Martin Luther King Speech, April 4, 1967

A time comes when silence is betrayal.

And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States' influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts?

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its shores.

I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hel_l for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote: “Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.”

During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

Revolution of Values

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. 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, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born.

Not much left to say. The pursuit of wealth and power by few at the expense of the many is ever the same. Where are men such as King today?

Where are men such as King today?

Probably plagiarizing his way through college as King did and he later plagiarized large parts of his most famous speeches. He had his good points, but he was no saint.

Where are men such as King today?

Probably plagiarizing his way through college as King did and he later plagiarized large parts of his most famous speeches. He had his good points, but he was no saint.

Geez-louise, UG. You can't be a saint whilst still alive! Maybe he is now?

You can look at anyone and find something or another to tarnish them. Even me! Why, if someone were to look at you from 10 miles away, UG, they wouldn't even need to stand on a hilltop.

It's certainly obvious to me from reading reams of comments on many different and varied sites that no matter who's name is mentioned in connection with representing "good" there is always someone who will point out that the person was a no-goodnik in various ways.

Did I mention that Nelson Mandela was a violent terrorist in his younger days and probably deserved every bit of his jail time?

I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way.

Thomas Jefferson

Or that Thomas Jefferson not only owned slaves but impregnated them as well?

Does the mud smearing make the message any less valid?? Shades of Fox News, frankly.

Glenn Beck is having a big rally on the day that MLK gave his most famous (plagiarized) speech. Don't blame Fox News.

Or that Thomas Jefferson not only owned slaves but impregnated them as well?

Does the mud smearing make the message any less valid?? Shades of Fox News, frankly.

SBK:

Have you ever watched Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC?

Did I mention that Nelson Mandela was a violent terrorist in his younger days and probably deserved every bit of his jail time?

Unbelievable, UG. Is there anything there, anything at all, which might give pause to an idea as it travels from one ear to the other?

Does the mud smearing make the message any less valid??

Quote edited, sbk, so that the pertinent thought might be the sole focus. Of course, the danger is that we may never get a response now.

Did I mention that Nelson Mandela was a violent terrorist in his younger days and probably deserved every bit of his jail time?

Unbelievable, UG. Is there anything there, anything at all, which might give pause to an idea as it travels from one ear to the other?

You have inspired me to ask you the exact same thing.

Did I mention that Nelson Mandela was a violent terrorist in his younger days and probably deserved every bit of his jail time?

Unbelievable, UG. Is there anything there, anything at all, which might give pause to an idea as it travels from one ear to the other?

You have inspired me to ask you the exact same thing.

UG, let's recap, slowly:

1) I post speech which I feel is apropos today. Same as it ever was being the focal message.

2) I ask where are men like King today. King used as a reference to people who appear on the world stage now and again and move masses to awaken to truth, in this case the suppression of humans by other humans for purposes of wealth and power. King as a person who therefore has added true value to the world.

3) You reply with a comment degrading King. By claiming King was a plagiarizer in general as fact, and further claiming that he plagiarized speeches specifically as fact, then you are attempting to lead to the logical conclusion, given these "facts," that he was flawed in character, thus assuming further another logical conclusion . . . that his speeches are thus also flawed, leading to the final logical conclusion, which is that King was a sham, therefore pay no attention to the ramblings of a fraudster. End result is that you have invalidated the contributions of a great man (or at least in your own mind you have.)

4) I reply mentioning the blatantly obvious . . . we are all men and women (humans) and that as such is our condition no one is free from error.

5) You reply degrading another personage well known on the world stage who, aside for also adding value to the world, has also spoken truth in regards to the suppression of humans by other humans.

5) sbk replies asking point blank whether your mudslinging invalidates King's message.

6) You ignore sbk's question and deflect to another unrelated issue.

7) I comment on what it is that has you so completely oblivious to #4 that you immediately and merrily continue on with your rationale from #3 to #5.

8) I repost sbk's comment, edited, in an effort to prod a direct answer from you. And, specifically point out that chances are great it would be ignored.

9) You ignore it.

10) In the end the only thing you respond to is an off-the-cuff remark as an attempted defence of yourself by inferring that I am the one who is truly befuddled in my thinking.

(This emoticon's jaw doesn't drop down far enough. Mine keeps hitting the floor.)

So, I'll ask point blank, what are you driving at with your comments, UG?

That I can insinuate that you are stupid as easily as you can insinuate that I am, so it is not a very smart thing to initiate.

As far as why I pointed out that both King and Mandala were very flawed human beings, it is because it is true. They have been turned into manufactured heroes to suit the needs of certain segments of society, but many people just accept the party line without a lot of research or thought and I enjoy pointing out that these people might not be as enlightened as they believe.

