Para. 10

We must develop a program that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income. Now, early in this century this proposal would have been greeted with ridicule and denunciation, as destructive of initiative and responsibility. At that time economic status was considered the measure of the individual's ability and talents. And, in the thinking of that day, the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber. We've come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operations of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. Today the poor are less often dismissed, I hope, from our consciences by being branded as inferior or incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands, it does not eliminate all poverty.

Q: What was the prevalent view of the poor in the early 20th century? What is the view in the 1960s?

A: The prevalent view was the poor people were lazy and devoid of moral strength, that is to say, they were inferior and incompetent. The speaker hopes this kind of view has diminished, has become less and less popular, so that people have become more sympathetic to the poor. He uses the phrase “I hope” because he is not so sure but he wishes this would be the case.

Para. 11

The problem indicates that our emphasis must be twofold. We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available. In I879 Henry George anticipated this state of affairs when he wrote Progress and Poverty.

Q: How can guaranteed annual income be achieved?

A: It can be achieved by creating full employment or creating income so that everyone will become a consumer.

Para. 12

The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves driven to their tasks either by the task, by the taskmaster, or by animal necessity. It is the work of men who somehow find a form of work that brings a security for its own sake and a state of society where want is abolished.

Q: What kind of work should be created?

A: It is not work for work’s sake, but a kind of work which helps create a sense of security to the people as well as the society and get rid of poverty.

Para. 13

Work of this sort could be enormously increased, and we are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor transformed into purchasers will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes who have a double disability will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.

Q: What would be the effects of the work of this sort?

A: When the poor have money to buy worldly goods, they themselves will be able to do a lot to change the dilapidated state of their housing. Besides, when they have money in their hands, they will have an additional weapon to fight more effectively against discrimination.

Para. 14

Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts among husbands, wives and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on the scale of dollars is eliminated .

Q1: What is the metaphor used here?

A1: The metaphor is about measurement so “measurement” and “scale” are employed here, as if you could weigh value on a scale, and not an ordinary scale but a scale of dollars.

Q2: What are the advantages of having economic security?

A2: The advantages are: (1) the Negroes will have an additional weapon to fight discrimination; (2) they will be able to solve many problems in education and housing by themselves; (3) the dignity of the individual will grow and (4) family conflicts will diminish.

Para. 15

Now our country can do this. John Kenneth Galbraith said that a guaranteed annual income could be done for about twenty billion dollars a year. And I say to you today, that if our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on earth.

Q: How does the speaker describe the Vietnam war?

A: He considers the war as unjust and evil. This shows his stand. Originally, Martin Luther King Jr. did not get involved in the anti-war movement. He wanted to concentrate on the civil-rights movement. But later he came to realize he could not stay aloof to such an important issue. Hence this statement.

Para. 16

Now, let me say briefly that we must reaffirm our commitment to nonviolence. I want to stress this. The futility of violence in the struggle for racial justice has been tragically etched in all the recent Negro riots. Yesterday, I tried to analyze the riots and deal with their causes. Today I want to give the other side. There is certainly something painfully sad about a riot. One sees screaming youngsters and angry adults fighting hopelessly and aimlessly against impossible odds. And deep down within them, you can even see a desire for self-destruction, a kind of suicidal longing.

Q1: Why did King say that violence was futile or useless?

A1: In August 1965 a confrontation between police and young blacks in the Watts section of Los Angeles led to six days of rioting. Thousands of rioters battled police officers, firefighters and national guardsmen. In the end, an estimated $30 million worth of property was destroyed, 34 people killed, 900 injured, and nearly 4,000 arrested. Riots followed in Chicago and Springfield, Massachusetts. The following summer, in 1966, racial riots broke out in 38 cities. Cleveland experienced the most sustained outbreak, but the police and national guardsmen were also called out in San Francisco, Chicago, Dayton, and Milwaukee. Cries of “Get whitey” and “Burn, baby, burn” were heard through the conflagrations. The riots which took place in 175 cities in 1965，1966 and 1967 tragically proved that you could not get equal treatment and put an end to racial discrimination by violence. Violence would only breed greater violence.

