Martin Luther King, Jr. Had a Dream… Hollywood Was There
by Jason Killian MeathMartin Luther King, Jr. was a clergyman, tireless activist, civil rights leader… mountain mover. He even became the youngest-ever recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (back when they gave Peace Prizes for real, hard-fought accomplishments). And wherever he traveled he generated big crowds. Nothing could compare to the crowd assembled at the National Mall in 1963 for the March on Washington. King would deliver his famous speech and four words would ring in history forever: ”I Have a Dream.”
![BRANDO[1]](/wp-includes/images/blank.gif "BRANDO[1]")
My book Hollywood on the Potomac, chronicles many historic moments when Hollywood took a stand on the biggest political issues of the day — from World War 2 to Iraq, International Relief to Civil Rights. In 1963, it was stars such as Marlon Brando, Paul Newman and Harry Belafonte at the Lincoln Memorial with Dr. King.
Actor Marlon Brando at the Civil Rights ‘March on Washington’ (to his right are playwright James Baldwin and actor Charlton Heston). Brando also participated in the ‘freedom rides,’ protests that publicly tested segregation court decisions in the South. After the death of Martin Luther King Jr., Brando scrapped his upcoming movie telling The Joey Bishop Show, ”I felt I’d better go find out… what it is to be black in this country; what this rage is all about.”
Dr. King’s historic march made an impact on folk singers Joan Baez and Bob Dylan who were there. Dylan was inspired to write “The Times They Are a Changin’” featuring a direct appeal to Washington: “Come senators, congressmen / Please heed the call / Don’t stand in the doorway / Don’t block up the hall.” Less than a year later, the Civil Rights Act became law.
Actors Charlton Heston and singer Harry Belafonte review a speech for the crowd of 250,000 gathered at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Heston remarked that he supported civil rights “long before Hollywood found it fashionable.”
Actor Paul Newman was there too. Most came by bus, but Newman did what any modern day ‘A-Lister’ would do — he took a private plane from Los Angeles.
All photos Courtesy National Archives.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
40 Comments
It should be noted that Burt Lancaster, who hated to fly, flew into Washington to attend the March during the film hiatis for The Train.
Charleton Heston
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og0QBldrKd4&fe...
Marlon Brando
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GRtw1hx_xE&fe...
Harry Belafonte
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OcAxk9CO3g&fe...
Sidney Pointier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeyrsGvrINo&fe...
But…but…Charleton Heston was a racist conservative gun nut. How did he get there?
And where is Shelly Winters and Lauren Bacall and Rod Steiger and all those other lib celebs that loved to hang out with the Kennedys?
Chuck Heston's beliefs come from the Constitution.
Being from the left, I can't say that I'm familiar with it, but just how did the right lose what should have been a pretty simple argument to win, civil rights are individual freedom and liberty?
I don't think there has ever been a truthful waging of the argument. And we are so polarized as a nation today, it might be darn near impossible. Unless of course, people would bother to turn off the TV and the X-box and do a little honest research. Knowing how to read helps.
[...] Recommended reading: Jason Killian Meath has written a compelling piece, posted at Big Hollywood… Martin Luther King, Jr. Had a Dream… Hollywood Was There. [...]
In my opinion, despite the MSM, politicians and talking heads, I don't really think America is all overly polarized, at least with respect to our history.
America's history is replete with discourse, anger, insults, and yes – down right violence. Congressmen have been beaten on the floor of the House with a cane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks
Hell, we fought a civil war over it costing some 700,000 lives.
Disagreeing with your fellow American over politics is as American as hot dogs, apple pie and duels.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2555/Daniel-Sickles-Tr...
What a lot of people don't know (thank you government run schools) is this is the way it's always been. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates could really only agree on one issue – they couldn't agree on anything.
The federal government was designed not to accomplish things, but as a never ending arena where politicians could haplessly metaphorically whip each other, while actually accomplishing little to nothing. When government looks like its working (Obama Care) its not. When government looks totally inept, and incapable of accomplishing anything, its working as designed.
Congressmen from one party fighting with congressmen from other parties, congressmen fighting with senators, congressmen and senators fighting with the president, president fighting with congress, and the supreme court fighting with both. The concept is, while they're fighting amongst themselves, they're leaving We The People the hell alone. I love it. Totally counter-intuitive. Almost like a perpetual motion machine.
