Black Astrology : THE HOROSCOPE OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

Discussion in 'Black Astrology' started by Aqil, Feb 24, 2001.

  1. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    Martin Luther King, Jr. was born on Tuesday, January 15, 1929, at 10:45am (CST), in Atlanta, Georgia. He was born with the Sun in Capricorn, the Moon in Pisces, and his time of birth gives him Aries rising. In other words, Dr. King is a Capricorn with a Pisces personality, who saw the world through the eyes of an Aries...

    The planetary positions in Dr. King’s horoscope reveal the personality of a great humanitarian and visionary. Perhaps one of the most remembered of his speeches was the one in which he spoke of “going to the mountain top,” and there communicating with God. Capricorn is the sign of the goat – the mountain climber – and the position of the Sun in Capricorn in the 10th house of careers, status and professionalism certainly reveals the prominence that Dr. King would attain in the world. (The earth sign Capricorn rules the 10th house on the natural zodiac.)

    Dr. King’s Moon in Pisces occupies the 12th house of silent suffering and secret enemies, and this lunar placement relates to the paying of a delinquent karma. The Moon conjuncts Venus in Pisces, and this aspect attains one to the plight of his fellow man, and indicates a deep love for humanity. Venus, the planet of love and the ruler of Dr. King’s 7th house of relationships, is exalted in his horoscope – by sign and house position – and forms an exact sextile (60° aspect) to his Capricorn Midheaven (i.e., the cusp of the 10th house, the highest point in the horoscope).

    With Aries rising Dr. King was born to lead. In astrology the sign Aries is symbolically depicted as a ram, a rash animal noted for butting its head when engaged in conflict. Aries is the first sign of the zodiac; the first fire sign and the first cardinal sign, and with this sign on the Ascendant of a rare, natural-zodiac horoscope, Dr. King was bold and dynamic, and possessed the inherent attributes of pioneering and leadership.

    Dr. King’s horoscope also reveals a highly evolved, extremely intelligent and spiritually motivated individual. Mercury,the planet of the mind, is in Aquarius, the sign of its exaltation, and occupies the 11th house, where it is accidentally exalted! It sextiles his Ascendant and trines (120° aspect) Mars(his life ruler) and the Part of Fortune. With Mercury exalted by sign and house position, and favorably aspected, Dr. King was a great thinker and intellectual – one of the most brilliant minds of our time...

    Jupiter, the planet of good fortune, tenants the 1st house, in the earth sign Taurus, indicating a deep religious and philosophical nature. It forms a powerful trine with Neptune in Virgo, indicating a great desire to relieve oppression the world over. (Taurus is also the Sun-sign of his wife Coretta, who also has the Moon in Pisces, which accounts for the strong bonds of their marriage.)

    Mars is in Gemini and occupies the 3rd house of communications. It forms a powerful opposition (180° aspect) to Saturn (his ruling planet) in Sagittarius, which occupies the 9th house of the higher mind, religion, philosophy, and long journeys. This position of Saturn shows that Dr. King was not only aware of human suffering, but (1) could establish certain plans to relieve that suffering due to an understanding of the socio-economic structures underlying it; (2) could create and implement new socio-economic structures to take the place of the old; and (3) possessed the personal power and drive to lead African-Americans to realize the plans he envisioned.

    Pluto, the planet of regeneration, is in Cancer, and occupies the 4th house of the home and ancestral roots. It opposes his Capricorn Sun and trines his Pisces Moon. This combination of planetary influences points to Dr. King’s identification with the collective consciousness of African-Americans, and his need to constantly improve their condition in this country. His struggles would lead to his own evolutionary growth, as seen by the Sun’s position and its relationship to the Moon and Pluto.

    Cancer and Pisces are the signs that rule African-Americans, consequently we witnessed the evolutionary growth of African-Americans as a result of Dr. King’s strong and inspiring leadership. The two destinies – both personal and collective – are thereby seen as joined in Dr. King’s horoscope.

    The tendency toward the violent death that would curtail his visions can also be seen in Dr. King’s horoscope. Saturn, his ruling planet, is adversely aspected by an out-of-sign square (90° aspect) from Uranus in the 12th house and opposed by Mars, his life ruler. An unseen enemy or assassin also involved in politics would be the likely assailant. Mars is the dispositor of Uranus in Aries, and as such is linked to its effects. The South Node in the 8th house also indicates sudden or violent death. Pluto in opposition to a 10th-house Sun can cut short one’s career, while Mars opposing Saturn, ruler of the 10th house, certainly indicates the possibility of the curtailment of one’s ambition through some sudden and/or violent act.

