"Understanding Martin Luther King Jr.'s Dream" | INFJ Forum

"Understanding Martin Luther King Jr.'s Dream"

Gaze

Donor
Sep 5, 2009
28,265
44,749
1,906
MBTI
INFPishy
Understanding Martin Luther King Jr.'s Dream: An Essay By Actor Michael Boatman

http://www.popeater.com/2011/01/17/martin-luther-king-day-michael-boatman-essay/#comments
2 Comments
By
Michael Boatman Posted Jan 17th 2011 12:30PM



Print this page|EmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on Lifestream


It's Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Jan. 18. It's 1989 and I've just walked onto the set of my first television gig, 'China Beach.' We're on Stage 9 at the Warner Brothers Studios lot, halfway through season two of the critically adored Vietnam series. I'm wearing a heavy black wool turtleneck sweater under my army fatigues; my hair is cut in a flat top, 'jarhead'-style.

I'm hot, I'm black and I'm angry. My friend and co-star Nancy Giles and I are the only African-American people on the set. At times like these it feels like we may be the only black people on the planet. Several of my white co-stars have just stopped whatever they were doing to turn and stare ... at me, respectfully, warily, as if waiting for me to sprout wings or say something meaningful: It's King Day, remember. Boatman's black; he must be feeling something, I feel them thinking. My response is automatic -- "What's everybody looking at?"

My co-stars look at me with compassion and turn away knowingly: "Must be a black thing." I have grown to love these people; our show is a hit and I just bought a house. But right now they're making feel like The Black Guy and it's getting on my nerves. See, it's not actually Martin Luther King Day; we're just about to shoot a very emotional scene in the episode entitled 'Promised Land.' The episode chronicles the reactions of my character, Sam Beckett and the reactions of the other characters at the China Beach medical unit in the immediate aftermath of King's assassination. The script is brilliant, filled with tense scenes and lots of mistrust and racial discord. Relationships are threatened; the status quo is temporarily up for grabs. My character, Beckett, is despondent and bereaved; angry at his white co-workers. They just don't seem to get it. And now, in real life, all my colleagues are looking at me with that awkward expectation, as if through me, they might understand something from the "Black Perspective" about these long-ago events.

The problem is ... I don't understand them myself.

And so I'm uncomfortable, and bothered by a single burning question that plagues me long after filming was done for the day: What am I missing here? I mean, I'm an American, right? You guys accept me and realize that I'm just me ... right? But in all honesty, I was relieved when that episode wrapped and we moved on to the next one. The pressure was off. I could go back to being just Michael. Not the Black Actor. But I was still left with that nagging certainty that I was missing something. I didn't understand the power and the import of King's legacy then. I, like many others, was merely the beneficiary of it. He was a hero. I got that. He died for a cause bigger than himself. Check. He was a good man who fought for a dream and never lived to see its fruition. Okay. But why did it seem less like something that directly affected my life and more like ... history?

Twenty-two years later ... I get it. I'm older, more seasoned, and arguably just a little wiser. I understand the world and its joys and its dangers, certainly more than that 23-year-old young actor ever could. More importantly, I'm a husband, and a father. The impact of King's legacy struck home to me sometime soon after the birth of my first child. When I suddenly realized that my life wasn't just about me anymore. King was also a husband, and a father, the spiritual leader of millions of weary, frightened and hopeful human beings. Unlike me at 23, he understood the potential consequences of dreams. He knew what he had to lose by standing up for what he knew was right and he did it anyway. With an adult's full knowledge that he could be murdered, his home and family destroyed, he pressed forward against a stiffening wind of hatred, buoyed by a rising tide of expanding consciousness. Sometimes I wonder if he ever felt as if he had a choice. He could have stepped down, taken his family and faded into anonymity; let another charismatic preacher meet the firestorm he surely sensed building just over the horizon. He could have retired into ministry. He could have written books. (He was a brilliant writer.) He could have moved into academia. King had done more to propel the Civil Rights movement than anyone else. He could have stepped aside and lived the life he so richly deserved.

But he didn't.

