I was not one precious little bit impressed with the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial in Washington, D.C. I was stunned at just how unmoved I was. I walked around it again and again looking for Dr. King in this tepid gray ensemble of stones. I couldn’t believe this was what all the hype had been about. This was what it took years to raise $100 million to create. This was what all the controversy had been about: that a black artist was not chosen to coax the drum major of justice from stone into perpetuity, that the stone sculptors used was not American, that his obscenely greedy children demanded $800,000 for the use of King’s image and words on his own damn memorial.
Then Maya Angelou said King’s words were used in a way that made him sound arrogant, un-King-like. She waited, of course, until those words had already been etched into the monument to raise enough hell to get them tweaked. What Ms. Maya should have done was explain how this memorial turned out to be such a monumental disappointment, so painfully uninspiring and so utterly unworthy of this audacious leader for the ages.
Just in case my assessment was off, I asked my sister, who had been with the group of us who visited the memorial after the 50th commemoration of the March on Washington last August, for her opinion of it. “I was,” she said, “completely underwhelmed. Next to all the other memorials on the National Mall, this thing looks like a bunch of big rocks on a sidewalk.”
Unlike the Washington Monument, with its slender elegance pointing toward the sky and the majestic Lincoln Monument presiding over the National Mall and the beautiful Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in all its dramatic black granite glory with names of the fallen cascading over its stone brilliance, King’s Memorial, though 30 feet high, is unimposing.
A giant of the 20th century stands with his arms folded, a slight scowl, I think, on his chiseled face. He must be disappointed not just with the memorial but at the tragic truth that the monument precisely mirrors the current state of “The Dream”—a pile of clueless rocks squatting on a sidewalk.
One of the most controversial moves King made tore at the very seams of the movement. He pissed off those fighting beside him and infuriated some parents with his decision to lead black children into the torrent of racial hatred spewing from fire hoses that bigots aimed at protesters. He sent their unprotected tender bodies out into the funky breath and bared teeth and vicious growls of deadly police dogs loosed on the non-violent, civil righteous who were hell-bent on tearing segregation down.
King took a chance that even the most hard-hearted whites would be moved by this kind of brutality against children—any children. He was right. Those images stirred Americans across the nation and put enough political pressure on leaders to make them start moving in the right policy direction. He also knew what invoking the image of children could do when he said, “I have a dream … that one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and girls as sisters and brothers.”
King thought anyone would be moved to protect the least of these—our children, our future. But white children are more likely to get pain medication than black and Hispanic children. A black child born into poverty in Mississippi has about as much chance of growing up to have a thriving middle-class life as homemade ice cream in hell. And some folk looked at a 7-year-old Sasha Obama as she walked in the parade after her father was inaugurated the first black president and called her and her family n*ggers. Are you weeping for “The Dream,” yet?
Twice as many black teenagers are out of work as white teens, but our first black president is too damn scared to address that racial, economic disparity for fear he might upset white folk. A hoodie-wearing boy was murdered because his blackness made him fair game to a gun-toting wanna-be-cop murderer whom a predominately white, female jury let walk free. A black boy at a gas station was an easy kill for a white murderer who had demanded he turn down his own damn music. Are you weeping for “The Dream,” yet?
I can’t do a damn thing about that hot mess of sculpted stones masquerading as the Mountain of Despair and Stone of Hope—images from King’s iconic “I Have a Dream” speech—but I can fight like hell for Our Dream. Will you fight with me? It would clearly be unKing-like of you not to—but, hey, no pressure.
Carole Cannon is a southern woman who wants to be a Voodoo priestess someday. But for now, she is a graduate of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who writes to fight.
Previous Comments
I’m not impressed with the WWII monument, but yes Dr. King deserves better. And his family is a disgrace, with their greed, to his memory and his dedication to the cause of freedom for all.
#5265 | Author: Turtleread | Date: Jan 17 2014
“And some folk looked at a 7-year-old Sasha Obama as she walked in the parade after her father was inaugurated the first black president and called her and her family n*ggers. Are you weeping for “The Dream,” yet?” Some folk may have, but it doesn’t change the fact that the first black president was elected. So the only thing I’m weeping for is reading this nonsense.
