Usually, when playing such a trump card - I think the expectation is that the other will see the light and change while we will be vindicated and declared the winner of the contest.  Less often, I think, does the quote apply equallly to the speaker and the listener. Perhaps it should more often. I certainly intend it to this day.

Too often, in doing so, we've turned this great man and his brilliant mind and heart into something safe rather than something confrontational. A few pithy sayings; postage stamps and statues rather than a continuing challenge to our society and ourselves. He wouldn't be the first.

I don't think anyone could seriously make the argument that Dr. King was a sellout,

a person of weak moral stamina,

that he compromised with society or accepted marginalization. 

Nay, he stood strong - continuously willing to speak out and when necessary suffer for his beliefs. Expecting not exceptions, but real change in the laws and attitudes he challenged, realizing that neither would come lightly.

Yet, significantly Dr. King managed to do something that we too often overlook. He disagreed - strongly. He challenged injustice - but he did not divide. 

He drew lines not to exclude others but to demand change. Recognizing change would not come instantly, he still refused to fall into the trap of hating and demeaning his adversaries.

He Did. Not. Divide. 

He refused to allow even those who persecuted him to become a "Them."  He recognized that whatever the conflict, we will ultimately have to live with those we now oppose and if we are to break the cycle of oppression, not merely change who's in power, then we have to start breaking the cycle in our everyday lives.

them never became "Them."  Rather, he lived by his own creedo of focusing on the content of character and when meeting an enemy, not writing him off, but seeking change and understanding.

Hard and fast divisions, stereotypes that belittled the other, these had no place in King's Dream and vision.

I think this lession is especially important for fights among those on the center to left of modern American politics. Whatever our deep disagreement, we have more in common than not.

Sadly, we on the "left" blogosphere seem very good at drawing lines ourselves - but they are too often lines to divide.  "Us" from "Them"  Real Democrats from Dirty Fucking Hippies and the DLC - both "Thems" of first order.

Real leftist from those damned centrist and ineffective posers...  we hate THEM!

The sad irony is that I'm sure everyone reading this has been on the outcast side of a line drawn in our society.

During the last 6 years, I'm confident that nearly every one of us reading this has been called a traitor, in the media if not to our faces.  Most of us have been called dirty fucking hippies. We've been divided on theological lines - with non-theist and liberal religious folks both feeling the pinch of minority status, told they need to STFU if "we" are to win elections.

Recently the members of MLW have been frequently vilified on dKos as "malcontents" "quasi-trotskites" ?! and "syncopants." 

Why - well MSOC had some "dirt" on Markos... how dare we criticize... how dare she....  whatever.

We became a "them" -  and it's not the first time. 

In return its common to see the membership of dKos reduced to a monolithic "them" of centrist appeasers.  That, in both cases, many of us are also part of them makes no difference...  nor does who started it.

Here's the problem - however justified we are in drawing the lines - the moment we allow our generalizations to become self-justifiing, the moment we create a "them" which can be mocked and stereotyped, considered a monolith instead of a range of individuals...
  - then we have become that which we are fighting.

And that is true even if our stereotypes are about Republicans, the "religious right" etc.  Yes - for ease of communication, we will of necessity have to refer to groups - the we cannot let that seep into our hearts and become fixed and normative.  A subtle, but critically important distinction.  I think readers of both the sites I post this on realize that.  Yes, we are generally united in working for Democratic candidates. We are even "partisan" - but we are not so fixated on that we will give up principle, ignore the logs in "our sides" eyes and succomb to a win at all costs mentality.

How many "old fashion" Republicans do you know who really dislike what their party has become, but wouldn't think of voting for a Democrat even as a "lesser of two evils" scenario.  After all - Democrats are "THEM"! 

Let us never become that.  Interestingly, for all the criticism of dKos to be found among the disaffected and banned malcontents I hang out with, I think the desire to challenge the Lieberman's of the world show that site hasn't crossed that particular bridge just yet.  (yeah, I'm still pissed about a few races too...).

A couple more quotes from Dr. King

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.

Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love"

And one I've always enjoyed, malcontent that I am....

Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.

In the religious tradition that Dr. King and I both draw strength from, our Scripture tells us that Jesus said to love our enemies.

That's a hard lesson. One often too easy to rationalize away or think impossible.

But when we do that, we give up on change. We give up on love. We, of necessity, endorse hatred, bigotry, oppression, even murder, genocide.

Yes.  If "They" cannot be reformed.

If we rule out any change.. then what is the alternative?

If we cease to give our adversary the opportunity to change. If we think "Them" locked inplace - then we have failed.  We have become what we are fighting.

What does success look like? 

A story I've heard repeated a few times, possibly apocryphal, but it will illustrate the point. If it didn't happen exactly this way, certainly it has in other ways. The story is profoundly true.

Here is a crowd in the American deep South, outside Ebenezer Baptist Church in Selma, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement.  The crowd hears that the notoriously brutal racist Sheriff Jim Clark  has ordered the brutal beating of a group of black college students.  A ripple of rage flows through the crowd, until a pastor steps up to the microphone, "Do you love Martin King?" he sings out. The crowd enthusiastically sang back, "Certainly, Lord. Certainly, certainly, certainly, Lord." _The minister goes on, naming leaders in the Civil Rights Movement. "Do you love Medgar Evers? 

Do you love Charles Steele? 

Do you love Rosa Parks?"

Each time he sang a name, the crowd sang back, "Certainly, certainly, certainly, Lord." The song is one of community, love, dedication, hope, focus... the words are well known.

"He goes on, naming names.... then, suddenly...

"Do you love Sheriff Jim Clark?"  "Cer-Certainly" - a few reply - 

Do you love Jim Clark?  Stronger now: Yes Lord. 

So the pastor continues - "It's not enough to defeat Jim Clark. We need to convert Jim Clark. If we hate our enemies, we're no better than them. We've got to love them until they change."

A side note on that loaded word "convert"  My tradition is horribly guilty of using that word in a way that deserves disdain and caution.

I'd note that it does NOT mean "force him to change on the surface through coerscion" as far too many have been "converted' to my tradition - no, it means continuing to suffer with (yes, the oppressor suffers too, even though it's a very different form) and confront the injustice until that person changes.

We cannot make a person change, but we can help them. It takes a hell of a lot more energy and commitment - but ultimately it's what we have to do if we're serious about breaking the cycles.

Is it possible?

Remember Nelson Mandela at his inauguration as President of South Africa.  Whom does he invite to be part of the celebration ?  The man who was his jailer on Robben Island.

There are some people on these blogs who REALLY piss me off. I often find that my limited energy and time is better spent without engaging them. But there is that word again - them.  If it's merely a pronoun for a group - that's fine. But if I let it become a noun...  well, then I'm actually spending a great deal of energy on "Them" - even if I'm avoiding "them"

In the imagery of a familiar Native American parable, That energy is feeding the wrong wolf. It's a cycle that ends in division, destruction and hatred.

One of the reasons I write Sabbath Time is to remind myself to find the point of balance, where the life and teaching of those great men and women who have transcended "us and them" might speak to me and inform my life.

Another reason is to remind myself that I cannot do everything. I cannot confront every person who I disagree with, I cannot help arbitrate every fight, I cannot champion every just cause. But I can chose, and be honest with myself about, how I spend my energy.  If I'm spending it harboring a grudge, looking for slights, etc - then I'm probably not making much progress.

As part of my candidacy process, I'm supposed to write a "rule" for myself - kind of a spiritual version of a mission statement.  I've not yet completed that task, but a major part of it will be to expand on this idea.  Am I spreading light or heat with this action or these words?  Certainly there are times when heat is appropriate, but more often than not we settle for that easy route when a bit more effort to focus on light would serve us better.

When I keep that in mind - both my anger / heat and my efforts on light bear more fruit. I do better avoiding destructive energy.

never let them become "Them" - as satisfying as it might be in the short run, we'll never break the cycle that way.

Disagree

But do not divide.