People can write what seems to be very logical prose or speeches that supports their point of view, but knowing something about who they really are helps us to decide if they are sincere about certain subjects or worth listening to at all. The things that I have mentioned might be very relevant to whether one accepts what they have to say on certain subjects - or, again, at all.

By the way, you can add Gandhi to the list of questionable heroes, as IMHO he belongs there too.

What was the point of the OP. Are we rehashing the Vietnam war, oh goody goody. Or is it MLK day and I missed it. I really don't know. What was the point?

Is your point as simple as where are men like MLK today? You mean like where is Churchill? Where is Abraham Lincoln? Where is George the III?

I don't own a television. Even if I did, I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself and getting my news from my own sources, thanks.

And yes, apparently, for UG, attacking the messenger does make the message less valid.

But, I never see it used the other way around, attacking those they agree with.

That I can insinuate that you are stupid as easily as you can insinuate that I am, so it is not a very smart thing to initiate.

As far as why I pointed out that both King and Mandala were very flawed human beings, it is because it is true. They have been turned into manufactured heroes to suit the needs of certain segments of society, but many people just accept the party line without a lot of research or thought and I enjoy pointing out that these people might not be as enlightened as they believe.

People can write what seems to be very logical prose or speeches that supports their point of view, but knowing something about who they really are helps us to decide if they are sincere about certain subjects or worth listening to at all. The things that I have mentioned might be very relevant to whether one accepts what they have to say on certain subjects - or, again, at all.

By the way, you can add Gandhi to the list of questionable heroes, as IMHO he belongs there too.

I do not insinuate you are stupid at all, UG. I've read many of your posts and have enjoyed many more. You are anything but stupid, UG. Blind to things, yes, as can be honestly said of all of us. I'll put myself at the top of the list for I am aware of much that I am blind to. And I strive everyday as best I can to not only see it but live it. I have no doubt whatsoever that you are a good man, too. For I know perhaps more than most that who we are is not the ideas we hold in our skulls or express with our tongues.

I'll go directly to what I feel is the crux of this issue between you and I. It can be said that we are all flawed, UG. In truth no one is, but that is another understanding that I won't get into now. So, if we are all flawed, then why should anyone listen to anyone else? At all. Ever. If you've ever had children then you would vividly recall the day they came to the realization that mommy and daddy weren't infallible. And once they reached that awareness they resisted anything of value you had to pass on to them because, Oh My God, you had faults of your own! What right did you now have to advise them!

But here's the pith ball. (And no, not the one that's found in a bottle of Guinness. ) No one is 100% "good" or 100% "bad." But the so-called bad does not then negate the good. King had "faults," Mandela had "faults," Ghandi had "faults," Jefferson had "faults." And because they did can you then deny that they also had value? If you do, then I will say you are not stupid, but blind. For a great many, even on this board, are not blinded to the good that these men have offered the world. They see it clearly, and acknowledge it loudly. Heroes they be but . . . but . . . I would say that in truth we are all heroes and heroines. For we have all offered our hearts many times to others for nothing in return and only in the hopes that we may have been able to assist another of our fellows.

One more point I would like to make. I'll snip this quote from you . . . "but knowing something about who they really are" . . . and ask this: how can we possibly know who someone else truly is when we are rather clueless as to who we truly are ourselves? For if we truly, and I mean truly knew who we truly were we would truly understand that we are all truly one. Truly, it's true! But that's another rabbit hole we can go down next time. (Might find Kayo while we're at it. )

Cheers, UG.

What was the point of the OP.

Well, I was listening to the Talking Heads and had "same as it ever was, same as it ever was" running through my head while I was reading King's speech (for the first time) on the Internet.

Vietnam . . . same as it ever was . . . Iraq, Afghanistan . . . same as it ever was.

[unbelievable, UG. Is there anything there, anything at all, which might give pause to an idea as it travels from one ear to the other?

I appreciate that you cleared up your remarks, but I find it difficult to interpret this as anything but an accusation about intelligence and not a nice one. That is why I responded the way that I did. Forgive me if I was wrong.

As to MLK and the others, don't get me wrong, I think that each of them has done some great things, but I am not so sure that they are great men. I'm not saying that they were not either, but it seems to me that the three of them are usually presented as SAINTS and things that they said are accepted as "the truth" without questioning their motives for saying them.

