As a teenager, the American Jesuits at Xavier Labour Relations Institute, Jamshedpur, where my father taught, lent me an anthology of Great American Speeches to prepare for elocution competions. And so I memorized Frederick Douglass’ brilliant, “What to the slave is the Fourth of July,” (1854) and Martin Luther King’s equally brilliant, “I have a dream” which has been ringing in my ears this week.
* * *
In 1963, 49 years ago, Martin Luther King addressed 250,000 civil rights supporters from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
We’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check .
And 45 years later, by electing and re-electing a Black President to the White House, American made reality of a dream beyond King’s very, very modest dream, which he described:
I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
* * *
To me, as a minority American citizen (I lived there for 17 years!) watching from England, the 2008 and 2012 elections were profoundly redemptive. Like many people, I could hardly hold back my tears.
I watched America toss into the dustbin of history the shameful legacy of slavery, which Frederick Douglass graphically described in his great speech “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro” “What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their mastcrs? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong?”
I watched white men and women, along with black men and women who had been legally discriminated against in the segregated South and had been largely disenfranchised until the 1965 Voting Rights Act, vote not once but twice for a Black President, to the joy of the watching world.
And within living memory of the brutalities of the civil rights movement, I watched Americans elect as President of the United States of America a black man called Barack Hussein Obama, whose name recalled two of America’s greatest recent enemies, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, a name that should have been a non-starter in American-politics!
There were some white faces in the crowd who listened to Martin Luther King, perhaps 5%. And in the crowd who listened to Barack Obama’s re-election speech? Over 50%. You’ve come a long way, America!
As I realized last week during my wonderful stay in a Christian community in Germany, nations can change. They can reinvent themselves, just as individuals can.
* * *
I watched my 18 year old daughter, Zoe, fill out her absentee ballot for Barack Hussein Obama,
And when the election results were analysed the next day, I was proud of the way our family voted.
I’m guessing most people vote for the candidate whose policies, in their estimation, most benefit themselves and their families.
These were the groups who predominantly voted for Obama. Blacks (94%), Asians (74%), Latinos (73%), and Jews (69%). However, whites still make up 72% of the electorate, and without their support, Obama would not have won. 41% of whites voted for a black President. And this would have been beyond Martin Luther King’s wildest dreams. No wonder, as the results rolled in, so many were tearful.
Blacks, Latinos, Asians and Jews. Who else voted for Barack Hussein Obama? Women: 55%. Young people 18-29: 60%. Those in the lowest income bracket (below $50,000): 60%.
Romney did best among whites, especially men, especially those over 65, especially those earning more than $100,000, and with a college degree.
* * *
Karl Barth famously said, “Take your Bible and take your newspapers, and read both.” Rowan Williams repeated Barth’s advice for his successor, “You have to be cross-referencing all the time”
And so when I read of the people who elected Barack Obama, I thought of the support base of David, the King of Israel who was most after God’s heart. “All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their commander.” (1 Samuel 22:2)
I thought of the support base of Jesus, people who were “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law is accursed.” (John 7:48). “The large crowd listened to him with delight.” (Mark 12:37). “The people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing,” (Luke 13:17).
Yeah, I was kind of glad our family voted for the candidate supported by ethnic minorities, by women, and by groups with somewhat lower education and income, and whose policies are in their estimate, most likely to “make justice roll down like a river”.
I am glad Americans voted in someone perceived to be good news to the poor. And I believe he will be a great American president.
* * *
In fact, ironically, Martin Luther King’s big dream was not big enough. Having a black President in the White House would have seemed an impossible dream in 1963, in an era of legalized segregation and discrimination, when hundreds of thousands of African-American were denied the vote though literacy tests (administered by whites, which even the literate “failed,”) poll taxes or physical violence
But perhaps King foresaw more than he could have credibly shared. The last lines of his last speech on April 3rd, 1968 the night before he was assassinated are powerful and prophetic.
We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop.
And I don’t mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
And so I’m happy, tonight.
I’m not worried about anything.
I’m not fearing any man!
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!
