Was Martin Luther King Jr.'s stand on non-violence consistent? Not the way I see it.

As an illustration I would like to quote a few paragraphs from a three page letter (to me) dated July 20, 1967: Quote:" I am sorry that my recent speeches on Viet Nam has cost us your support.However, I feel that war is no longer,if it ever was, a valid way to solve international problems. Even the negative good served by a war against an evil force such as Hitler can no longer be considered worth the costly risk to mankind, for the ultimate weapons of today mean only the destruction of mankind. Man can no longer afford war. We must find a non-violent way to settle the problems of the world.....it has been my consistent belief and position that non-violence is the only true solution to the social problems of the world and of this country."

What King ,bless his soul, must be saying is that war BEFORE the arrival of the atomic bomb was inexcusable and AFTER the atomic bomb it became near insane. He does not by the way distinguish between attacker and defender so he must mean both.

What then would King recommend if, say, a group of people formed a guerrilla band and started shooting at whichever army happened to occupy the coutryside? In spite of risk of holocaust? Well, further into the letter we find out:

"After participating in the defeat of Japanese militarism, the Vietnamese proclaimed their independence under the leadership of their war time commander against the Japanese--Ho Chi Minh. They likened their own course to that of the American patriots who fought in the Revolutionary War, quoting in their own historic documents from our own Declaration of Independence.

"They did not seek alliances with Moscow or Peking but petitioned to be made a member of the French Commonwealth. Their petition was refused. Their right to choose their own destiny was denied. They were thrown onto their own resources and those of whoever might help them, while France waged a senseless and wasteful war of colonial suppression."

In other words-- here we have people attacking Japanese and French occupational forces. Wouldn't that be very much opposite to non-violemnce? And comparing themselves with American patriots who fought {not non-violently} in the Revolutionry War. King ought to be slightly upset at anybody imitating anybody else's violent behaviour. But he does not appear so at all. Am I wrong in suspecting he admires them?

Next look at the sentence: "Their right to choose their own destiny was denied." OK. So it was denied. Instead of sulking or shouting or marching and doing all kinds of non-violent things King wanted us to participate in--what DID they do? They {the Vietnamese guerrillas} opened fire! With the help of a neighbour {or two!} or --as King beautifully describes it: "They were thrown onto their own resources and those of whoever might help them." But where is King's indigmation? Doesn't he hear the crackling of burning buildings and the thunder of explosions? Yes, but only when performed by the occupants:---"while France waged a senseless and wasteful war of colonial suppression." In other words-- once damage was dome and peace shattere the French forces should instantly have run or surrendered?

So what did King REALLY mean? Guess we'll never know--.

Gunnar Unneland.