Several cartoonists commented on the lack of progress in the half-century since the March on Washington and MLK's iconic "I Have A Dream" speech. I like Chan Lowe's take because of its blandness.
Start here: To say there has been no progress is to reveal your ignorance of the status quo in 1963.
I guess some of the blame may be the beatification of King, who has become such an icon that his messages of hope have overshadowed his overarching demands for justice. Like Rosa Parks, he has become a name in those textbooks that view history as a progression in some predetermined pathway to Manifest Destiny, more of a milestone than a person.
Rosa Parks is the "tired seamstress" -- never the active NAACP officer -- who just happened to refuse to move one day, and so America found out about segregation and fixed it. And Martin Luther King made a speech about a dream, and so we found out about that and we fixed that, too.
Now black people can sit anywhere on the bus and we got rid of those water fountains and black people can drink coffee at Woolworths, too.
All better!
Just like when President Kennedy made a speech and so Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Never mind the scientists and test pilots, and never mind James Farmer and Thurgood Marshall.
Keep it simple. Cut to the chase.
I was standing in line at the post office the other day, and I saw a poster promoting the new stamps, and this particular one was featured, and I started chuckling to myself, because I know that, in promotional versions of stamps, they always strike out the denomination to make it harder for people to simply copy them and create counterfeits.
But in light of the Supreme Court decision and the resulting legislation in North Carolina, Texas and other places, it seemed appropriate.
I think they should issue the stamp just like this.
And speaking of the Supreme Court, there's a bit of a metaphor at play there, if you want to ask "What has happened over the past 50 years?"
One thing that happened is that, in 1967, Lyndon Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall who had compiled the best record of winning cases before that court, and who, before MLK ever made a speech, had earned such a reputation that there was comfort in the community when it was said, "Thurgood is coming."
And then, when he retired in 1991, George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, who had not only never argued a case before the Court, but whose reluctance to participate in cases from the bench has become such a hallmark of his tenure that, when, this year, he muttered an off-the-cuff remark during arguments, the unprecedented outpouring was covered as a news story.
And whose views on states rights, affirmative action and civil rights in general are so out of step with those of the man he was appointed to replace that the magazine Emerge portrayed him in a cover that became famous for saying that within the community that could not be said outside the community.
The bottom line is this: Clarence Thomas was chosen to replace Thurgood Marshall because of his race, not his views, and yet he was indeed nominated because of his views.
The second part is cool -- we expect presidents to nominate justices who reflect their values. (And, speaking of lawn jockeys, GHWB apparently thought "taking the reins" meant tending other people's horses.)
The first part, ah, well, here we are, a half-century later, asking others to be race blind in exchange for tokenistic gestures of appeasement.
And still seeing them as "others." As "them."
I kind of miss Bull Connor and Ross Barnett and the screaming parents of Southie. There's real honesty in overt bigotry, something decent about saying what you believe instead of hiding behind a cloak of civilized rationalization.
With today's polite explainers, you have to constantly ask if they understand what they're saying or if they just don't get it. Like Spencer Tracy trying to come up with reasons his daughter shouldn't be in love with a polite, wealthy, successful doctor, it's not that hard to see why he objects, but it's hard to tell whether or not he sees it.
I hated that movie. Watching liberals articulate their concerns is far more frustrating than listening to bigots yell the N-word. And now the bigots have co-opted rationalization from the liberal eggheads and can explain things like voter ID without ever saying That Word.
Half a century after King's speech, a great deal has changed. It's not only unfair to a great many people, but simply bad history to suggest that things have not improved markedly.
But the goal was not simply to get rid of the signs on the damn water fountains.
Nor should it have been to lull people -- of any color -- into the complacency of believing that, as long as firehoses are only being used to put out fires, then everything is okay.
Today, it is that complacency which is the villain, that sense of normalcy.
What makes Chan Lowe's cartoon so effective is the blank expression on the face of the man who is not smiling, or smirking, or scowling, or looking guilty, because he sees nothing remarkable in simply tending a booth.
After all, if it wasn't supposed to be there, it wouldn't be there.
Right?
Right!
Comments