Q2: What is the thing that Dr. King saw in the riots that made him feel sad?

A2: The thing that Dr. King saw in the riots that saddened him was the angry Blacks were fighting in a desperate mood. They saw no future. They saw no solution. Rioting was an expression of their pent-up anger. It was an act of self-destruction. But this was what they wanted to do and seemed to be all they could do. Such psychology is again shown in Gaza and other places when young Palestinians engaged in suicidal bombing. Again this is an act of deep frustration and desperation.

Q3: How does Dr. King describe the fighting in the riots?

A3: He is very careful in the choice of words in the description. The people taking part in the riots were screaming youngsters and angry adults. Teenagers were more expressive and they were screaming while fighting. The adults were more mature, but their anger was actually stronger and deeper. Their fighting, however, was hopeless and aimless. Hopelessness referred to the result, that is, violence would not and could not solve any problem. Aimlessness referred to the fact that the riots were not planned; they were spontaneous; the participants did not have any clear goal. Violence was just an expression of desperation. The other party in the riots was the establishment, the “impossible odds”. The implication was the white power structure was much more powerful and much stronger. There was no way that the rioting Blacks could triumph over such power structure. “A desire for self-destruction” and “suicidal longing” bring out the desperate mood of the participants.

Para. 17

Occasionally Negroes contend that the 1965 Watts riot and the other riots in various cities represented effective civil rights action. But those who express this view always end up with stumbling words when asked what concrete gains have been won as a result. At best, the riots have produced a little additional antipoverty money allotted by frightened government officials, and a few water-sprinklers to cool the children of the ghettos. It is something like improving the food in the prison while the people remain securely incarcerated behind bars. Nowhere have the riots won any concrete improvement such as have the organized protest demonstrations. When one tries to pin down advocates of violence as to what acts would be effective, the answers are blatantly illogical. Sometimes they talk of overthrowing racist state and local governments and they talk about guerrilla warfare. They fail to see that no internal revolution has ever succeeded in overthrowing a government by violence unless the government had already lost the allegiance and effective control of its armed forces. Anyone in his right mind knows that this will not happen in the United States. In a violent racial situation, the power structure has the local police, the state troopers, the National Guard and, finally, the army to call on—all of which are predominantly white. Furthermore, few if any violent revolutions have been successful unless the violent minority had the sympathy and support of the nonresistant majority. Castro may have had only a few Cubans actually fighting with him up in the hills, but he could never have overthrown the Batista regime unless he had the sympathy of the vast majority of Cuban people.

Q1: What does Dr. King compare antipoverty money and the water-sprinklers to?

A1: He compares them to locking people up in prison while improving food in the prison. In other words, these measures are minor changes while the basic situation remains unchanged; these measures only deal with the surface of the issue, not the fundamental cause of the issue.

Q2: What are the two preconditions for a successful internal revolution, according to Dr. King?

A2: The two preconditions are: (1) the armed forces are no longer loyal to the government; (2) the revolution must have the support of the vast majority of the people.

Two examples can be given. One is the downfall of the Suharto government in Indonesia. The armed forces and the police were no longer loyal to Suharto. The other is the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. In their struggle against Somoza, they had the support of the vast majority of the people.

Q3: Does Dr. King think a minority Black revolution can succeed in the United States?

A3: No, he thinks that in a violent racial situation, the white power structure can rely on the local police, the state troopers? the National Guard and the army, all of which are mostly white. And such a revolution will have no support from the white majority and very little even from the majority of the Negro population.

Para. 18

It is perfectly clear that a violent revolution on the part of American blacks would find no sympathy and support from the white population and very little from the majority of the Negroes themselves. This is no time for romantic illusions and empty philosophical debates about freedom. This is a time for action. What is needed is a strategy for change, a tactical program that will bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible. So far, this has only been offered by the nonviolent movement. Without recognizing this we will end up with solutions that don't solve, answers that don't answer and explanations that don't explain.

Q1: What does Dr. King think is needed now?

He thinks that there should be a strategy for change and a policy to make the Blacks live peacefully and harmoniously with the whites as part of the mainstream American life. And only SCLC has so far offered such a program.

