Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
On ‘the wrong side of history’

On ‘the wrong side of history’

Last updated on: September 2, 2013 at 4:22 pm by Fred Clark

On ‘the wrong side of history’ 2013-09-02T16:22:49-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

None of us wants to end up there — “on the wrong side of history.” We don’t want to think that the ideas or values we’re supporting today will wind up almost universally recognized as false, wrong and destructive by those who come after us.

But on the other hand, none of us can say, with complete certainty, how history will come to regard our time. And, by definition, no one can ever enjoy any actual benefit from the potential future consolation of “being on the right side of history.” By that point, we’ll be long gone. For that matter, no one can ever experience any actual penalty from the potential future condemnation of “being on the wrong side of history.”

That’s why appeals to “the wrong side of history” can’t help resolve any disputes in the here and now. It’s a wager that neither side will live to have to pay or to get to collect.

Better, then, to heed the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount: “Today’s trouble is enough for today.”

So instead of worrying about whether or not we might one day be regarded as “on the wrong side of history,” we should concern ourselves with whether or not we are, today, on the right side in history. And the important thing to remember about being on the right side in history is that it’s not always — or usually — the same thing as the winning side.

Think of Tank Man in Tianenmen Square. He was on the right side of history. He was on the right side in history. But his side in history and of history didn’t win. Not yet anyway, almost 30 years later.

That gap — the gap between the side that was in the right in history and the side that seems to have won — is part of why we need to talk so much about the “right side of history.” We want to believe that the right side and the winning side will ultimately turn out to be the same side. We want to believe that although the arc of the moral universe may be long, “it bends toward justice.”

That’s a phrase associated with Martin Luther King Jr., of course. Last week was marked by a host of commemorations and remembrances of King surrounding the 50th anniversary of his “I Have a Dream” speech during the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

King was on the right side in history. The hagiography and near-universal acclaim he received on that 50th anniversary shows that we all can now admit that he was on the right side of history. It’s still not clear, though, whether King was on the winning side. His dream of “Jobs and Freedom” for all remains elusive.

The 50th anniversary of the march and of King’s great speech also provided a clearer picture of what it means to have been on “the wrong side of history.” Those who had been on King’s side in King’s day had an easier time of it on the anniversary. They could proudly recall and reproduce their memories of the 1963 march.

The Christian Century reached back into its archives to republish its editorials and reporting from before, during and after the March for Jobs and Freedom. The New Republic was able to do the same. Those magazines were able to celebrate both the anniversary itself and their own coverage of it. They could celebrate their own history because they had been on “the right side of history.”

We didn’t see a similar celebration from, for example, The National Review — which aggressively opposed King and the march in 1963. Or from Christianity Today, which timidly, cautiously, “moderately” avoided taking sides. Alas, not taking sides doesn’t turn out to be an effective way of avoiding being on “the wrong side of history.”

But again, what matters most today is not who was on the right or wrong side 50 years ago. What matters most today is whether or not we are ourselves, today, on the right side in history.

Problem is that it’s unlikely we will be able to assess the present honestly until we’re willing to do the same for the past.

That’s what’s dangerous about so much of the revisionist distortions we saw last week from those who felt obliged to celebrate Dr. King even though they opposed his March for Jobs and Freedom in 1963 and even though they continue to oppose his ideals of Jobs and Freedom in 2013.

Consider, for example, the attempt by several conservative culture warriors to claim that Martin Luther King Jr. would support their opposition to LGBT equality. People actually said this on the 50th anniversary of a march designed and organized by MLK’s great friend and mentor, Bayard Rustin. Rustin, who taught King the practice and strategy of nonviolent resistance, was openly gay in the 1950s (and thereby also taught King — and the rest of us — quite a bit about courage).

Or consider white culture-warrior Gary Bauer, who tried to use the anniversary to conscript King’s moral authority to serve the anti-feminist side of the war on women. Bauer claimed King would have supported his crusade against Planned Parenthood — that’s a transparent lie and an audacious attempt to rewrite reality.

Such lies don’t just distort the past, they distort the present. To face the present honestly requires that we be honest about the past as well. Only then can we determine, today, whether or not we’re fighting on the right side in history.

Let me give the last word here to Mark Kleiman, who addresses the conservatives of today who want to claim King and his legacy as somehow supporting their agenda:

Martin Luther King died while on a campaign to support a public-sector labor union. You’re entitled to say that he was a bad man and a Communist, as your faction did while he was alive, and that his assassination was the natural result of his use of civil disobedience, which is what Ronald Reagan said at the time. You’re entitled to say that he was a great man but that his thoughts are no longer applicable to the current political situation. But what you’re not entitled to do is to pretend that, if he were alive today, MLK would not be fighting against you and everything you stand for. He would.

Previous Post

September 2, 2013

7 things @ 9 o'clock (9.2)

Next Post

September 3, 2013 1 year ago: Right-wing 'Messiah,' ex-con Sun Myung Moon dies at 92

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What Christian group is known for its historic peace churches and pacifism?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Presbyterians Methodists Pentecostals Quakers