America is too big, too diverse, too free for many of us to ever agree on anything, much less everything. And the founding father's figured this out. The urge to have the power to control others is so great, the only safe place for it is with the individual themselves.
Because, as long as we're all arguing about politics, no matter how heated, we ain't killing each other.
Thank you Washington, Franklin, Adams, and all the wonderfully brilliant founding fathers!
At the time, those on the far right viewed the Civil Rights Act as institutionalized racism. (which it was) They believed all you ever needed was the Constitution. (thats why Republicans gave freed slaves the right to vote 100 years before the civil rights act during Reconstruction.)
Certain people saw this as an opportunity to say, 'no, you need us.' (politicians) then came the destructive welfare mentality that has destroyed the black community and ensured that the Left would always have a voting block of people in need of their help.
A good book on the issue is "The Longest Debate." Many republicans had civil rights bills that were either voted down or filibustered (by LBJ of all people) from the time of Eisenhower. Everybody wanted to be the hero. It had little to do with right and wrong and everything to do with politics.
I'm familiar with the history, one of my hobbies, is I love reading about history. To me history is just the written version of what we're living and doing today.
I may be asking the question wrong, because I'm not sure exactly what I'm asking. Let me explain with a story. There I am, hip deep in a political debate, surrounded by my former team mates (I used to be a modern liberal), I just scored a direct hit on why democrats are more racist that republicans (I'm not a republican, but yes, it really is that obvious), when one says 'we're not racists, we're democrats, we're the nice guys.
And the others kind of look at him like I am (they silently agreed I was right, score!). But I could also tell, that was the assumption they all held too. Democrats nice republicans evil.
When did you guys lose that argument that by adding a "(D)" to the end of their name, they magically transcended all evil?
I guess I wasn't paying that much attention on the left, what did it look like on the right?
Chuck Heston was a class act.
Every time one of these snot-nosed, clueless Democrats tries to dirty his name, I'm tempted to go El Cid on his ass.
Democrats have fought civil rights and any real progress for minorities tooth and nail, since the 19th Century and continue to do so.
Yet minorities continue to vote Democrat.
Probably on a bender, or at a KGB training class.
Heston was marching long before Brando, Lancaster and the rest of the media chasers out there saving the country, jump in the waters. Heston was out there quiet doing what was right as he did when he ran the NRA.
Obama is Nazi, you lummox. The Southern Democrats and Dixiecrats such as Strom Thurmon fought real progress for minorities tooth and nail. The Roosevelts and their wing of the party promoted minority rights. Then Richard Nixon devised the Republican Southern strategy which made the old Dixiecrats Republicans. So, this isn't a case of A = A because A has changed.
In the short run, trading Abraham Lincoln for George Wallace looked like a bargain for the Republicans, but I think it will hurt them in the long run, because Wallace had an epiphany and stopped his race baiting. And Lincoln is now more a Democrat than a Republican. That is the nature of things when they change.
So, I expect the Republicans will pick up some seats in the next election, and the Republicans will crow about how great they are, but change is natural and inevitable in a free society where competition is allowed. Change can only be defeated by stifling competition. And suppressing minorities was a way of stifling competition.
Lincoln said, "Never do for a man what he can and should do for himself."
Some Democrat. the entire 'change' theory is just politicians being politicians.
down deep, Democrats have sought to turn the black race into welfare slaves. Give a man a loaf of bread…..and so on….you know.
Can't remember to whom to attribute, but this statement sets the record straightl:
"There are only two parties that count in America, the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. The Republicans are the Stupid Party."
Expanding on the "Stupid Party" idea, the problem with Republicans is that they have almost always allowed the DemoRats to frame their narrative, which they do with the active collaboration of the Lamestream Media. Thus Republicans have always found themselves having to begin the debate by first trying to explain how they really aren't racists, or hate women, or science, or free speech.
Scott Brown and Sarah Palin are demonstrating the way to tap into the public mood in ways which bypass the Progressive narrative, and expose its fascist underbelly. The small, stupid dinosaurs who head the GOP need to learn what works or get out of the way.
