MLK To No Longer Be Remembered As A "Drum Major"

Formaldehyde

Both Fair And Balanced
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
33,999
Location
USA #1
Correcting the Martin Luther King memorial mistake

Five months ago, in this space, I wrote that something was wrong with the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial. The quotation inscribed on the monument’s left flank had been so badly excerpted that a modest statement of King’s was turned into a boast.

At the time, it wasn’t clear how or why this had happened, but what seemed likely, at least to me, was that nothing would be done about it. Things that are etched in stone seldom are changed, especially in Washington, which is not famous for admitting error, righting wrongs, getting things done in a timely fashion, or getting things done at all.

It turns out I was right about the error but wrong about Washington. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told The Post today that the quote will be corrected. He has given the National Park Service 30 days — because “things only happen when you put a deadline on it” — to consult with the King Memorial Foundation, family members and other interested parties and come up with a more accurate alternative.

“This is important because Dr. King and his presence on the Mall is a forever presence for the United States of America, and we have to make sure that we get it right,” Salazar said.

Consider it no small victory for the power of public opinion over the sometimes ponderous inertia of bureaucracy, and also for the power of words — King’s words — to be heard.

“I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness,” the monument says. What an odd choice for a quote, I thought, when I visited in August before its scheduled dedication. It sounded almost . . . conceited. And it was past tense, as though King was speaking from the grave. It didn’t sound like King at all.

I went looking for the context, read the whole speech and found there was a reason it didn’t sound like him. “If you want to say I was a drum major, say I was . . . ” is how King began his statement. As many have since pointed out, the “if” and the “you” entirely change the meaning. To King, being a self-aggrandizing drum major was not a good thing; if you wanted to call him that, he said, at least say it was in the service of good causes.

Some important people who hadn’t seen the quote yet read the op-ed and agreed. The poet Maya Angelou, who knew and worked with King, said the truncated quote made King seem like “an arrogant twit.” Roy Peter Clark, an expert on the use of words, wrote for CNN, “Everything I’ve learned about the language of enshrinement suggests that the inscription on the King monument should be revised.” Martin Luther King III told CNN: “That was not what Dad said.”


Comedy Central satirist Stephen Colbert noted that it was “to the point. Not Dr. King’s point, but still. Brevity is the soul of saving money on chiseling fees.”

Even the sidewalk T-shirt vendors chose an image from the memorial’s plans rather than the real thing. Because, it turned out, the original plans included the full, in-context quote. After the plans were approved, the lead architect and the sculptor thought the stone would look better with fewer words. They did the editing themselves, without considering the violence it would do to the quote’s meaning. It was as simple as that.

“I do not think it’s an accurate portrayal of what Dr. King was,” Salazar told us Friday.

How sweet, then, that King can still be giving to us on his 83rd birthday, though he lived for only 39 of them. He can give us this story of many different Americans using their tools at hand — celebrity, media, commerce, satire, academia — to ask their government to right a wrong.

And King, a lover of words and a profound symbol to all of us, demanded action. Because of him, at least this time, the system worked.
Do you agree? Did the US government have a commitment to "get it right" 2 years after the fact when it should have not been changed in the first place?
 
Yes they did. You shouldn't carve truncated quotations into granite. At least without an ellipsis.
 
I don't like this article at all, seems rather petty in my view given that the quote by MLK still sounds quite pompous even when repeated as "If you want to say I was a drum major, say I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness".

And obviously no political figure was a saint. To paint them as such only breeds the perpetuation of a lie. It seems that the most primitive (politically) entities are also known to be where the most prominent personality cults of political figures are in existence.

NOTE: i am not familiar with MLK's quotes, only had a peripheral interest in the civil rights movement in the US of old.
 
I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.

MLK

What else is chiselled on the memorial, though?

Inscriptions on the Stone of Hope[edit]

In addition to the fourteen quotations on the Inscription Wall, each side of the Stone of Hope includes an additional statement attributed to King.[53] The first, from the "I Have a Dream" speech, is "Out of the Mountain of Despair, a Stone of Hope"—the quotation that serves as the basis for the monument's design.[53] The words on the other side of the stone read, "I Was a Drum Major for Justice, Peace, and Righteousness," which is a paraphrased version of a longer quote by King: "If you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter." The memorial's use of the paraphrased version of the quote has been criticized,[53][60] and will be removed in February 2013.[61]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Memorial

Damn! That wiki article doesn't tell me what else is written on the "Stone of Hope". Assuming it has four sides, that is.

I must say MLK wrote a great many quotable quotes.
 
^ Yeah that is a good quote.
It is also essentially what the article you whined about above stated.

I went looking for the context, read the whole speech and found there was a reason it didn’t sound like him. “If you want to say I was a drum major, say I was . . . ” is how King began his statement. As many have since pointed out, the “if” and the “you” entirely change the meaning. To King, being a self-aggrandizing drum major was not a good thing; if you wanted to call him that, he said, at least say it was in the service of good causes.
 
^Doesn't need to mean that at all. If MLK in that speech (which i have not read) was previously saying that he is no drum major, and THEN said (but) if you want to call me one then etc etc, i would agree with the point of the article.

As things stand, i am not sure the context of that speech warranted this point to be made. If you feel like it you can produce some relevant previous part of the speech, which supports the article you linked to :)
 
I think I'll just take the word of experts instead of relying on your own personal opinion without even bothering to research it first.


Link to video.
 
And I just posted a 20 minute sermon, which you obviously didn't even bother listening to in your continuing rush to judgment.
 
And I just posted a 20 minute sermon, which you obviously didn't even bother listening to in your continuing rush to judgment.

True, but do you really expect one to hear 20 minutes of something just so as to continue a discussion in some internet thread? I did ask you to provide any evidence of MLK in that speech actually meaning what the writer of the article you linked to claimed he meant. If you yourself had read/listened to the speech you insist others should, you would have been able to just provide the specific info i asked for.
 
You have two articles already claiming that, as well as dozens of others by merely performing a simple Google search.

And no, I certainly don't expect you to discern the basic facts before stating your personal opinion in this forum.
 
The usual protocol is to state one's opinion, get challenged on it, research like mad to justify your original position, and then cave in at the last minute, claiming that wasn't what you meant in the first place.

Spoiler :
That's what I always do, anyway.

It seems to work quite well.
 
The usual protocol is to state one's opinion, get challenged on it, research like mad to justify your original position, and then cave in at the last minute, claiming that wasn't what you meant in the first place.

Not true for Forma. He is a Spartan. Taught never to retreat. Never to surrender :)
 
Do you agree? Did the US government have a commitment to "get it right" 2 years after the fact when it should have not been changed in the first place?

Yeah, if it can be done, they should rectify it. I admit I am unknowledgeable on how one goes about erasing and putting other words in place on granite, but I suppose there must be ways.
 
Back
Top Bottom