Review of Martin Luther King’s Why We Cant Wait

 

Dr. King’s Why We Cant Wait was written in response to the actions surrounding the call for equality from the 1950s and early 1960s.  During the 1955-56 Montgomery bus boycott, King, along with other African-Americans, whites, women, men, and children organized and pushed their plight of racial inequality to the forefront of national attention. In 1954, the Brown v. the Board of Education decision made it illegal to continue the stance of ‘separate but equal’ measures in the schools. As the decision was passed down by Chief Justice Warren, he stated that “we conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place”[1]. The decision boosted the self-image and self-respect of the black community1. However, by 1963 only a mere nine percent of southern schools followed this measure highlighting the struggle of state vs. federal conscience in the fight for civil rights not only within the Africa-American culture but also within the Jewish, American Indian and Asian populations.  Dr. King’s book is a testament of the fight for civil rights and a history of the struggle not only against slavery which ended with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, but a synthesis of the posturing and politics which was promised and repealed time and again by the Presidencies of Roosevelt to Kennedy as well as the struggle for acceptance at the state and local levels, particularly in the south.  Even while the nation prepared to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, Vice-President Lyndon Johnson stated that “Emancipation was a Proclamation but not a fact” (King 1964, 9).

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and A. Philip Randolph attacked the political pillars which halted the full administration of de-segregation during the early 1940s.  In a threat to march on Washington D.C., Randolph, like King, understood the power of using the political system to their advantage.  With the United States geared for World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt fell to the pressure of internal political strife and issued Executive Order 8802.  This order was “The first Presidential directive on race since Reconstruction, it established the President’s Committee on Fair Employment Practices”.[2]

King’s work takes aim at the political struggle that took place during the Truman administration even though Truman convened a high-level committee on civil rights.  While politically motivated, Truman issued Executive Order 9808 which created the President’s Committee on Civil Rights[3].This committee, made of politically-correct mixture of business, religious, geographical and social demographics, created a list of inequities directed at areas of American life.  The findings and subsequent recommendations of this committee enhanced King’s argument for why 1963 was the year that the African-American could no longer wait for their constitutional rights as free citizens of the United States.

 

Like many of the white and black leaderships, President Eisenhower also believed that King’s movement was moving “too far, too fast”. [4]  Like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower added to the complexity of the situation by becoming the “first President since Reconstruction to use armed troops to protect African-American citizens and their constitutional rights”.[5]

John F. Kennedy’s administration had promised equality and a resolution to the problems facing the disenfranchised of American society.  However, as King pointed out “ President Kennedy, if not backing down, had backed away from a key pledge of his campaign – to wipe out housing discrimination immediately ‘with the stroke of a pen’” (King 1964, 6).  Like Truman and Eisenhower before him, Kennedy was desperate for the votes of southern democrats to push his domestic agenda.  He realized that upsetting southern political and social life would cost him votes.  As such, both John and Robert Kennedy, the United States District Attorney, played a much maligned waiting game of tolerance weighing the problems of both sides of the pendulum.

In addition to pointing out the long political battles being waged within the nation, King also described the freedoms which were opened to their African neighbors against colonialism.  The freedom of African States reinforced the possibility of freedom within the African-American community and supported King’s fight for immediate equality and justice under the law. “He knew that by 1963 more than thirty-four African nations had risen from colonial bondage” (King 1964, 8).  However, the freedom of the nations of Africa was not the only supporting argument available to King and his coalition of freedom fighters.  The cold-war developed after World War II brought about intense pressure within the United States to prove themselves worthy of global admiration for their sense of liberty, security and justice for all.  The continuing racial crisis was often used by the Kremlin as a means of propaganda. The conflicts in Atlanta, Birmingham, and Detroit all received international media attention.  The vicious scenes of violence, death, and insurrection were beamed across the world.  The Soviet Union used these images to denounce the democratic way of life.  Politicians took notice of the attack on democracy and as violence grew, so did the need for federal intervention.  King used his talents and unique understanding of the political games waged by one Presidential administration after another as a means of provoking the administration to focus on the issues and realized that this was the time to strike while the eyes of the world were on American values.

While striking against segregated schools, transportation and political strife, King also spoke of housing, employment, and health care in terms of basic human respect.  By 1963, little movement had been made in the area of improving housing. African-Americans were still segmented into lower housing standards, denied access to public facilities for which they paid taxes.

In Employment, African-American men were habitually placed at menial jobs, prevented from receiving promotions, or paid substantially less than their white counterparts.  “Equality meant dignity and dignity demanded a job that was secure and a pay check that lasted throughout the week” (King, 1964, 10). 

