King's Anti-Imperialism and the Challenge for Obama
The Martin Luther King, Jr. that most Americans know is the man who said, "I have a dream" at a massive rally 250,000 strong in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963, while standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during a March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. That speech is about racial justice and ultimate reconciliation in the United States, and with the changes wrought in American law and practice by the Civil Rights movement, it is a speech that Americans can still feel hopeful about, even if we have not, as Dr. King would have said, "gotten there yet."
But there was another King, the critic of the whole history of European colonialism in the global South, who celebrated the independence movements that led to decolonization in the decades after World War II. The anti-imperial King is the exact opposite of the Neoconservatives who set US policy in the early twenty-first century. Barack Obama, who inherits King's Civil Rights legacy and is also burdened with the neo-imperialism of the W. era, has some crucial choices to make about whether he will heed the other King, or whether he will get roped into the previous administration's neocolonial project simply because it is the status quo from which he will begin his tenure as commander in chief.
Cont'd (click below or on "comments")
The US so neglects its educational system that relatively few Americans are exposed to world history in school. Few of them know that roughly from 1757 to 1971 the great European powers systematically subjugated most of the peoples of the world. tiny Britain ruled gargantuan India, along with Burma (Myanmar), what is now Malaysia, Australia, some part of China, and large swaths of Africa (Egypt, Sudan, Gambia, Rhodesia/ Zimbabwe, South Africa, Tanzania, Ghana, etc., etc.) The colonial system was one of brutal exploitation of "natives" by Europeans, who derived economic, strategic and political benefits from this domination.
Dr. King frankly saw this imperial system as unadulterated evil. In his "The Birth of a New Nation," a sermon delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama on 7 April 1957, King, just back from Africa, lays out his vision of the liberation of the oppressed from the failing empires.
He begins by celebrating the independence of Ghana (formerly the Gold Coast) on March 6, 1957, and praising the man who led his country to sovereignty, Kwame Nkrumah. King and his wife, Coretta Scott King, had traveled to Ghana to attend the independence ceremonies. He saw the victory of Ghana over the British imperialists as exemplifying a yearning in human beings in all times and places for liberty: "Men realize that freedom is something basic, and to rob a man of his freedom is to take from him the essential basis of his manhood. To take from him his freedom is to rob him of something of God’s image."
The state of being colonized, of being under the thumb of another nation, another people, is from King's point of view an existential disfigurement, robbing human beings of their status as theomorphic or created in the image of the divine.
King recalled the ceremonials that he had witnessed with his own eyes on African soil: ' The thing that impressed me more than anything else that night was the fact that when Nkrumah walked in, and his other ministers who had been in prison with him, they didn’t come in with the crowns and all of the garments of kings, but they walked in with prison caps and the coats that they had lived with for all of the months that they had been in prison . . . at twelve o’clock that night we saw a little flag coming down, and another flag went up. The old Union Jack flag came down, and the new flag of Ghana went up. This was a new nation now, a new nation being born. . . And when Prime Minister Nkrumah stood up before his people out in the polo ground and said, "We are no longer a British colony. We are a free, sovereign people," all over that vast throng of people we could see tears. And I stood there thinking about so many things. Before I knew it, I started weeping. I was crying for joy. And I knew about all of the struggles, and all of the pain, and all of the agony that these people had gone through for this moment.
After Nkrumah had made that final speech, it was about twelve-thirty now. And we walked away. And we could hear little children six years old and old people eighty and ninety years old walking the streets of Accra crying, "Freedom! Freedom!" They couldn’t say it in the sense that we’d say it—many of them don’t speak English too well—but they had their accents and it could ring out, "Free-doom!" They were crying it in a sense that they had never heard it before, and I could hear that old Negro spiritual once more crying out:
Free at last! Free at last!
Great God Almighty, I’m free at last!'
It was as he stood in the square at Accra after midnight on the first day of the independence of a former African colony that he remembered those lines, to which he referred again in his "I have a Dream" speech some six years later at the Lincoln Memorial. For King, Kwame Nkrumah was the Great Emancipator as much as Lincoln, and the achievement of civil rights for African Americans was a sort of decolonization, replicating the miracle of Ghana.
