Posts
Maine is fortunate to have a handful of movie theaters that dare to book films that push the envelope on cinema and more often than not, make you think. Even better is when they show a movie that captures the power to transform and stretch your understanding—something that great filmmaking is intended to do.
The Railroad Square Cinema, in Waterville, is a theater that courageously provides a regular dose of cutting-edge and sometimes controversial movies, for movie-goers who want something more than the standard Hollywood pap and pabulum.
Since 1998, Waterville and the Railroad Square have been home to the Maine Independent Film Festival (MIFF). Each July, for 10 days, Maine is transformed into a backwoods Cannes, showing upwards of 90 to 100 movies over that span.
Again this winter, MIFF is teaming up with the Railroad Square Cinema and running MIFF in the Morning, with 10 A. M. movies every other Saturday and Sunday, from January, until mid-March. Thus far, my wife, Mary, and I, have trekked an hour north to Waterville and have viewed two very powerful movies. The first week, we saw Sir! No Sir! David Zeiger’s documentary chronicling the real frontline dissent of soldiers during the Vietnam war.
Sunday, we were back in Waterville, for a treat of a film, and a rarity for those of us who live outside of the major metropolitan centers of the country.
Machuca, released in 2004, is a coming-of-age film about two young Chilean boys, set against the political upheaval in the country during the days leading up to September 11, 1973, when a military junta toppled Salvador Allende’s democratically elected government (with the CIA firmly supporting the military operation that toppled his democratically-elected administration). The film offers the juxtaposition of the two disparate worlds occupied by these 11-year-old boys. Gonzalo is from a well-to-do family living in an upscale section of Santiago. Gonzalo attends a private, Catholic school, run by Father McEnroe, a man set on toppling the social caste system in his school. With a plan to allow local boys from poor families to attend, Gonzalo is brought face-to-face with Pedro Machuca, a young man who lives in the city’s shantytown. These poor students are the children of servants and laborers, many of whom provide services and cheap labor for the parents of the wealthier families of most students.
The film captures the very real class divisions existing in 1970s Chilean society, in a way that most Hollywood films rarely or ever attempt to recognize. Both boys, as they develop a friendship, are constantly brought up against the reality of the two different worlds that they inhabit. Despite their best intentions, the story unfolds and the underlying political upheaval brings their friendship to the breaking point. The film pulses with a heartbeat and vitality that draws you into the story and captures your heart, as well as your mind.
Seeing both this film, and reading Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner, has heightened my own awareness of just how little I know about other cultures, such as Afghanistan, and the geopolitical details of events in Chile and other areas of the world, often orchestrated by the U.S. government and agencies such as the CIA. This lack of knowledge isn’t so much about a willful ignorance of facts and geography. I, like most other Americans, are victims of the U.S. education system. We all were fed a steady diet of lies and half truths since we began school at the age of five or six. Unfortunately, the lies don’t stop when you leave school.
One of the points that this movie drives home, and similarly, Hosseini’s book, is that our public school years are less about learning and knowledge and much more about indoctrination and patriotic window dressing. That’s why it’s so difficult to break through the fog of many Americans, who seem intent on waving the flag and irrationally championing U.S. superiority in the world. Their positions aren’t grounded in fact or reality, but rather, are wholly products of a fiction populated by jingoistic propaganda.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Why do conservatives hate everybody?
The nation’s religious conservatives are at it again, seeking to define virtue and morality and script the behaviour of everyone else—this time, the issue involves the annual White House egg roll, taking place on April 17.
A coalition of organizers that include groups such as the FamilyPride Coalition, plan on using the event as an opportunity to publicize and raise the public profile of non-traditional families. According to a press release issued by the group, they’ve been working for the past five months to organize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) families in an effort to introduce this group to the American public in a genuine and respectful way.
The Family Pride Coalition’s Executive Director, Jean Chrisler said, “Approximately 9 million children are being raised in LGBT-headed households. Our parents live in every corner of this country, rural and urban, red states and blue states, and we strive like every other parent in this country to give our children the best opportunities, to shower them with love, to teach them respect and a love for the rich and diverse traditions America has to offer them.”
Conservative groups however, don’t find the intentions of the Family Pride Coalition and others as benign. Instead, organizations such as the Institute for Religion and Democracy, World Net Daily and other groups, have been sounding the clarion call, beckoning their forces of intolerance to gather once again to stop the “homosexual Easter” from happening. According to their usual skewered view of reality, the annual Easter Egg Roll, which dates back to Rutherford B. Hayes, has been a non-political event. This year, however, groups like the Family Pride Coalition and Soulforce are going to “exploit the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for political purposes."
