There is such a thing as everyday racism, and that’s sad enough for all those who are the brunt of it, just as it is - on a moral/philosophical level, at least - for all those who feel the need to commit it. But what do you do when you experience open racism, go through all the right channels to have the situation addressed, and - in the end - have to once again witness that the perpetrator and perpetuator of racist dogma gets little more than a (private) slap on the wrist?

Professor Lorenz Fisher, a professor of economic and social psychology at the University of Cologne, recently told a lecture hall full of students that American studies have proven the correlation between black skin color and criminality. Based on this ‘proof’, according to Prof. Fischer, certain prejudices against black people (or, as Prof. Fischer said in German: ‘Neger’) were entirely justified.

There was only one sole black student - a young Afro-German women - present at that day’s lecture. In an email she requested that Prof. Fischer correct his statement during his next lecture, and also informed him that Afro-Germans consider the term ‘Neger’ pejorative.

In his answer to this young woman he noted how ‘peculiar’ it was for a German to be told by a non-German what certain terms in that language are supposed to mean. (I wonder if Prof. Fischer understands how ‘peculiar’ it is for a group of people to be told by another group what they should or should not welcome being called?) In his next lecture Prof. Fischer did not take back anything he had said previously, and instead simply argued that in German the word ‘Neger’ was total neutral.

Not satisfied with this response, the young woman involved brought the matter to the attention of the local students’ organization. They interviewed several other students who had been present at the lecture; all of whom confirmed that the incident had taken place as told by their black fellow student. Apparently, this is also not the first time Professor Fischer has been accused of making blatantly racist statements during lectures, as he himself admits.

The students’ organization lodged a formal complete with the Office of the Dean, Prof. Freimuth. Although a mediation group was instituted as a result of this incident to give students a confidential contact point when they experience or witness discrimination, the dean stopped short of officially sanctioning Prof. Fischer in any way. Yes, the dean was shocked, and - yes - he admonished Prof. Fischer to change his behavior, but - no - there were no other consequences.

Understandably, the young lady who was one of the professor’s students and witnessed this dissemination of blatant racist propaganda is saddened and disappointed about the way this concrete situation was handled.

What is the underlying message here?

Despite the public displays of shock and disgust, despite the candlelight vigils and the tears after yet another violent xenophobic or racist incident, are German institutions and corporations at all prepared to tackle the huge task of cutting racism out at the root? Are they ready to walk the proverbial walk with the same energy and pathos they are sometimes prepared to talk the talk?

The answer for the moment - at the University of Cologne at least - is apparently a loud and resounding ‘no’.

The question begs to be asked, too, just what kind of teeth the university’s new mediation group will have - if any at all.

(Source: Dr. Joe Otim Dramiga)

With the exception of Naomi Campbell, the number of black models on the catwalks and in mainstream fashion magazines in Europe and America is severely limited. This is due in part to what is perceived as a limited customer-base amongst black people globally and what is assumed to be their low economic status, as well as a tendency to lump the black consumer into one - ‘urban’ - pot.

In an ad agency event I hosted in 2005 where German model Eva Padberg was a guest, she talked openly about the fact that ethnic models - esp. black models - don’t receive nearly the same exposure and opportunities as their white counterparts.

In a much-heralded move to counteract this bleaching of an already extremely pale fashion industry, the July issue of Italian Vogue features only black models. Rumors are already circulating that the issue is not expected to sell well, though I personally wonder whether this is based on truth - or a kind of fatalist negativity rooted in more than one bad past experience.

On the Black Women in Europe Social Network, Jennifer Ewah had this to say on the subject in a comment she entitled “Black is Back in Vogue”:

Vogue Italia will release the much anticipated July issue which has been touted as the first politicized attempt to redress the balance against active policies of exclusion of women of colour internationally in mid to high fashion editorial and advertising coverage.