#5270 | Author: js1976 | Date: Jan 17 2014
It seems to me that MLK was fighting for a level playing field and for opportunities black people were not allowed access to in his day. He won and now you have those opportunities. What you do with them is entirely up to you ma’am. You found the worst of this country to validate your whining column with. Some people are going to call Sasha Obama a nigger as she walks in her father’s presidential parade. THAT’s what you saw that day? The first black man elected president by a country supposedly so consumed with racism. A historic day and parade to match, people crying over this man many saw as a messiah, and THAT’s what you saw? People like you will never be happy and will always blame everything from a flat tire to menopause on the white man. Give it a rest
#5392 | Author: Scott1962 | Date: Feb 8 2014
JS & Scott, It’s hard to imagine that the two of you could be more predictable or less informed about racism in America. MLK didn’t “win.” He was shot dead by a white man in Memphis. It took another three years after he was in his grave for Mississippi to desegregate its schools … a mere 17 years after the Supreme Court declared that “separate, but equal” was no such thing, and seven years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination. And let’s not forget the hundreds of private “segregation academies” that sprung up overnight so that bigoted whites wouldn’t have to send their bigoted darlings to the same schools as blacks. King was never out to “win,” if winning means that someone else loses. It was never a contest. He worked for black equality in a country that didn’t afford that equality in his lifetime. To this day, the playing field is anything but level, as Ms. Canon pointed out. Are things better? Sure. Are they equal? Hardly. Barack Obama’s election didn’t magically end racism and inequality, either. Are you kidding me? The only people I know who hang “messiah” around his neck use it to denigrate the man and those who share his skin color–not to support or lift up either. When a black woman sees that the president and his family are still called n*ggers, that’s not whining or nonsense. It’s a statement of fact. When she says Obama hasn’t stood up against racial inequality, when she states a black man was killed because his music “offended” a white man, those are facts, too. That white man probably thought he had the “right” to kill the black man over it, just like Emmitt Till’s killers thought they had a “right” to kill him because he supposedly offended a white woman. When she’s not impressed with the statute of MLK and takes issue with who sculpted it, and if she is angry about the “worst” things, well, she has a right to be. Casually thrown out offenses to “people like you,” and saying anyone would be so petty or stupid to “always blame everything from a flat tire to menopause on the white man” make it abundantly clear that much of this country is still in the grip of an “us vs. them” mentality. As long as some people see the struggle for equality–for people of color, for women, for LGBT people, for the disabled, for every person who is excluded from the privileges of the dominant culture–as a zero-sum game, the struggle will continue. Thank God people like Cannon won’t “give it a rest.”
#5397 | Author: RonniM | Date: Feb 9 2014
Ronni, I’m very “informed” about racism in America. We just happen to face the problem from different points of view. You and Ms Cannon are to busy screaming for equality that you can’t even see the changes taking place right before your eyes. Our country voted not once but twice for a black president (that’s a fact), and Ms Cannon is too busy playing with her voodoo dolls to realize that even Dr King probably couldn’t even imagine this in his “Dream”. No where in my comment do I even suggest that the election of Barack Obama magically ended racism, but it does prove that the barriers to inequality are crumbling. Just an FYI though, she didn’t claim that she saw or heard anyone call the first family anything so it’s not a statement of fact. Since you bring up the killing of the young man in FL, please read my post on that article if you care to know my stance on it. Regardless, you have no idea what Mr Dunn was thinking. So if you want to stick to the facts, please do so. Thank God people like Cannon are a dying breed. Younger generations are realizing that their dreams can become realities and the “us vs them” mentality is dying with them. “The future rewards those who press on. I don’t have time to feel sorry for myself. I don’t have time to complain. I’m going to press on.” Barack Obama
#5402 | Author: js1976 | Date: Feb 10 2014
“King was never out to “win,” if winning means that someone else loses. It was never a contest” Someone else did lose by the way, racists, bigots, and everyone else that attempted to prevent minorities from having their civil rights. It wasn’t a contest it was a battle.