Mark Tooley, of the Institute for Religion and Democracy wrote an article for the Weekly Standard, which was critical of the motives of the various LGBT-family groups. This has apparently unleashed a flood of “hate-filled, venomous messages, telling us that our families aren’t welcome,” said Chrisler.
The issue came up at the Wednesday press briefing, when Whitehouse mouthpiece, Scott McLellan, was asked if President Bush would prevent gay families from attending.
You can bet that we haven’t heard the end of this. Conservatives could care less about the killing of innocent Iraqi children, by U.S. bombers. They never utter a “peep” when a mentally-challenged or teenage prisoner is executed, but mention homosexual egg-rolling, and brother, you’ve got a rumble on your hands!
A coalition of organizers that include groups such as the FamilyPride Coalition, plan on using the event as an opportunity to publicize and raise the public profile of non-traditional families. According to a press release issued by the group, they’ve been working for the past five months to organize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) families in an effort to introduce this group to the American public in a genuine and respectful way.
The Family Pride Coalition’s Executive Director, Jean Chrisler said, “Approximately 9 million children are being raised in LGBT-headed households. Our parents live in every corner of this country, rural and urban, red states and blue states, and we strive like every other parent in this country to give our children the best opportunities, to shower them with love, to teach them respect and a love for the rich and diverse traditions America has to offer them.”
Conservative groups however, don’t find the intentions of the Family Pride Coalition and others as benign. Instead, organizations such as the Institute for Religion and Democracy, World Net Daily and other groups, have been sounding the clarion call, beckoning their forces of intolerance to gather once again to stop the “homosexual Easter” from happening. According to their usual skewered view of reality, the annual Easter Egg Roll, which dates back to Rutherford B. Hayes, has been a non-political event. This year, however, groups like the Family Pride Coalition and Soulforce are going to “exploit the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for political purposes."
Mark Tooley, of the Institute for Religion and Democracy wrote an article for the Weekly Standard, which was critical of the motives of the various LGBT-family groups. This has apparently unleashed a flood of “hate-filled, venomous messages, telling us that our families aren’t welcome,” said Chrisler.
The issue came up at the Wednesday press briefing, when Whitehouse mouthpiece, Scott McLellan, was asked if President Bush would prevent gay families from attending.
You can bet that we haven’t heard the end of this. Conservatives could care less about the killing of innocent Iraqi children, by U.S. bombers. They never utter a “peep” when a mentally-challenged or teenage prisoner is executed, but mention homosexual egg-rolling, and brother, you’ve got a rumble on your hands!
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Along comes Mary
I know that some of my readers probably wish that I wouldn’t spend so much time writing about the end of the world as we know it. While my intention isn’t to be merely a bearer of all news that’s bad, my curmudgeonly nature lends itself well to that format.
Occasionally, some small event happens that gives me cause for cheer, a chuckle, or a full-blown belly laugh. This one falls in the latter category.
While the world faces environmental catastrophe, the end of oil in quantities formerly known, and on the national front, scandal ad nauseum, here in Maine, the Virgin Mary has graced us with her appearance. Topping that off, she didn’t appear in trendy downtown Portland at some yuppie bar offering over-priced fruity concoctions passing themselves off as adult beverages. No, she decided to appear to the little people, the residents of Mexico, Maine, specifically.
For Veronica Dennis, tragedy turned into wonder when she saw an image of Mary on her scorched kitchen wall, after a fire destroyed her home and forced her family out into the cold. Not to be deterred and looking to turn lemons into lemonade, Ms. Davis is sure that miracles are just around the corner. According to a quote attributed to her in yesterday’s Lewiston Sun Journal, “We just know in history that if this is a true sign, miracles will happen there.” Sort of a take on the Field of Dreams mantra, “If you build it, they will come.”
Apparently, the Virgin Mary was just looking for a place to lay her head when the Dennis’ home caught fire, after a space heater in her daughter’s room ignited a bed and nearby dog bed, severely damaging the modest two-story home and leaving the family homeless.
An official for Maine’s Catholic Diocese, Susan Bernard, exclaimed, “It’s amazing to look at.” However, the Church is withholding a decision on whether to confer miracle status on the image. Apparently, they subscribe to the wait-and-see philosophy of determining the miraculous. Bernard said that they are waiting to see if conversions, improved lives and other miracles occur, before taking a clear position on the matter.
