Who Looks Muslim?: a response to Sam Harris’s defense of profiling

Sam Harris posted a blog entry titled In Defense of Profiling, in which he argues in favor of profiling “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim”.[1] Harris previously briefly mentioned his support of profiling in the article Bombing Our Illusions from 2005.[2] I’ve disagreed with Harris in the past, because even though he does a good job of pointing out some of the problems with religion,[3] he focuses on Islam to the point of changing the topic to Islam even when a non-Muslim commits an act of terrorism.[4] This recent article is another example of Harris’s horrible suggestions when it comes to addressing Islamic terrorism.

I disagree with Harris on this for several reasons, the primary one being that we can’t determine a person’s beliefs or plans to commit a crime based upon their appearance or the country they’re from. There are people from all different countries and of all different appearances who commit crimes and a suggestion that we should base our profiling on people’s appearance is unfounded. Skin color and race don’t cause people to commit crimes. There are those who will respond at this point, “Islam is not a race!” True, it’s not a race, but the suggestion that we can determine who is more likely to commit a crime based on appearance (based on how people “look”) immediately calls to mind the fact that there are discriminatory stereotypes about who is likely to commit a crime, sometimes based on skin color or country of origin, and these are discriminatory. If we can’t determine a person’s beliefs and plans to commit a crime based on appearance, then allowing profiling based on appearance allows those in charge of security to make decisions based on factors like race, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Even if Harris says he would base his profiling on religion, instead of race, the idea that we can determine who “looks Muslim” is odd, because there are Muslims from many different places, with very different appearances. Even a person’s name isn’t a reliable indicator, as many Muslim parents (with different ways of following Islam) name their children Mohammad, just as many Christian parents name their children after characters in the Bible (e.g. Matthew, Mark), and this doesn’t indicate a person’s beliefs, let alone whether or not they are an extremist. Additionally, if we believe (as I think Harris does) that it’s possible to convince people to change their religious beliefs, then it’s even more ridiculous to suggest we should profile against people who “look Muslim”. The very fact that there have been so many religions in human history (something which atheists usually use as an argument for why it’s unlikely any of them are true) should suggest we can’t predict what someone’s religious beliefs are based on their appearance, or the country their family is from, or their name.

The premise of profiling based on religion, even if we could find a way to accurately predict what religion a person is a member of, is discriminatory. Religious affiliation isn’t a reliable indicator, even if one believes that the attackers are motivated at least partially by their religious faith, because such a small percentage of the people in the religion are actually carrying out the attacks. So, even though there are some visual clues in some circumstances that indicate a person is probably a Muslim (e.g. they are carrying a copy of the Qur’an with them in their luggage, they are wearing some jewelry with a pendant that reads “Allah” in Arabic) that doesn’t warrant an assumption that the person is a terrorist, or is even likely to be a terrorist.

There are, it must be pointed out, terrorists of different religious beliefs and no religious belief. Many people react differently to terrorism that is committed by members of a minority religious group compared to terrorism that is committed by a member of the majority religious groups. When there are attacks committed by Christian terrorists our politicians and commentators don’t suggest that we should profile in order to prevent future attacks. We don’t suggest that security personnel in hospitals or clinics should profile people who “look Christian” (whatever that means) after there are attacks on abortion providers. When there are attacks by Islamic terrorists, however, then some people are quick to suggest profiling. It seems that people are advocating actions against others that they would consider unjust if done to themselves, members of their own faith or skin color.