    This is further emphasized by the Saturn-Uranus square, as well as the position of the Moon in relationship to the malefics, Mars and Saturn. This powerful T-square in the mutable signs indicated that Dr. King’s hopes and wishes would not reach fulfillment, and that they could be curtailed through sudden violence.

    On April 4, 1968, the day Dr. King was assassinated, his horoscope – already afflicted at birth – was being besieged by several powerful, negative influences that indicated portending danger:

    The transiting Sun and Saturn – conjunct in Aries in the 12th house of secret enemies and on his Ascendant – were squaring his natal Sun in the 10th house of careers and Pluto in the 4th house of all endings...

    Transiting Mercury and Venus – conjunct in Pisces and also in the 12th house – were forming powerful oppositions to transiting Uranus and Pluto in Virgo in the 6th house, and these oppositions were squaring his natal Mars and Saturn. Thus the ill-fated "grand cross" in the mutable signs on that day...

    Transiting Neptune, ruler of the 12th house of secret enemies, was in Scorpio, the sign of death, and in the 8th house of death. With these powerful negative influences besieging his afflicted horoscope, it would have been advisable for him to do no traveling the week of April 4, 1968...

    Pluto occupied the angular 4th house in Dr. King’s horoscope but was retrograde and in a close square to his Aries Ascendant – only five minutes from being exact. His close Mars-Saturn opposition in Gemini-Sagittarius attracted a great deal of publicity, mostly unfavorable. In fact, it may have been the negative influence of this aspect which prompted him to pursue a dangerous course of action which ultimately led to his assassination. This same opposition – formed by his progressed Mars – was only 14 minutes from its exact phase on April 4, 1968...
     
  2. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    Happy Birthday Dr. King...

    This great son of God died for our sins in our lifetime...
     
  3. Destee

    Destee destee.com STAFF

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    34,792
    Likes Received:
    8,985
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Ratings:
    +9,686
    :birthday: :birthday: :birthday:

    Happy Birthday Dr. King

    :birthday: :birthday: :birthday:
     
  4. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    Dr. King’s horoscope reveals a highly evolved, extremely intelligent and spiritually motivated individual. Mercury, the planet of the mind, is in Aquarius, the sign of its exaltation, and occupies the 11th house, where it is accidentally exalted! With Mercury exalted by sign and house position, Dr. King was a great thinker and intellectual – one of the most brilliant minds of our time...
     
  5. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    The Martin Luther King You Don't See On TV

    By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
    Media Beat

    It's become a TV ritual: Every year in mid-January, around the time of Martin Luther King's birthday, we get perfunctory network news reports about "the slain civil rights leader." The remarkable thing about this annual review of King's life is that several years - his last years - are totally missing, as if flushed down a memory hole.

    What TV viewers see is a closed loop of familiar file footage: King battling desegregation in Birmingham (1963); reciting his dream of racial harmony at the rally in Washington (1963); marching for voting rights in Selma, Alabama (1965); and finally, lying dead on the motel balcony in Memphis (1968). An alert viewer might notice that the chronology jumps from 1965 to 1968. Yet King didn't take a sabbatical near the end of his life. In fact, he was speaking and organizing as diligently as ever.

    Almost all of those speeches were filmed or taped. But they're not shown today on TV. Why? It's because the national news media never came to terms with what Martin Luther King Jr. stood for during his final years. In the early 1960s, when King focused his challenge on legalized racial discrimination in the South, most major media were his allies. Network TV and national publications graphically showed the police dogs and bullwhips and cattle prods used against southern Blacks who sought the right to vote or to eat at a public lunch-counter.

    But after passage of civil rights acts in 1964 and 1965, King began challenging the nation's fundamental priorities. He maintained that civil rights laws were empty without "human rights" - including economic rights. For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow.

    Noting that a majority of Americans below the poverty line were white, King developed a class perspective. He decried the huge income gaps between rich and poor, and called for "radical changes in the structure of our society" to redistribute wealth and power. "True compassion," King declared, "is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."

    By 1967, King had also become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 - a year to the day before he was murdered - King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

    "From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the U.S. was "on the wrong side of a world revolution." King questioned "our alliance with the lauded gentry of Latin America," and asked why the U.S. was suppressing revolutions "of the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World, instead of supporting them.