I might add that the photo in Wednesday’s paper did appear rather mystical, as the lighting and other effects appeared to offer the view of some glowing object. It looked something akin to the statues that one sees in a typical American Catholic church.
Today’s edition of the Sun Journal had a follow-up story, about Ms. Dennis’ vow to protect the image of Mary on her charred wall. Once the insurance money arrives, the family will begin the rebuilding process. Apparently, her neighbors would not appreciate the sale of the home and an upgrade of the property to a shrine, or something similarly gauche.
Things have been slow on Burton Street since the news broke. No hordes of pilgrims looking for a miracle have descended yet, according to police Chief James Theriault. “We haven’t had any action up there,” he said. They are keeping a close eye on the place, however, which is probably a good thing.
The Dennis’ family has had a run of bad luck in 2005, but if the Virgin Mary has anything to do with it, 2006 should be a major improvement.
Occasionally, some small event happens that gives me cause for cheer, a chuckle, or a full-blown belly laugh. This one falls in the latter category.
While the world faces environmental catastrophe, the end of oil in quantities formerly known, and on the national front, scandal ad nauseum, here in Maine, the Virgin Mary has graced us with her appearance. Topping that off, she didn’t appear in trendy downtown Portland at some yuppie bar offering over-priced fruity concoctions passing themselves off as adult beverages. No, she decided to appear to the little people, the residents of Mexico, Maine, specifically.
For Veronica Dennis, tragedy turned into wonder when she saw an image of Mary on her scorched kitchen wall, after a fire destroyed her home and forced her family out into the cold. Not to be deterred and looking to turn lemons into lemonade, Ms. Davis is sure that miracles are just around the corner. According to a quote attributed to her in yesterday’s Lewiston Sun Journal, “We just know in history that if this is a true sign, miracles will happen there.” Sort of a take on the Field of Dreams mantra, “If you build it, they will come.”
Apparently, the Virgin Mary was just looking for a place to lay her head when the Dennis’ home caught fire, after a space heater in her daughter’s room ignited a bed and nearby dog bed, severely damaging the modest two-story home and leaving the family homeless.
An official for Maine’s Catholic Diocese, Susan Bernard, exclaimed, “It’s amazing to look at.” However, the Church is withholding a decision on whether to confer miracle status on the image. Apparently, they subscribe to the wait-and-see philosophy of determining the miraculous. Bernard said that they are waiting to see if conversions, improved lives and other miracles occur, before taking a clear position on the matter.
I might add that the photo in Wednesday’s paper did appear rather mystical, as the lighting and other effects appeared to offer the view of some glowing object. It looked something akin to the statues that one sees in a typical American Catholic church.
Today’s edition of the Sun Journal had a follow-up story, about Ms. Dennis’ vow to protect the image of Mary on her charred wall. Once the insurance money arrives, the family will begin the rebuilding process. Apparently, her neighbors would not appreciate the sale of the home and an upgrade of the property to a shrine, or something similarly gauche.
Things have been slow on Burton Street since the news broke. No hordes of pilgrims looking for a miracle have descended yet, according to police Chief James Theriault. “We haven’t had any action up there,” he said. They are keeping a close eye on the place, however, which is probably a good thing.
The Dennis’ family has had a run of bad luck in 2005, but if the Virgin Mary has anything to do with it, 2006 should be a major improvement.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Lovelock's dire predictions
With our mid-January weather befitting the birth of spring, rather than the dead of winter, one could forgive northern New Englanders concluding that our planet is definitely warming. Rather than engage in anecdotal conjecture, however, I would rather look to scientific evidence and the opinions of authorities from that community in making my argument.
British scientist, James Lovelock, is no stranger to environmental controversy. His crime--not soft-pedaling his views about the long-term health of the planet. Dr. Lovelock, writing in Britain’s Independent newspaper, warned of the dire consequences resulting from our current love affair with lifestyles that are not sustainable. Lovelock, the originator of a theory, called Gaia that views the planet as a living organism, warns that the earth is “soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last 100,000 years." Through his theory, Lovelock speaks metaphorically about the earth in human terms, equating it with a human organism.