#5403 | Author: js1976 | Date: Feb 10 2014
JS, there’s a big difference between acknowledging the changes that have taken place and being seduced into thinking everything is hunky-dory simply because Barack Obama is in the White House. That’s what your “nonsense” labeling implies. The incidences that Cannon wrote about–and the inequalities that still exist–didn’t happen 50 years ago. As she wrote: “And some folk looked at a 7-year-old Sasha Obama as she walked in the parade after her father was inaugurated the first black president and called her and her family n*ggers.” And I wrote: “Are things better? Sure. Are they equal? Hardly.” Both Ms. Cannon and I pointed out that a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, and I never said I know what she’s thinking. I made an assertion that *if* she is angry that she has the right to be, which she does. If you believe that making statements about what African Americans are still dealing with *today* is mere “complaining,” you may not be as informed about the state of racial inequality as you seem to believe. Perhaps, you’re just not interested, which is your right. Know that your jab about voodoo–which is a real religion, btw–is both uninformed and insulting. What’s your alternative to speaking out and working for further change? Should Cannon and I just accept the status quo and shut up so you don’t have to hear it?
#5404 | Author: RonniM | Date: Feb 10 2014
What exactly did the racists and bigots lose, JS, other than a little misplaced pride? Certainly there’s no shortage of either, so they didn’t lose their right to be racists and bigots. They never had the right to deny others’ rights, so they couldn’t lose that. They can still isolate themselves and their children from other races, if they choose, so they didn’t lose that right. They didn’t lose the right to vote or the right to take advantage of public services. Perhaps whatever they “lost” only exists between their ears, not in reality. Not every struggle should be characterized as a contest, a “fight” or a “war.” All of those terms imply that someone has to give up or lose. It’s a really misleading and unfortunate choice of words when what you’re struggling for is equality, something all people should have. It’s semantics, sure, but words matter.
#5405 | Author: RonniM | Date: Feb 10 2014
Nothing I stated implied that everything is “hunky-dory”. Her continued use of “weeping for the dream” is what would call nonsense. His dream is becomming reality and if she would remove her blinders she might just witness it. In regards to my jab about voodoo, I could care less if it’s insulting. I wasn’t trying to make a friend, but how you can possibly determine that I am “uniformed” about voodoo from that one statement boggles my mind. Actually your constant claim that I am “uninformed” is rather insulting, considering you’ve never actually had a conversation with me. Is that your response for those that disagree with you?
#5406 | Author: js1976 | Date: Feb 10 2014
Ronni, I know your know asking me what racists and bigots lost as a result of the civil rights movement. Please, don’t act so naive. It is funny though that this article is about MLK, yet you feel that the struggles he endured should not be characterized as a contest, a “fight” or “war”. Considering I’m so “uniformed”, let’s just look at a quote from MLK. “And we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” MLK “But be assured that we’ll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves; we will appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory” MLK Now Ronni, are you sure MLK wasn’t trying to win anything?