This is an international issue as the generalised position of global fashion houses and cosmetics companies as we all know is that women “globally” cannot be encouraged to spend when a black model is used. Aside from celebrities like Halle Berry or where the black community is being targeted itself the general belief (expressed openly) is that due to the low economic perception, black women do not represent the face of the type of women that other women internationally (and the strategic justification is that we would especially not inspire women within the Asian market to spend). The more visceral problem is the open racism in castings (e.g. mandates stipulating “no ethnics” allowed).

Despite the fact that many black men and women are very familiar with the Prada fashion label and some are consumers, Prada has not used a single black model in their catwalk shows (through policy or lack of “aesthetic compatibility”) since 1997 with Naomi Campbell. British born Jourdan Dunn was the first this year since ‘97. Touted as the next Naomi there are indications that she will do extremely well provided as a senior luminary in the modelling agency business commentated that “she doesn’t develop phone throwing tendencies”. For her to have to follow that perception is unfortunate.

Black has not been beautiful for a long time and some say things are worse now than in the sixties, even in the US as the dominant groups (LVMH, PPR, owners of the Gucci Group) react as though black cachet has been lost.

Why do we think that is? May that be due to the predominance of diasporic representation, or being seen as synonymous with “urban” culture?

I wanted to recommend that if you see Vogue Italia you check it out and I’d like to know what ladies here think.

Personally I think that although fashion is trend based it is one of the most culturally influential and in terms of revenues, the second biggest industry in the world. Trend based (which includes cosmetics) fashion may be, but it is reflective of and shapes social perceptions, and consumption. It is a social reflector and avatar for our times.

How do you think the industry needs to be politicized by concerned insiders and outsiders from the diasporic perspective?

Click here to read what “The Independent” had to say about the situation of women of color in the fashion industry and the statement the current issue of Italian Vogue is trying to make.

What the heck do these two things have to do with one another you ask? Do the Obama daughters play soccer on their schools team (making Michelle a ’soccer mom’) or is one of them working on a special project about international sports for school?

To be honest, I have no idea if the girls play soccer. This comparison came to me - in a very roundabout way, I admit - from listening to Rush Limbaugh’s show on the radio. Before you click the ‘X’ to run - not walk - from this post (which is exactly what I normally do when I read that name anywhere on the web), let me explain that while I’m cooking or cleaning up the kitchen I often listen to the channel AFN SHAPE as well as NPR are broadcast on here in Europe. So, depending on the time, I sometimes inadvertantly - and briefly - run into Mr. Limbaugh and his fans.

On the specific evening in question, I was on my way over to the kitchen table to grab the radio’s remote control when an older female caller vehemently stressed how ‘physically sick’ she gets when she even thinks about Michelle Obama’s statement that ‘for once’ in her adult life she was actually proud of her country. This isn’t the first time this sentiment has been expressed, be it conservative politicians or pundits or simple folks from the so-called ‘American heartland’?

Am I really the only one who gets it?

Americans are certainly not the only folks with a pinch of knee-jerk patriotism in their blood - as anyone watching any of the games leading up to the upcoming European Championship match between Germany and Spain tomorrow night can attest. All throughout Germany - a country that has struggled mightily with its own understanding of patriotism since the last World War - German flags are on display in front of houses, on t-shirt and flying from the antennas of cars with a lightheartedness that wouldn’t have been possible even five years ago. I’m sure the sight was pretty similar when it comes to flags flying proudly in (add nation of your choice), too.

Many immigrants in Germany have gracefully bridged the gap between pride in their countries of origin and loyalty to their present home on this particular occasion by simply flying both flags to show support for both teams. When Germany beat out Poland in the qualifying matches, Lukas Podolski (a proud and successful member of the German national team who scored a goal that night) won the hearts of many when - at the end of the game - he jumped into the stands to greet and hugs his family and friends from Poland. Lukas Podolski - and team mate Miroslav Klose - both seem to have found a balance between being German and being Polish that wins over large portions of both audiences.

The question - both concerning Michelle Obama and immigrant finding the right balance when it comes to who to root for - isn’t when your loyalty towards the place where you live (versus the place where you are from ) become more than just a strategically polite gesture. The real question is: When does the loyalty shown to you by those institutions and people in your new home become genuine and unquestioned?

This was most poignantly obvious when Germany was due to square off with Turkey for a place in the finals. One of the Turkish players was actually born and raised right here in Gelsenkirchen, and had played on the same team as three of the German national players. The Turkish team had come back hard against adversity earlier on in the tournament. Their two last minute turnarounds (both played in the pouring rain) will surely go down in history as being some of the most exciting football of the tournament.

Many of the ‘talking heads’ on German TV, however,  were patronizing when it came to Turkey’s chances (though the Germans hadn’t exactly been playing stellar ball). In the press and in beer gardens around the country, the issues complicating the relationship between Germany and Turkey (what some consider failed integration of Turkish immigrants, EU membership for Turkey, rising islamification of immigrants ) were mostly skirted around. Most people chose to either ignore the underlying potential for tension or play it up in such a camp way that the discussion lent nothing to serious discourse. But maybe that’s ok, and they were right to focus their attention on sports.

After coming on strong right from the beginning of the match, Turkey went on to lose to German with a very honorable 3-2 score.

Michelle Obama, in my opinion, was reacting to something that is for many (not only black) Americans a very tangible contradiction. Americans are expected to be ultra-patriotic. Unquestioningly so. We are raised to believe we are the biggest and the best, and this chant goes on inside our collective heads no matter what world affairs and national economics may say to disprove the squeaky clean imagery. Americans expect other Americans to do as they do; i.e. ignore all the contradictions between what America actually stands for and what Americans - as individual or subgroups - really experience on a day-to-day basis: racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Speaking as a black person I can say this: Given the strained history of blacks in America, it often takes a whole lot of goodwill on one part (ours) and almost none on the other (’mainstream’ white America) for blacks to be proud of America as it is. Sure, we can be proud of the idea of America. But how can you expect us to be unconditionally proud of a country where overt racism - both institutional and individual - is part of the fabric of which this country is made? Although many white Americans wonder out loud what they have to do with the issue of slavery, black Americans know all too well that we don’t have to look back into the 19th century to put our finger into a putrid national wound. Ask the mother of Sean Bell’s children.

Are there exceptions to the rule? More and more each day! That doesn’t (and shouldn’t) gloss over the fact that America still has a very long way to go (on both sides!) if the rift between the races can ever be expected to truly heal.

Instead of castigating Michelle Obama for having the audacity to speak the truth, America should be applauding her honesty - as well as our collective progress. Because what made Michelle Obama proud that day is something that should make us all - as Americans - proud, too.

We’ve effectively moved one step further from the truth Langston Hughes expressed in his poem, ‘Children’s Rhymes’ -

CHILDREN’S RHYMES

By what sends
the white kids
I ain’t sent:
I know I can’t
be President.
What don’t bug
them white kids
sure bugs me:
We know everybody
ain’t free.

Lies written down
for white folks
ain’t for us a-tall:
Liberty And Justice —
Huh! For All?

- and one step closer to what Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned in his ‘I Have A Dream’ speech.

And, yes, for once I was proud, too, Michelle!

“We all should know that diversity makes for a rich tapestry, and we must understand that all the threads of the tapestry are equal in value no matter what their color.”

(Source: Maya Angelou)

I recently spent a few days on a training mission to Madrid. It was actually my first trip to Spain, and that gave me an additional reason to look forward to my journey. Although my most recent impression of Spain was related to the racist reaction of some Spanish Formula 1 fans to black British driver, Lewis Hamilton, I headed off to the airport with my usual mixture of high spirits and optimism.

My flight took me to Barajas via Zurich’s Klothen Airport. It’s been awhile since I’ve been to Switzerland, but I have spent a fair amount of time there in the past, both for business and for pleasure. I was actually supposed to stay a year with a Swiss family in Reinach (near Basel) before I made the decision to go to Strasbourg instead. Later, with clients like Migros, Schindler, Nestle, and GM Europe on my roster, I was certainly no stranger to the early morning flight from Frankfurt to both Zurich and Geneva.

