A radical democrat: King’s Last Campaign

The task of this paper is two-fold first, this paper result trace and formulate the evolution of Martin Luther major power, Jr.s belief that war, racism and economic inequity are all intertwined and can be dealt with the restructuring of societys priorities and turn to the necessity of a revolution of set second, this paper will besides explain how he carried out his beliefs in the Memphis Strike and the Poor mickles unravel in 1968 what the author and University of Washington professor, Michael K. Honey called Martin Luther faggots Last Campaign.At the onset of this paper, it is important to honor that fagots background which includes his race, habituation, education and religion among many other(a)s is all-important(a) in his struggle against racial discrimination, violence and economic in saveice as experienced by blacks in the United States of America. The son of a minister, he was habituated in the teachings of Christianity and was able to attend and complete his formal education with degrees in sociology, theology and divinity. King was a pastor himself at Dexter street Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama in the year 1953 prior to end his doctoral degree in systematic theology from Boston University on 1955.What prompted the Memphis Strike? Memphis in 1968 was ruled by a paternalistic grove mentality embodied in its good-old-boy whitethornor, Henry Loeb. Wretched conditions, abusive washcloth supervisors, poor education, and low wages locked close black workers into poverty (Honey, 2007). This motion picture of the political, economic and social conditions of the blacks in Memphis in 1968 by Honey whitethorn be cited as cases of construct and institutionalized oppression.By manufactured and institutionalized oppression, I mean oppression which involves the mechanisms of law and power transaction the basis of which is against the natural law. Natural law theorists, following the thoughts of St. Augustine that an unsportsmanlike la w is not a law at all and doubting Thomas notion of law as an ordinance of reason, view religion as basically tied up with the very essence of law.How does King figure in all of this? How can we explain the evolution of Kings ideological perspective? The point is clear Oppression and inequitable interference of individuals is not morally valid nor is it morally permissible most oddly if the basis of such is the individuals ethnicity or race. As the Kantians believed, each person has a capacity for rational deliberation and woof and as such, an autonomous being with dignity and therefore, ought to be respected by virtue of being valet de chambre persons.The evolution of Kings ideological perspective may therefore be construed in such elbow room that it is a product, both of his experiences as a black living in a white-dominated society and his philosophical and political development and this may be inferred from Faircloughs book, Martin Luther King, Jr., 1995. Kings speeches very clearly glide by his views I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.I have the temerity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a twenty-four hours for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits (as cited by Carson, 1998).Three important points near King and his political thrusts, philosophical orientation and as to why he may be called a radical democrat may be inferred from the aforementioned quotation. First, as a leading figure in well-behaved rights movement King believed in the tenets of democracy and liberalism in the sense that he believed that both white and black Americans must have fair treatment in the realm of the law, for the purpose of law itself is the administration of social justice.Second, he believed in the non-necessity of violence. Influenced by Mahatma Gandhis civil disobedience, he believed that there are peaceful ways in and through which the paradox of political and economic injustice may be resolved. It may get along be inferred that for him, political, economic and social change can best be achieved not through violence and that the government should not keep itself finical from going to war, as in the case of the Vietnam War nor by transforming a mint or a sector of society but what is asked is a restructuring of the society as a consentient. King believed that a revolution of values is a matter of strict necessity. Kings views may be identified as radical in this sense.He emphasized the need to restructure raze how we think about black Americans or African Americans. It may be inferred that racism, the feeling of being superior over other race or ethnic group or nationality is grounded on the treat premises wrong modes of thinking and reasoning. It is by transforming our psyche and by challenge through reason and conscience that society as a whole may chart its rightful path towards genui ne social change.Third, he believed and fought not only for civil rights but also for economic changes especially labor rights and lobbied for law reforms to be enacted to protect Negroes from exploitation and oppressive schemes espouse by employers. These include fair treatment and equal work opportunity, just compensation, etc. This is how he carried out his beliefs in the Memphis Strike and the Poor multitudes Campaign. King served as a voice crying for the emancipation not only of black Americans but also of other human beings from the chains of oppression.Based on the above discussion, we can see why King believed that the problems and conflicts brought about by war, racism and economic injustice are all intertwined. What we can infer from his views is the interweaving and interconnecting patterns brought about by racism itself. provided racism is not in itself the root of the problem it is merely an picture of a traceable cause.This cause, this root of racism, is none oth er than a deformed value system, a wrong frame of mind resulting to feelings of superiority and even contempt and hate which further results to taking an unfair advantage of other human beings, plus a very materialistic market essentially driven by capital.The fault is, at bottom, deeply embedded with the minds of persons and a wrong value system, a wrong sense of pride and nationality, for it fails, in the Kantian sense, to respect persons for the sake of being human persons, not as mere means and tools that another person or race may use but as ends-in-themselves, possessing the capacity for rational thought, capable of making rational choices and thereby, beings that are autonomous and dignified and for the aforementioned reasons, deserve to be respected.ReferencesCarson, C. A Call to Conscience The Landmark Speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Warner Books Reprint variation (January 1, 2002).Fairclough, A. Martin Luther King, Jr. University of Georgia Press, c. 1995.Honey, M. Going Down Jericho Road The Memphis Strike, Martin Luther Kings Last Campaign W. W. Norton (January 15, 2007).