Are you asking why does the black community vote Democrat? Or are you asking why Republicans are seen as evil while Democrats are seen as nice. If the latter, it's because that's what they tell everyone! You repeat a lie enough times, it becomes truth in some minds.
Personally, I think that because conservatives believe in the power of the individual and libs believe in power of the government, we are seen as "selfish." Because we believe in individual responsibility, we are painted as being insensitive. Excusing someone's poor behavior by blaming it on poverty is a nice out for some but I grew up poor as the proverbial church mouse – it didn't give me license to behave poorly.
It's easy to manipulate people by making them think that if they just "feel" bad about issues, that's enough. And, if you hand out goodies (even though you've stolen it from other hardworking people), you're seen as being compassionate. If you think about it, almost all so-called "progressive" ideas can be distilled down to a bumper sticker. But conservative ideas take an essay to explain because conservative ideals make you think, not feel. Except for, "The soft bigotry of low expectations!" That was a hum dinger! The best line W ever uttered! And don't get me started on "compassionate conservatism!" That makes my head hurt!
Roosevelts promoted minority rights my ass. They were Northern de facto segregationists not unlike their Southern counterpart Jim Crow segregationists. Roosevelts promoted Japanese internment, fool, which just might be the MOST racist act ever by the federal government.
The Dixiecrats were a small, vocal working group of DEMOCRATS anyway you slice it. George Wallace was a DEMOCRAT thug and crook who used black voters in his last run for Alabama governor.
How in the living HELL is Lincoln more of a Democrat than a Republican? Geez!!
Nixon's Southern Strategy sure worked well in 1972, now didn't it? How many states did he win versus that dope MCGovern? Wasn't it 49. Last time I counted, there are only 8-10 Southern states(definition vary of what is a Southern state).
Good God, I hope you are not in education and teaching children this bilge.
I still love the "Charleton Heston is my President" bumber stickers.
Ed, your post is brilliant and I think very accurate. "Checks and Balances" really means – pole pole (Swahili for "slowly, slowly" – the mantra as you climb Mt. Kilimanjaro).
"The concept is, while they're fighting amongst themselves, they're leaving We The People the hell alone. I love it."
I love it, too!
"Scott Brown and Sarah Palin are demonstrating the way to tap into the public mood in ways which bypass the Progressive narrative, and expose its fascist underbelly."
I think you are absolutely right and that's why I think both of them are very smart . . . smarter than Liberals will ever give them credit for. Same with that Lt. Col. running in Florida. Somehow we have to get two of them together to run in 2012!
Pets. Human pets. Feed them, clothe them, do everything for them – makes you feel good. And in return, you get their love and devotion.
I've always found African Americans a little more complicated than that.
A Great Person I’m doing a study on him and I luvvvvvvvvv him that’s why I picked him. Martin Luther King was one of the worlds beautiful human beings, a Soul who lived for a purpose…sadly he was assassinated and taken from us too soon. But I’m not so sure that Barack Obama becoming president was exactly what the “King” had in mind… This was a great incite in to the great man though…
http://ketiva.com/News_and_Events/the_reality_of_...
Brando said, "I felt I’d better go find out… what it is to be black in this country; what this rage is all about."
Just wondering – isn't this kind of the same thing Sean Penn is doing (or thinks he's doing) when he goes on his little globe-trotting, fact-finding, el-jefe's-butt-kissing expeditions? I'm not comparing the actual causes they're interested in, just their methods. Any difference in their motivations, do you think? If Brando's younger self were present today, do you think he'd be palling around with Castro, Chavez, or Saddam Hussein's ghost?
Something tells me the answer is "Yes."
That these celebrities supported civil rights and the March on Washington is definitely to their credit. It also reminds me of the saying "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO FREDERICK DOUGLASS WAS? AMERICA'S FIRST BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER!
Is it possible that we don't honor Frederick Douglass with a holiday because he was not assassinated? Is America saying that if you're black and a political activist, the only way you will be honored in this country with a holiday is if someone assassinates you?
Now that Obama is president, he shall not be judged on the basis of his skin color; but rather on the content of his administrative and executive ability.
The Majority of …Non-Black Obama voters regret their huge misjudgments, and error of voting for Obama based solely on the color of his skin.
Marxist and shake-down artist, Martin Luther King Jr. "had a dream"…..
