Scan barcode
A review by ralovesbooks
Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr.
5.0
Friends sent me a copy of this pamphlet, and I waited until today to read it. I wish I could say that this was not my first time reading it, but it was, and I regret that. The edition I have (from The Trinity Forum) has a foreword that helped me gain context for the writing of this letter. I got a dim view of it from reaching the March trilogy of graphic novels by John Lewis, but it was a good reminder that MLK was literally in jail, and he was responding to other religious leaders who were exhorting him to pipe down, already. The more I read writing from the Civil Rights Movement, the more I realize how powerful and resonant it continues to be. On one hand, it makes me incredibly sad - hasn't there been ANY progress? I know there has, but there is a lot of road to go. I wish I had been more educated, but I'm trying to make up lost time.
---
... I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere in this country.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: (1) Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; (2) Negotiation; (3) Self-purification; and (4) Direct action.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. ... So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We, therefore, concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.
We know through painful experienced that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negroes' great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's "Counciler" or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
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.
We must come to see that the human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally to the forces of social stagnation.
We must use time creatively, and forever realize that time is always ripe to do right.
The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit-ins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history.
So the question is not whether we will be extremists but what kind of extremists will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice --- or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?
---
... I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere in this country.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: (1) Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; (2) Negotiation; (3) Self-purification; and (4) Direct action.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. ... So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We, therefore, concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.
We know through painful experienced that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negroes' great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's "Counciler" or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
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.
We must come to see that the human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally to the forces of social stagnation.
We must use time creatively, and forever realize that time is always ripe to do right.
The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit-ins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history.
So the question is not whether we will be extremists but what kind of extremists will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice --- or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?