Filmmaker Kevin Morrison recently completed the above short to mark the 40th anniversary of a speech entitled “Beyond Vietnam” delivered by Martin Luther King Jr. at New York’s Riverside church on April 4, 1967. The speech, given during the height of American involvement in Vietnam, is a summation of the strong antiwar views that marked King’s final years. It is a shocking speech to hear today, even in its shortened form, both for the relevance of the ideas expressed and for the fearlessness and conviction with which they are delivered.

Pop and Politics emailed Morrison about the film, and he came back huge, rolling out historical context, rich asides, and choice (lengthy!) quotes from a few of the rare political leaders today who have, in their own ways, taken up King’s legacy, respectfully telling our war leaders that enough is enough.

How did you come across the speech?

I knew about the speech, and then heard it on an Alternative Radio broadcast a few months ago. It stuck with me. It was so prescient, so sadly relevant, to today’s news.

After hearing it again, I researched its contemporary context as well as its current perception. Arguably, King’s most famous speeches remain ‘I Have a Dream’ and ‘I’ve Been to the Mountaintop’, but among King scholars, ‘Beyond Vietnam’ is widely considered as important. It was a speech whose substance King insisted upon again and again during his last years — he began delivering something like it in 1965, then finally hit his stride in 1967, and continued until he was killed.

Was the speech widely reported at the time, influential, intentionally ignored?

It was widely attacked. An editorial in The New York Times on April 7, 1967, declared that King “can only antagonize opinion in this country instead of winning recruits to the peace movement,” and that “There are no simple or easy answers to the war in Vietnam or to racial injustice in this country. Linking these hard, complex problems will lead not to solutions but to deeper confusion.” Apparently in strong agreement, the NAACP issued a statement against merging the civil rights movement with the peace movement. On April 21, 1967, Time magazine called the speech “demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.” About the same time,The Washington Post wrote that King had “diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.”

In short, Dr. King was often standing alone in linking peace and civil rights. He wrote a long letter to concerned supporters of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in which he stated simply, “The presence of two evils requires us to speak out against two evils… There comes a time when one must take a stand that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because it is right. This is where I find myself today.”

What mainly marks it as different, in your opinion, from the antiwar speeches given today?

With few exceptions, no one in politics speaks like King spoke. There is no one saying out loud what so many think: we made a mistake, we continue making mistakes, and we should stop now. Representative John Lewis of Georgia is one exception. On March 19, Lewis spoke from the floor of Congress thusly:

“Forty years ago, I was there in New York City in Riverside Church when Martin Luther King, Jr., gave one of the most powerful speeches he ever made against the war in Vietnam. If he could speak today, he would say this Nation needs a revolution of values that exposes the truth that war does not work. If he could speak today, he would say that war is obsolete as a tool of our foreign policy.

“He would say there is nothing keeping us from changing our national priority so that the pursuit of peace can take precedence over the pursuit of war.

“He would say we must remove the causes of chaos, injustice, poverty and insecurity that are breeding grounds for terrorism. This is the way towards peace.

“As a Nation, can we hear the words of Gandhi, so simple, so true, that it is either nonviolence or nonexistence? Can we hear the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., saying that we must learn to live together as brothers and sisters or perish as fools?

“Tonight I must make it plain and clear that as a human being, as a citizen of the world, as a citizen of America, as a Member of Congress, as an individual committed to a world at peace with itself, I will not and I cannot in good conscience vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war.”

It is also worth remembering Representative Barbara Lee’s words on the floor of Congress. The date was September 14, 2001, as Rep. Lee cast her vote against using force to achieve foreign policy objectives.

“September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States.

“I know that this use-of -force resolution will pass although we all know that the President can wage war even without this resolution. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. There must be some of us who say, let’s step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today-let us more fully understand their consequences.

“We are not dealing with a conventional war. We cannot respond in a conventional manner. I do not want to see this spiral out of control. This crisis involves issues of national security, foreign policy, public safety, intelligence gathering, economics, and murder. Our response must be equally multifaceted.

“We must not rush to judgment. For too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that woman, children, and other non-combatants will be caught in the crossfire.

“Nor can we let our justified anger over these outrageous acts by vicious murderers inflame prejudice against all Arab Americans, Muslim, Southeast Asians, and any other people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.

“Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes.”

How long is the whole of “Beyond Vietnam”?

The whole speech is around an hour. I don’t know exactly— the Alternative Radio version was edited down to fit under an hour. It was a time when preachers could and would speak from pulpits for hours — King actually even mentions he’s going to be ‘concise.’

The whole speech is more powerful because King talks about war, extreme materialism, and racism— the four-minute YouTube version obviously focuses on war alone.

What is it, I mean to us now— does the power come mostly from MLK, his conviction and charisma and place in history? Is it the shocking relevance?

Well, yes, and yes. It is also important to note that by turning to the YouTube users of the world— millions every day— we are placing Dr. King squarely in the center of our global village. I hope there will come a time when millions will hear and respond to his voice— again.

——

Kevin Morrison has written, produced, and directed projects on behalf of the most prestigious names in business and education. With more than 300 of his scripts produced in film and video, he has received four Telly awards and an International Monitor award for his work. His most recent films include the 2004 feature version of Kathryn Blume’s The Accidental Activist.