#5407 | Author: js1976 | Date: Feb 10 2014
JS, how about actually debating and leave off with the sparring and jabbing, OK? I don’t have any standard way of responding to people who disagree with me. I’m always up for a good debate and an intelligent exchange of ideas (which this has not been.) But I will walk away if it looks like their only aim is a fight and the tactics are put downs. If that’s what you’re after, I’m done. People can disagree without being disagreeable. Here’s my point, again, rephrased: MLK’s “dream” has come about–partially. Yes, things are better. In some ways, they’re a lot better. I’ve never denied that. But If you look at where African Americans stand as regards to realizing full equality in the U.S., there’s a lot of work left to do. If you agree, why argue? If you disagree, make an intelligent argument beyond the fact that we have a black president, which is obvious. And regarding activism, which includes speaking out about injustices, once more, what’s your alternative? Answer the question. You don’t like Cannon’s delivery, her brand of activism or her use of a rhetorical device that’s intended to push buttons and shake people out of their complacency. I get that. She “writes to fight,” and she’s apparently pretty good at it. You can not like it and still not resort to insults. From your responses, she’s certainly been effective at pushing *your* buttons. You call me naive. You use a woman’s religion to denigrate her. And, amazingly, you don’t even care that you’re insulting. if you’re not uniformed about voodoo, why make a snarky statement (“Ms Cannon is too busy playing with her voodoo dolls”) that says it for you? How do you know voodoo isn’t my religion? I’m fully aware that many people, including MLK, often couch(ed) struggle in terms of a fight. That doesn’t negate the loaded connotations for the words I referenced. And it doesn’t negate that King never wanted blacks to “win” at the expense of anyone else. Equality just doesn’t work that way. He was devoted to non-violence. As he wrote: “The Negro knows he is right. He has not organized for conquest or to gain spoils or to enslave those who have injured him. His goal is not to capture that which belongs to someone else. He merely wants, and will have, what is honorably his.”
#5409 | Author: RonniM | Date: Feb 11 2014
js1976, I have a question that I hope you can answer for me: why do so many white men in Mississippi feel the need to barge in whenever a person of color speaks about race (whether they’re talking about the Confederacy, Martin Luther King Jr., HBCUs, or racial profiling)—to tell them why they’re wrong, why they should either conform to the conservative white position or shut up, etc. etc. etc.? Do you imagine this strategy will actually work? Is there ever anything *else* you’re interested in writing about? Do you really wake up every morning and go to bed every night bubbling over with rage because people with different life experiences than yours also have different views on race and civil rights? Why does this bother you so much?
#5410 | Author: Tom Head | Date: Feb 11 2014
Ronni, in no way am I attempting to spar or take a jab at you. Did I take a jab at Carol Cannon regarding her desire to be a Voodoo priestess, yep I sure did. However I’m not having a discussion with her at this time, so I assume this is because I called you naive. So how about we look at your question one more time. You asked me what did racists and bigots lose other than misplaced pride as a result of the civil rights movement. To me that sounds like a silly question, but let’s discuss it anyway. They were stripped of their legal ability to discriminate against others. They were stripped of their ability to keep minorities segregated. They were stripped of their ability prevent minorities from voting. They were stripped of their ability to take away the civil liberties promised to Americans. I am aware that you are very informed in civil rights issues hence the reason your question sounded so silly. Since you asked the question, no I don’t like Cannon’s delivery. She “writes to fight” so she should be prepared to fight. It’s quite customary to hurl a few insults at your opponent before battle, so I don’t see the problem here. If voodoo was your religion, then an apology to you would be in order. However, you didn’t write this piece and we both know you don’t practice voodoo. So let’s move on shall we. I’ve not tried to negate that King was trying to “win” at the expense of anyone else, he was only trying to take back the civil liberties being denied to his people by those racists and bigots that only lost their pride. Taking back something of yours that is stolen from you can still be chalked up as a win, a victory, or a success.
#5411 | Author: js1976 | Date: Feb 11 2014
Here we go again with silly questions! How on earth do you expect me to answer for the white men in Mississippi? I can only answer for myself. As far as I’m concerned, no I have no rage inside of me because others have different views on race and civil rights. You may have missed my several posts regarding our state flag, the acquital of George Zimmerman, the shooting of Jordan Davis, or the need for JSU to have their own stadium on campus. Some people are wrong, I don’t conform to the conservative white position myself, and some people just need to shut up, etc, etc, etc. I agree with almost nothing you ever say on the JFP, but I respect your ability to form your own thoughts and opinions. So I’m not bothered as much as you assume. Again, I’m not speaking for white male Mississippi.