King recalled, in his 1957 sermon, how the new parliament was opened on a Wednesday and "here Nkrumah made his new speech. And now the prime minister of the Gold Coast with no superior, with all of the power that MacMillan of England has, with all of the power that Nehru of India has—now a free nation, now the prime minister of a sovereign nation." That phrase, "with no superior" was central to King's thinking, both about decolonization and about civil rights in the US. Colonized Ghanaians had had a superior in the form of the British high commissioner, who set policy for them by fiat. African-Americans under Jim Crow had a superior. But Nkrumah, as of March 6, "had no superior."
King took away from his experience in Africa the lesson that social mobilization was necessary to gain freedom. It would not be gifted from on high, since colonial officials had no interest in abolishing their own power. But King also said he admired Nkrumah's deployment of Gandhian techniques of nonviolent noncooperation to win independence.
He said he learned from the experience of Ghana that the quest for liberation would always be resisted, and that freedom workers should expect to go to jail, and to face fierce oppostion. He recalled of his return journey through London, ' remember we passed by Ten Downing Street. That’s the place where the prime minister of England lives. And I remember that a few years ago a man lived there by the name of Winston Churchill. One day he stood up before the world and said, "I did not become his Majesty’s First Minister to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."
And I thought about the fact that a few weeks ago a man by the name of Anthony Eden [then British Prime Minister] lived there. And out of all of his knowledge of the Middle East, he decided to rise up and march his armies with the forces of Israel and France into Egypt, and there they confronted their doom, because they were revolting against world opinion. Egypt, a little country; Egypt, a country with no military power. They could have easily defeated Egypt, but they did not realize that they were fighting more than Egypt. They were attacking world opinion; they were fighting the whole Asian-African bloc, which is the bloc that now thinks and moves and determines the course of the history of the world. '
King was referring to the Suez War of 1956, in which Israel, the United Kingdom and France conspired against Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had nationalized the Suez Canal that July. France feared Abdel Nasser because he gave hope and aid to the Algerian revolutionaries trying to end France's empire there. Eden caricatured Abdel Nasser as a Mussolini figure needing to be taken down a notch lest the colonized countries get uppity in imitation of him. Israel, always expansionist and land hungry, sought to take and keep the Sinai Peninsula right up to the Suez Canal.
Although King attributed the failure of the tripartite plot to the "Afro-Asian bloc," it was actually President Dwight D. Eisenhower who intervened to push the three miscreants back out of Egypt. Ike was afraid that the Arab nationalists would go Communist if the colonial powers and Israel insisted on humiliating them or refusing to let go of Arab land under foreign occupation. Eisenhower pressured Israel to give up the Sinai, which it did sullenly.
It should be remembered that in 1956-57, Britain, France and many in the US viewed Egyptian leader Abdel Nasser as a fascist, a tyrant, a supporter of terrorism who encouraged Palestinians in Gaza to attack Israel. King was not taken in by the propaganda, which covered for neo-imperial acquisitiveness on the part of the aggressors.
We celebrate today the birth of a man who supported anticolonial trouble-makers such as Nkrumah and Abdel Nasser against the global forces of empire. I think we may deduce from this stance exactly how he would feel about Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's war on the people of Gaza.
King saw attaining civil rights in the US and decolonization in Africa and Asia as parallel processes. It could be argued that Nkrumah's victory in 1957 was among the events that gave African-Americans hope in the Deep South.
Barack Obama told an anecdote about his father that reversed this causality. At the Brown Chapel A.M.E. church in Selma, Alabama, in March, 2007, 50 years after King saw Nkrumah become the ruler of a sovereign African country, Obama told the congregation: 'You see, my Grandfather was a cook to the British in Kenya. Grew up in a small village and all his life, that's all he was -- a cook and a house boy. And that's what they called him, even when he was 60 years old. They called him a house boy. They wouldn't call him by his last name.
Sound familiar?
He had to carry a passbook around because Africans in their own land, in their own country, at that time, because it was a British colony, could not move about freely. They could only go where they were told to go. They could only work where they were told to work.
Yet something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, “Ripples of hope all around the world.” Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. When men who had PhD’s decided that's enough and we’re going to stand up for our dignity. That sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.