* * *
All our eyes are seeing glory–the glory of nations, America, Germany, Britain, transcending their dark histories, forgetting the sin and shame of the past, moving forward to the day when in the words of the prophet Amos quoted in Martin Luther King’s great “I have a Dream” speech, “justice shall roll down like a river, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Read my new memoir: Rosaries, Reading, Secrets: A Catholic Childhood in India (US) or UK.
Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/anitamathiaswriter/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/anita.mathias/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AnitaMathias1
My book of essays: Wandering Between Two Worlds (US) or UK
LA says
I’m going to have to partially side with Shae on this one. I don’t think that Obama or anyone should be fulfilling a dream of having any race win the presidency. The presidency is serious business and race has no place there whatsoever. Celebrating the fact that a black man is our president is calling attention to a fact that bears no relevance on the qualifications for the job. Instead, if one wishes, celebrating that someone whose beliefs mirror your own, or someone whose policies will favor you – that is the only thing that matters. Disadvantaged or not, this job is serious – this isn’t like picking a disadvantaged person to teach Sunday School or to play quarterback for a college team – the person selected MUST have good qualifications and advantage or disadvantage should have nothing to do with it. There are millions of lives depending on the president’s qualifications – voting merely on an “underdog” status could have disastrous consequences for millions of people.
I agree with Shae that in celebrating his race, there is an underlying message that people who voted against him did so because of his race since you have stated a posit that minorities voted for him because of his race. If it had been stated that he was voted for because his policies favored more than 50% of the populace, the natural conclusion is that the people who didn’t vote for him didn’t agree. Not agreeing is ok…voting against someone for their race is not.
It is a tricky thing indeed, being able to mark a milestone, yet not making suppositions regarding nearly half of the populace. Minorities all over the country are speaking out against the very numbers you are showing in your post. They do not want to be counted in demographic blocks according to their race, but as an equal part of the majority that voted him into office.
I also agree that I believe the poor are going to get a bad shake out of an extremely well-intentioned plan. Instead of coming up with something like Britain or Canadian health care, we now have this behemoth of a plan that will end up punishing the poor even more. It is an unintended consequence of well-intended idea. But I lay that at the feet of our Congress who wrote something so enormous and tedious that nobody fully read it or thought about it until after it was passed. The concept of a health care bill might have been the president’s, but the final execution of it laid in the hands of our Congressmembers.
Companies here are cutting hours left-right-and-center to weasel out of the provisions of the bill. Lawyers are making a fortune reading and interpreting this law for large corporations to ensure they can weasel out of everything they can. Half-a-dozen of my friends have already gotten their hours cut from 40 to 29 and I expect more of that to happen before Jan 1. We had an ex-employee of a large insurance company on our news program last week talking about why he quit. Apparently, his company and the other insurance companies have teams of lawyers and strategists working 80-hour weeks trying to figure out how to follow the letter of the law, but to give the poor people who are going to be required to get health insurance through the “exchanges program” the crummiest possible insurance plan. Deductibles of $1000, co-pays of $40-50, limited “in network” doctors, no coverage for anything the law doesn’t specifically state is required, etc. This interviewee quit in disgust and moral outrage – his face was hidden for anonymity – I’m glad that he came on to talk about this. He could no longer be a part of something so heinous. And now with fines levied against poor people who don’t have insurance, they will be between a rock and a hard place…face the fines or pay exorbitant costs for an awful insurance plan.
We do also have 15 states with open petitions for secession. The people who lived in the 1850’s never thought a civil war was possible…there are political cartoons lampooning such silly thinking then – yet it was our deadliest war to date. I worry deeply for our country – remember that Obama did not win by a landslide, but by the narrowest of margins in the popular vote. I have level-headed friends talking about moving to Texas, the most likely state to secede. It is a delicate world we live in – always has been – and I think that we are in for some seriously rocky territory ahead. Feel very privileged to be living where you do. Sorry this turned into a book. Please forgive my long-windiness.
Anita Mathias says
” you have stated a posit that minorities voted for him because of his race.” Oops, my thinking was fuzzy, which led to unclear writing. I think the minorities voted for him both because they saw his policies as advantageous for themselves, and because a person of colour in the White House would contribute to racial tolerance and acceptance.
I thoroughly enjoy not paying a penny for health care here, though it is not as thorough as the coverage we had in the States, which came with my husband’s academic job, and included a $25 copay. I hope the US evolves to a almost totally free model like the US. We pay £7.50 copay for medication, but if we were poorer, we should not even have to pay that. Not a perfect model, but a good one.