Over the period of time from 1955 – 1963, some improvements had been made regarding the ability of African-Americans to find employment. However, by 1963, it amounted to no more than ‘tokenism’ meant to satisfy the African-American watchdogs for equality and to show to the American public that something was being done to aid the plight of millions.  ‘Tokenism’ was not held only for employment, but was used as a means to show resolve in the school system and the housing arena. King admonished the cycle of ‘tokenism’ as a means to “obscure the persisting reality of segregation and discrimination” (King 1964, 17).  King’s view was not shared by all within the African-American community.  Men like Booker T, Washington and W.E.B. DuBois suggested that the African-American culture should move slowly and appreciate the value of having an African-American as an executive to a corporation, a member of the political elite or even that their children were being integrated into white school districts or attending previously all-white colleges and universities. King was accused of being too quick throughout his campaigns to which he replied “If we are wrong, so is the Supreme Court and the constitution”. [6] King denounced this as too little, too late and demanded full-equality for all, now! 

King also had contemporaries in the south who believed that he and his followers were moving too quickly.  In April 1963, King and his followers were arrested after refusing to obey a court injunction to cease his demonstrations.  While spending time in the Birmingham jail, King wrote a letter in response to the comments of the clergy from Alabama.  In his letter he reinforced the need for solidarity within the movement and believed it necessary to justify the progression of demonstrations, boycotts, and litigation.  He focused on the plight of the African-American, but also spoke of “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King 1964, 65).  In his rebuttal, King held the view of a free America where children are able to live, attend school, and become educated in order to receive a job with a standard of living that provides for their families; live in comfortable and safe neighborhoods; accept the price and enjoy the services of health care, recreation and travel – all without worrying about the color of their skin (King 1964).  But in addition to the emotional rationalization, King identifies the political and economical advantages associated with removing the barriers to equality.  Schools and public institutions that are segregated – or provide for a ‘separate, but equal’ stance required an outlay of capital to develop and a steady stream of funding to maintain.  Therefore, removing the barriers and eliminating segregation allowed local, state and even national savings. 

 

Politically, the use of segregation reduces the overall quality of life that America stands for and purports to the world.  The very basis of the Constitution allows for equality for all – yet a growing population of post-war African-Americans was denied their equality.  While white America became complacent with their place in society, the political progress of African-Americans was stunted.[7]  No one was willing to give up their orderly lives and succinct schedules to tackle the burden of providing justice for all.  King stated that “to accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system”.[8]

As a member of the NAACP, King extolled the work being done through legislative means to bring about change for the African-American.  With the NAACP’s charge “to promote equality of rights and eradicate caste or race prejudice”[9], the numerous lawsuits presented by the group attacked social and racial injustices in all areas of life.

King discussed his philosophy of non-violent protest and often had to defend it. As a leader and Christian, “King not only led many specific civil disobedience campaigns, but he also served as the movement’s foremost strategist, theorist, interpreter, and symbol maker”.[10]  Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, violence against African-Americans, while not unique or new, was seen and heard through the medium of television.  Graphic images of the lynching, beatings, and torture as in the case of Emitt Till[11] who was removed from his home and beaten to death provoked a natural response of outrage and a need for revenge and justice.  Since justice was, for the most part, unavailable to the African-American especially in the south, an urge for revenge was strong.  Many conflicts like this required King to intervene and explain his doctrines and how, through nonviolent means, change occurred.  While the majority of the freedom fighters supported King’s doctrine, many, like Malcolm X, believed that only through violence could a man be free from oppression and hostility.  King countered with “the Negro turned his back on force not only because he knew he could not win his freedom through physical force he could lose his soul” (King 1964, 21). During his Birmingham crusade, King found it necessary to mix direct and indirect methods.  In April, 1963, the City of Birmingham presented a court injunction to King and his followers to halt all further protests and demonstrations.  While King advocated following the laws of the land and through them uncover the injustice they held, he was forced to disobey a court order. However, the divergence of thought continued and brought the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and NAACP to form both political and direct methods to achieve the goals set forth for the disenfranchised.

