I know that some in the “traditional” civil rights community (read “African American” civil rights leaders) reject the notion that gay rights involve civil rights. This is partly due, of course, to the profound influence of religion in the historical civil rights movement. We’ve seen the influence of religion on King.

We also examined the philosophical foundation of King’s thinking about civil rights. Now, some think that King would not include LGBTQ issues under the rubric of civil rights. Others think that he would take seriously his own words, “injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.” From my perspective, the answer to WWKD? – what would King do? – is as complicated as the question I asked at the end of the semester: would either Thoreau or King have tried to convince Socrates to escape from prison? There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.

Here is a description from the Chronicle of Higher Education of a recent boycott against a hotel that was hosting a meeting of the American Historical Association because the hotel owner fought strongly against same-sex marriage.

Tension over gay-rights protests and a depressed job market set a dismal tone at the American Historical Association’s annual conference…

About 75 activists chanted “boycott” and cheered when Cleve Jones, the well-known gay-rights activist, said his message for the association was that “history is on our side.” In an interview, Mr. Jones said the association’s decision to hold a session on gay and lesbian history only “added insult to injury.” As for the scholars of gay and lesbian history, Mr. Jones said that he was sure they were “well-meaning” but that history would record only that they chose not to honor the boycott.

Share/Bookmark

Having been immersed this semester in discussions of civil disobedience, it’s impossible for me, at least, to not keep Socrates and King in mind when I learn of social unrest and injustice in the world.

Would an Iranian Socrates willingly allow himself to be taken to Evin prison? I admit this hypothetical is a difficult one to take on. Socrates, I’m sure, had great confidence in the laws of Athens. I’m not so sure he would undertake the same action in Tehran.

I’ve often wondered where the Muslim “Martin Luther King” is in the Islamic world. Where’s the Gandhi? This direction of thought has been made all the more a matter of concern since I finished reading a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Spoke in the Wheel. I highly recommend it.

The middle class Bonhoeffer moved from a concerned bystander, to passive resistor, to active resistor, even to the degree of sanctioning violence. Bonhoeffer was in contact with Gandhi and had hoped to visit Gandhi in India. Would Gandhi have tried to convince Bonhoeffer to avoid the violent resistance to Hitler?

Many “go along to get along” Blacks in the South became active participants in the nonviolent resistance movement. Thousands of people eventually followed Gandhi’s lead in India. His methods worked against the British and King’s methods worked against the American segregationists. Would it have worked against Hitler or Stalin?

Most people think not.

But what about Iran? We witnessed some nonviolent action last summer immediately following the elections in Iran. We saw Neda’s lifeless body. Today there are reports of more deaths. The demands are known, the body count is rising. What’s next?

From the NY Times:

In a statement posted on his Web site, the Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who took part in the revolt against the Shah in the 1970s and is now a supporter of the opposition, denounced Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, for today’s violence. Mr. Makhmalbaf’s statement sarcastically praises Ayatollah Khamenei for outdoing the caliph Yazid, whose forces killed the Shiite martyr Imam Hossein on Ashura, the holiday being celebrated today in Iran:

Khamenei! You are more scrupulous than Yazdi. You won! Yazid is no longer the top winner of killing people on Ashura. You beat him.

I am so sorry that I fought against the Shah when I was 17. He left the country when he realized that people no longer wanted him. but you are resisting until everyone else leaves the country.

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

The second scene is about Socrates’ trial. Andocides has switched sides: despite taking Xanthula’s money, he now speaks on behalf of the prosecutors. It is Lysias, whose speech on love is discussed in Plato’s Phaedrus, who proposes to defend Socrates, but the latter refuses, again. Xanthula asks her money back from Lysias, but it is not clear why, since she only gave money to Andocides.

Andocides gives two reasons for Socrates’ accusation: his corruption of young men and his atheism (the most important reason, i.e. Socrates’ anti-democratic stance, becomes clear at the end of the scene). To these two main reasons Andocides later adds some comical ones, that Socrates would have instigated youngsters to use drugs and to keep rats. After Andocides’ speech it is time for Socrates’ defence. The reader/spectator who is familiar with the Apology of Plato (and of Xenophon) will be surprised at Socrates’ words. Here, Socrates is not the triumphing philosopher, but a very weak person, who even wants to weep at the end of the scene. We might see this as an evocation of the frailty and impotence of the individual in the face of the state system. The scene ends with the verdict: the votes for acquittal are equal to the ones for the death sentence, but the judge (Democratia herself) has the last word. She condemns the philosopher to death. The conclusion has a clear political message: in the end it is democracy itself that condemns an individual to death.