It wasn’t till I landed in Madrid and began asking my way around in order to find my airport shuttle that something struck me. People automatically assumed I spoke Spanish. As a matter of fact, one taxi driver thought I was kidding at first when I told him that I didn’t.

This phenomenon is not really new to me. I’ve encountered similar reactions in France and the Netherlands; though my actual command of French is very limited (despite the year I spent there) and my spoken Dutch is rudimentary at best. With the many Spanish-speaking people coming to Spain from Latin and South America, as well as the Caribbean, however, the assumption that someone with my skin color probably speaks Spanish is not really so very strange.

What did strike me in this connection, though, is the one place where I am still routinely spoken to in English: Germany.

Although I’ve lived here for more than 30 years, it’s not uncommon for people to automatically begin their conversation with me in English. As a matter of fact, there have been a few occasions where I’ve held up my end of a conversation in (fluent!) German, only to have the other person continue speaking English to me for several minutes before it even sinks in. And I won’t even try to count the times that most insidious of compliments - “Wow! You speak such amazing German!” - has been said to me. Granted, we Americans aren’t known for our linguistic prowess, so from that point of view the compliment isn’t necessarily back-handed at all.

On the other hand, I am too aware of the scores of Afro-Germans - my own children included - who hear the same thing time and time again, though they were born and raised here, and have lived here their whole lives.

Numerous studies have been done in the US, UK and France concerning discrimination in the hiring process. Although the official stance in a meritocracy is that education, skills and experience are the basic key to a fair hiring policy, if the truth be told something as benign as your first or last name often prevents some applicants from even getting to first base in their search for gainful employment: namely an invitation to a face-to-face interview.

Especially for the second immigrant generation in places like France and the UK, as well as the generation of black Americans born after the height of the civil right movement, education was touted as the great equalizer. Many parents readily endured discrimination in their own lives, hoping that a sound education would spare their children the same plight. In many cases, however, the second and third generations are arguably more frustrated than their elders. Hassen Akremi, quoted in a 2006 article in the Washington Post entitled “French Firms Test Colorblind Hiring” by John Ward Anderson, is just one example of this phenomenon. A Tunisian living in France with a master’s degree in international public law, he has studied and worked legally in France for 12 years, but - because of his ethnicity - has only been able to land menial jobs.

In his article, John Ward Anderson quotes Claude Bebear, a well-known and unimpeachable French takeover artist who openly admits the findings of his own experience and research: “…they throw away the résumés of people who are from bad parts of town which are supposed to have Arabs or blacks.(…) When you have somebody whose name is Mohammed and he lives in St. Denis (a low-income community outside Paris) you say, ‘I won’t bother with that one,’ and so they don’t even answer them.” This assessment was further supported by a 2007 study of applicants from France’s Ile-de-France suburb which investigates - among other factors - how applications from young people with North African- versus French-sounding surnames are treated in the recruitment process.

The solution Bebear proposed to the former French prime minister? An anonymous application process which would give no information about an applicant that could be construed as a cause for discrimination.

Similarly, in an article published online in 2002 in the The New York Times, Alan B. Krueger writes about the discrimination of job applicants in the US based on their so-called ‘black-sounding’ names. His article, “Economic Scene; Sticks and stones can break bones, but the wrong name can make a job hard to find”, summarizes the results of an experiment conducted at M.I.T. and the University of Chicago. In the experiment, nearly 5,000 applications were sent out in 2001 and 2002, and their progress in the hiring pool tracked. These applications were randomly assigned first and surnames usually associated with either black women, black men, white women or white men respectively. Apart from the difference in names, applicants had the same level of education, skills and experience. The big question: How would Tamika or Tyrone fare vs. Kristen or Brad?

According to Krueger’s article, a 50 % advantage for names associated with whites in terms of interview requests held true in both Chicago and Boston.