You asked where men like King are today and I used the opportunity to point out that a lot of things that he did and said were very questionable. You trust his words on the issue of Vietnam, but I am not sure that I do. Perhaps that is not really what you meant your post to be about, but when I saw that question, because of my own beliefs, I preferred to answer it in a way that would make a different point than the one that you were possibly looking for.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - A Supporter of Israel

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - A Supporter of Israel

You're late to the party, koheesti.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - A Supporter of Israel

Pro-Zionist propaganda. I wonder what he'd say of events to this time.

Did he contradict himself there? He was anti the anti-apartheidists, yet anti bigotry.

.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - A Supporter of Israel

You're late to the party, koheesti.

I'm on vacation.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - A Supporter of Israel

Pro-Zionist propaganda. I wonder what he'd say of events to this time.

Did he contradict himself there? He was anti the anti-apartheidists, yet anti bigotry.

.

No, no contradiction. Your labels are simply wrong.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - A Supporter of Israel

Pro-Zionist propaganda. I wonder what he'd say of events to this time.

Did he contradict himself there? He was anti the anti-apartheidists, yet anti bigotry.

.

No, no contradiction. Your labels are simply wrong.

Ahhh. Yes. It was the propagandists that present the contradiction....silly of me to question if it was MLK.

silly of me

Don't worry, we are getting used to it.

Same as it ever was.............. sadly true Tip

As to where are the Kings of today.... Seems all the new kids have the same campaign contributors

But this one is as close as I have found to someone who is clearly speaking the truth

Same as it ever was.............. sadly true Tip

As to where are the Kings of today.... Seems all the new kids have the same campaign contributors

But this one is as close as I have found to someone who is clearly speaking the truth

I feel sorry for that MAN. A man amongst men, with the truth on his side that he takes sincerely to heart, not listened to and not heeded, by those that have dishonest agendas but more power.

Same as it ever was.............. sadly true Tip

As to where are the Kings of today.... Seems all the new kids have the same campaign contributors

But this one is as close as I have found to someone who is clearly speaking the truth

I feel sorry for that MAN. A man amongst men, with the truth on his side that he takes sincerely to heart, not listened to and not heeded, by those that have dishonest agendas but more power.

Same as it ever was . . . perhaps not until America has completely destroyed and bankrupted itself - militarily, economically, and morally - will the veil of illusion be lifted. But I seriously doubt even then. I believe the deck chairs will simply be rearranged, similar to what has occurred with the former Soviet Union. I do not see in the least the necessary questioning taking place by the general populace of any of the core values which provide the locomotive force to the destructive events which continue to build upon themselves day by day.

I see so many who so desperately want change but believe that it is only the rest of the world which needs to change and never they themselves. Never understanding that were they to examine and change their own ideas in dramatic fashion that their world would change just as dramatically, even if the rest of the world were to remain the same.

BTW, had I been able to vote last election I would have unquestionably voted for Paul. McCain? Picking Palin for a running mate was the perfect summation of McCain. I don't believe any republican would have had a snowball's chance in hel_l. Obama? We may never again in our lifetimes see another pure politician as highly polished. A man who had accomplished nothing to date proclaiming himself as The One? He was, to me, as obvious a sham as a sham could ever hope not to be. The disgusting fawning over the man was incredibly telling of just how helpless Americans truly felt, how preciously little they believed in the power of their own individuality.

The fact that Paul was defeated, heck, the fact that he was almost completely shunned, ostracized by the media during the primaries, the legitimacy of his candidacy even directly questioned at one point during the debates, was very telling that America was not ready for change. The American people were oblivious in their understanding of what Paul was talking about, but the powers that be were well aware.

I see so many who so desperately want change but believe that it is only the rest of the world which needs to change and never they themselves. Never understanding that were they to examine and change their own ideas in dramatic fashion that their world would change just as dramatically, even if the rest of the world were to remain the same.

We have a lot of problems in America, that much is true. So which country should we change to be more like?

I see so many who so desperately want change but believe that it is only the rest of the world which needs to change and never they themselves. Never understanding that were they to examine and change their own ideas in dramatic fashion that their world would change just as dramatically, even if the rest of the world were to remain the same.

We have a lot of problems in America, that much is true. So which country should we change to be more like?

You missed my point completely, koheesti. Try again?

I see so many who so desperately want change but believe that it is only the rest of the world which needs to change and never they themselves. Never understanding that were they to examine and change their own ideas in dramatic fashion that their world would change just as dramatically, even if the rest of the world were to remain the same.

We have a lot of problems in America, that much is true. So which country should we change to be more like?

You missed my point completely, koheesti. Try again?

No, thanks. It's clear you won't answer anyway.

Did you ever think that maybe you didn't make your point very well in the first place?