This discovery led to "All Labor Has Dignity": King's Speeches on Labor, a collection edited by Honey and released in January by Beacon Press as part of their "King Legacy" series. The book shows an eerily prescient Dr. King, a clear-eyed visionary who speaks prophetically about the host of issues facing our nation today. In the eloquent, mythic language for which he is famous, King lambastes economic forces growing the gap between rich and poor, the massive tax resources used for war spending while domestic programs languished, and the knee-jerk demonizing of progressive social reform as "communist." He even criticizes the conservative senators—he calls them "Neanderthals"—who abused their filibuster privilege to block meaningful legislative change.
The collection demonstrates that historical considerations of Dr. King's contributions have overlooked his dogged dedication to the organized labor movement, and his fight on behalf of the working poor across racial divides. I spoke with Honey about King's work for workers' rights, the historical context of the speeches, and the relevance of King's conclusions to ongoing 21st-century American labor disputes.
How do these speeches collected here help us reevaluate King's legacy?
The book contains 15 different documents from 1957 to 1968, and they all present a somewhat different side of King that most people don't know about. Almost all of these speeches are unknown to the general public. Until recently, King's economic justice platform and his relationship with workers and unions has been an almost entirely neglected topic.
Eleanor Barkhorn: How Timothy Keller Spreads the Gospel in New York City, and Beyond
Eleanor Barkhorn: Behind the Scenes at the Oscars: An Interview With Art Streiber
Douglas Gorney: Dreams From Africa: Exploring Barack Obama's Kenyan Roots
Your collection shows King's systematic, concerted effort to yoke the predominately black civil rights movement with the predominately white, and sometimes socially conservative, labor movement. Why was this so important to him?
You have to ask: Why is he making these speeches in the first place? At that time in our history, there were a lot of very strong unions. He's asking them to donate money to the civil rights movement, which was an emerging movement, and he makes an interesting plea: You have a lot more power than we do, but we have the moral agenda—and the attention of the nation that you're losing. The business community and the media had been propagating this idea of big labor and union bosses, separating the unions from the workers, making them appear to be corrupt. And there were some corrupt unions. And some unions that were not only ignoring people of color, but totally excluding them. King wanted to convince the unions that the civil rights movement was not only important on its own—but that its success was crucial to the labor movement's success, too.
In a 1968 speech, King asks: "What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn't earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?" Had he started to feel that race reform was doomed without economic reform, and vice versa?
He did say that the civil rights that we'd attained from Brown vs. Board of Education to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were a remarkable change, but after that he really did emphasize economic issues. The urban areas were exploding all across the country. There were riots, police brutality, and National Guard occupation of black communities. The fact was, in the urban areas, civil rights didn't do anything to change the economic situation for the mass of working class people. Those were people that should have had jobs and union wages, who should have been advancing themselves. Instead, factories were shutting down. Jobs were being shipped overseas. The urban areas were being stripped of all economic activities. It was like stranding the millions of people who'd migrated to the cities for jobs. So, without an economic program—yes, that's what he was saying—the civil rights we've gained won't be meaningful for most people.
See web-only content:
From "All Labor Has Dignity," March 18, 1968
Many of these speeches criticize the robustness of the American war machine. King is widely known as a Pacifist and a practitioner of non-violence, a student of Gandhi, but do these speeches give new dimensionality to his critique of violence?
There's a speech in here, given in 1962, where he says: "There are three major social evils in our world today: the evil of war, the evil of economic justice, and the evil of racial injustice." He goes on to show how these things are linked together, and gives a similar critique throughout the book. He particularly links the problems of poverty and economic injustice to the continuing escalation of war and foreign military intervention—you have to remember, he was giving these speeches in the context of the American invasion of Latin American countries, Vietnam, and the mass bombing in Indo-China. Sure, these efforts created some American jobs, but they also wreaked havoc all over the world.
What he's saying is this: militarism is not the way to economic prosperity for people in the United States. He saw it as a moral abomination that the U.S. was using its power this way in the world. And he thought it was also creating a nightmare at home.
The speeches, and your notes in the book, demonstrate that King often battled accusations that he was Communist—something of an elided historical fact.
The big campaign in the South was to frighten away middle-class, white support by calling King a Communist. Anybody who worked on civil rights was called a Communist. And some were. But King was of the opinion that if somebody sincerely supported the civil rights movement, they had a right to their political opinions. He wasn't going to turn people away who wanted to work seriously for justice because someone called them a Communist. He was always under attack for that.
It was off limits then! King had reached a point in his life where he felt it was more important to speak the truth, even if it condemned him to death. It wasn't acceptable for anyone to say what he was saying. You didn't see very many civil rights leaders making linkages between racism, poverty—condemning the nation for what it was doing in moral terms, and in a prophetic rhetorical style. I don't think you can find as scathing an indictment of the United States in the rhetoric of any mainstream person at that time. But he wasn't speaking that way because it was acceptable—he was doing it because it was unacceptable, and he felt he had to speak the truth, and he felt his time was running out.
See web-only content:
From "All Labor Has Dignity," March 18, 1968