While the last scene of the first act is a comic highlight, the last scene of the second act is a tragic highlight. We are now in Socrates’ prison. The situation recalls Plato’s Phaedo, but what happens is totally different. A demonstration has taken place in Athens calling for Socrates’ release. Socrates disapproves of the chaotic and violent situation in the city, and we might see here Socrates depicted as an ancient Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Because of the anarchy that rules the city as a result of the people’s call for Socrates’ release, Democratia comes to visit Socrates in prison. Playing the role of Plato’s Crito, she offers Socrates to flee into exile. As in Plato’s dialogue, Socrates rejects the offer. He does not want to violate the law, for he wishes to be a model for society.

A comic interlude is provided by the entrance of Xanthula and her maid. Now his wife truly is “A Belle in the Prison of Socrates”. This meeting is comic, for, when Hedone sees Socrates together with Democratia, she thinks the two are having an affair. Like Democratia, Xanthula tries to persuade Socrates to escape, but again he does not agree.

Next, Socrates has another guest: Plato himself. Like the encounter between Socrates and Aristophanes, this is a highly pleasant meeting for classical philologists. An intertextual joke is made at the beginning of the dialogue between the two philosophers: Socrates’ question if his pupil is still ill reminds of the opening of Plato’s Apology, in which is said that Plato could not be present at Socrates’ trial, since he was ill. Afterwards, Plato says he is planning to travel to Egypt to gain wisdom. This is an allusion to the legend that Plato went away from Athens for a while after Socrates’ death.

After Plato has left, together with Socrates’ wife, maid and children, Socrates’ guard (well-known for the warm relationship he has with Socrates in Plato’s Phaedo) reveals that he has instigated a revolution and thrown off Democratia. Now that he is in power, he wants to set Socrates free. Socrates does not agree, for he considers the usurpation illegitimate. In accordance with Crito, Socrates wants to carry out what the law has condemned him to do, and so he drinks the cup of poison and falls dead.

Hence, the comedy has become a true tragedy, showing what democracy can do to people who oppose to the system. An evolution is certainly evident, throughout the play, in Socrates’ attitude to democracy. While Socrates’ criticism of democracy is light at the beginning of the play, the piece progressively acquires a more bitter tone. The play ends with Socrates’ determined opposition to the democratic system. The play thus develops from what first seems a mere comedy towards a tragedy, in which the dangerous sides of democracy are emphasized.

Share/Bookmark

As a white activist, civil disobedience has a whole different meaning. Many white activists have grown up without fear or distrust of police. If I am arrested, I am not worried that I will be treated unfairly because of my race. If I am arrested for an act of civil disobedience, it will probably result in a few hours or maybe a night in a jail cell, charges will most likely be dropped, and life will go on.

How different for the college students King is describing! How vastly different for the illegal immigrants living in the U.S. today! Racial privilege must be considered when reading about and discussing civil disobedience. Disobeying a law with the risk of arrest has different weight for different people. It took me a few paragraphs to appreciate the heavy risk undertaken by black college students in the 60s. It took me a few more paragraphs to think about the risk faced by “illegal” activists today.

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

I’ve also made Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed and Delicious accounts.

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

King begins:

Something is happening in Memphis; something is happening in our world. And you know, if I were standing at the beginning of time, with the possibility of taking a kind of general and panoramic view of the whole of human history up to now, and the Almighty said to me, “Martin Luther King, which age would you like to live in?” I would take my mental flight by Egypt and I would watch God’s children in their magnificent trek from the dark dungeons of Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea, through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in spite of its magnificence, I wouldn’t stop there.

I would move on by Greece and take my mind to Mount Olympus. And I would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon. And I would watch them around the Parthenon as they discussed the great and eternal issues of reality. But I wouldn’t stop there.

Here is the text of King’s last sermon, the night before he was assassinated. (There’s also an audio clip of a small part of the sermon.)

Share/Bookmark

King, who was 2 when his father came to India, visited several sites including the place where Gandhi was cremated, his memorial and an exhibition of pictures put on by the American Embassy in Delhi.

Another account here and one here that focuses on the jazz musicans, such as Herbie Hancock, who were involved in the trip.

Share/Bookmark