Presentation Speech by Gunnar Jahn*, Chairman of the Nobel Committee
Not many years have passed since the name
Martin Luther King became known all over the world. Nine years
ago, as leader of the Negro people in Montgomery in the state of
Alabama, he launched a campaign to secure for Negroes the right
to use public transport on an equal footing with whites.
But it was not because he led a racial minority in their struggle
for equality that Martin Luther King achieved fame. Many others
have done the same, and their names have been forgotten.
Luther King's name will endure for the way in which he has waged
his struggle, personifying in his conduct the words that were
spoken to mankind:
Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the
other also!1
Fifty thousand Negroes obeyed this commandment in December, 1955,
and won a victory. This was the beginning. At that time Martin
Luther King was only twenty-six years old; he was a young man,
but nevertheless a mature one.
His father is a clergyman, who made his way in life unaided and
provided his children with a good home where he tried to shield
them from the humiliations of racial discrimination. Both as a
member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People and as a private citizen, he has been active in the
struggle for civil rights, and his children have followed in his
footsteps. As a boy Martin Luther King soon learned the role
played by economic inequality in the life of the individual and
of the community.
From his childhood years this left its indelible mark on him, but
there is no evidence to suggest that as a boy he had yet made up
his mind to devote his life to the struggle for Negro
rights.
He spent his student years in the northern states, where the laws
provided no sanction for the discrimination he had encountered in
the South, but where, nevertheless, black and white did not mix
in their daily lives. Yet living in the northern states -
especially in a university milieu - was like a breath of fresh
air. At Boston
University, where he took a doctor's degree in philosophy, he
met Coretta Scott, who was studying singing. She was
from his own state of Alabama, a member of the black middle class
which also exists in the South.
The young couple, after being married, were faced with a choice:
should they remain in the North where life offered greater
security and better conditions, or return to the South? They
elected to go back to the South where Martin Luther King was
installed as minister of a Baptist congregation in
Montgomery.
Here he lived in a society where a sharp barrier existed between
Negroes and whites. Worse still, the black community in
Montgomery was itself divided, its leaders at loggerheads and the
rank and file paralyzed by the passivity of its educated members.
As a result of their apathy, few of them were engaged in the work
of improving the status of the Negro. The great majority were
indifferent; those who had something to lose were afraid of
forfeiting the little they had achieved.
Nor, as Martin Luther King discovered, did all the Negro clergy
care about the social problems of their community; many of them
were of the opinion that ministers of religion had no business
getting involved in secular movements aimed at improving people's
social and economic conditions. Their task was "to preach the
Gospel and keep men's minds centered on the heavenly! "
Early in 1955 an attempt was made to unite the various groups of
blacks. The attempt failed. Martin Luther King said that "the
tragic division in the Negro community could be cured only by
some divine miracle!"
The picture he gives us of conditions in Montgomery is not an
inspiring one; even as late as 1954 the Negroes accepted the
existing status as a fact, and hardly anyone opposed the system
actively. Montgomery was a peaceful town. But beneath the surface
discontent smoldered. Some of the black clergy, in their sermons
as well as in their personal attitude, championed the cause of
Negro equality, and this had given many fresh confidence and
courage.
Then came the bus boycott of December 5, 1955.
It looks almost as if the boycott was the result of a mere
coincidence. The immediate cause was the arrest of Mrs. Rosa
Parks for refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man.
She was in the section reserved for Negroes and was occupying one
of the seats just behind the section set aside for whites, which
was filled.
The arrest of Mrs. Parks not only aroused great resentment, but
provoked direct action, and it was because of this that Martin
Luther King was to become the central personality in the Negro's
struggle for human rights.
In his book Stride toward Freedom he has described not
only the actual bus conflict, but also how, on December 5 after
the boycott had been started, he was elected chairman of the
organization formed to conduct the struggle.2
He tells us that the election came as a surprise to him; had he
been given time to think things over he would probably have said
no. He had supported the boycott when asked to do so on December
4, but he was beginning to doubt whether it was morally right,
according to Christian teaching, to start a boycott. Then he
remembered David Thoreau's essay on "Civil Disobedience" which he
had read in his earlier years and which had made a profound
impression on him. A sentence by Thoreau3 came back to him:"We can no longer lend
our cooperation to an evil system."
But he was not convinced that the boycott would be carried out.
