King on Where Are We
Thomas Allen
In “Where Are We?,” Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 1–22, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses what the Negro wanted and expected following the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.
(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)
In signing the Voting Rights Act into law, President Johnson said, “Today is a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that’s ever been won on any battlefield . . . today we strike away the last major shackle of . . . fierce and ancient bonds.” (P. 2.) Whatever these ancient bonds were, the slavery of the welfare state soon replaced them.
Johnson understood the common Negroes better than King did. King thought that the common Negroes wanted to be like the White man: having self-respect, accepting the responsibility of taking care of his family, planning for the future, being punctual, delaying gratification, and being polite. The only things holding Negroes back from achieving this goal were education and segregation. Johnson knew that the common Negroes did not want responsibilities; they did not want to plan for the future or delay gratification. In short, they did not want to abandon the slave mentality. They wanted cradle-to-grave care with someone else making their decisions and quickly satisfying their gratification. And that is what Johnson gave them. The last 55 years have proven Johnson right. (One great irony is that Negroes behaved more like Whites during the Jim Crow Era than they have during the Civil Rights Era.)
King discusses the protests that the Voting Rights Act received. Negroes rioted in several Northern and Western cities. Most Northerners and Westerners had supported the civil rights movement because they thought that it only affected the South and Southerners. Most never thought that civil rights and related laws would apply to the North, but now it was too late to halt the movement.
Negroes wanted power not only in the South but also in the rest of the country — and the White oligarchs gave it to them. Moreover, Negroes wanted to be equal to Whites. Although most Whites treated Negroes decently, they did not treat them as equals — King complained. Not only did the Negro become the White man’s equal, he eventually became his superior with privileges that White never dreamed of having.
Continuing, King writes, “White America was ready to demand that the Negro should be spared the lash of brutality and coarse degradation, but it had never been truly committed to helping him out of poverty, exploitation or all forms of discrimination.” (P. 3.) So, Johnson declared his War on Poverty with all sorts of welfare for Negroes. Moreover, laws and court orders led to affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, and similar acts that discriminated against Whites in favor of Negroes. (Since the greatest conservative ever supported Johnson’s War on Poverty, King-idolizing conservatives should support the War on Poverty, the welfare state, and discrimination against Whites.)
King laments that “the white segregationist and the ordinary white citizen had more in common with one another than either had with the Negro.” (P. 4.) (What has occurred since he wrote these words would bring him joy. Although ordinary Whites still have more in common with each other than they have with Negroes, the White oligarchs, who have backed the civil rights movement from the beginning, have turned Whites against Whites and have caused the genocide of the White race, especially Southerners. Further, the oligarchs have maneuvered most Whites into kowtowing to the Negro with many, especially conservatives, deifying King.)
Moreover, King regrets that Southerners were not beaten into submission. (Not long after his death, an unrelenting genocide of Southerners began and this genocide has been vigorously pursued ever since. King would rejoice in the genocide of Southerners. After all, he loathed Southerners more than the Democrats loathe Trump.)
King demanded that Whites pour ever more money into the education of Negroes (— as though more money would overcome the genetic intelligence and intellectual disadvantages of Negroes). Also, he demanded more high-paying jobs for Negroes (— affirmative action and quotas solved this problem). Further, he demanded the eradication of slum housing (— urban renewal accomplished much of this although many Negroes were driven from their homes in the process).
(Although Johnson planned to use his War on Poverty to enslave Negroes to the Democratic Party, which he accomplished,) King favored the War on Poverty. Whites should be taxed for the benefit of Negroes.
King erred when he claimed that when the Constitution was adopted, the Negro was considered only 60 percent of a person. (Free Negroes were considered as a whole person. Only slaves were considered as 60 percent of a person. King’s despised South wanted to consider all Negroes as a whole person while the North wanted to consider them not a person all.)
King described how bad life was for the Negro. He writes, “Economic discrimination is especially deeply rooted in the South. In industry after industry there is a significant differential in wage scales between North and South.“ (P. 7.) (A major cause of the difference in the wage scale and the large degree of poverty in the South was Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction. Yankees so plundered the South that more than a century was required for its recovery — and it still has not fully recovered.) However, King blamed the lower Southern pay scale on cheap Negro labor. (At that time, many Negroes worked as farm laborers, which was among the lowest-paid jobs.) According to King, Southerners prevented Negroes from moving into higher-paying industrial jobs. (He overlooked that Whites in the South received lower pay than Whites in other parts of the country. Even Southerners in industrial jobs received lower pay.)
Citing polls, King remarked that 88 percent of Whites “would object if their teenage child dated a Negro. Almost 80 percent would mind it if a close friend or relative married a Negro.” (P. 8.) (He seemed to have wanted to break down all barriers to interracial mating. Now, he can revel in knowing that the barriers to interracial mating have been dismantled as both Whites and Negroes genocide each other through interracial mating. Equality, which King, liberals, progressives, and King-idolizing conservatives advocate, can be accomplished with the races amalgamating and homogenizing — so they believe.)
For King and the Negro, equality means that Negroes have the same economic standing as Whites, i.e., equality of outcome, now called equity. Yet, for most Whites, equality means the opportunity for improvement, i.e., equality of opportunity. (King-idolizing conservatives who preach equality of opportunity need to follow the archconservative King and start preaching equality of outcome.)