Q2: In the sentence “Without recognizing this ... that don’t explain”, what does “this” refer to?

A2: It may refer to the present need and the fact that only the nonviolent movement has offered a strategy and a program.

The speaker here employs two rhetorical devices: paradox and parallel structure. Paradox is a statement that appears to be logically contradictory and yet may be true, the purpose of which is to provoke fresh thought.

In this sentence, the following are paralleled paradoxes:

solutions that don’t solve

answers that don’t answer

explanations that don’t explain

para. 19

And so I say to you today that I still stand by nonviolence. And I am still convinced that it is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for justice in this country. And the other thing is that I am concerned about a better world. I'm concerned about justice. I'm concerned about brotherhood. I'm concerned about truth. And when one is concerned about these, he can never advocate violence. For through violence you may murder a murderer but you can't murder. Through violence you may murder a liar but you can't establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that.

Q1: What is the weapon most useful to the Negro in his struggle for racial justice, according to Dr. King?

A1: The most potent weapon is nonviolence.

Q2: Why does the speaker say when one is concerned about these, he can never advocate violence?

A2: When one is concerned about justice, truth, brotherhood and a better world, he knows very well that these cannot be achieved by force, by violence. Brotherhood, a better world, etc. are concepts one would find in Christian teachings. Christian teachings oppose the use of violence.

Q3: What figure of speech is used in the sentence “For through violence ... but you can’t murder hate”?

A3: The use of antithesis. You may murder a murderer but you can’t murder murder. This is an antithesis and the speaker also plays on the word “murder”. Besides, the three sentences are also parallel.

Q4: “Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that.” What is the implication of these two sentences?

A4: The implication is you cannot eliminate violence by violence. You have to use love. This leads to the main idea in the following paragraph.

Para. 20

And I say to you, I have also decided to stick to love. For I know that love is ultimately the only answer to mankind's problems. And I'm going to talk about it everywhere I go. I know it isn't popular to talk about it in some circles today. I'm not talking about emotional bosh when I talk about love, I'm talking about a strong, demanding love. And I have seen too much hate. I've seen too much hate on the faces of sheriffs in the South. I've seen hate on the faces of too many Klansmen and too many White Citizens Councilors in the South to want to hate myself, because every time I see it, I know that it does something to their faces and their personalities and I say to myself that hate is too great a burden to bear. I have decided to love. If you are seeking the highest good, I think you can find it through love. And the beautiful thing is that we are moving against wrong when we do it, because John was right, God is love. He who hates does not know God, but he who has love has the key that unlocks the door to the meaning of ultimate reality.

Q1: Why do you think Dr. King expresses his view in this way?

A1: Two words stand out clearly in this statement: “decide” and “stick”. In using the verb “decide”, Dr. King wants to show that he has thought over the issue once again and has once again made up his mind. To “stick” reveals that he has all along been following love, using love as the only weapon and he decides to continue to do so.

Q2: Why did Dr. King say that love isn’t popular in some circles today?

A2: Dr. King was referring to the break of the civil rights coalition. The SNCC (Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee) and its new chairman Stokeley Carmichael advocated Black Power. In a speech at a public rally in Mississippi in 1965，Carmichael declared, “The time for running has come to an end ... Black Power. It’s time we stand up and take over …”. In the summer of 1966, another SNCC leader H. Rap Brown openly stated: “Violence is as American as apple pie.” Black Power means that blacks control their own institutions, their own programs, their own demands. Therefore, King was not welcomed among these groups of people.

Q3: What kind of love is he talking about?

A3: When I talk about love, I’m not talking about sentimental feeling, I am talking about a love which requires one’s resources, patience and energy.

Q4: Explain the sentence “He who hates ... ultimate reality”.

A4: Those who harbor hate in their hearts cannot grasp the teaching of God. Only those who have love can enjoy the ultimate happiness in Heaven. The metaphor of owning a key to open a door is employed here.

The whole statement can be regarded as an epigram, that is a short, pithy statement, usually with a touch of wit, often antithetical. This statement comes from John Chapter 3 of the New Testament which says:

“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”

“For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”