One of the questions I always want to ask people who advocate profiling is the following: Would you advocate profiling if it was against a group that you’re a part of? It may seem that Harris has preemptively responded to this question, because he suggests that he would expect to get attention if there was a person who looked like Ben Stiller who was wanted for crimes against humanity. Harris also suggests that he himself should not be outside the group that would be targeted for profiling. I don’t think this is a good argument. First, because in his Ben Stiller scenario, the security officials would be looking for one particular criminal, with some idea of what that person looks like, whereas his suggestion of profiling Muslims treats a whole group of people as suspect, assuming that the person who would commit a particular crime would look like that group of people. Second, because (let’s be honest) the likelihood of this happening to him is remote. It’s easy to suggest profiling when you live in a society where the odds of it happening to you are remote. (I have this same reaction when politicians suggest profiling; they know it would be unlikely to happen to them, as they’re well-known figures.) While Harris may say that he’s part of the group that’s included, he knows that if we profile those who “look Muslim”, most people would not think that he fits the stereotypical description. Harris all but admits this when he writes, “Granted, I haven’t had to endure the experience of being continually profiled. No doubt it would be frustrating.” No doubt, Mr. Harris, no doubt. That he writes this makes me think that he hasn’t properly considered what it would actually feel like to be targeted for profiling. Harris demonstrates his ignorance of what it feels like to be singled out in this way when he suggests (in the 2005 article and this recent one) that Muslims should actually be in favor of profiling against themselves. Oddly, he seems understanding of complaints regarding long lines in the airport, but dismisses the concerns about the discriminatory nature of profiling. Perhaps it is possible to find those who may agree with Harris, who may agree that profiling against themselves is okay, but the fact that a few people would volunteer is not a reason to profile, or proof that such profiling would be effective; people agreeing to be discriminated against isn’t an argument in favor of discrimination.

If someone is behaving suspiciously, then of course, that should raise concerns, but that’s behavior, not appearance or religious affiliation. After all, it is an action that we are trying to prevent and which we are against. People making suggestions for profiling based on appearance claim that it will increase the efficiency and effectiveness in our security, while they are just advocating discrimination. They want security officials to unjustly assume that certain other people are more likely to be criminals. Additionally, there are those who complain about the infringement on our rights from certain aspects of the security checks, so how does it become okay if we “only” did this to people who “look Muslim”? We should not see security as a way to separate our society into those who should be suspected and those who are obviously innocent based on appearance. Our aim should be to protect and also preserve the rights of all, not just those who don’t “look Muslim”.

This is the latest example of Sam Harris’s questionable suggestions about Islam. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt when I read The End of Faith (in which he does make some good arguments on the topic of why religion is incorrect) as some of his suggestions were written in a way that one could say they were a thought experiment, rather than a full endorsement. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt when I read that article from 2005, as the part about profiling was a sentence with no elaboration on it. I can’t give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue anymore. He is, plainly, advocating that discriminatory actions are justified in dealing with the problems in Islam, and that is something I must condemn.

#

Note/Recommended Reading

The above is an edited and expanded version of a comment I wrote in response to Hemant Mehta’s blog entry Sam Harris: We Should Profile Muslims at the Airport, in which Mehta points out some of the problems with Harris’s suggestion.[5]

Professor PZ Myers has a good post about this titled NO RACIAL PROFILING, PLEASE. Here’s quote in which I think he makes an excellent point:

Shall we single out people who look like them [Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph] for special scrutiny? Of course not, that would be so many people, you might say, and most light-skinned European-Americans are not terrorists, so it would be an incredibly inefficient screening protocol. So why should we focus on people with dark complexions and Semitic features? There are many of them, too, and the overwhelming majority are most definitely not terrorists, and it would similarly be terribly inefficient. We would be harrassing mostly innocent people…but of course, these are innocent minorities, so their rights be damned to give the majority a little more privilege.[6]

Greg Laden has written Sam Harris is Right: Profile away!, in which he makes a good point through satire.[7]

#

Update as of 16 May 2012

Bruce Schneier has written The Trouble with Profiling (8 May 2012) in response to Sam Harris’s defense of profiling. This essay has been posted on Sam Harris’s website, and a future post with Harris and Schneier discussing the issue in greater depth is planned. (URL: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-trouble-with-profiling)

---

References

[1] Harris, Sam. In Defense of Profiling. Posted on 28 April 2012 at SamHarris.org. Retrieved on 30 April 2012 from http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling.