Some key points of his article touch on the following:
--temperatures will rise 8 degrees centigrade in the temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics
--the tropical areas of the world turned into scrub or desert
--this will add to the 40 percent of the earth’s surface already depleted and unable to produce necessary food and other plants for the planet
--the ecosystems of the earth will be disrupted bringing widespread death to species and many plants
Interestingly, Lovelock contradicts the idea represented by leaders who should know better and repeated by the pied pipers of the press—that the world has the capability to grow unlimited quantities of food and other plants. In reality, writes Lovelock, “We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate.”
This contradicts the majority of people who believe somehow, that technology will save us. That we can continue to embrace our western modes of one car-one person travel, our rampant consumerism, replete with its rash of packaging waste and believe like Pollyanna, that technology—in the form of biofuels, photovoltaic collectors, windfarms, etc.—will come riding in on its white horse and save us from ourselves. Added to the insane mix that is pushing us towards our environmental Armageddon are burgeoning economies in China and India—each ramping up their use of diminishing supplies of fossil fuels with new modes of consumption rivaling our North American patterns.
These ideas aren’t limited to a handful of environmental “kooks,” as members of the right-wing talk radio family would have you believe. Other scientists across the globe subscribe to the potential of similarly grim scenarios, but some believe that we still have time to correct our course, before our plunge into global darkness and chaos.
Australian scientist, Timothy Flannery believes that we have “one or two decades” to take action. He takes issue with Lovelock’s “pessimism” and says it might be driven more by the political unwillingness of his own government and the current regime in Washington.
Quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald, Flannery offers some balance to Lovelock, saying, “''It seems to be that [Professor] Lovelock's pessimism about things is due to the pathetic political response we've had from the US, Australia and some of the other polluting nations,'' said Dr Flannery, who is director of the South Australian Museum and author of climate book, The Weather Makers.
While saying he respects Lovelock and can understand his dire predictions and pessimism, but it’s important to “keep up hope.”
While I agree with what Flannery is saying and recognize that it is important to remain hopeful, it isn’t acceptable to stick one’s head in the sand and hope all this doomsday talk goes away. In the same piece, Flannery also warns that countries “have no choice” but to stop polluting. If we stopped our current greenhouse emissions today, it would still take 100 to 200 years to reverse the current direction we have chosen in climate change.
I think all of us who are aware of what’s happening need to keep Lovelock’s predictions and work in mind, but like Flannery, remain hopeful and most important—committed to doing what we can to both educate and reduce our environmental footprint, however small that might be. However, while individual responsibility is important, governments have the means, as well as the resources to shift the debate and the direction of our current non-sustainable course. Because combining trips and limiting packaging waste makes us feel good, it's difficult to alter the march of global warming without government-mandated changes in all areas of our daily life. I know this sticks in the craw of conservatives (the small-c kind) and libertarians, but we've moved past the point where ideological pissing contests are permitted.
In our own state, and many other rural areas, public modes of transportation are virtually non-existent. In order to get anywhere in rural Maine requires an automobile. Without population density, light rail and other modes of public transport probably won't happen. Significant tax breaks and subsidies that would provide an incentive to trade in our internal combustion-driven automobiles for hybrids might be a positive first step.
Regardless of what gets done, there isn't alot of time for hand-wringing, pontification, studies and commissions--and that's what scares me the most.
British scientist, James Lovelock, is no stranger to environmental controversy. His crime--not soft-pedaling his views about the long-term health of the planet. Dr. Lovelock, writing in Britain’s Independent newspaper, warned of the dire consequences resulting from our current love affair with lifestyles that are not sustainable. Lovelock, the originator of a theory, called Gaia that views the planet as a living organism, warns that the earth is “soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last 100,000 years." Through his theory, Lovelock speaks metaphorically about the earth in human terms, equating it with a human organism.
Some key points of his article touch on the following:
--temperatures will rise 8 degrees centigrade in the temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics
--the tropical areas of the world turned into scrub or desert
--this will add to the 40 percent of the earth’s surface already depleted and unable to produce necessary food and other plants for the planet
--the ecosystems of the earth will be disrupted bringing widespread death to species and many plants
Interestingly, Lovelock contradicts the idea represented by leaders who should know better and repeated by the pied pipers of the press—that the world has the capability to grow unlimited quantities of food and other plants. In reality, writes Lovelock, “We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate.”
This contradicts the majority of people who believe somehow, that technology will save us. That we can continue to embrace our western modes of one car-one person travel, our rampant consumerism, replete with its rash of packaging waste and believe like Pollyanna, that technology—in the form of biofuels, photovoltaic collectors, windfarms, etc.—will come riding in on its white horse and save us from ourselves. Added to the insane mix that is pushing us towards our environmental Armageddon are burgeoning economies in China and India—each ramping up their use of diminishing supplies of fossil fuels with new modes of consumption rivaling our North American patterns.
