lartin Luther King: beyond vietnam --A Time to break Silence I come to this magnif icent house of worship ton ig ht because my conscience leaves me no other choice. i join you in this meeting because i am in dee pest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and i found myself in full accord hen I read its opening lines: a time comes when silence is betrayal. And that time has come for us in relation to vietnam The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most diff icult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing the ir government's policy especia lly in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great diff iculty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they of ten do in the case of this dreadf ul conf lict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty but we must move on And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is of ten a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a signif icant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesy ing of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance for we are deeply in need of a beyond the darkness that seems so close around us Over the past two years, as i have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as i have called for radical departures from the destruction of vietnam many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path at the heart of their concerns this query has of ten loomed large and loud Why are you speaking about the war, Dr King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? ""Peace and civil rights dont mix, they say Aren't you hurting the cause of your people they ask? And when i hear them though I of ten understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live In the lig ht of such tragic misunderstanding, i deem it of signa l importa nce to try to state clearly and i trust concisely why i believe that the path from Dexter Avenue
Martin Luther King: Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most dif ficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they of ten do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on. And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is of ten a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us. Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak f rom the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures f rom the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has of ten loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?" "Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people," they ask? And when I hear them, though I of ten understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path f rom Dexter Avenue
Baptist Church-- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where i began my pastorate leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight. I come to this platf orm tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to over look the ambiguity of the total situa tion and the need for a collective so lution to the tragedy of vietnam Neither is it an attempt to make north Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justif ia ble reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conf licts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides Tonight, however, I wish not to speak w ith Hanoi and the National liberation Front but rather to my fellowed [sic] Americans *who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conf lict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents. Since i am a preacher by trade i suppose it is not surprising that i have seve major reasons for bringing vietnam into the field of m y moral vision n. There is at the outset a very obvio us and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and ve been waging in Am a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor --both black and white - through the poverty program. There were experiments hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I ratched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and i knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such Perhaps the more tragic recognition of rea lity took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were king the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die toge ther for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. and so we watch them in brutal solidarity burn ing the huts of a poor village but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor
Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight. I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellowed [sic] Americans, *who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents. Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision.* There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the north over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate rejected and angry young men, I have told them that molotov cocktails and rif les would not solve their problems. i have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while mainta in ing my conviction that social change comes most meaningf ully through nonviolent action But they ask--and rightly so - what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation iolence to solve its problems, to bring about th changes it wanted. Their questions hit home and i knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos w ithout having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today --my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence i cannot be silent For those who ask the question, "Aren t you a civil rights leader and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace i have this further answer. In 1957 hen a group of us formed the southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto To save the soul of america we were convinced that we could not lim it our vis ion to certain rights for black people but instead affirmed the conviction that america would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing w ith Langston Hughes that black bard of Harlem who had written earlier it America never was america to me And yet I swear this oath America will be Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of america today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that america will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsib il ity was placed upon me in 1954** [sic]; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for peace was also a commission --a commission to work harder than i had ever worked before for the brotherhood man."This is a calling that takes me beyond national a lleg ia nces but even if it were not present I woul have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obv io us that i sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant f
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent. For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me f rom the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be f ree or saved f rom itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely f rom the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier: O, yes, I say it plain, America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath -- America will be! Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land. As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954** [sic]; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for
all men-- for Communist and capita list for their children and ours, for black and for hite, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enem ies so fully that he died for them? What then can i say to the vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithf ul min ister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must i not share with them my life? And finally as i try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place i would have offered all that was most valid if i simply said that i must be true to my conv iction that i share with all men the calling to be a son of the God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because i be lieve that the father is deeply concerned especially for his suf fering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them This i believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationa lism and which go beyond our nation's self -defined goals and pos itions. We are ca lled to speak for the weak, for the voiceless for the victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our broth And as i ponder the madness of vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideolog ies of the Liberation Front not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries They must see Amer icans as strange liberators. The vietnamese people procla imed their own independence *in 1954 --in 1945 *rather *-- after a combined French and Japa nese occupation a nd 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 ref used to recognize the Instead, we decided to support france in its reconquest of her f ormer colony. Our government felt then that the vietnamese peop le 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
all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life? And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads f rom Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suf fering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self -defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document f rom human hands can make these humans any less our brothers. And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries. They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence *in 1954* -- in 1945 *rather* -- af ter 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 f reedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her f ormer 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 follow ing 1945 we denied the people of vietnam the right of inde pendence For nine years we vigorously supported the french in the ir abortive nize vietnam before the end of the war we were meetin 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 def eated, 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 div ided nation, and the peasants watched aga in 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 ref used even to discuss reunif ication with the North The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States inf luence and then by increasing numbers of United states troops who came to help que ll the insurgency that d iem'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, especial ly in terms of thei 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 leaf lets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land ref orm. now they langu ish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. they move sadly and apathetica lly as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camp 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 us trees. They ander into the hos pitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inf licted 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 peasa nts think as we ally ourselves with the land lords 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? Where are the
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 ef fort 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 af ter they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization. Af ter 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 f rom 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 f rom 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? Where are the