In Madison County, Virginia, Dr. King's 1967 speech on the Vietnam War has been banned in our high school. The speech appears in a textbook, but teachers are prohibited by the school board from teaching it. School board member Christopher Wingate claimed that the speech "did not reflect a love of country or respect for the military." He further scorned the statement that the U.S. "is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today," stating that it was ridiculous because "the Soviet Union existed at the time." Several community members argued against this, of course, but to no avail. I've researched this, but can't find evidence of a scholar revisiting this speech to confirm that Dr. King was correct in his assertion. If there is such an analysis, I would love to know about it. Had we been honest then (I know the speech was deeply unpopular at the time) and now in acknowledging our aggression, would it have made a difference in our more recent history and current military role in the world? Thank you for remembering Dr. King today.
That's outrageous. King's Riverside speech against the war is one of the most important speeches of the decade, focusing on whether or not his ranking of the violence as "the greatest" seems like someone's almost intentionally trying to miss the point. The speech marks the break MLK made with LBJ and highlights the pivotal tension between America's domestic and foreign policies. Mr. Wingate seems not to understand that history that solely celebrates the nation's institutions isn't history -- it's straight up propaganda. And that's what has no place in schools.
What a start to a morning (PST). This and learning about Blackbiird inspiration first. High to low. Just like our country’s ongoing battle against white supremacy. I’m feeling energized.
In Madison County, Virginia, Dr. King's 1967 speech on the Vietnam War has been banned in our high school. The speech appears in a textbook, but teachers are prohibited by the school board from teaching it. School board member Christopher Wingate claimed that the speech "did not reflect a love of country or respect for the military." He further scorned the statement that the U.S. "is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today," stating that it was ridiculous because "the Soviet Union existed at the time." Several community members argued against this, of course, but to no avail. I've researched this, but can't find evidence of a scholar revisiting this speech to confirm that Dr. King was correct in his assertion. If there is such an analysis, I would love to know about it. Had we been honest then (I know the speech was deeply unpopular at the time) and now in acknowledging our aggression, would it have made a difference in our more recent history and current military role in the world? Thank you for remembering Dr. King today.
That's outrageous. King's Riverside speech against the war is one of the most important speeches of the decade, focusing on whether or not his ranking of the violence as "the greatest" seems like someone's almost intentionally trying to miss the point. The speech marks the break MLK made with LBJ and highlights the pivotal tension between America's domestic and foreign policies. Mr. Wingate seems not to understand that history that solely celebrates the nation's institutions isn't history -- it's straight up propaganda. And that's what has no place in schools.
What a start to a morning (PST). This and learning about Blackbiird inspiration first. High to low. Just like our country’s ongoing battle against white supremacy. I’m feeling energized.