These ideas aren’t limited to a handful of environmental “kooks,” as members of the right-wing talk radio family would have you believe. Other scientists across the globe subscribe to the potential of similarly grim scenarios, but some believe that we still have time to correct our course, before our plunge into global darkness and chaos.
Australian scientist, Timothy Flannery believes that we have “one or two decades” to take action. He takes issue with Lovelock’s “pessimism” and says it might be driven more by the political unwillingness of his own government and the current regime in Washington.
Quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald, Flannery offers some balance to Lovelock, saying, “''It seems to be that [Professor] Lovelock's pessimism about things is due to the pathetic political response we've had from the US, Australia and some of the other polluting nations,'' said Dr Flannery, who is director of the South Australian Museum and author of climate book, The Weather Makers.
While saying he respects Lovelock and can understand his dire predictions and pessimism, but it’s important to “keep up hope.”
While I agree with what Flannery is saying and recognize that it is important to remain hopeful, it isn’t acceptable to stick one’s head in the sand and hope all this doomsday talk goes away. In the same piece, Flannery also warns that countries “have no choice” but to stop polluting. If we stopped our current greenhouse emissions today, it would still take 100 to 200 years to reverse the current direction we have chosen in climate change.
I think all of us who are aware of what’s happening need to keep Lovelock’s predictions and work in mind, but like Flannery, remain hopeful and most important—committed to doing what we can to both educate and reduce our environmental footprint, however small that might be. However, while individual responsibility is important, governments have the means, as well as the resources to shift the debate and the direction of our current non-sustainable course. Because combining trips and limiting packaging waste makes us feel good, it's difficult to alter the march of global warming without government-mandated changes in all areas of our daily life. I know this sticks in the craw of conservatives (the small-c kind) and libertarians, but we've moved past the point where ideological pissing contests are permitted.
In our own state, and many other rural areas, public modes of transportation are virtually non-existent. In order to get anywhere in rural Maine requires an automobile. Without population density, light rail and other modes of public transport probably won't happen. Significant tax breaks and subsidies that would provide an incentive to trade in our internal combustion-driven automobiles for hybrids might be a positive first step.
Regardless of what gets done, there isn't alot of time for hand-wringing, pontification, studies and commissions--and that's what scares me the most.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Keeping his legacy alive
"The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and What It Means To Us Today"
by, Jim Baumer
Once again, we come upon the celebration of the birthday of a truly great human being, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It has been more than 30 years since an assassin's bullet stole from us one of our greatest champions of social and economic justice. Like many, I have been thinking about his legacy and what it means to those of us committed to building a just society today.
I think it is important that we not relegate his memory to the dusty corridors of history. While canonization may have been inevitable for one so prophetic in addressing a nation's besetting sins, we cannot allow the sanitization of his memory to lessen the intensity of his light, or to diminish the volume of his oratory.
While many today would laud King for his success in bringing about desegregation and championing civil rights, he spoke to issues much broader than race. And while race was, and still is a problem in America, to say that King was merely a champion for African-Americans in their quest for equal rights and access, is to rob him of the greater substance of what he stood for.
In an address delivered at the Riverside Church in New York, April 4, 1967, exactly one year to the day before he would be martyred, King laid down what he saw as the triumvirate of sins besetting the American culture.
In his impassioned oratory, he lashed out at racism, rampant materialism, and militarism. In his unique and prophetic way, he made the connection between the obscene amounts being spent to bludgeon a culture across the globe in Vietnam, and our success in affecting the war on poverty at home. He saw that divisions between the classes, fed by greed and materialism, were just as ugly a scar on the American psyche, as divisions between the races.
It was an economic cause that brought King to Memphis on that fateful day of April 4, 1968. King had come to show solidarity for the 1,300 striking sanitation workers that led him to this southern city, where he was ultimately gunned down and martyred for his cause.
Many within the leadership of the civil rights movement were troubled by his belief that the most important issue affecting America was more than race. He was severely criticized by several prominent members of that very leadership, after giving his address at the Riverside Church. This criticism ate at King and kept him awake many a night in prayer and reflection. Yet, he knew his cause was just, and that it was greater than he was. It was the visionary character of King's message and his understanding of the issues that separated him from the pack.