In an entry entitled “On having a black name” on her blog, Daisy’s Dead Air, one white woman with a ‘black-sounding’ names tells about the discrimination she unwittingly experiences in the workplace simply based on assumptions people make about her based on her name.

Krueger, a professor at Princeton University, differentiates between two main types of marketplace discrimination:

• Taste-based discrimination theorizes that minority applicants can be discriminated against because of the preferences of employers, customers, co-workers or supervisors. This form of discrimination takes place despite the knowledge that this individual (or group) is equally as productive as a non-minority applicant. In other words, decisions to discriminate are made in direct opposition to economic best practice.

• Statistical discrimination, on the other hand, assumes that employers have no personal prejudice, but feel unable to predict the level of individual productivity, and therefore bases their assessment on assumption based on a person’s racial group. This type of pre-selection could arguably benefit the an organizations bottom line, if there were any accurate information confirming these assumptions.

This kind of discrimination is obviously not new to Germany. Applicants with foreign-sounding names are often (still) not considered suitable for positions in certain professional sectors if those names carry with them a specific type of stereotypical baggage. Add to that the German practice of including a photo along with your application, and anyone with the wrong ‘look’ - or skin color - can easily find his or her application automatically landing on the ‘no go’ pile.

However, at a time when organizations are finding it more and more difficult to recruit the skilled workers they needs to remain successful in the (global) marketplace, companies who are already feeling the crunch are beginning to proactively and consciously reassess their own hiring practices. Whether this initiative is internally driven or facilitated by external consultant, for the sake of your company: May the best (wo)man win!

In Germany there continues to be a call for more documentation of the positive effects of corporate Diversity Management. Although I’ve already mentioned in the article Lale Otyakmaz and I co-wrote that reluctance to implement far-reaching Diversity Management programs are sometimes a form of inherent resistance to corporate diversity, successful case studies can sometimes be a compelling argument for business leaders already positively disposed to the idea.

In his article “Diversity: IBM versus Monitor Company - What Can We Learn?“, American leadership expert, Paul Hoffmann, compares a best practice example (IBM) with the good intentions of another organization (Monitor) that developed in a decidedly different manner.

To provide some background on the current Diversity Management landscape in the USA, according to Hoffmann’s article, a body of research on 120 HR professionals in Fortune 1000 companies conducted by Melissa Jenkins and published in 2006 showed:

1. These professionals used terms such as ‘direct impact‘ and ‘competitive edge‘ to define the advantages of a strategic corporate diversity program
2. Those surveyed who believe diversity enhances corporate culture: 79 %
3. Those HR professionals who believe diversity improves recruitment: 77 %
4. The same number - 77 % - believes diversity increases employee morale
5. The number of those HR professionals surveyed who thought diversity kept their organizations competitive in the marketplace: a resounding 91 %

Hoffmann portrays IBM’s stance on Diversity Management as follows:

The IBM stance is that diversity is an investment in the future of customers and the future of business, business development, and business diversification. Diversity did not receive lip service from the top rather it received commitment. The IBM diversity decision came with total buy-in from the top.

In contrast, Monitor’s entry into the Diversity Management arena is described like this:

At Monitor, diversity discussions started from survey results during their tenth anniversary year. The company commissioned a global Definition of Purpose exercise intent to learn Monitor’s “vision of itself as it grew into its second decade” (Grant 1994, pg. 2). The surprise result was how uncomfortable people felt in the homogeneous climate of Monitor. Establishment of diversity programs at monitor launched slowly from bottom up.

Hoffmann then describes how IBM - a company with an aggressive human relations policy and EEO management - at first attempted to ignore differences instead of actively maximizing them to improve their business position. They were a company with a diverse customer base; this diversity was not replicate within the organizations leadership. With Lou Gerstner at the helm, IBM instituted a strategic shift in their attitude towards diversity. Eight taskforces within the company came up with “The Vital Few Issues: Employees’ Biggest Diversity Concerns”, which became the platform from which to investigate concrete business development options.