[2] Harris, Sam. Bombing Our Illusions. Posted on 10 October 2005 at The Huffington Post. Retrieved on 30 April 2012 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html.

This article can also be found on Sam Harris’s website at http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/bombing-our-illusions-oct-10-2005.

[3] Sharmin, Ani. Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam [Part 2 of 3]. Posted on 9 September 2010 at The Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on 1 May 2012 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/arithmetic-and-criticism-part-2/.

[4] Sharmin, Ani. Assumptions, Ideologies, and Horrible Actions: Some Thoughts on the Reactions to the Attacks in Norway. Posted on 6 August 2011 at The Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on 1 May 2012 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/assumptions-ideologies-and-horrible-actions/.

[5] Mehta, Hemant. Sam Harris: We Should Profile Muslims at the Airport. Posted on 29 April 2012 at Friendly Atheist. Retrieved on 30 April 2012 from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/29/sam-harris-we-should-profile-muslims-at-the-airport/.

[6] Myers, PZ. NO RACIAL PROFILING, PLEASE. Posted on 30 April 2012 at Pharyngula. Retrieved on 30 April 2012 from http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/30/no-racial-profiling-please/.

[7] Laden, Greg. Sam Harris is Right: Profile away! Posted on 1 May 2012 at The X Blog. Retrieved on 1 May 2012 from http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/05/01/sam-harris-is-right-profile-away/.

Via Pharyngula “While we’re talking about advocating equality…”

Professor PZ Myers recently wrote a post titled While we’re talking about advocating equality…,[1] in which he links to a blog entry titled White people believe they face the worst racism by Juliet Osborne at Exploreable.  She wrote about a study which found that there are white people who believe that anti-white bias is a bigger problem in society than anti-black bias.[2]  (I don’t have access to the text of the study itself.)

The discussion at Pharyngula was about atheism and race, with Professor Myers pointing out that the secular movement should be on the side of equality.  Here are the comments that I wrote in the comments section of the entry.  (Words quoted from other people’s comments are in italics.)  This is a topic that I want to think and write about at length.

Comment #58 (May 25, 2011 11:38 am)[3]

@Kim.E:

Because non-whites could not possibly judge an event on its content and merits, they cannot possibly see past the color of the people on the podium. They will come if they see people of their own “color” on the promo material. PZ, do you go to events only when you see enough white people? You are assuming that non-whites are racists… and THAT is also racism

As an American atheist whose parents are from India, I want to respond to this. I think you’ve misunderstood the point. It’s not that I’ll only listen to someone is of same skin color as me. In fact, quite the opposite. It’s that I have absolutely no problem listening to someone with a different skin color than mine, so if people of my own skin color or background are excluded, I wonder why and if maybe someone would also not welcome my contribution. If I see some events and all of the speakers were white males, that’s not really a big deal; I’m not bothered at all, as it’s the content that really matters, rather than skin color. However, if I see that this keeps happening, again and again, at many events, I wonder why, and if there is a reason for it.

I’ll use an analogy with another topic I like to talk about: books. Sometimes, people talk about how there aren’t a lot of fantasy/sf books with characters of different skin color or genders. This doesn’t mean I’m going to read a book and decide I hate it just because most of the characters are all male. That would be absurd. It’s that when it happens again and again that there are books with not many non-white characters or not many female main characters, it makes a person wonder if there is a reason for this: if maybe the publishers have gotten the wrong idea that books with minority characters won’t sell or if they think that white readers won’t want to read a book with a non-white character, to which I would respond that if I can read book with white characters and enjoy it, I see no reason why a white person can’t read a book with non-white characters and enjoy it.

Comment #91 (May 25, 2011 2:22 pm)[4]

@Aetre (comment #63): I agree with your comment about asking people of all groups as main speakers. I do think that the panels about issues like race and gender are important, but if that’s the only thing that we’re ever seen talking about, people get the wrong impression that that’s all we know/care about.

