The Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington D.C.
The quote on the Stone of Hope reads, “I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness.” The actual quote in its entirety, as spoken by Dr. King during one of his sermons in 1968 was, “If you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter.”
If you haven’t guessed by now, the Stone of Hope, and location of the first quote, is the setting of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. The great poet Maya Angelou has been very vocal in her criticisms of the paraphrasing of the quote. In her view, the omission of the word ‘if’ causes the entire statement to change from humbleness to braggadocio, which most definitely was not an attribute associated with Dr. King.
Does Angelou have a point? There’s an old saying that goes: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” which suggests that different things mean different things to different people as the answer to that question depends greatly on the eye of the interpreting beholder.
On one hand, Angelou makes a valid point, for those who tend to analytically read in depth. By the interpretations of that particular viewpoint, there is an element of arrogance that can be uncovered by those willing to dig for it. I can understand how hearing someone say “I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness” may sound very self-promotional, but without the tone and the setting to accompany it — things that will be noticeably missing when people read the quote on the memorial — any attempt to assign arrogance will be arrogantly speculative at best.
Just because a person tells you who they were then, who they are now, or who they plan to be tomorrow, it does not necessarily mean that they are bragging about it. Just because it may be considered to be bragging according to your intake means very little, because it could just as easily mean quite the opposite to the person releasing the information. Someone declaring that they were a drum major for justice and peace could always represent someone who takes great pride in their stances, and that does not necessarily make them pompous.
Remember, by saying with authority that one stands unfaltering for justice and peace, one also implies — with just as much authority — a stanch stand against injustice and violence. Surely those who only know the barest minimum about Dr. King should, in all honesty, be more than willing to give him the prideful benefit of the doubt, instead of an accusatory condemnation of egocentrism!
Still, on the other hand, when the word ‘if’ is added to the quote, it does bring about a certain and noticeable aura of humbleness to it; allowing only the public to decide whether Dr. King was worthy of being classified as a drum major for justice and peace. Overall, it sounds as if the entire conflict is the axiomatic version of splitting interpretative hairs, because neither quote sounds blatantly self-serving for the sole purpose of enhancing the greatness of an egotistical maniac.
One could even make the argument that only a detractor who either knew nothing of Dr. King beyond the handed down, Jim Crow negativity that fought so fiercely against Dr. King would genuinely extract anything overbearing from the paraphrased quote that currently rests on the King monument or the actual quote. Take another look at the statement: “I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness.” When you combine those words with the actual truths about the man who said them, there is nothing even remotely conceited about it. It’s as if the memorial is actually telling its audience who it was and what it was.
So, that’s where I stand on the whole “quote-gate” controversy. And yet, the matter of the quote and Maya Angelou’s anger is the least intriguing conflict surrounding the new memorial. Because unbeknownst to many in the public throughout the entire process of the MLK project, the memorial was actually designed by Lei Yixin, who just happens to be a sculptor from China, who also sculpted North Korean President Kim Il Sung’s statue. Now normally, none of this would mean anything, but today it means everything. There is nothing wrong with people around the world contributing to the legacy of Dr. King, but the timing of this particular situation has already become politically troubling.
As mentioned previously, there are many anti-Dr. King, Jim Crow nostalgia groupies throughout society. Some even show up openly in places like the Tea Party, the GOP and other conservative ranks. Aside from the paraphrased quote that is apparently burning a literary hole in Maya Angelou’s cognitive pockets, the fact that the Dr. King memorial was practically made in China has already become a cloud of negativity hanging over the monument, as many bloggers and journalists from the left and from the right have voiced their outsourcing disdain at the Chinese architecture on display in the nation’s capital.
Nominating Lei Yixin’s work as the work of choice has placed a bloody, outsourced albatross around the neck of the Dr. King Memorial that threatens to take away from the legacy the memorial is supposed to showcase, with or without the incorrect phrasing of the Dr. King quote. As unfortunate as it is, in this political climate, it is to be expected!
Throughout many of the media outlets, hate filled clamor and a total disrespect for the Dr. King Memorial (and for Dr. King as a person) has been on full display. There are nitpickers declaring that Dr. King was a communist anyway, so it’s only fitting that he be memorialized by another communist, as one more communist looks on from the White House, and there is no denying that a notion like that is easily more rampant within the right-wing of politics! The Jim Crow infidels who would happily misread the paraphrased quote on the Dr. King memorial are the same ones happily using the current environment of sour, U.S. manufacturing grapes towards China to try and discredit the legacy of Dr. King.
Honestly, it’s extremely difficult to believe that no one in the MLK Memorial Committee saw this coming when they selected the Lei Yixin design. Mainly for political reasons, this should have been a joint U.S., international activity or strictly an American activity, as not to freely give ammunition to those who already wanted to shoot holes in anything affiliated with Dr. King to begin with. Now, some Republican or some Tea Bagger will probably trot out in front of an audience and proclaim that under President Obama’s watch, not even a memorial of his greatest mentor could be made in the USA in this cadaverous economy that’s been flatlined by his failed, economic policies.
Despite the paraphrased quote controversy and the industrial irony of America’s (in particular, Washington’s) seemingly chronically longstanding inability to regenerate a domestic renaissance of production, this memorial is still a great and necessary thing to have, and everyone who believed in Dr. King’s message should take the opportunity to see it. The last time I checked, there weren’t many African American memorials on the National Mall — none to be exact — so pardon me while I rejoice over that triumph!
Remember, the idea of making Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday was initially opposed by many, including Sen. John McCain, and is still vehemently despised today. Seeing how this national holiday is still widely seen as some kind of reparation/kickback for slavery — if not some type of pacifier with a big, welfare bow on top — by many of those who consider themselves to be conservatives, Republicans and now Tea Baggers, anything celebrating the legacy of Dr. King should be acknowledged as the hard-fought victory that it is!
Believe it or not, their argument as to why a national holiday was even enacted for Dr. King is racially identical to the argument given as to why President Obama was really elected — because both men were Black — and that’s not coming from the Jim Crow past. This is from what is supposed to be our newly found post-racial society ushered in by the election of President Obama. And why I wish to suggest to Maya Angelou and the Tea Baggers that it’s not nearly as important that there is a word missing or that a non-African American did the work.
However, it is very important to appreciate the fact that the memorial is physically here, because similar to this current era of the first Black president, these kinds of strides, as evident by the rise of dubious and often intolerant, penny-pinching groups like the Tea Party, might not always be possible. While the Chinese manufacturing presence of the memorial does represent a sign of the times for today, especially in regards to the questionable judgments of Washington, let the sculpted, immortalized presence of a mighty Dr. King represent a different sign of the times, for all times.
The legacy of Dr. King is so great and so vast that bigots and other detractors can, only in their best dreams, hope to belittle or escape his ever widening shadow, because he is just as monumental having been memorialized as he always was beforehand. So, let this great man make the monument, because there is no monument great enough to ever make this great man. Regardless of the controversies, I will still be more than proudly honored to go and see the MLK memorial. It is now my official, American pilgrimage, because it is simply too important to be politicized out of its importance, knowing the history of the struggle.
By Bryian Revoner
No comments:
Post a Comment