Continuing, King writes, “The Negro on a mass scale is working vigorously to overcome his deficiencies and his maladjustments.” (P. 9.) (Statistics for crime, abortion, single-parent households, dependency on welfare, deteriorating cities governed by Negroes, etc. show that the Negro has failed to overcome his deficiencies and his maladjustments. Despite receiving massive sums of money and more benefits and privileges than Whites ever received during the height of White supremacy and Jim Crow, the Negro has failed. King must not have understood his people as well as he thought he did.)
King disagreed with many Whites who supported the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. For these Whites, desegregation meant an end to legalized segregation and giving Negroes the opportunity to attend White schools. (For example, T.B. Maston, see “Review of Segregation and Desegregation” by Thomas Allen.) For King, desegregation meant forced integration. (Consequently, all King-idolizing conservatives should ardently support forced integration — and many do.)
Because many Whites who had earlier supported the civil rights movement showed less alacrity in their support as time passed, Negroes lost confidence in themselves. (Why should their confidence in themselves depend on Whites, King failed to explain?)
King remarks, “The increases in segregated schools and the expanded slums are developments confined largely to the North. Substantial progress has been achieved in the South.” (P. 13.) (Thus, while Negroes progressed in their despised South, they regressed in their beloved North. In the minds of many Northerners, the civil rights act and related laws were only supposed to apply in the South where the Negro was hated and never in the North where the Negro was loved. Consequently, in the early years of the civil rights movement, the North cheered the Negro destruction of the South. However, after Negroes had defeated the South, they turned their attention to the North, and the North protested. Nevertheless, Negroes eventually defeated the North.)
Unsurprisingly, King blames racism in the North and West on Southerners who had migrated to the North and West. These Southerners brought their prejudice and discrimination with them. Southerners caused segregation in the North. (First, although Northerners may have been prejudiced against Negroes, Southerners were not. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Blacks. Second, antebellum history shows that Northerners discriminated against Negroes more than did Southerners — and this was before many Southerners migrated to the North.)
King believes that if it were not for Southerners, the United States would have been fully integrated a century ago (and Negroes would have been amalgamated out of existence), and the United States would be at least as socialistic as Western Europe. (Thus, only Southerners defended liberty from despotic government, which King wanted, and the preservation of the races including the Negro race.) Consequently, King writes, “Until the disproportionate political power of the reactionary South in Congress is ended, progress in the United States will always be fitful and uncertain.” (P. 14.) (As the political power of Southerners waned, progressivism waxed. Since progressivism and socialism now dominate the country, King should be happy.)
Continuing, King discussed the hardships that Negroes had endured and their rebellion. He commented on the changes that Negroes had brought and their victories. Nevertheless, much more is needed.
Following the death of segregation in the South, the Negroes needed to gain control of the social and economic systems of the United States and to change them for the benefit of the Negroes. (They have accomplished this goal, and King-idolizing conservatives ought to be rejoicing.)
King boasted about his nonviolent approach, which resulted in a great deal of violence, to civil rights. He condemned the Black Power movement because it promoted riots. (In the end, the open violence of the Black Power movement worked better than the concealed violence of the nonviolent movement. At least the Black Power movement was less hypocritical. What has excited Negroes most about the civil rights movement has been the violence of their protests and riots and the lucre that these acts have brought them.)
King laments, “Yet the civil rights revolution appeared to drain energy from the North, energy that flowed South to transform life there while stagnation blanketed Northern Negro communities.” (P. 19.) Negroes needed to turn their attention to the North and liberate the Northern Negro. (And they did and destroyed much of the North in the process.)
To get Northern cities to capitulate to the Negro’s demands, King described what he considered nonviolent tactics. If enough Negroes marched in the city, they can force its operations to cease. Then, the city will surrender to the Negroes demands. According to King, such a protest does not harm persons or property. (He is wrong. When city services that people depend on cease, they suffer harm. Moreover, the city must tax their property to pay for the Negro’s demands. This is hardly nonviolence although the violence is more subtle than a riot.)
King declares, “Northern white leadership has relied too much on tokens and substitutes, and on Negro patience. The end of this road is clearly in sight.” (P. 22.) (He was right. Several years after his death Negroes defeated the North just as they had defeated the South. Since then, the oligarchs have used Negroes to control the country although mestizos and Indians from Latin America and queers are now replacing Negroes.)
King closes his essay by urging Whites to pressure their local and State governments and the federal government to implement the reforms that the Negro demands to prevent riots. (So much for nonviolence.) “Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.” (P. 22.)
Throughout his essay, King expresses disdain for segregationists, Southerners, the South, and all that is related to them.
One wonders what King would think about the way that Negroes have turned out 55 years after he wrote this book. Despite all the privileges and benefits that Negroes have received over the years, in many respects, most are no better off than they were under Jim Crow — however, they are materially better off because of the welfare state. Most of the Negroes who have advanced probably would have done just as well under Jim Crow. In many respects, the Civil Rights Era has been a failure unless the objective was destroying liberty with a despotic government and the genocide of the White race while the wealth of Whites was being stolen for the benefit of nonwhites with the oligarchs taking a large cut.
Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.
More social issues.