Looking back at his life, what do we see today that needs our attention in order to properly honor his memory? Has his mantle been taken up? Unfortunately, I think that there is still much work to be done.
We have seen our nation plunged into a costly and unjust war in Iraq. We see economic fragmentation. The ever-widening chasm between the haves and have-nots has created the greatest disparity of wealth in our country in more than 100 years. Many of the poorest in our country go without because of our misplaced national priorities. Never before has conspicuous consumption been lifted up and exalted like during our present day. While more and more of our citizens lack food, shelter and clothing, there continues to be those that are searching for bigger and better toys. Sadly, we have not done a very good job at heeding the words of one of our nation's most prophetic voices.
If Dr. King were alive today, I believe he would be commenting on these very same issues—racism, militarism, and rampant materialism—social and economic justice. He wouldn’t be timid, either. He would offer us a voice of reason in a cacophony of madness, telling us that the only way to bring about peace isn't by sacrificing our young men, and killing all of our enemies. He would be a counter-weight to the cowboy diplomacy of our current administration.
Let us honor his memory by committing ourselves to the causes of racial equality, economic justice, and peaceful co-existence. We must build economically self-sustaining communities that are based on meaningful jobs that pay a living wage. To do anything less is to allow his light to flicker and fade from our national consciousness.
© Jim Baumer, 2006
by, Jim Baumer
Once again, we come upon the celebration of the birthday of a truly great human being, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It has been more than 30 years since an assassin's bullet stole from us one of our greatest champions of social and economic justice. Like many, I have been thinking about his legacy and what it means to those of us committed to building a just society today.
I think it is important that we not relegate his memory to the dusty corridors of history. While canonization may have been inevitable for one so prophetic in addressing a nation's besetting sins, we cannot allow the sanitization of his memory to lessen the intensity of his light, or to diminish the volume of his oratory.
While many today would laud King for his success in bringing about desegregation and championing civil rights, he spoke to issues much broader than race. And while race was, and still is a problem in America, to say that King was merely a champion for African-Americans in their quest for equal rights and access, is to rob him of the greater substance of what he stood for.
In an address delivered at the Riverside Church in New York, April 4, 1967, exactly one year to the day before he would be martyred, King laid down what he saw as the triumvirate of sins besetting the American culture.
In his impassioned oratory, he lashed out at racism, rampant materialism, and militarism. In his unique and prophetic way, he made the connection between the obscene amounts being spent to bludgeon a culture across the globe in Vietnam, and our success in affecting the war on poverty at home. He saw that divisions between the classes, fed by greed and materialism, were just as ugly a scar on the American psyche, as divisions between the races.
It was an economic cause that brought King to Memphis on that fateful day of April 4, 1968. King had come to show solidarity for the 1,300 striking sanitation workers that led him to this southern city, where he was ultimately gunned down and martyred for his cause.
Many within the leadership of the civil rights movement were troubled by his belief that the most important issue affecting America was more than race. He was severely criticized by several prominent members of that very leadership, after giving his address at the Riverside Church. This criticism ate at King and kept him awake many a night in prayer and reflection. Yet, he knew his cause was just, and that it was greater than he was. It was the visionary character of King's message and his understanding of the issues that separated him from the pack.
Looking back at his life, what do we see today that needs our attention in order to properly honor his memory? Has his mantle been taken up? Unfortunately, I think that there is still much work to be done.
We have seen our nation plunged into a costly and unjust war in Iraq. We see economic fragmentation. The ever-widening chasm between the haves and have-nots has created the greatest disparity of wealth in our country in more than 100 years. Many of the poorest in our country go without because of our misplaced national priorities. Never before has conspicuous consumption been lifted up and exalted like during our present day. While more and more of our citizens lack food, shelter and clothing, there continues to be those that are searching for bigger and better toys. Sadly, we have not done a very good job at heeding the words of one of our nation's most prophetic voices.
If Dr. King were alive today, I believe he would be commenting on these very same issues—racism, militarism, and rampant materialism—social and economic justice. He wouldn’t be timid, either. He would offer us a voice of reason in a cacophony of madness, telling us that the only way to bring about peace isn't by sacrificing our young men, and killing all of our enemies. He would be a counter-weight to the cowboy diplomacy of our current administration.
Let us honor his memory by committing ourselves to the causes of racial equality, economic justice, and peaceful co-existence. We must build economically self-sustaining communities that are based on meaningful jobs that pay a living wage. To do anything less is to allow his light to flicker and fade from our national consciousness.
© Jim Baumer, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)