His courage humbles me today. I don't know any cause other than the lives and safety of my wife and children that would inspire me to lay down my life. In fact, it's because of them I find King's courage even more daunting: How could he move forward knowing that in doing so, he would probably lose everything? I feel passionately about many issues -- the environment, animal cruelty, man's enduring inhumanity to man -- but how far would I be willing to go to defend my beliefs? When threatened with death, lynching and the possible murder of my family, as Martin Luther King was, how far would I continue before packing it in, pulling up stakes and changing direction? Part of me hopes that, if faced with such choices, I would have his courage. Another part of me knows that my family, my children, are the most important part of my life, and that I could never leave them of my own free will. But King obviously felt the same way about his family ... and he moved forward, inspiring the minds and hearts of the world with visions of a promised land, a better place that, with courage and simple human compassion, awaited every one of us just over the horizon. He gently pointed the way to that better future in the face of certain death, knowing that he would never live to set foot there.

Recently, while watching 'The Lord of the Rings' movies, I was struck by the scenes where the characters encounter those massive, ancient statues; gigantic human figures, carved in marble and dedicated to long dead titans of J.R.R. Tolkien's bygone Middle Earth. Watching those eerie scenes, I wondered, "To whom would we build such monuments today?" I remember the Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson monuments, the Vietnam Memorial and all the memorial works in Washington D.C., and I answer the question easily: I would build a mile-high statue to Martin Luther King, Jr., because his accomplishments still resonate today, his legacy unfolding all around us, pointing us toward an unknowable, but hopefully better future.

Like Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson, King's vision of a better America actually helped create a better America; an America filled with problems, yes, but also one filled with promise, with equality -- what America was supposed to be all about. And if anyone out there looks at the state of current events and believes that America's Jim Crow/Post Slavery past was some kind of golden era, my stock answer is that it was only 'Golden' for a select few, and nearly everybody else -- blacks, Native Americans, minorities, women -- got the brass. Yes, there are many dragons still to be slain, and most of them wear the face of corporate hegemony rather than a white hood, but the idea that one courageous man could inspire courage in so many to stand up for our shared humanity even while his own was constantly assaulted and ultimately stolen is, at the core, what makes King's legacy so enduring. He touched a deep place in the communal consciousness. Using non-violence, compassion and his understanding of the true nature of the human spirit, he overcame centuries of institutionalized hatred and elevated the world's conscience.

King was mortal, a man with strengths and weaknesses in equal measure. He loved his wife, and adored his children as much as I love mine. Yet he stood upon the world stage and willingly sacrificed all of it, for the simple, complex hope that his descendants, and yours and mine, might live in that Promised Land to which we all aspire: an America, and a world, where men and women and children are truly created equal. When I was 23 years old, single and immortal, I didn't understand King's greatest legacy. I didn't understand how a man could give up one kind of dream for the hope of a better one he would never live to see. I know better now. As the years year go by and the world gets better and worse, I finally get it. I'm building that statue higher every day. His greatest legacy was the vision he exemplified.

And the courage to believe compassion could change the world.


Michael Boatman is an actor and author currently seen on 'The Good Wife.' He previously costarred on shows like 'Spin City' and 'China Beach' and appeared in feature films including 'Hamburger Hill.' Michael is also the author of
numerous books http://www.popeater.com/2011/01/17/martin-luther-king-day-michael-boatman-essay/#commentsand short stories. You can read his blog on Red Room.
http://www.popeater.com/2011/01/17/martin-luther-king-day-michael-boatman-essay/#comments

http://www.popeater.com/2011/01/17/martin-luther-king-day-michael-boatman-essay/
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd, muir and Nixie
I'm going to need a black guy to interpret this article for me.

Oh wait...
 
What's happening in Hollywood?