What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, “You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites. So the Kennedy’s decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.
This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama. '
Obama's speech was also about the blessed estate of having "no superior," of not being a colonial subject, of not being called "boy" by one's alleged social and racial "superiors."
Obama's speech was an anticolonial one, which reversed the causation implicit in King's description of the independence celebration in Ghana. Barack Obama, Sr., was the recipient of a scholarship from the Kennedy administration that was offered in part under the influence of the US Civil Rights Movement.
The Neoconservatives, like Winston Churchill himself as long as he lived, never gave up the imperial dream. They approved of the 1956 attack on Egypt by Israel, France and Britain. They approved of Western dominance of the countries of the global South. And Bush and his think tanks wanted to revive empire, to pretend it was 1920, and that the common people lacked the skills to mobilize to stop their project of domination.
Obama's plan to order the beginning of a withdrawal from Iraq on day one of his administration is consistent with the anticolonialism of the King tradition and of Obama's own autobiography.
But the dark clouds over the Obama administration are Afghanistan and Palestine. What Obama accomplishes on those two issues will powerfully shape his presidency. Only if he can avoid perpetuating colonial abuses in both can he hope to claim the mantle of anticolonialism from King and from his own father. For the Bush administration assiduously robbed other human beings of their status as images of the divine, and the US will not be whole until Afghans and Palestinians can say in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at Last, Free at Last, Great God Almighty, I'm Free at Last."

|
25 Comments:
Thank you sir for rembering the oppressed in times of celbration and indulgence for the inauguration.
Thank you Prof. Cole for placing Dr. King's memory and words in context of what is happening today in the Middle East...after a quick review of Obama's speeches...esp. the one he made to IPAC...I think he is a bought man. I'm very disappointed but I do not think US foreign policy will chance little insofar Isreal and the Arab world in concerned.
Thanks for this post Dr. Cole.
I make this point every year... unfortunately it's a point that is too often drowned out, at least in the mainstream media.
Excellent, beautiful!!!!
It is a must reading for all, more so MM media.
Excellent article. Thank you very much.
While I don't share your enthusiasm for Obama, or for his oratory, such as it is, I think you have put your finger on two key points: 1) it's crucial that Obama NOT accept the way the Bush administration (largely following in the footsteps of prior administrations) has framed the issues, challenges and 'threats' that face us and 2) we must, must , must build a multipronged movement that 'moves the chains' of public opinon and public policy. And it's important to see how those things interconnect. Public policy helps determine public opinion, which in turn helps determine public policy. Just recently we saw a Rasmussen poll showing that the public's view on the israel-Hamas conflict was fairly evenhanded. Then the monstrously onesided Congressional vote came out which put all the blame on Hamas, and next thing you know, two polls come out that are almost equally onesided, pinning all the blame on Hamas.
The lesson to be learned, I think, is that we need to work inside and outside, movement politics and electoral politics, public policy and public opinion, media and lobbying, and so on - and gradually, little by little, we will surely 'move the chains' in the direction of more humane and progressive policy.
Strong stuff Juan, strong stuff. When my tears stop I'll go fix some coffee.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/01/crocodile-tears.html
January 18, 2009
Crocodile Tears
Palestinian historian, Tarif Khalidi, sent me this (I cite with his permission): "The grief shown for the civilian deaths in Gaza by Shimon Peres and the Israeli UN representative, among others, adds a wholly new dimension of significance to the phrase "crocodile tears". It was Ben Gurion who first showed them how to do it in 1948 after the butchery at Dayr Yasin with his tearful telegram of regret to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. We must implore the Israelis not to shed any more tears for fear the river of tears might overflow and flood us all. They murder some 500 women and children and maim at least a 1000 more and the world is asked to applaud the delicacy of their grief. THESE are the real obscenities of the Gaza war, a war waged against a population that Israel itself had once turned into refugees and for whose indiscriminate slaughter it is now grieving."
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
Nice piece-I was not aware of he Obama speech.
Thanks for bringing it all together for us, Juan.
That was beautiful.
