense are immoral. But since everyone’s insisting that I owe it to my family to stay alive, I will let those who are not as enlightened handle the job of protecting me.” Be honest, right-wingers, if this were a man who was not as much of a sacred cow as Dr. King is, you would have called him out on this a long time ago.

Those last paragraphs ended up being a lot more fiery than I had planned, but I stand by them 100%. I believe that the Right is trying too hard to claim Dr. King for their own on an issue where he was firmly on the side of the Left and as wrong as two left shoes. I beg the Right:

Please wake up and realize that the gun rights battle is one that you will not win with Dr. King on your team. If you must latch on to an iconic civil rights figure to support your views on this issue, Mr. Shabazz should be your go-to guy.

And now I would like to close on a positive note. Believe it or not, there are many things I admire about Dr. King. My absolute favorite example of how he inspired people is one that, at first glance, sounds insane and like something that is destined to go horribly wrong. In November 1956, after months of Dr. King-inspired bus boycotts, the Supreme Court struck down Alabama’s laws mandating segregation on buses. Soon after the ruling was announced, the Klan rode through the streets of Montgomery. And King’s autobiography describes the reactions of black bystanders as this (emphasis is mine):

“As the Klan drove by, the Negroes behaved as though they were watching a circus parade. Concealing the effort it cost them, many walked about as usual; some simply watched from their steps; a few waved at the passing cars. After a few blocks, the Klan, nonplussed, turned off into a side street and disappeared into the night.”

I will admit that I would not have had the courage to do that. If the Klan were riding through my neighborhood, I would prefer a Malcolm X-inspired survival plan of “Lock the door and lock-and-load so you’ll be ready if it gets kicked in” (which, btw, I don’t view as cowardly). But I have nothing but respect and admiration for those who had the courage to face the Klan head-on and without weapons. That was just as badass as Malcolm X’s #StandingGroundWhileBlack.

Verso l’alto,
Megan