….Americans have inherited a sophisticated Marxist, revisionist Alinsky-Obama nightmare!
Lincoln was originally a Whig.
The book: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War is a biography of Abraham Lincoln written by Thomas DiLorenzo in 2002.
According to Walter E. Williams, a syndicated columnist and professor of economics at George Mason University, and guest host for Rush:
"As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. ………slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se."
Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that "when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves],…..
The biography differs from traditional books about Lincoln.
Highly recommended!
Lincoln was originally a Whig.
The book: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War is a biography of Abraham Lincoln written by Thomas DiLorenzo in 2002.
According to Walter E. Williams, a syndicated columnist and professor of economics at George Mason University, and guest host for Rush:
"As DiLorenzo *documents* – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, …– the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? ………slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se."
Abraham Lincoln’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave owners’ right to own their property, saying that "when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves],…..
The biography differs from traditional books about Lincoln.
Highly recommended!
I still have my "Charlton Heston is my President" bumper sticker!
then you haven't been to the west side of my town.
The three Revs. (Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton) certainly prove this.
I disagree with your implication that Republicans are "racist" but I'm glad to see some honesty about the history of political parties in this country. Over the years, the predominant issues have changed and the parties have shifted. To say that MLK or Lincoln were "conservatives" because they were members of the Republican Party in much different times is ridiculous. MLK was a communist sympathizer and left-wing black nationalist; Lincoln was a leftist authoritarian who shredded the Consitution in order to wage an illegal war that destroyed federalism and resulted in countless deaths. The idea that either one of these degenerates was a conservative is revisionist history.
Makes sense. We only have to kill each other when Congress loses control of the situation.
It helps to keep the cognitive dissonance under control if you remember that within many of our lifetimes a black man *could not* become president *at all,* *ever.* That's how people thought. It's just the way the world was to most of us. And now – here's a black president. And he's not an "affirmative action" black president. He ran, he got elected. That, in itself, is a reason to celebrate progress. I won't spoil it by asking "Why did we have to get *this* black president?" To me, Obama's race is a completely different issue from his actual policies. He's a left-leaning Democrat and I disagree with him on a lot of things. But I'm pretty sure MLK would have recognized the importance of his election.
Sorry – DiLorenzo is an economist, not a historian. I'll take the word of hundreds of reputable historians over some crank with a political bone to pick. His book may present a curious alternative viewpoint – but then so does A People's History.
They didn't vote for him because he was Black – they voted for him because a) he wasn't George W. Bush, and b) because the Republican Party fucked up. And Hillary was damaged goods. That didn't leave much of a choice, did it?
Slavery managed to result in the secession crisis (which in turn resulted in a war to establish or suppress the new C.S.A.) because it had become localized in one section of the country — which was not the case in other nations or colonies, such as British Jamaica. It was one of the institutions which had enabled Southerners to think of themselves as belonging to a distinct people, with interests incompatible with those of their Yankee countrymen.
It was the hostility of the Republicans and their candidate to slavery which provoked South Carolina to secede — as the secessionists there admitted themselves. (It is important to remember that South Carolina seceded even before Lincoln was sworn in — while Democrat James Buchanan was President — and thus could not claim that any action of his, as head of the Federal executive branch, had inspired the deed.)
The notion that Lincoln voiced "support for slavery" is true only in that he recognized that it was Constitutionally protected in states where it existed. (Abolitionist Wm. Lloyd Garrison also recognized this, which inspired his impolitic public burning of the Constitution.) But to characterize him as a defender of slavery, in the sense that Jefferson Davis was, is simply false. The Republican Party hoped to limit its expansion to the new Western territories and thus set it on the road to eventual extinction.
It is sheer nonsense to portray anti-slavery sentiment as simply a "ruse" to cover the expansion of state power. It is true that the war did result in a more powerful Federal government — but that is the nature of wars for survival. Mr. Davis also felt obliged to take various "centralizing" measures as president of the Confederacy — even though its government was explicitly based on a doctrine of state rights — simply because such measures seemed necessary in order to insure the Confederacy's survival.
Bugs (quote) "Sorry – DiLorenzo is an economist, not a historian."
……what a vapid elitist comment. You are attacking the author’s character and person, NOT the SUBSTANCE, or the content of his information.
You must be logged in to post a comment.