#5412 | Author: js1976 | Date: Feb 11 2014
Mr Head, pot, meet kettle
#5413 | Author: tsmith | Date: Feb 12 2014
Thanks, JS, for toning it down a bit. I appreciate it. You elaborated about what racists and bigots lost. I understand that racists were pissed off about not being able to continue their abuse, but they’re delusional to think they lost anything except in the most selfish, petty and nasty sense. All of the examples you gave are akin to saying that a man who beats his wife or deals heroin “lost the right” to do it again after he’s convicted. So I stand by my earlier statement: Racists and bigots had none of those “rights” to lose–by federal law after 1964 and by common moral standards long before then. The question is theoretical: Can you lose what you don’t actually have? To my way of thinking, the win/lose paradigm is as much of a distraction as “us vs. them.” The more we see everything within its tunnel vision, the less we’re able to reach common ground on anything. What we need are more win/win and “all” scenarios. Some people believe they “lose” if they allow “those people” to live with dignity (e.g., have access to health care or living wages, or let them love who they will). They’re fearful of losing–money, power, status–or just terrified of changing. They seem incapable of letting go or letting be. The insidious nature of win/lose and “us vs. them” isn’t confined to conservatives, of course, but I know many truly compassionate progressives who resist the urge to sink into those swamps. I’ll concede on your final point. The Civil Rights Movement made life better for many (which I’ve never denied), though most successes came about after King’s assassination, especially in the South. I stand by the fact that much more work remains to be done and add that a lot of backsliding has occurred. Two steps forward, one back. I think your tradition to “hurl a few insults at your opponent before battle” may be a man thing. In case you missed it, I’m not battling with you. Fighting only strengthens defenses, and my energies are best directed elsewhere. The human species is hugely invested in being right. (I’m not immune to it either, in case you’re wondering, but I’m working on it.) It’s hard to let anything penetrate our carefully crafted realities for fear we’ll lose … something. I can imagine a world where we’ve tamed our instincts to pass judgment on everyone and everything, and let go of our ferociously held opinions. Perhaps then, we can see that we’re really not all that different from one another. But, then, I’m a dreamer. At least I try to be. It beats the hell out of being a cynic.
#5414 | Author: RonniM | Date: Feb 12 2014
No Ronnie, when you are watching the parade of a black man who was just elected to the most powerful position in the world and all you can think of is his daughters being called “niggers”, you’re whining and it’s plain stupid. I don’t know what more could be done to show that there has been progress made than that. It’s very easy to drag the absolute worst out of the best situation but there comes a time when it gets pathetic and this is one of them. Did you seriously not understand the context of my saying “he won?” Seriously?
#5422 | Author: Scott1962 | Date: Feb 16 2014
In some circles “barging in” is also called responding, commenting, or having an opinion. Believe it or not there was a time when a man could do that without immediately being branded a racist by people like yourself. You did the same to me and in the same way by insulting and implying but having exactly nothing to back it up with. What you just said is that if a black person has an opinion a white man has no right to have a different one. Oh yeah, that works.
#5423 | Author: Scott1962 | Date: Feb 16 2014
Lol, @ Tom Head!!! You just liked two of my comments I made on the WLBt FB page about Michelle Obama. That solidified my point that I’m not the person you believe me to be. If you need memory refresher, I was defending her against the uninformed attacks on the article naming her one of the top five First Ladies.
#5437 | Author: js1976 | Date: Feb 18 2014
Your comments in that thread were very well-put, I thought, and I also liked your criticism of the Dunn verdict. Can’t deny that much of what you’ve posted *here* has made me angry, but there’s clearly a lot more to you than that.
#5444 | Author: Tom Head | Date: Feb 18 2014
We may have disagreed regarding the Quardious Thomas shooting, but by under no circumstances should any Castle or Stand your Ground law protect Michael Dunn for shooting that kid. I fully support these types of legislation to ensure that TRUE cases of self defense are protected. Florida is doing their best to screw it up for the rest of the country though. I understand that we disagree that the Thomas shooting was a self defense case, but I can see how someone could be fearful if they walked up on another person in the middle of the night. Let’s not get that debate reincarnated though.
#5449 | Author: js1976 | Date: Feb 19 2014