    In foreign policy, King also offered an economic critique, complaining about "capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries."

    You haven't heard the "Beyond Vietnam" speech on network news retrospectives, but national media heard it loud and clear back in 1967 - and loudly denounced it. Time Magazine called it "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." The Washington Post patronized that "King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people."

    In his last months, King was organizing the most militant project of his life: The Poor People's Campaign. He criss-crossed the country to assemble "a multi-racial army of the poor" that would descend on Washington - engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience at the Capitol, if need be - until Congress enacted a poor people's bill of rights. Reader's Digest warned of an "insurrection." King's economic bill of rights called for massive government jobs programs to rebuild America's cities. He saw a crying need to confront a Congress that had demonstrated its "hostility to the poor" – appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity," but providing "poverty funds with miserliness."

    How familiar that sounds today, more than a quarter-century after King's efforts on behalf of the poor people's mobilization were cut short by an assassin's bullet. As 2003 gets underway, in this nation of immense wealth, the White House and Congress continue to accept the perpetuation of poverty. And so do most mass media. Perhaps it's no surprise that they tell us little about the last years of Martin Luther King's life...

    (Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon are syndicated columnists and authors of "Adventures in Medialand: Behind the News, Beyond the Pundits," Common Courage Press)
     
  6. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    BEYOND VIETNAM: A TIME TO BREAK SILENCE

    By Dr. Martin Luther King

    This speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of "Clergy and Laity Concerned" at Riverside Church in New York City.

    "I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization that has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam.

    The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: 'A time comes when silence is betrayal.' That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war.

    Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.

    And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

    Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many people have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: 'Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix,' they said. 'Aren't you hurting the cause of your people,' they ask? And when I hear them - though I often understand the source of their concern - I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me...my commitment or my calling.

    Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstandings, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church - the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate - leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight. I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.

    This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents..."
     
  7. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    "Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor - both Black and white - through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings.

    Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive, suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

    Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the young Black men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8,000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia, which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.

    So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Black and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

    My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years - especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov bombs and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked - and rightly so - what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government. For the sake of those boys; for the sake of this government; for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

    For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), we chose as our motto: 'To save the soul of America.' We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for Black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself unless the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that Black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier: O yes, I say it plain, America never was America to me, and yet I swear this oath - America will be!

    Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read "Vietnam." It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

    As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission - a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for 'the brotherhood of man.' This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men - for the communist and the capitalist; for their children and ours; for Black and for white; for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life?

    Finally, as I try to delineate for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men - the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brother..."
     
  8. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    "As I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond to compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that Peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

    They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945, after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its re-conquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not 'ready' for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.

    With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love), but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives. For nine years, following 1945, we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to re-colonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting 80% of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of the reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at re-colonization.

    After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva agreements. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho Chi Minh should not unify the temporarily-divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators...our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly routed out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North.

    The peasants watched as all this was presided over by U.S. influence, and then by increasing numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change - especially in terms of their need for land and peace. The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments that were singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support.

    All the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy - and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us - not their fellow Vietnamese - the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go - primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one "Vietcong" – inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them – mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

    What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones? We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only non-Communist revolutionary political force - the unified Buddhist church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men. What liberators! Now there is little left to build on - save bitterness..."
     
  9. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    "Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers. Perhaps the more difficult - but no less necessary - task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies.

    What of the National Liberation Front - that strangely anonymous group we call 'Vietcong' or 'Communists?' What must they think of us in America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence that led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem, and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land?

    Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts. How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than 25% Communist, and yet insist on giving them the 'blanket name?' What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will have no part?

    They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them - the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again and then shore it up with the power of new violence?

    Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition. So, too, with Hanoi. In the north - where our bombs now pummel the land and our mines endanger the waterways - we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now.

    In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the 13th and 17th parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva..."
     
  10. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    "After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections that would have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered. Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi cnsidered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva agreements concerning foreign troops, and they remind us that they did not begin to send in any large number of supplies or men until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

    Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace; how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard of the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its shores.

    At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam, and to understand the arguments of those who are called 'enemy,' I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor...

    Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation.

    The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours. This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words: Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct.

    The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism. If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations.

    If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horribly clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways..."
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - HOROSCOPE MARTIN LUTHER
  1. Aqil
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,242
  2. KWABENA
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,172
  3. Aqil
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,902
  4. Aqil
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,328
  5. Aqil
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    5,714