Romney’s career at Bain (according to the media) did not strike me as that of someone who cared about the poor. Obama started out with community organising, and has always had grass-roots appeal.
Of course, I totally accept I could be wrong, especially since I have not lived in the US since 2004, or visiting since 2005
ksm says
Anita – Until this last year or so, not much has changed in the USA regarding health care. Things are beginning to change now that Obamacare seems inevitable.
But I’d like to ask you to reconsider your statement that health care in the UK is basically free. You realize, I am sure, that health care in the UK is not free at all, but that the NHS has a large budget that you pay into. The 2008/9 NHS budget roughly equated to a tax of £1,980 for every man, woman and child in the UK. I would guess that you are not only paying for the health care of you and your children, but probably around half as much again for another family that is not paying taxes.
I’m sure what you really mean is that the person consuming the health care doesn’t have to pay directly for it, beyond a minimal co-pay. While this sounds wonderful, economics tells us that when a consumer does not have to pay for something he tends to over-consume, and other mechanisms must be put into place to limit consumption to make it equal what can actually be supplied. In the case of most socialized systems like the NHS this “other mechanism” is rationing. Rationing can take the form of long wait time that cause people to give up, or a flat out refusal to offer a service. In the free market the balancing mechanism is pricing. This has the added benefit of letting those who provide the most value make a profit, which attracts competition, which drives down prices and improves services.
While the NHS does a great job of dealing with common problems like a broken leg, statistics show that the survival rate for serious illnesses like cancer and heart disease is significantly lower than in the USA. In Canada the average wait for an MRI is one month, unless you are a dog or cat, in which case you can get an MRI the next day. Or you can fly to the USA and pay to get prompt care.
The health care system in the USA definitely needed (and needs) reform, but the reforms should have taken it in the direction of greater free market competition while maintaining a safety net for the truly needy and those with chronic conditions. That way the USA could have continued to be a world leader in medical care and high tech medical technology development, to the benefit of the entire world.
Anita Mathias says
Yes, nothing is perfect. The advantages here is that people don’t need to stay in jobs for health insurance, and do not have to put off seeking medical care because of the lack of health insurance. And we don’t have bankruptcies because of medical bills. But we are going very off-topic:-)
LA says
For clarification, I voted for neither candidate. I cannot tolerate Romney’s social justice (or lack thereof) and women’s agendas. I did vote, but I voted with my heart and head, and not out of fear. Jesus calls me to be his disciple all the time, even while I’m voting, so I had to vote my conscience…which meant my candidate had no chance to win :). But I can stand firmly behind my vote on judgement day.
ksm says
I am sorry that you seem to feel that all those who voted against Obama did so because of his racial background, or because of a desire to oppress the poor. I personally spoke to hundreds of people about this election and not one said or even hinted that race was a factor in deciding to vote against Obama. And regarding helping the poor, Obama’s policies have produced record unemployment levels amongst that very group. And since the election many US companies have announced massive layoffs.
I am sorry that it seems the only way to prove one is not a racist is to vote for a black man – regardless of his qualifications and history. I guess I’m old fashioned because I don’t look at the color of his skin. Instead I look at the content of his character.
Anita Mathias says
Shae, nowhere did I say or suggest that “all those who voted against Obama did so because of his racial background, or because of a desire to oppress the poor.” I think his race could have been a subliminal factor in the unprecedented hatred and vilification directed towards him, more than towards other politicians who achieved success against the odds. I suggested that those who voted for him and those who voted against him did so in enlightened self-interest, and as a Christian, it would be better to throw in one’s lot with the disadvantaged rather than the most advantaged.
ksm says
Purporting to help the “disadvantaged” does not automatically make one’s cause right. We could list any number of revolutionaries who gained power by appealing to the disadvantaged. Some of these leaders were good and many were bad. We are to judge rightly according to God’s truth and God’s word, not letting either the wealth or poverty of the people involved distort justice. (Exodus 23:3)
And besides, who is more disadvantaged than the unborn? Who is more defenseless? Who is more without resources or a voice? Shouldn’t we consider them when we vote?