“A Riot is the Language of the Unheard”
I know that I’m going to get hate for this, but fuck it.
It’s like clockwork: A shitty cop kills an unarmed black man. There are protests and demonstrations. And then someone throws a brick through a window, or sets fire to a trashcan, or hits somebody, and the situation devolves into a riot. And just as sure as the rising of the sun, someone will say that Martin Luther King would be ashamed of this display. And just as sure as the setting of the sun, someone will trot out MLK saying, “A riot is the language of the unheard”. Clockwork.
Unfortunately, the people who trot out that quote are dead fucking wrong.
Yes, it is true that the good Reverend did say those words, in that order. But in order to believe that the quote is in any way a call for rioting, or even a justification or an excuse for rioting, is ignorant and disrespectful. In order to believe that, you have to believe that Dr. King stood up, walked to a microphone, said, “A riot is the language of the unheard”, and then stepped away from the mic and never said another word on the subject. That is the only way that you can believe that the quote is him excusing or justifying that sort of behavior. He did not say that riots are the way forward, nor that they were even remotely helpful. He believed that riots hurt the cause that the rioters were hoping to promote. That is why you only ever see that one sentence, and never the full context. Because if looked at in context, you would see that King was, until his dying day, committed to the path of “militant, powerful, massive non-violence”.
The first instance of him using that phrase that I can find is from a 1966 interview with Mike Wallace:
“I will never change in my basic idea that non-violence is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for freedom and justice. I think for the Negro to turn to violence would be both impractical and immoral.”
The source that many like to cite for the quote is his “The Other America” speech from 1967, where he leads in by saying, “Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way. (emphasis added)”
So, no. He was not excusing, justifying, or calling for riots. He was saying that he understands why those riots might happen, but that he in NO uncertain terms condemned them as being wholly unhelpful, and damaging to the communities where they happened, to the image of the protestors, and to the very cause of justice and equality.
You want to emulate Dr. King? Peaceful protest is the way. Non-violence is the way. A riot may sometimes be the language of the unheard, but it is not the language that Dr. King spoke.
blakekathryn
germansingergirl
origamiaround
titsay
prguitarman
janainaart
vaporwave
