Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fierce Urgency of Remembering

Opinion

Fierce Urgency of Remembering
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gives a speech

The floorboards of American democracy creak under the weight of our collective amnesia. Every January, the image of Martin Luther King Jr. is polished and presented, made to appear harmless and easily shared. This is no more than another federal holiday, with his famous dream reduced to a recurring line or two and an oft-repeated photograph, both stripped of their original challenge. But in 2026, this custom feels different. The air feels tighter. There is a sense that something threatening lies beneath the commemorations—a growing worry that the democracy King strove to protect is not just vulnerable but on the verge of failing, struggling to survive during Trump’s second presidency.

America has always lived in urgent tension with itself. King understood this better than most. His moral and spiritual imagination pierced patriotic veneers, exposing the greed and violence woven into American life, the ways whiteness functioned as inheritance for some and dispossession for many others. Even amid technological marvels and global ambition, the questions King posed half a century ago remain not just unanswered, but pressing: Who belongs? Who bears the cost of our prosperity? Can a genuine moral community exist without truth-telling and repair?


To invoke King now is an act of urgent necessity. He was never a comforting figure, despite how often he is portrayed as one. King compelled America to look at itself without myth or nostalgia. He practiced a double vision that was both tender and unrelenting, able to grieve what had been while demanding the courage to imagine something more just. That task is even more urgent today, in a moment when history itself is under organized assault. Not only Black history, but the plural, untidy story of anyone who has struggled to breathe at the margins is being narrowed, edited, or erased altogether.

From the pulpit, King called this tension 'the fierce urgency of now.' For him, it was never a catchphrase but a demand for immediate attention, both a warning and an invitation. He believed that democracy was more than running elections or following laws—it depended on a shared agreement built on memory, repentance, and hope. Democracy lasted only if people insisted that it include and protect those who were most likely to be overlooked. Without that continual insistence, democracy became empty at its core.

Today, we are governed again by a politics hostile to that vision. Trump’s return to the presidency represents more than policy reversals or rhetorical cruelty. It signals something deeper and more corrosive: an aggressive form of forgetting. Painful truths about who we have been are treated as inconveniences to be discarded. The record of protest and sacrifice is relegated to banned books, defunded programs, and shuttered classrooms. Across the country, attempts to tell a fuller American story are attacked, histories are censored, and ethnic identity is flattened into something manageable and nonthreatening. This is not merely a partisan struggle. It is a spiritual crisis.

King’s theology, radical as it was, was profoundly democratic. He believed the nation’s wounds required what Reinhold Niebuhr called a spiritual discipline against resentment, a discipline that did not deny injustice but refused to let bitterness have the final word. Democracy, for King, became real only when it was saturated with love, when the son of a tenant farmer and the daughter of a sharecropper could recognize themselves in the promises of the Constitution. This was not idealism divorced from reality. It was forged in the Black church, where hymns doubled as political declarations, and testimony became an act of resistance, where hope was cultivated in the shadow of humiliation.

Where is that practice now, when “We the People” seems to shrink by the day? Its erosion demands our immediate attention. It is happening in the marrow of public life. Voting rights are weakened. Protest is criminalized. Citizenship is rendered transactional, offering security and belonging to some while withholding it from others. This is not accidental drift. It is the systematic unraveling of the civil and moral compact that once made democracy imaginable.

What King offers us still is a politics of memory, a disciplined refusal to let lies harden into permanence. Not for the sake of shame, but because truth, he believed, had the power to liberate. In the current political moment, memory has been weaponized. It is reduced to slogans and fantasies of a greatness that never belonged to everyone. The histories of Black, brown, Asian, Indigenous, and queer communities are either trimmed to serve a narrow nostalgia or erased altogether.

The struggle over history is, at its core, a struggle over the soul. Efforts to ban books, dismantle ethnic studies, and intimidate educators are not simply about curriculum. They are about shaping the moral imagination of the future. They declare that only certain people are entitled to full personhood, that only some stories matter, and that the image of God itself can be selectively honored. This is the theological crisis beneath our political one.

King never mistook unity for conformity. His vision of beloved community did not depend on the absence of conflict, but on the presence of justice amid difference. Democracy, in this sense, demands more than tolerance. It requires the discipline of living with one another, not over or against or in spite of one another. It asks us to endure ethical discomfort and to resist the temptation to simplify ourselves or our neighbors.

That demand helps explain what Trumpist politics fears most. Authoritarianism relies on oversimplifying things. It works by erasing complexity, numbing empathy, and training people to see others' suffering as either exaggerated or deserved. It takes away everything that gives democracy its essential humanity: our shared memory, moral restlessness, remorse, and the patient work of rebuilding what is broken. It restricts our sense of right and wrong until fear becomes the norm.