As late as the evening of Sunday, December 4, he believed that if
sixty percent of the Negroes cooperated, it would prove
reasonably successful.
During the morning of December 5, as bus after bus without a
single Negro passenger passed his window, he realized that the
boycott had proved a hundred percent effective.
But final victory had not yet been won, and as yet no one had
announced that the campaign was to be conducted in accordance
with the slogan: "Thou shalt not requite violence with violence."
This message was given to his people by Martin Luther King in the
speech he made to thousands of them on the evening of December 5,
1955. He calls this speech4 the
most decisive he ever made. Here are his own words:
"We have sometimes given our white brothers the feeling that we
liked the way we were being treated. But we come here tonight to
be saved from that patience that makes us patient with anything
less than freedom and Justice.
But, [he continues] our method will be that of persuasion not
coercion. We will only say to the people, "Let your conscience be
your guide." Our actions must be guided by the deepest principles
of our Christian faith... Once again we must hear the words of
Jesus5 echoing across the
centuries: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and
pray for them that despitefully use you."
He concludes as follows:
"If you will protest courageously and yet with dignity and
Christian love, when the history books are written [in future
generations], the historians will [have to pause and] say: "There
lived a great people - a black people who injected new meaning
and dignity into the veins of civilization." This is our
challenge and our overwhelming responsibility."
This battle cry - for such it was - was enthusiastically received
by the audience. This was Montgomery's moment in history, as
Martin Luther King calls it.
His words rallied the majority of Negroes during their active
struggle for human rights. All around the South, inspired by this
slogan, they declared war on the discrimination between black and
white in eating places, shops, schools, public parks, and
playgrounds.
How was it possible to obtain such strong support?
To answer this question we must recall the strong position
enjoyed by the clergy among the Negroes. The church is their only
sanctuary in their leisure hours; here they can rise above the
troubles and cares of everyday life. Nor would the appeal that
they go into battle unarmed have been followed, had not the
blacks themselves been so profoundly religious.
Despite laws passed by Congress and judgments given by the
American Supreme Court, this struggle has not proved successful
everywhere, since these laws and judgments have been sabotaged,
as anyone who has followed the course of events subsequent to
1955 knows.
Despite sabotage and imprisonment, the Negroes have continued
their unarmed struggle. Only rarely have they acted against the
principle given to them by requiting violence with violence, even
though for many of us this would have been the immediate
reaction. What can we say of the young students who sat down in
an eating place reserved for whites? They were not served, but
they remained seated. White teenagers mocked and insulted them
and stubbed their lighted cigarettes out on their necks. The
black students sat unmoving. They possessed the strength that
only belief can give, the belief that they fight in a just cause
and that their struggle will lead to victory precisely because
they wage it with peaceful means.
Martin Luther King's belief is rooted first and foremost in the
teaching of Christ, but no one can really understand him unless
aware that he has been influenced also by the great thinkers of
the past and the present. He has been inspired above all by
Mahatma Gandhi6, whose example
convinced him that it is possible to achieve victory in an
unarmed struggle. Before he had read about Gandhi, he had almost
concluded that the teaching of Jesus could only be put into
practice as between individuals; but after making a study of
Gandhi he realized that he had been mistaken.
"Gandhi" he says, "was probably the first person in history to
lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between
individuals to a powerful and effective social force..."
In Gandhi's teaching he found the answer to a question that had
long troubled him: How does one set about carrying out a social
reform?
"I found " he tells us, "in the nonviolent resistance philosophy
of Gandhi... the only morally and practically sound method open
to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom."
Martin Luther King has been attacked from many quarters. Greatest
was the resistance he encountered from white fanatics. Moderate
whites and even the more prosperous members of his own race
consider he is proceeding too fast, that he should wait and let
time work for him to weaken the opposition.
In an open letter in the press eight clergymen reproached him for
this and other aspects of his campaign. Martin Luther King
answered these charges in a letter written in Birmingham Jail in
the spring of 1963. I should like to quote a few lines:
"Actually time itself is neutral... Human progress never rolls in
on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts
of men, willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard
work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social
stagnation."7
In answer to the charge that he has failed to negotiate, he
replies:
"You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is
the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks
to... foster such a tension that a community which has constantly
refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue."
He reminds them that the Negroes have not won a single victory
for civil rights without struggling persistently to achieve it in
a lawful way without recourse to violence. When reproached for
breaking the laws in the course of his struggle, he replies as
follows:
"There are two types of laws: just and unjust... An unjust law is
a code that is out of harmony with the moral law...