On the topic of how the diversity of speakers and diversity of the audience might or might not be related (as Kim.E commented at #71), I’m honestly not sure. I consider myself as being part of the online “audience” even though I’ve never been to an atheist event (since I’m a student who often can’t afford it and because my parents do not know I’m an atheist, so it would be difficult to explain). I often watch the videos of speeches at some events if they’re placed online, and I sometimes wonder if there are many others like myself who are watching as well, who are also female or part of a racial minority.

I don’t think a person who’s a racial or gender minority is going to intentionally not be an atheist if they see people of a different group talking about atheism, as you don’t have to be a particular skin color or gender to realize that the supernatural stuff in religion sounds a bit ridiculous. I do wonder, though, how a person might perceive a particular organization compared to another, depending on the diversity of speakers they invite or of their membership.

In other words, I wonder this: To what extent is it that people feel uncomfortable identifying with a group because they are not represented, and to what extent are people saying “We are part of the group” (in this case the nonreligious group) and would like to be included and welcomed to contribute.

(To continue my analogy, there are fans of sf/fantasy of all genders and races, and they/we are not saying that we’ll stop being fans unless more diversity is included; it’s that we’re saying we are fans and would like to be included.)

Comment #115 (May 25, 2011 3:54 pm)[5]

@Carlie (#96):

I think you misunderstood my comment, or perhaps I was unclear. I was agreeing with the statement that people of different groups should speak on a variety of topics, but disagreeing with the idea that we should not discuss race and gender. I think one of the misconceptions that people have about minorities is that we’re always talking about being in a minority group and nothing else. I think that misconception is unfair, and maybe seeing a diverse group of people talking about many topics will help correct that misconception—in addition to, of course, the important goal of getting people to realize that people of all groups have something valuable to contribute.

Also, I definitely think that someone’s background is not irrelevant, but in fact very relevant. My family’s Muslim, so my experience is going to be different from the experience of someone who, say, is a former Christian whose family has lived in the US for many generations. Even on a topic that might not seem like it is related to race or gender, there may be some historic or cultural reason why that topic is seen differently, depending on a person’s experience in a certain group.

#

Edit/Update

Professor Myers has posted two more entries that are relevant to this topic.

1.  In Another cause, Professor Myers posts an email he received from a self-described “progressive woman skeptic” who expressed that she is very happy (as am I) that Professor Myers has shown support for equal rights.  She suggests that another cause to take up is the one for Disability Rights, which I think is an excellent idea.

(URL:  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/another_cause.php)

2.  In I get email, Professor Myers posts an email he received from an atheist who has conservative views and who writes, “I feel like I agree with Conservative Christians on most political and social issues”.  I think Professor Myers is correct in pointing out that, while one can be an atheist and a conservative, “one cannot be a rational, intelligent human being and contributing member of society and hold the conservative views you do. When you say you favor increasing individual freedom, you actually mean increasing the individual freedom of healthy white male heterosexuals who have skills that corporate interests find profitable, which, I’m sorry to say, is an extremely narrow slice of our culture, and not necessarily the best element of our society”.

(URL:  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/i_get_email_83.php)

---

References

[1] Myers, PZ Myers.  While we’re talking about advocating equality….  Posted on May 25, 2011 at Pharyngula.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/while_were_talking_about_advoc.php.

[2] Osborne, Juliet.  White people believe that they face the worst racism.  Posted on May 25, 2011 at Exploreable.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://exploreable.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/white-people-face-the-worst-racism/.

[3] Sharmin, Ani.  Comment #58, posted on May 25, 2011 at 11:38 am.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/while_were_talking_about_advoc.php#comment-3969132.

[4] Sharmin, Ani.  Comment #91, posted on May 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/while_were_talking_about_advoc.php#comment-3970195.

