Loading ...‘The arc of the moral universe’ line didn’t originate with MLK
flockwoodOne of Martin Luther King’s most famous quotations was first coined by a nineteenth-century minister, a writer claims in the Washington Post.
The quote, which is carved into the MLK Memorial, says:
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
There is no question that MLK deserves credit for popularizing the quote. But he did not invent it — nor did he ever pretend to be its author.
The quote comes from King’s 1965 Alabama sermon, at the end of the Selma to Montgomery march, titled, “Our God is Marching On.”
At the climax of the address, the Nobel laureate quotes a number of poets and sages (and even a confederate president), riffing from Julia Ward Howe’s “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” to James Russell Lowe’s “This Present Crisis” (Truth Forever on the Scaffold…) Then he soars on, sampling from Rev. Theodore Parker’s sermon “Justice the Conscience,” the Bible and even — lo and behold — the words of Jefferson Davis.
Dr. King has stitched together a wide variety of quotations and the speech is far greater than the sum of its parts.
Take a look at this passage from the speech:
I know you are asking today, “How long will it take?” (Speak, sir) Somebody’s asking, “How long will prejudice blind the visions of men, darken their understanding, and drive bright-eyed wisdom from her sacred throne?” Somebody’s asking, “When will wounded justice, lying prostrate on the streets of Selma and Birmingham and communities all over the South, be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?” Somebody’s asking, “When will the radiant star of hope be plunged against the nocturnal bosom of this lonely night, (Speak, speak, speak) plucked from weary souls with chains of fear and the manacles of death? How long will justice be crucified, (Speak) and truth bear it?” (Yes, sir)
I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, (Yes, sir) however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, (No sir) because “truth crushed to earth will rise again.” (Yes, sir)
How long? Not long, (Yes, sir) because “no lie can live forever.” (Yes, sir)
How long? Not long, (All right. How long) because “you shall reap what you sow.” (Yes, sir)
How long? (How long?) Not long: (Not long)
Truth forever on the scaffold, (Speak)
Wrong forever on the throne, (Yes, sir)
Yet that scaffold sways the future, (Yes, sir)
And, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow,
Keeping watch above his own.
How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. (Yes, sir)
How long? Not long, (Not long) because:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; (Yes, sir)
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; (Yes)
He has loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword; (Yes, sir)
His truth is marching on. (Yes, sir)
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; (Speak, sir)
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat. (That’s right)
O, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant my feet!
Our God is marching on. (Yeah)
Glory, hallelujah! (Yes, sir) Glory, hallelujah! (All right)
Glory, hallelujah! Glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on. [Applause]
Rev. Parker was an optimist — unrealistically so. In that same sermon, where he talked about the moral universe bending towards justice, he stated:
“Look at the facts of the world. You see a continual and progressive triumph of the right.”
After Jim Crow and “Separate but Equal,” after the Holocaust and Hiroshima, Dr. King did not pretend that he believed in a “continual and progressive triumph of the right.” But he promised that there was a Promised Land — and that his people would get there one day.
August 26th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Well, he does seem to have a pass when it comes to plagiarism….
August 26th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
That is certainly true, Justin! When it comes to borrowing words, MLKJr. wasn’t criticized nearly as much as other great speechwriters like George W. Bush… um… like Ronald Rea… uh…Sarah Pa… nope… maybe Michelle Bachmann? Oh, fudge! Saying that King “had a pass” implies that others did not. Justin, who did you have in mind?
It’s funny how some folks obsess over things like whether a preacher quoted or paraphrased someone without interrupting himself to insert footnotes. Seriously! Stop for a moment and ask yourself, what is the purpose of a sermon like this anyway? Dr. King’s goal was to inspire and energize a downtrodden people. He didn’t get any personal reward in return, only a bullet.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
I was referring to his academic work, Mr. Jose, but his public speeches have also been noted for their heavy reliance on secondary sources.
There is a whole Wikipedia page devoted to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._authorship_issues
For example:
Moreover, the farther King went in his academic career, the more deeply ingrained the patterns of borrowing language without clear attribution became. Thus, the plagiarism in his dissertation seemed to be, by then, the product of his long-established practice
August 27th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Deep apologies, Justin, for erroneously thinking that your charges of plagiarism applied to King’s sermons rather than his academic writing. Especially since this blog post deals ONLY with King’s speeches and no one, yourself included, made ANY reference whatsoever to the latter.
The subject of King’s plagiarism in his graduate school academic work has been discussed for more than two decades. As you point out, there is an entire Wikipedia article on the matter which mentions numerous newspaper articles and editorials. Above, you even quote a scholar who worked on something called “The King Papers Project”. This level of public criticism is what you call “a pass”? The general consensus appears to be that although King failed to follow the proper methods of citing references, his academic work nonetheless was of some value. As for his most famous writings, well, it probably doesn’t have the same problem because there was not much of a reference library available to him when writing letters from the Birmingham jail. Furthermore, he is hailed not so much for being a scholar as he is for being a leader of a movement, by his organizing, speaking, and appearances.
If we want to be sure whether King was given unfairly favorable treatment, it would be helpful to compare the criticisms of his writings with the graduate school work of other famous people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, but, well, you know…
August 28th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Lets see, the youngest man ever to recieve the Nobel Peace Prize, 34, 5 Honorary degrees, consulting with JFK and LBJ regularly, and an ability to use economics as social factor to control injustice, one would really want to consider why anyone would question his credibility!!
August 29th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
I don’t understand the point. If King was a plagiarizer, he deserves criticism, and as Jose points out, has received it all my adult life; I remember reading this stuff in college.
The bigger point is that those who criticize him tend to be racists who criticize him not because he plagiarized, but because they disagree with his political views.
King was not perfect by any means, but neither were his enemies, who were wrong not only substantively but morally. Do those who criticize King really think Bull Connor was right because King plagiarized sources in college? No, they think Bull Connor was right, and use every means of criticizing King to attempt to hurt his image. They just won’t be honest enough to say they are racists.
August 30th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
With declining newspaper sales, I am perplexed why editors haven’t figured out the problem!
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Wonderful to read these inspiring words, whoever the source!
Thanks for posting this.
The story-telling technique of Africa is evident in the call and response. This is found in the Psalms too, where the word “selah” (“sala” in Hausa) calls forth a response from the people.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Perplexed, newspaper sales are at an all time low, but newspaper readership is at an all time high. So, blame the business side, not the editorial. The problem is that the business side hasn’t figured out a way to make people consistently agree to pay for internet newspaper content, whereas even the smallest print paper has no trouble getting its dwindling number of print subscribers to pay up each week.
September 21st, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Caleb, excluding Frank, (of course). the quality of writing has diminished to tabloid reporting at best. The informative, human interest, read the paper to gain knowledge, is gone. Like the rest of the country, you wonder why this is happening? Why are we settling for less? The real question, are we? People want stories that are informative, enlightning and you gain something after you read it. I just don’t see much of this anymore. Its all about an angle of degredation that really serves no purpose.
September 26th, 2011 at 8:44 am
There is no question King was gifted. I believe he was the right man at the right time to accomplish all he did. Do I agree with everything he did? Of course not. Plagiarism is bad of course, and shows a flaw in personal character, but we all have our flaws. (This is assuming he wished to take the full credit for what he used from other’s work, which I’m not sure he always did.) I’m not going to discredit all the good he did because of it.
That said, Caleb, I get a little tired of people throwing the “racist” label around. It makes everyone leery of criticizing King or others at all. Like I said, I don’t agree with everything MLK did, but that does not make me a “racist.” We all need each other to keep everyone honest. Labels only hinder that.
September 26th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Perplexed, I agree the quality of newspaper content is sliding, but there are still some good papers out there. I work in the newspaper business and can tell you the whole industry is still in an upheaval with the growing universal access to the Internet. Like any new technology there is a period of adjustment and reinvention within the established that takes a while to coalesce. In the meantime with the increased ease of publication their is an exponential growth in garbage to sift through to find the quality stuff. The good reporting and informative features are still there, it’s just packed in between the latest celebrity gossip or political trash talking that makes it appear more diminished than it really is. It’s sad though. A lot of good talent is going over to “what pays the bills” rather than what is really needed. I think this will all settle down and people will gravitate to their several camps within our generation. They may be different newspapers then and in different formats, but the quality will return. I’m an eternal optimist, I suppose.