King refused to shrink. His faith in the arc of the moral universe was not passive optimism. It was a hard-earned conviction born of organizing, prayer, and sacrifice. He understood how much labor it took to bend that arc, how many bodies and broken hearts were required. He confronted America’s failures without treating them as an excuse for despair. The work, he knew, would grow more difficult, not less. “The greatest tragedy of this period of social transition,” he warned, “is not the glaring noisiness of bad people, but the appalling silence of good people.”

That silence is now unmistakable. It echoes in the platitudes of politicians who praise King’s dream while rejecting his moral urgency. It resonates in calls for unity that demand forgiveness before wounds are acknowledged, much less healed. It lingers in the quiet fear of communities told repeatedly that they do not count, that their histories are disposable, that their presence is conditional.

How should we answer such a moment? We do what King did. We theologize in the presence of despair. We place our bodies where our memories are. We fight for public policies that honor the fullness of human dignity, not out of sentimentality, but because democracy collapses when people are stripped of their stories. We organize for repair even when institutions resist or retreat.

And we tell the truth, especially when it is unwelcome. We tell it from pulpits and picket lines, in classrooms and living rooms, at school board meetings and city halls. We read the banned books. We sing the freedom songs. We enter spaces where our very presence unsettles the lie that only some belong.

King’s radical witness was that democracy, if it is to survive, must honor voices long silenced or shouted down. To commemorate him in 2026 is not to lay a wreath, but to accept responsibility for unfinished work. The fierce urgency of now confronts us again, not as a slogan, but as a choice. Memory or erasure. Personhood or theft. Democracy or its slow extinction. The King holiday is not a eulogy. It is a summons to the moral and civic renewal of our battered, beloved community.

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.


Read More

The Beautiful Game’s Betrayal

A vibrant soccer ball rests on a lush green field inside an empty stadium, capturing the essence of sports.

The Beautiful Game’s Betrayal

The City of Angels has a year that some might want to forget. A fiery beginning followed by an unjust summer led those who lived in Los Angeles to a mindset of fear and vulnerability.

Even more so, a majority of the city’s sports teams turned their back on the people when they needed them most. Within Carson, Calif., the Major League Soccer side, the Los Angeles Galaxy, just ended their 2024 campaign with a championship. After such a momentous year, the following a turn for the worse. A 2025 season filled with disappointment and an absence of winning was only further tainted by the club’s choice of silence when ICE and federal took to the streets of Los Angeles.

Keep ReadingShow less
Washington Murals Tell Stories of Migration, Identity, and Community

Person sits outside building with mural as another person walks by

Washington Murals Tell Stories of Migration, Identity, and Community

Many Latino artists in Seattle use walls as canvases to tell stories and display powerful messages. One of them is Rene Julio Diaz, a muralist from Mexico City who believes mural art must be meaningful to everyone, not just those who share his background.

“I’m not really into decorative arts, because for me, it needs to be relevant.” Diaz said. “Whenever I paint, I try to put something cultural or something that displays current situations. I try to talk about what is happening or what needs to happen. It might look pretty, but I try not to make it just decoration.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Baltazar Enríquez: Perspectives from Little Village Community Council President

Baltazar Enriquez stands with "ICE OUT OF CHICAGO" sign in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood

Teresa Ayala Leon

Baltazar Enríquez: Perspectives from Little Village Community Council President

Baltzar Enríquez was born in Michoacán, Mexico, and moved to Chicago at the age of three. Little Village, often called “The Mexico of the Midwest,” became his new home, a community he has grown to love and serve. In 2008, Enríquez joined the Little Village Community Council, a nonprofit organization originally founded in 1957. Upon becoming a member, he noticed the lack of participation and limited community programs available for residents. In 2020, he was named president of the council and began expanding, introducing initiatives such as Equal Education for Latinos, among other resources for the Little Village community. Enríquez reflected on his years of involvement and how he has navigated leading the council amid the current political climate.

Question: What inspired you most to get involved in the council?

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Second Year and the Crossroads Facing Latinos

illustration depicting Latinos at a crossroads

AI generated

Trump’s Second Year and the Crossroads Facing Latinos

As President Donald Trump enters his second year of his second term, the nation’s 62 million Hispanics and Latinos are bracing for a turbulent 2026 shaped by economic uncertainty, shifting political allegiances, and intensified immigration enforcement. New polling and research released throughout late 2025 paint a complex picture of a community that is increasingly anxious about its future and deeply skeptical of the administration’s direction.

Across multiple surveys, Latino voters consistently identify the economy, affordability, and jobs as their top concerns heading into 2026. A sweeping national survey of 3,000 registered Latino voters found that 65% believe President Trump and congressional Republicans are not doing enough to improve the economy, a five‑point increase since April. Half of respondents said they expect Trump’s economic policies to make them personally worse off next year.

Keep ReadingShow less