[5] Sharmin, Ani.  Comment #115, posted on May 25, 2011 at 3:54 pm.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/while_were_talking_about_advoc.php#comment-3970719.

Eradicate Hate, Not Literary History: Censoring words is not the right way to fight against racism

Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a very controversial book, even after more than a century.  According to the American Library Association,[1] it was the fifth most frequently challenged book in the 1990s[2] and the fourteenth most frequently challenged book in the 2000s.[3] This book, along with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, is a beloved classic, but both are often controversial due to the fact that they contain racial epithets.

It seems the book has come under a more subtle, yet still dangerous, form of censorship.  The publisher NewSouth Books is going to release a new edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer in February.  In this new edition, the word “nigger” will be replaced with “slave” and the word “injun” will be replaced with “Indian”.  Alan Gribben, an English professor at Auburn University in Montgomery, suggested this idea to the publisher, because he was hesitant to read the racial epithets aloud.  He thought that perhaps the book would not face as much opposition, and more people would be willing to teach it, if the words were changed.[4] While I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for the teachers who say they have a difficult time figuring out how to teach classic works that contain questionable language, I think that changing the words is wrong; it is both ineffective as a way to discourage racism and is also a dishonest alteration and misrepresentation of the words of an author.

We live in a society in which racism still exists, so it is understandable that a racial epithet still carries with it a rather strong sting.  We cannot see these words in a completely historical manner, because we know that there is still discrimination against African Americans and Native Americans today.  I feel a strong hesitation to speak or even type such epithets, even though I know I am talking about the words, rather than using them to insult another person.  It can feel intimidating if a student is one of a few people in the class of a particular group, and an epithet in a book is referring to the group that they are a part of.  Censoring these words, however, is not going to make the problem of racism go away.  One of the ways in which racism thrives is by people denying that it exists.  There are those who support discrimination outright and those who pretend that it is no longer a problem.  There are those who pretend that acknowledging the existence of minority groups is “politically correct”, when it is really just an acknowledgement of reality.  There are those who make clearly racist comments and then claim that they are not racist.  We should oppose racism, and we cannot do that if we don’t talk about it or refuse to admit that it exists.  Instead of removing words from books, instead of denying our bad history, we should make it clear that racism is not acceptable.  We should call out and condemn those who promote hatred and discrimination.

Literature can teach us great things, if read and taught properly, and the integrity of a text is important if we want to examine and study its content.  Even a book in which a character expresses discriminatory ideas can be valuable to read.  Although a book may contain epithets, it can allow us to see the clear wrongness of discrimination, the harm that it causes.  We can see the cruelty of discrimination and feel sympathy for those who are being hurt by it.  I remember reading Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, a book which is also controversial for similar reasons, and it has a message against discrimination, despite the fact that there are racial epithets.  On this alteration of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Dr. Sarah Chuchwell, of the University of East Anglia, is quoted (by Benedicte Page in The Guardian) as saying,

The fault lies with the teaching, not the book.  You can’t say ‘I’ll change Dickens so it is compatible with my teaching method’.  Twain’s books are not just literary documents but historical documents, and that word is totemic because it encodes all of the violence of slavery.  The point of the book is that Huckleberry Finn starts out a racist in a racist society, and stops being racist and leaves that society.  These changes mean the book ceases to show the moral development of his character.  They have no merit and are misleading to readers.  The whole point of literature is to expose us to different ideas and different eras, and they won’t always be nice and benign.  It’s dumbing down.[5]

Students should not be underestimated; they see the world around them.  They are capable of understanding that a book contains ideas that we now know are wrong, even though people in the past wrongly thought they were okay.  They are also capable of understanding a book written by an author of a different race or with characters of a different race.  Perhaps a better way to create a curriculum that is more reflective of our diversity is to include books with diverse authors and characters.  It can be frustrating (and embarrassing) when the only book in the school curriculum with a minority character is a book in which the minority character is being treated badly.  Instead of removing books, why not encourage students to read more books and a greater variety of books?  Accuracy, honesty, and a willingness to read books by those who are different from us are a better way to combat discrimination than an editor’s pen.