King knew the dangers he was facing that's why he said: 'I may not get there with you', but he did it anyway because he knew the issue was bigger than himself

He helped bring about massive change, but that process isn't over

The story in the OP, about an actor, made me think of an interview i had seen between Dave Chappelle and Oprah Winfrey. A clip of the interview is below. The first part of this clip is him doing some stand up, where he talks about the US student who was tasered at a university Q&A session for asking senator John Kerry if he was a member of Yale's 'Skull & Bones' secret society, but after 2 minutes and 17 seconds the clip gets to the interview where Dave explains how when he was working in HOLLYWOOD on a film; the makers of the film tried to get him to wear a dress. After the interview, at 4:38, it shows examples of other actors that this has happened to

Why does HOLLYWOOD keep insisting that strong, male, black role models wear dresses? If anyone thinks this is not important, think again; the film industry is massive and has massive influence on popular culture and on those that consume it. Hollywood exports its films world wide.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovPIRdiB-x8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovPIRdiB-x8[/ame]

Richard Pryor also had to wear a dress in the film 'Jo Jo dancer'
As did:

Flip Wilson:
flipwilson-thumb-autox379-264448.jpg


Ving Rhames as
 
King knew the dangers he was facing that's why he said: 'I may not get there with you', but he did it anyway because he knew the issue was bigger than himself

He helped bring about massive change, but that process isn't over

The story in the OP, about an actor, made me think of an interview i had seen between Dave Chappelle and Oprah Winfrey. A clip of the interview is below. The first part of this clip is him doing some stand up, where he talks about the US student who was tasered at a university Q&A session for asking senator John Kerry if he was a member of Yale's 'Skull & Bones' secret society, but after 2 minutes and 17 seconds the clip gets to the interview where Dave explains how when he was working in HOLLYWOOD on a film; the makers of the film tried to get him to wear a dress. After the interview, at 4:38, it shows examples of other actors that this has happened to

Why does HOLLYWOOD keep insisting that strong, male, black role models wear dresses? If anyone thinks this is not important, think again; the film industry is massive and has massive influence on popular culture and on those that consume it. Hollywood exports its films world wide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovPIRdiB-x8

Richard Pryor also had to wear a dress in the film 'Jo Jo dancer'
As did:

Flip Wilson:
flipwilson-thumb-autox379-264448.jpg


Ving Rhames as ‘Holiday’:
vingrhames-fornet.jpg

The Rock:
77234391-6ddb-4bde-be37-ec838f640081.jpg

Harold Perrineau:
r&j96b.jpg


Here's a clip from a blockbuster film, from 1915, called 'The Birth of a Nation' which contains a scene where the Ku Klux Klan are portrayed as heros riding to the rescue of some white captive homesteaders; the scene is set to the music of Wagner and inspired Coppola's scene in 'Apocalypse Now' where some US helicopters gun down women and children, in a battle scene, in a village in Vietnam. The film was a big success at the time:

YouTube - The Birth of a Nation, D. W. Griffith, 1915
Yea I was watching that youtube video last week, Hollywood, the industry, really is corrupt and everything and that story is on-point about the emasculation of Black males.

However the John Kerry incident wasn't all suppressive, the student was already causing trouble, but the authorities' methods were still uncalled for.

So has there been progress in 100 years? It does seem that Hollywood has gone from overt rascism to a form of covert rascism.....i guess that's progress, but it's not good enough
Overt to covert, I like that. :tongue1:
 
Last edited:
uuhm... What's bad about not being masculine?
 
This is not about whether it is good or bad to be feminine or masculine

Try to see what they are doing within the context of how they portray things in Hollywood

They have very clearly defined gender roles usually. Think of all the action heros.

So why are they doing something different with this?

Personally i believe in freedom of choice concerning peoples behaviour and sexual preferences...each to their own

In the case of Hollywood you have to ask what they are trying to achieve here
 
uuhm... What's bad about not being masculine?
Not masculine, emasculated. If this is the image the world receives from America, then everyone gets the idea that Black males are not to be taken seriously. Which perpetuates overall oppression.

It's the same as the racial comedy of the 1800-1950s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
If you see ulterior motives. I usually don't like to think with a "them" and "us" mentality.
 
If you see ulterior motives. I usually don't like to think with a "them" and "us" mentality.

This is great and all but it does nothing for society at large, the fact of the matter is that racial divide exists and there are institutions out there keeping it that way.
 
What them and us are you referring to?

Look i'll be clear about this from the get go. I do not recognise the divisions that many people recognise....i think they are illusions designed to divide the people

There is only one division that ultimately matters for our species and that is the division between the capitalist class (those that make a living from their investments) and the working class (those that make a living from their labour) everything else is just bullshit
 
It's humbling to me that you don't recognise divides. Because that's something really really great! I too feel that not recognising these things would make it much more easy for us to interact with one another on a deeper level.