            As King entered his Revolution in 1963, he talked about Eugene “Bull” Connor who as Commissioner of Public Safety in Birmingham, Alabama, Connor held a maniacal tight-fisted approach to the civil unrest sparked by endless confrontations between African-American groups and the white supremacist population.  King again used his ability to use political characteristics to bring his ideas to the public.  King, along with Ralph Abernathy, used Connor as a means to an end.  Predicting the behavior of Connor and his officers as tyrannical – willing to use whatever means necessary - King launched campaign after campaign toward freedom anticipating that Connor would show his true nature and cause disruptions which brought King and his followers’ national coverage on their demands.  However, it was not necessarily the people, like “Bull” Connor who were at the core of the problem in Birmingham but, according to King “the silence of the good people” (King 1964, 36).  Indeed, King understood that the African-American in the south was conditioned to believe they were sub-human and unfit to hold themselves up as equals in a white-man’s society.  After years of abuse, intolerance, and injustice, the African-American was too overwhelmed with simply staying alive from day-to-day to worry about the impact that King and his followers made.  It wasn’t until the 1960s when the children of the Revolution would stand up for their rights and finish what their parents had only considered for so many years before.

Throughout the summer of 1963, King and his followers attempted to construct a viable plane of discourse with city and national leaders over the growing racial crisis.    In Birmingham, King wanted to end segregation at the lunch counters, rest rooms, and department stores; remove the stigma associated with the demonstrators and replace it with a new sense of Black pride and power; force the city to adhere to the governing laws of the nation; and to establish a biracial committee to attack issues immediately (King 1964).  As had been seen in many other places and around other negotiation tables – talk was cheap.  Deals were made that were quickly broken. However, with profits down and both white and black patrons refusing to frequent the stores and restaurants, businesses acquiesced and in May 1963, an agreement was reached to desegregate and establish committees to oversee the activities.  The agreement was “flashed across the world” (King 1964, 95).  The reprisal by the white establishment was fast and relentless.  The Ku Klux Klan held rallies and burned crosses as a means of enforcing the status quo.[12]  Dr. King’s brother, A.D. King, had his home bombed.  The ensuing riots broke the fragile peace and hundreds of African-Americans were sent into the streets in protest, no longer willing to listen to nonviolent methods as a means to bring about change.  Finally, the administration of President Kennedy had to act and sent in troops to return peace to the area.

Throughout 1963, the Revolution of the African-American dream of equality was administered throughout the United States.  King stated that “with initial success, every social revolution simultaneously does two things: It attaches to itself fresh forces and strength, and at the same time it crystallizes the opposition” (King 1964, 108). The movement had sparked demonstrations throughout the United States and whites who were in favor of granting African-Americans their rights spoke out in support of King’s nonviolent, yet direct methods toward action.  The culminating action was the march on Washington, D.C. in August of 1963.  Drawing from the successes of boycotts, demonstrations and negotiations throughout the United States, King and his followers understood the political impact that a direct march would have on solidifying their demands.  Over 250,000 people were attracted to the capital from all walks of life, every state of the union, and of various classes and races.  King described the mass of humanity as “an army without guns, but not without strength” (King 1964, 113).  The event captured the attention of the world and not only reinforced the African-American struggle but also celebrated the democratic way of life at a time when the vision of American justice and democratic freedoms were being urged in cold-war Europe.

In his closing chapter, The Days to Come, King continued to outline the progress that African-Americans had made since the Civil War and the following Emancipation of the slaves.  He returns to World War II and the work started by the government in ending segregation in the armed forces.  However, the desegregation of the army meant more than simply requiring whites and blacks to work together toward peace – but also required a mutual respect.  From this freedom, African-American men no longer tolerated a second class place in American society, although, as the cartoon in a 1946 edition of, The Chicago Defender indicated, they left the war in Europe and the Pacific believing they had secured peace only to be met with intolerance and prejudice including a lack of jobs, improper housing, and even with violence that even wearing the uniform which defended our country could not stop.[13]

 

After one hundred years of waiting – the African-American could wait no more and during the events of 1963, they drove their expectation of absolute and immediate freedom without compromise (King 1964) into the full view of society.  King’s expectations included an idea for compensatory damages through governmental grants, such as the G.I. Bill, meant to elevate the African-American population toward an equal socio-economic status with whites.  In addition, a call to arms – educationally – was submitted and encouraged the black communities to enrich their lives through proper education, complete with the advantages of their white contemporaries.  Finally, King described a deep demand for government regulation, litigation, and laws which would remove the barriers against equality and justice and reinforce the rights and privileges of the African-American.

In closing, King realized that his dream was ongoing and that quick, overnight solutions to over a hundred years of suffering and injustice could not reasonably be expected.  He stated “I have no doubt that we may continue to differ concerning the tempo and the tactical design required to combat the impending crisis” (King 1964, 137). And the struggle goes on!