An unjust law is a code that a numerical or powerful majority
group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding
on itself...
One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and
with a willingness to accept the penalty."
Martin Luther King also takes the church to task. Even during the
bus conflict in Montgomery he had expected that white clergy and
rabbis would prove the Negroes' staunchest allies. But he was
bitterly disappointed. "All too many others," he recalls, " have
been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent
behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass
windows."
It is not difficult to understand Martin Luther King's
disappointment with the white church, for what is the first
commandment of Christian teaching if not "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor?"
Yet even if victory is won in the fight against segregation,
discrimination will still persist in the economic field and in
social intercourse. Realistic as he is, Martin Luther King knows
this. In his book Strength to Love he writes:
"The Court orders and federal enforcement agencies are of
inestimable value in achieving desegregation, but desegregation
is only a partial, though necessary, step towards the final goal
which we seek to realize, genuine intergroup and interpersonal
living...
But something must touch the hearts and souls of men so that they
will come together spiritually because it is natural and
right..."
True integration will be achieved by true neighbors who are
willingly obedient to unenforceable obligations.
Martin Luther King's unarmed struggle has been waged in his own
country; its result has been that an obdurate, centuries-old, and
traditional conflict is now nearing its solution.
Is it possible that the road he and his people have charted may
bring a ray of hope to other parts of the world, a hope that
conflicts between races, nations, and political systems can be
solved, not by fire and sword, but in a spirit of true brotherly
love?
Can the words of our poet Arnulf Overland8 come true?
The unarmed only can draw on sources eternal. The spirit alone
gives victory.
It sounds like a dream of a remote and unknown future; but life
is not worth living without a dream and without working to make
the dream reality.
Today, now that mankind is in possession of the atom bomb, the
time has come to lay our weapons and armaments aside and listen
to the message Martin Luther King has given us through the
unarmed struggle he has waged on behalf of his race. Luther King
looks also beyond the frontiers of his own country. He
says:
"More than ever before, my friends, men of all races and nations
are today challenged to be neighborly... No longer can we afford
the luxury of passing by on the other side. Such folly was once
called moral failure; today it will lead to universal
suicide...
If we assume that mankind has a right to survive, then we must
find an alternative to war and destruction. In our days of space
vehicles and guided ballistic missiles, the choice is either
nonviolence or nonexistence..."
Though Martin Luther King has not personally committed himself to
the international conflict, his own struggle is a clarion call to
all who work for peace.
He is the first person in the Western world to have shown us that
a struggle can be waged without violence. He is the first to make
the message of brotherly love a reality in the course of his
struggle, and he has brought this message to all men, to all
nations and races.
Today we pay tribute to Martin Luther King, the man who has never
abandoned his faith in the unarmed struggle he is waging, who has
suffered for his faith, who has been imprisoned on many
occasions, whose home has been subject to bomb attacks, whose
life and the lives of his family have been threatened, and who
nevertheless has never faltered.
To this undaunted champion of peace the Nobel Committee of the
Norwegian Parliament has awarded the Peace Prize for the year
1964.
* Mr. Jahn delivered
this speech on December 10, 1964, in the auditorium of the
University of Oslo. This text in English translation, with some
minor emendations, is taken from Les Prix Nobel en 1964.
Dr. King, who was present, received his award from Mr. Jahn,
accepting in the name of a civil rights movement determined to
establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice and terming
the award a recognition of non-violence as the answer to the
crucial political and moral question of our time, the need for
man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to
violence and oppression.
1. Matthew 5:39
2. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Stride toward Freedom, chap. 4 and passim.
3. SeeThe Works of Thoreau,
ed. by H.S. Canby (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1946). King's
sentence is a paraphrase of Thoreau's main point in the essay
"Civil Disobedience".
4. This speech, delivered at the
Holt Street Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, is described
and excerpted by King inStride toward Freedom, pp.
61-64.
5. Matthew 5:44. "Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you."
6. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(1869-1948), Hindu religious leader and Indian nationalist who
advocated home rule for India and practiced nonviolent resistance
against the British government.
7. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Why
We Can't Wait," p. 89.
8. Arnulf Overland
(1889-1968).
From Nobel Lectures, Peace 1951-1970, Editor Frederick W. Haberman, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1972
Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1964