But to me... an idea that there is an organization or society out there only bent on supressing is a dark one. It doesn't mesh well at all with my idea that everyone acts out of good.
 
What them and us are you referring to?

Look i'll be clear about this from the get go. I do not recognise the divisions that many people recognise....i think they are illusions designed to divide the people

There is only one division that ultimately matters for our species and that is the division between the capitalist class (those that make a living from their investments) and the working class (those that make a living from their labour) everything else is just bullshit

Oh yea, you're the Communist from before, :p.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lopPYq9IFLY"]YouTube - Seinfeld - George is a COMMUNIST[/ame]
 
I'm actually very open to ideas about how society should be

The way it is at the moment is very simple.

Most of the wealth is held by a few people. They won't share the wealth.

They own all the important things like: the banks, newspapers, tv companies, pharmaceutical companies and they lobby and fund the political system

They don't just own one business each, they own shares in many different businesses. They intermarry with other super rich people. They are on the boards of different corporations. They go into politics, banking, law, business, media, CIA etc. They use specific educational establishments ('Ivy League').

And hey presto you suddenly have quite a clearly defined class of people who own and run all the means of production (eg factories, land etc). They know who else is part of their class and they all want to keep things just the way they are....in fact the only change they want to see is them getting richer.....but that has to come at someone elses expense

Can you guess who that is? That's right...it's the hard working honest taxpayers who just want to do an honest days work at their job and live in peace with their families. They don't want to get involved with all that cut throat money business......but sadly that leaves them vulnerablle to those that are cut throat. That's why people are losing their jobs and homes at the moment

It isn't a 'conspiracy theory' it's just fact. If your experience hasn't born this out yet....give it time it will all become very clear

Also they own the weapons making companies and oil companies so they make money from war! Thats a bit of a problem if you live in a country like Iraq which has oil for the taking but no nuclear weapons to defend itself with.

Remember president Bush....which one huh? Cos there was two of them wasn't there. America loves its political dynasties doesn't it....thats because they all come from very rich families. The Bush's well they were big into oil. That's right they were oil men. That's why the USA went to war with Iraq under george bush senior and then again under george bush junior....because Iraq is sitting on some of the worlds biggest oil reserves

It's not complicated

There are people controlling things....that's not crazy or paranoid, that's just life as it is at the moment

The positive part is that the vast majority of humanity are not like these people. Most people want a peaceful life. An honest days reward for an honest days work

The other positive thing is that none of this is written in stone. If we want to change things for the better we can...and that is just what King did

The danger in standing upto the capitalist class is that....just as they are willing to take their country to war...they are also willing to kill political opponents or if they don't physically assassinate them (eg Martin Luther King) they will character assassinate them (eg wikileak's Julian assange).

I forgot to mention the capitalist class own and run the film and music industries
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ontheroadtohope
Well in response to the op, I have nothing but gratitude for Dr. King and people like him who give up their life to better countless others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaze
What them and us are you referring to?

Look i'll be clear about this from the get go. I do not recognise the divisions that many people recognise....i think they are illusions designed to divide the people

There is only one division that ultimately matters for our species and that is the division between the capitalist class (those that make a living from their investments) and the working class (those that make a living from their labour) everything else is just bullshit



Lol.... Good luck.


The vast entirety of this thread is retarded. Racist hollywood forcing black men to wear dresses? Get real, I implore you.
 
But to me... an idea that there is an organization or society out there only bent on supressing is a dark one. It doesn't mesh well at all with my idea that everyone acts out of good.
People generally act out from what they feel is best for them, and the people in their lives. Good is subjective to each individual.

What sells laughs? A funny black man. What's stereotypically said about black men? That they make poor fathers. How to you portray a strong black man in a funny light? Do something that plays off of stereotypes. Thus, emasculate them. It is intentionally suppressive? I don't know, but it sure sells laughs which brings in big bucks.

About the suppressive organizations, think about just about any racist organizations. They definitely exist, not that I'm saying Hollywood is intentionally acting in such a way out of malice (rather financial interest), but such groups definitely exist.