To read more of Hoffmann’s comparison of the IBM case, as well as his details of the very different development at Monitor, click the link above.

Although I understand the historical context, I often stumble over the attempts some people in the Diversity Management scene here in Germany make to avoid using the term ‘race’.

For many Germans - including those in the front lines of Diversity Management - the term ‘race’ (or: ‘Rasse’) conjures up Nazi-era memories of the so-called Nuremburg Race Laws (or: Nuerenburger Rassengesetze) that were the doctrine paving the way to the eventual murder of millions of Jews, Sinti/Roma, homosexuals and blacks during World War II.

To avoid using that hate-laden language, many times ‘race’ is now euphamistically referred to as ‘culture’ or ‘ethnicity’ in the official parlance in Germany, also in Diversity Management. In some cases this works out fine simply because you are actually talking about dealing with cultural or ethnic differences within the context of Diversity Management. On the other hand, I see how this semantic juggling act clouds the issue where people like my own children are concerned.

Black Germans (or: Afro-Deutsche).

In many cases these are people who have grown up culturally German and carry German passports. They were born here, know the same nursery rhymes, went to visit Oma and Opa on the holidays and are products of the German education system. In the end, the only difference between them and other Germans is the color of their skin.

In my own case (since I did start off with a reference to my family) having a foreign-born parent makes my children no different than the many kids growing up in this stretch of Germany who have one British or Dutch or Belgian or French parent. Except for their skin color.

Yet in 2008 my children (and many others like them) still experience disbelief when they give their German last name and claim this country and their parental heritage as their own. They are stopped more often by the police, barred more often from clubs and discotheques, passed over during job recruitment and stymied in their career advancement - solely because of the prejudices and stereotypes associated with the color of their skin.

Germany must begin to face - and eventually accept - the difference between ethnicity and nationality, because racial discrimination isn’t something that only goes on “over there” - in the USA or UK or France. It also doesn’t only impact foreigners, immigrants or refugees. It impacts people like my children. Germans. Just like you.

But don’t take my word for it! In her recent book, Deutschland Schwarz Weiss. Der alltaegliche Rassismus, Noah Sow has very eloquently put her own thoughts and experiences into a book charting how day-to-day racism here in Germany keeps an antiquated colonial way of racialist thinking - and behaving - very much alive.

Diversity Management can be an effective tool in openly and honestly addressing the fact that many cultural Germans are treated as less-than-equal in the workplace - despite their skills and training - simply because of the color of their skin.

Is German Diversity Management ready to accept the challenge?

“…Diversity: The art of thinking independently together…”

Source: Malcolm Forbes

Friday was the 40th anniversary of the assassination of American Civil Rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King. Many who are the age Dr. King would have been if he had lived past that fateful day in Memphis in 1968 probably never believed that they would live to see a Black man - or a women, for that matter - vying for the presidency of the United States in their lifetime.

Although the primary race of the American Democratic Party has gotten uglier in recent weeks, let’s take a second to step into the shoes of any 80-year old American - black or white - and consider just what a quantum societal leap this historic situation represents.

• The fact that senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama can stand toe-to-toe as serious presidential candidates is a testimony to how far Americans as a people have come.
• The fact that - ultimately - both race and gender have been utilized during this campaign as an attempted quick fix to undermine either candidate is a reminder of just how far we as a society still need to go.

As a tribute to the man who opened so many doors for so many of us - white and black, male and female, American- and foreign-born - I’d like to take this opportunity to not only link to a video of his stellar “I Have A Dream” speech, which gives you an impression of the atmosphere of the day, as well as Dr. King’s amazing oratory power and sense of conviction. I’m also re-printing the text to the speech in it’s entirety, so you have a chance to ponder the actual words and what they might mean in your life today.

In 2008.
“I Have A Dream”
(a speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King in Washington, DC, on August 28, 1963.)

“…I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” 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. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. 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 selfhood 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.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

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.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”…

(Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html)