Excellent, an excellent recap of what got conveniently lost when MLK was elevated to the pantheon of American mythic self-understanding (the bucket of water of last resort to put out prophetic fire...)
When prophets cannot be silenced, when they are dead, as much truth is drained off as can be gotten away with without making them look completely bloodless.
What remains is diluted with trivialities.
They are then sealed in plastic, placed on a pedestal and, if needed, their birthday becomes a national holiday...
Great post. It is really quite frustrating that so many remember King as merely a champion of the Civil Rights movement. I think of his work within the peace and anti-poverty movements as being every bit as valuable. Actually, King's legacy, to me, perfectly embodies Chaplin's speech at the end of "The Great Dictator."
Umn, I assume/hope it was a slip that you referred to the incoming President as "commander in chief" -- you know of course that the civilian President is CIC of the armed forces and is not the CIC of the citizens.
Again, as you know, CIC is an acceptable translation of the Roman title of Imperator, which was the title Julius Caesar preferred and which translates to "Emperor"
Like all icons, MLK has been simplified, maybe sanitized, in popular memory.
Like Mark Twain's anti-imperialism-- or Ronald Reagan's tax hikes-- King's anti-imperialism is not part of our popular memory of him.
This post contains an intellectually plausible argument, but one that has, I fear, little resonance in the US today.
This post reminded me of something that I have been wondering about for the past few days.
BBC PERSIAN TV was inaugurated a few day ago (with much fanfare on the part of the BBC and with equally vociferous disapproval on the part of the Iranian authorities.Ultimately, it is being broadcast from London, and without a Persian-speaking correspondent in Tehran.
But anyway, to cut to the immediate point. Your post got me thinking about the question of the US being able to build trust in parts of the world where it has hitherto exercised an unwelcome influence, and in particular in the Middle East. On the first two days of its broadcast, one of the items that BBC Persian aired was a survey of what Iranians think about their country and its various issues, and what people of other countries thought regarding the same.
One of the questions asked in this telephonic survey was whether Obama's coming to the White House would herald better relations with Iran. I do not remember all the figures now, but people from the US, Britain, Egypt and Pakistan were optimistic that this would happen. However, the response of Iranians was significantly more gloomy, in comparison. Only 41% of Iranians believed that relations between the two countries would improve, despite Obama's declared intentions to engage diplomatically with Tehran.
Why are Iranians so pessimistic on this issue? BBC Persian interviewed several commentator on this, who suggested their own reasons. One said that Obama's message of hope had been received and understood by people in the US, and even in Europe, but his message had little or no resonance in Iran. Another commentator observed, among other things, that Obama is often compared to the popular JFK, but it was during the latter's administration that the seeds of the Vietnam war were sown.
Of course, this was a telephonic survey, and thus prone to the errors associated with this form of opinion-gathering. Nevertheless it gives us occasion to raise some interesting questions regarding the many decades of US neo-colonialism in Asia that Martin Luther King so passionately spoke against.
(Disclaimer - The material from BBC Persian reported here is put down from memory and is paraphrased and may thus be flawed. Readers may check the BBC Persian website for further details)
ANONYMOUSLY...
Very well stated. Obama, being the least imperially connected of all our our Presidents, will have to fight hard and long to keep at bay the status-quo of the rich and established proletariat.
Islam is used today as Communism was post WW2. The only enemy we have in America is the enemy within us. If Obama can remain untethered he may be able to make some headway in the two state objective for Israel, but as for Afghanistan, there is no hope at all as long as America concludes that it has the faintest idea what to do there.
Fix the Israel/Palestinian issue, get out of Iraq and let India and Pakistan deal with their neighbors.
Americans who believe they know the answer continually prove they know less than anything. Look at this Financial mess. Regan didn't conceive small government, Goldwater did, but he enacted it and did it so irresponsibly that short term gain, both financially as well as politically, became everything and it all manifested itself in the absurdity of Iraq. Lowering taxes for the rich while fighting a war - what cruel madness.
Good luck to President Obama and good luck to us.
jm
Thank you for the excellent post. My 15 and 16 year old will be reading it as soon as they get home from school.
No day off for them today as we are making up a snow day.
Peace and good health to you and your family.
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=82445
January 19, 2009
Gazans Heading Back to Their Homes - If They Exist
BY IRIN
TEL AVIV - As relative calm settles over Gaza for the first time in three weeks following the Israeli ceasefire, the scale of the humanitarian crisis is becoming evident. Some 100 bodies have been discovered in areas that were previously inaccessible.
The grim discovery brings the Gaza death toll since the Israeli offensive began on 27 December 2008 to over 1,300, according to officials of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNWRA) - and that number is expected to rise. Over 5,400 have been wounded.
Israel has tightly controlled information during its military operation, not allowing foreign correspondents into the Strip, although some Israeli media were allowed in briefly - but under the supervision of the Israeli army spokesperson’s unit.
News agencies still operating in Gaza report that many of the civilians who had fled their homes over the past few weeks were heading back, carrying whatever they had on donkeys.
But many will find they have nowhere to return to, aid agencies said. It is now estimated - by the Israeli army in conjunction with some Palestinian sources on the ground - that the Israeli army destroyed some 15 percent of buildings in Gaza and severely damaged infrastructural facilities....
This article was a wonderful read. Thanks for taking the time to write it! What a lovely strain of King's thought to be made aware of.
Prof. Cole has outdone himself again. Fantastic piece.
I can hope, though I do not seriously expect, that Obama will reject the legacy of imperialism he inherits. He would never have been elected had he not assured the power interests that he would toe the line. He would instead have been discredited and left by the wayside, regardless of the will of the public.
Dr. King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today". His words are no less true today than when he said them. This is the side of Martin Luther King that I want desperately to see Obama bring to life.
Mr. Cole, excelent piece. Unfortunately, I don't share many people's enthusiasm for mr. Obama. I am happy, like many people outside the U.S., because it was about time that (a majority) americans gave themselves the opportunity to discover that the color of a person's skin is irrelevant; that what really counts is one's actions.
Obama practically didn't utter a word about the latest israeli genocide (that's what decent people call it). However, he did say that Hugo Chavez was an obstacle to progress in the region (latin america)! Wow! I don't agree with everything about Chavez (I don't see the point to being indefinitely reelected) but it's not like he's destroying a neighboring country's infrastructure!
Óscar Palacios
Mexico City
I often say to people who are commenting on some incident of the past few days as indication that the US or Israel must "get tough," that they are slicing their history too thin. A thicker slice will include more "on the other hands." Your column was an excellent thick slice of history.
One of King's most central legacies also often ignored in holiday remembrances, in addition to his anti-colonialism stance, is his stance against one of the results of colonialism, global poverty, and his encouragement for all Americans to learn about and combat it.
Download a free 2-sided inspirational flyer about Martin Luther King Jr. and what he fought for in this exact regard here:
http://tinyurl.com/KingFlyer
Think about the global poverty statistics included in the flyer - those in King's time - and those in the present time - something Obama is NOT addressing, and then get this information to as many others as you can. This would open other peoples' eyes to the currently still dreadful state of humanity - a necessary first step to what must be humanity's most pressing agenda - saving it from such unnecessary death and suffering on a scale that's hard to wrap your head around.
**Can you take to heart the words King spoke just 4 days before he was gunned down? That's what this flyer will ask you. Take the King Challenge - in his own words - and see.
You can also get the flyer by emailing me at Angie@WhatNewsShouldBe.org
Using the word genocide to describe the Israeli incursion into Gaza cheapens the term and is wholely inaccurate.
The perspectives of Obama and of Dr King have much in common. But they diverge on the crucial issue of war. On April 4, 1967, in one of his most memorable speeches, Dr King eloquently outlined his reasons for his controversial opposition to the Vietnam war and to war in general. He said: “A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: ‘This way of settling differences is not just.’”
Obama, however, has bought in to the notion of the “war on terror” and has pledged to ramp up national and international involvement in Afghanistan, the “central front in the war on terror”.
In stark contrast with Dr King’s perspective are Obama’s words: ““We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”
Obama made Dr King’s phrase (from the April 1967 speech) “the fierce urgency of now” a trademark of his campaign. However the context of this speech-a passionate denunciation of war-usually goes unmentioned.
For more on this see my article at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0812/S00141.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home