---

References

[1] The American Library Association’s official website can be found at http://www.ala.org/.

[2] 100 most frequently challenged books:  1990 – 1999.  American Library Associated.  Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedbydecade/1990_1999/index.cfm.

[3] 100 most frequently challenged books:  2000-2009.  American Library Association.  Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedbydecade/2000_2009/index.cfm.

[4] Bosman, Julie.  Publisher Tinkers With Twain.  Published at The New York Times on January 4, 2011.  Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/books/05huck.html.

[5] [Quote of Dr. Sarah Churchwell, as reported by Benedicte Page] Page, Benedict.  New Huckleberry Finn edition censors ‘n-word’.  Published in The Guardian on Januray 5, 2011.  Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/05/huckleberry-finn-edition-censors-n-word.

The Dream: On the Anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous I Have a Dream speech on August 28, 1963, and today is the anniversary of this historic event.[1] This speech has become an important part of our history, with words from which we draw hope and inspiration when we ourselves seek to improve our country and our world.

There is hope in his words, a hope that America can live up to the promises of freedom and justice on which it was founded, as he says, “But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”  Being a part of a movement for equal rights requires a hope that justice can be achieved — that there is actually good to be found in the world and in one’s fellow human beings.  The great ideas of the past, those articulated by our ancestors, inspire us and we hope that those ideas will apply in the future to everyone and not just a few.  We hope that our fellow human beings will look upon those who are different from them and know that, despite the differences, we are all human.

There is perseverance in his words combining the knowledge that the fight will be long and difficult with the belief that it will all be worthwhile.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: “For Whites Only.” We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

It can seem at some times, as it must have to those who struggled so valiantly against the segregation and discrimination during the time of Rev. Dr. King, that the battle is everlasting and ongoing and that there are so many obstacles to overcome.  Yet, they knew that they could not live with such injustice, and so they knew that no matter how long it took, the fight was worth it.  Rev. Dr. King asserts that nothing less than justice and righteousness will be enough — that living with less than this is not acceptable, and that it is important to keep fighting on until that goal is met.  This struggle and perseverance is shared by anyone who is in any such movement for equal rights, as the process of changing human minds can take time, and it is why his words mean so much to us today, offering encouragement from a person who kept working for equality even when it was difficult.

There is a dream for the future in his words, the familiar excerpt describing a future in which we would love to live and for which we hope.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

His speech, and this section of it especially, is often quoted and often looked upon as a great moment in our nation’s history, as his words echo down the years in our minds and hearts today.  We look forward, as did those who were there that day, to a better future for all.  We look at all that has been accomplished thanks to their hard work and hope that we are contributing in any way that we can.  Even if we never see the perfect future that is envisioned, we know that Rev. Dr. King and the many who worked with him contributed greatly to moving humanity in the right direction and we hope that our species will continue to move forward, getting closer to the day when we all consider each other “sisters and brothers”.

While listening to a recording of the speech, one can hear the crowd clapping and cheering, motivated by his moving words.  Ultimately, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (though he was just a human) and this speech (though it was only a few minutes in the vast history of time and located in one tiny place in the vast universe) remind us of so much more.  They remind us of all of the anonymous people who were standing there that day and of all the people throughout human history who have likewise stood up to injustice.  Ultimately, such movements and struggles for justice are not about any one person or any few minutes of an important day, but about all of those people whose lives are affected daily by discrimination and whose lives are made better when justice prevails.

It is in them and in their hopes for a better future that the dream lives.

---

References

[1] King, Jr., Martin Luther.  I Have a Dream speech from August 28, 1963.  Text and audio found on American Rhetoric.  Retrieved on August 27, 2010 from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm.