알로하보이의사이비세상

로널드 레이건 "A Time for Choosing"

Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:

Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to foll

ow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estesnever left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

General Douglas MacArthur

Farewell Address to Congress

delivered 19 April 1951

"노병은 죽지 않는다. 다만 사라질 뿐이다" 라는 유명한 말을 남긴 맥아더 장군의 고별연설문입니다.

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Distinguished Members of the Congress:

I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride -- humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me; pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected. I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.

I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country. The issues are global and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector, oblivious to those of another, is but to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other. There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism. If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his effort. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You can not appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.

Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia. Before one may objectively assess the situation now existing there, he must comprehend something of Asia's past and the revolutionary changes which have marked her course up to the present. Long exploited by the so-called colonial powers, with little opportunity to achieve any degree of social justice, individual dignity, or a higher standard of life such as guided our own noble administration in the Philippines, the peoples of Asia found their opportunity in the war just past to throw off the shackles of colonialism and now see the dawn of new opportunity, a heretofore unfelt dignity, and the self-respect of political freedom.

Mustering half of the earth's population, and 60 percent of its natural resources these peoples are rapidly consolidating a new force, both moral and material, with which to raise the living standard and erect adaptations of the design of modern progress to their own distinct cultural environments. Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started.

In this situation, it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny. What they seek now is friendly guidance, understanding, and support -- not imperious direction -- the dignity of equality and not the shame of subjugation. Their pre-war standard of life, pitifully low, is infinitely lower now in the devastation left in war's wake. World ideologies play little part in Asian thinking and are little understood. What the peoples strive for is the opportunity for a little more food in their stomachs, a little better clothing on their backs, a little firmer roof over their heads, and the realization of the normal nationalist urge for political freedom. These political-social conditions have but an indirect bearing upon our own national security, but do form a backdrop to contemporary planning which must be thoughtfully considered if we are to avoid the pitfalls of unrealism.

Of more direct and immediate bearing upon our national security are the changes wrought in the strategic potential of the Pacific Ocean in the course of the past war. Prior thereto the western strategic frontier of the United States lay on the littoral line of the Americas, with an exposed island salient extending out through Hawaii, Midway, and Guam to the Philippines. That salient proved not an outpost of strength but an avenue of weakness along which the enemy could and did attack.

The Pacific was a potential area of advance for any predatory force intent upon striking at the bordering land areas. All this was changed by our Pacific victory. Our strategic frontier then shifted to embrace the entire Pacific Ocean, which became a vast moat to protect us as long as we heldit. Indeed, it acts as a protective shield for all of the Americas and all free lands of the Pacific Ocean area. We control it to the shores of Asia by a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Mariannas held by us and our free allies. From this island chain we can dominate with sea and air power every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore -- with sea and air power every port, as I said, from Vladivostok to Singapore -- and prevent any hostile movement into the Pacific.

*Any predatory attack from Asia must be an amphibious effort.* No amphibious force can be successful without control of the sea lanes and the air over those lanes in its avenue of advance. With naval and air supremacy and modest ground elements to defend bases, any major attack from continental Asia toward us or our friends in the Pacific would be doomed to failure.

Under such conditions, the Pacific no longer represents menacing avenues of approach for a prospective invader. It assumes, instead, the friendly aspect of a peaceful lake. Our line of defense is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations, but properly maintained, would be an invincible defense against aggression. The holding of this littoral defense line in the western Pacific is entirely dependent upon holding all segments thereof; for any major breach of that line by an unfriendly power would render vulnerable to determined attack every other major segment.

This is a military estimate as to which I have yet to find a military leader who will take exception. For that reason, I have strongly recommended in the past, as a matter of military urgency, that under no circumstances must Formosa fall under Communist control. Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

To understand the changes which now appear upon the Chinese mainland, one must understand the changes in Chinese character and culture over the past 50 years. China, up to 50 years ago, was completely non-homogenous, being compartmented into groups divided against each other. The war-making tendency was almost non-existent, as they still followed the tenets of the Confucian ideal of pacifist culture. At the turn of the century, under the regime of Chang Tso Lin, efforts toward greater homogeneity produced the start of a nationalist urge. This was further and more successfully developed under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek, but has been brought to its greatest fruition under the present regime to the point that it has now taken on the character of a united nationalism of increasingly dominant, aggressive tendencies.

Through these past 50 years the Chinese people have thus become militarized in their concepts and in their ideals. They now constitute excellent soldiers, with competent staffs and commanders. This has produced a new and dominant power in Asia, which, for its own purposes, is allied with Soviet Russia but which in its own concepts and methods has become aggressively imperialistic, with a lust for expansion and increased power normal to this type of imperialism.

There is little of the ideological concept either one way or another in the Chinese make-up. The standard of living is so low and the capital accumulation has been so thoroughly dissipated by war that the masses are desperate and eager to follow any leadership which seems to promise the alleviation of local stringencies.

I have from the beginning believed that the Chinese Communists' support of the North Koreans was the dominant one. Their interests are, at present, parallel with those of the Soviet. But I believe that the aggressiveness recently displayed not only in Korea but also in Indo-China and Tibet and pointing potentially toward the South reflects predominantly the same lust for the expansion of power which has animated every would-be conqueror since the beginning of time.

The Japanese people, since the war, have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have, from the ashes left in war's wake, erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity; and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice.

Politically, economically, and socially Japan is now abreast of many free nations of the earth and will not again fail the universal trust. That it may be counted upon to wield a profoundly beneficial influence over the course of events in Asia is attested by the magnificent manner in which the Japanese people have met the recent challenge of war, unrest, and confusion surrounding them from the outside and checked communism within their own frontiers without the slightest slackening in their forward progress. I sent all four of our occupation divisions to the Korean battlefront without the slightest qualms as to the effect of the resulting power vacuum upon Japan. The results fully justified my faith. I know of no nation more serene, orderly, and industrious, nor in which higher hopes can be entertained for future constructive service in the advance of the human race.

Of our former ward, the Philippines, we can look forward in confidence that the existing unrest will be corrected and a strong and healthy nation will grow in the longer aftermath of war's terrible destructiveness. We must be patient and understanding and never fail them -- as in our hour of need, they did not fail us. A Christian nation, the Philippines stand as a mighty bulwark of Christianity in the Far East, and its capacity for high moral leadership in Asia is unlimited.

On Formosa, the government of the Republic of China has had the opportunity to refute by action much of the malicious gossip which so undermined the strength of its leadership on the Chinese mainland. The Formosan people are receiving a just and enlightened administration with majority representation on the organs of government, and politically, economically, and socially they appear to be advancing along sound and constructive lines.

With this brief insight into the surrounding areas, I now turn to the Korean conflict. While I was not consulted prior to the President's decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we -- as I said, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.

This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy.

Such decisions have not been forthcoming.

While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.

Apart from the military need, as I saw It, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary: first the intensification of our economic blockade against China; two the imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast; three removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China's coastal areas and of Manchuria; four removal of restrictions on the forces of the Republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the common enemy.

For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese Force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.

We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and in an approximate area where our supply line advantages were in balance with the supply line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized its full military potential. I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.

Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. Indeed, on the second day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-five, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter  destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.

But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.

"Why," my soldiers asked of me, "surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?" I could not answer.

Some may say: to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China; others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a world-wide basis.

The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy's sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.

Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description.

They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: "Don't scuttle the Pacific!"

I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.

It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety.

Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.

I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that "old soldiers never die; they just fade away."

And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.

Good Bye.

저는 깊이 겸허하는 마음과 크나큰 자부심을 가지고 이 연단에 섰습니다. 겸손의 마음이란 저보다 먼저 이 자리에 서서 우리의 역사를 창조해 낸 저 위대한 미국인들의 발자취를 더듬으면서 느끼는 것이며, 자부심은 이 입법 토론의 場이 인간이 만들어낸 가장 순수한 형태의 인간의 자유를 상징하고 있다고 느끼기 때문입니다. 

이곳에는 全인류의 희망과 열망과 신념이 결집되어 있습니다. 저는 어느 당파의 주장을 옹호하기 위해 이 자리에 선 것이 아닙니다. 왜냐 하면 제가 말씀드리려는 이 문제들은 근본적인 것으로서 당파적 이해 영역을 훨씬 초월한 것이기 때문입니다. 우리의 방향이 올바르다는 것이 입증되고 또 우리의 미래가 보호되기 위해서는 이 문제들이 국가 이익이라는 최고의 차원에서 해결되어야 합니다. 

따라서 제가 드리는 말씀은 전적으로 한 미국 국민의 신중한 견해 표명이라 는 점을 이해하고 받아들여 주시리라 믿습니다. 
인생의 황혼기에 들어선 저는 어떤 원한이나 적개심 때문에 이런 말씀을 드리는 것이 아닙니다. 제 마음속에 단 한 가지 목적이 있다면, 그것은 조국 에 대한 봉사입니다. 

이 문제들은 범세계적인 것들로, 서로 얽혀 있기 때문에, 한 부문의 문제들 을 다른 것들과 무관하게 고려한다면 결국 모두에게 재난을 초래하고 말 것 입니다. 아시아는 유럽의 관문이라고 흔히들 말하지만, 유럽이 아시아의 관문이라는 말 또한 그 못지않게 사실이며, 어느 한쪽의 광범위한 영향이 다른 한쪽에 그 충격을 주지 않을 수가 없습니다. 우리의 군사력은 양쪽 전선을 다 보호하기에는 역부족이며, 우리의 노력을 분산시켜서는 안된다고 주장하는 사람들이 있습니다. 이보다 더 심각한 패배주의적 발언이 어디있겠습니까. 

가상의 敵이 병력을 두개의 戰線에 분산시킨다면, 이에 맞서 반격을 가하 는 것은 우리가 할 일입니다. 공산주의자들이 全세계를 위협하고 있습니다 . 한 지역에서 공산주의 진출이 성공하면 다른 모든 지역까지 파괴의 위협을 받게 됩니다. 아시아에서 공산주의에 유화책을 쓰거나 또는 굴복하고 만다면 그 즉시 공산주의의 유럽 진출을 막고자 하는 우리의 노력은 무산되고 말 것입니다. 

너무 자명한 이치들을 지적하기보다는 아시아 전반에 걸친 지역으로 국한시켜 제 생각을 말씀드리겠습니다. 현 아시아 정세를 객관적으로 평가하려면 그에 앞서 아시아의 과거, 그리고 지금의 아시아가 있기까지 그들이 겪은 혁명적인 변화에 관해 이해해야만 합니다. 이른바 식민 세력에 의해 오랫동안 착취당하고, 미국의 필리핀 식민 통치 때 고결한 지침이 되었던 어느 정도의 사회 정의나 인간적 존엄성, 높은 생활 수준을 성취할 기회를 거의 박탈당했던 아시아의 여러 민족들은 식민지 잔재라는 질곡을 벗어버릴 기회를 얼마 전 끝난 전쟁에서 겨우 찾았습니다. 그리고 이제 그들은 새로운 기회, 지금까지 느껴보지 못한 존엄성, 그리고 정치적 자유라는 자존심으로 새로운 시대를 맞고 있습니다. 

세계 인구의 절반, 세계 천연자원의 60%를 보유하고 있는 이들 아시아 국가들은 정신적, 물질적 양면에서 새로운 힘을 신속하게 결집시키고, 그 힘으로 생활 수준을 향상시키고, 현대적 진보라는 구상을 자신들만의 독특한 문화 환경에 적응시켜 나가고 있습니다. 

식민지화라는 개념에 집착하든 하지 않든 간에, 아시아는 이런 방향으로 발전하고 있고, 이를 멈출 수는 없을 것입니다. 그것은 세계 정세의 중심점이 시발점으로 순환 회귀함에 따라 세계 경제의 최전선이 바뀌면서 생기는 당 연한 결과입니다. 

이같은 상황에서 우리는 현실을 도외시한 채 한 방향을 쫓기보다는 기본적 인 발전 상황에 맞추어 정책 방향을 설정하는 것이 필요하게 되었습니다. 식민지 시대는 이미 막을 내렸고, 아시아의 여러 민족들은 이제 자신의 운 명을 자유롭게 개척해 나갈 권리를 열망하고 있다는 것이 바로 지금의 현실 입니다. 이제 그들이 원하는 것은 명령조의 지시가 아닌 우호적인 안내 역할과 이해, 그리고 지원입니다. 그들은 피정복자로서의 수치감이 아니라 평등이라는 존엄성을 원하고 있습니다. 

그들의 생활수준은, 戰前(전전)에도 비참할 정도로 낮았지만, 지금은 전쟁 이 할퀴고 간 폐허 속에서 한없이 악화되었습니다. 세계의 이데올로기는 아시아인들의 사상에 별 영향을 미치지 않고 있고 제대로 이해되지도 않고 있습니다. 
이들이 얻고자 하는 것은 자신의 배를 조금이라도 더 채워 줄 음식이요, 등 을 좀더 따뜻하게 해 줄 옷이요, 머리 위를 가려 줄 좀더 견고한 집, 그리고 정상적인 민족적 염원인 정치적 자유의 실현입니다. 
이같은 정치·사회적 상황은 우리 국가 안보에는 단지 간접적인 영향을 미 칠 뿐이지만 우리의 현재 계획과 관련된 배경을 형성합니다. 따라서 우리가 비현실주의라는 함정을 피하려고 할 때 반드시 심각하게 고려해야 할 요소 입니다. 
보다 직접적이고 즉각적으로 우리 국가 안보에 미치는 영향으로는 戰後(전 후) 상황에서 태평양이 갖는 전략적 잠재력으로 인해 야기된 변화를 들 수 있습니다. 


이전에는 미국의 서쪽 전략적 전선은 미국 본토의 해안선과 하와이, 미드웨 이 제도, 괌 등의 섬을 잇는 돌출부로 설정되어 공격 위험에 노출되어 있었습니다. 이 돌출부는 병력의 거점이 아니라, 적들이 공격해 올 가능성이 있거나, 실제로 공격을 감행해 온 적이 있는 취약한 통로임이 증명되었습니다 . 태평양은 인접한 육지를 노리는 침략군들이 누구나 진격해올 가능성이 있는 지역이었습니다. 

이 모든 상황은 우리가 태평양에서 승리를 거둠에 따라 바뀌었습니다. 이제 우리의 전략적 전선은 태평양 全域을 포함하는 것으로 바뀌었고, 이곳은 우리가 장악하고 있는 한 우리를 보호해 줄 거대한 垓字(해자)가 된 것입니다. 실제로 그것은 아메리카 대륙 전체와 태평양 지역의 모든 자유 국가를 지키는 방패 역할을 하고 있습니다. 우리는 우리와 우리의 자유 맹방들이 장악하고 있는 알류산 열도에서 마리아나 제도까지 弧(호) 모양으로 펼쳐진 일련의 섬들에 의해 아시아의 해안까지 이르는 태평양을 지배하고 있습니다. 

고리처럼 연결된 이들 섬을 통해 우리는 해군력과 공군력을 가지고 블라디 보스토크에서 싱가포르에 이르는 아시아의 모든 항구를 지배할 수 있습니다 -- 해군력과 공군력으로, 방금 말씀드렸듯이 블라디보스토크에서 싱가포르 에 이르는 모든 항구를 말입니다 -- 그리고 태평양으로 진입하려는 어떤 적대 행위도 막을 수 있습니다. 

아시아에서 침공해 올 때는 반드시 수륙 양면으로 공격해 올 것입니다. 수 륙 양면 공격은 진격 코스의 해상 통로와 그 위의 공중 통로를 장악하지 못 하면 절대 성공할 수 없습니다. 制海權(제해권)과 制空權(제공권), 그리고 기지를 방어할 수 있는 적당한 지상군을 갖추고 있으면, 대륙 아시아에서 우리나라나 태평양의 우리 우방으로 몰려오는 어떤 대규모 공격도 결국은 실패로 끝나고 말 것입니다. 

그같은 상황에서 태평양은 더 이상 가상 침략자들이 접근할 수 있는 위협적인 공격로가 아닙니다. 오히려 평화로운 호수와 같은 친근한 모습을 띠고 있습니다. 
일본 국민들은 현대사에 기록될 최고의 개혁을 수행해 왔습니다. 대단한 의지와 배우고자 하는 열정, 놀라운 이해력으로 일본인들은 전쟁의 참화가 남긴 잿더미 속에서 개인적 자유와 인간의 존엄성을 드높일 수 있는 체계를 건설해냈습니다. 그리고 그에 따른 과정에서 정치적 도덕성, 경제 활동의 자유, 사회 정의의 高揚(고양)이라는 사명을 부여받은 진정한 代議(대의) 정부가 탄생했습니다.

정치, 경제, 그리고 사회적인 측면에서 일본은 지금 지구상의 많은 자유 국 가와 어깨를 나란히 하고 있으며, 이제 다시는 세계의 신뢰를 저버리는 일 이 없을 것입니다. 일본은 일본이 아시아에서의 정세 변화에 매우 중대하고 유익한 영향력을 발휘할 것으로 기대해도 좋다는 점을 당당히 증명해냈습니다. 일본 국민들은 외부로부터의 전쟁, 혼란, 그리고 그들을 둘러싸고 있는 혼동 등 외부로부터의 도전에 훌륭하게 대처해 왔을 뿐만 아니라 발전의 기세를 조금도 누그러뜨리지 않은 채 내부 전선에서 공산주의를 막아냈습니다. 

저는 駐日(주일) 미군 4개 사단 모두를 한국 전선에 투입했습니다. 병력 공 백이 일본에 미칠 결과에 대해 전혀 걱정하지 않았습니다. 결과는 저의 신 념을 확고하게 정당화시켜 주는 것이었습니다. 

주변 지역에 대한 이같은 통찰을 바탕으로 이제 한국 전쟁에 눈을 돌려보겠습니다. 대통령께서 대한민국 지원 개입 결정에 앞서 제게 자문을 구했던 일은 없었지만, 그 결정은 군사적 견지에서 볼 때 결과적으로 타당한 것이었습니다. 거듭 말하지만, 극히 명료하고 타당한 결정이었습니다. 우리는 침략자들을 신속히 몰아내고 병력을 무력화시켰으니까요. 우리의 승리는 완벽했고, 우리의 목표는 거의 손 안에 잡힐 듯했습니다. 하지만 그때 중공이 수적으로 우세한 지상군을 이끌고 개입했습니다. 

그로인해 새로운 전쟁이 시작되었고 전혀 새로운 국면이 벌어졌습니다. 우리 미군이 북한의 침략자들과 맞설 당시에는 전혀 생각지 못했던 상황, 그리고 군사전략을 현실적으로 재조정할 수 있도록 하는 외교적 차원의 새로운 결단이 요구되는 상황이 대두된 것입니다. 그러한 결정은 내려진 바 없 습니다. 

올바른 정신을 가진 사람이라면 누구도 우리의 지상군을 중국 대륙에 보내 는 것을 지지하지 않을 것이며 그런 작전은 검토조차 되지 않았습니다. 하 지만 새로운 상황의 전개로 군사전략의 과감한 수정이 다급하게 필요했습 니다. 우리가 과거에 적을 물리쳤던 것처럼 이 새로운 적을 물리치는 것이 우리의 정치적인 목표라면 말입니다. 

압록강 이북 지역 적군의 聖域을 무력화시킨다는 군사적 필요성과는 별개로, 저는 전쟁수행과정에서 다음의 몇가지 군사적 행동의 필요성을 느꼈습니다. 첫째 중국에 대한 경제 봉쇄 강화, 둘째 중국 해안에 해상 봉쇄 강행, 셋째 중국의 해안 지역과 만주에 대한 공중 정찰 제한 철폐, 넷째 대만의 자유중국군에게 내려진 제한의 철폐와 중국 본토에 대한 효과적 작전 수행 을 위한 병참 지원 등입니다. 

이러한 견해는 사실 모두 한국에 있는 우리 미군을 지원하고 최대한 신속히 적대 행위를 종식시키되 수많은 미군 및 연합군의 목숨을 희생시키지 않기 위해서 전문적으로 연구된 것입니다. 그러나 그러한 견해를 가졌다는 이유로 저는 비전문가 집단, 특히 외국인들로부터 혹독한 비난을 받아 왔습니다 . 제가 알기로는 군사적인 견해에서 보았을 때 앞서 말한 의견들이 우리 합동참모본부를 포함해, 과거 사실상 한국전과 관련이 있는 모든 군사 지도자 들이 이미 의견일치를 보았던 견해임에도 불구하고 말입니다.

저는 병력 증강을 요구했습니다만 군사력 증강은 불가능하다는 응답을 받았습니다. 저는 분명히 밝혔습니다. 만약, 압록강 이북의 적군 기지 파괴나, 대만에 있는 약 60만의 우방 중국군의 활용을 허락받지 못하거나, 중국의 해안을 봉쇄해 중공군이 외부로부터 지원을 얻지 못하게 막도록 허락을 받지 못한다면, 그리고 병력이 대폭 강화될 것이라는 희망이 전혀 없다면, 군사적인 견지에서 볼 때는 명령권자의 입장이 승리를 불가능하게 하는 것이라는 사실을 분명히 밝혔습니다. 

우리는 한국에서 지속적인 작전을 통해 버틸 수 있고, 우리 補給線(보급선 )의 우위와 적군 보급선의 불리함이 비슷하게 균형을 이루는 어떤 지역에서 계속 버틸 수는 있습니다. 하지만 거기서 우리가 바랄 수 있는 것은 기껏 해야 지지부진한 전투뿐입니다. 게다가 적군이 군사 병력을 전면 동원할 경 우 끊임없이 심각한 병력 소모를 감당하면서 말입니다. 

저는 이 문제의 해결을 위해 필수불가결한 새로운 정치적 결단을 지속적으로 요구해 왔습니다. 저의 입장을 왜곡하려는 시도가 계속 있었습니다. 실제로 제가 전쟁狂이라는 말까지 합니다. 진실이 이보다 더 심각하게 왜곡될 수는 없을 것입니다. 현존하는 사람들 중에 저만큼 전쟁을 아는 사람도 드뭅니다 -- 그러나 제게 그 어느 것도 -- 그 어느 것도, 전쟁만큼 혐오스러운 것은 없습니다. 저는 전쟁의 완전한 폐지를 오랫동안 주장해 왔습니다. 왜냐하면 우리의 우방과 적 모두에게 미치는 무서운 파괴성 때문에 전쟁은 국제 분쟁 따위의 해결 수단으로서는 쓸모가 없기 때문입니다. 

하지만 일단 전쟁을 수행해야 하는 상항이 닥치면, 전쟁을 신속히 종결시키기 위해 가능한 모든 수단을 다 동원하는 것 외에 다른 代案이 없습니다. 전쟁의 목적은 바로 승리이지, 질질 끄는 우유부단함이 아닙니다. 전쟁에서는 승리 이외에 아무 代案이 없습니다. 

여러 가지 이유를 들어 중공에 대해 유화책을 쓰려는 사람들이 일부 있습니다. 이들은 역사의 명백한 교훈에 무지한 사람들입니다. 유화 정책은 새롭 고 더욱 처참한 전쟁을 초래할 뿐이라는 교훈을 역사는 분명하게 강조하고 있습니다. 목적에 의해 수단이 정당화되거나, 유화정책이 거짓 평화보다 더 나은 상황으로 발전한 예는 역사의 어디에도 없습니다. 공갈과 마찬가지 로, 유화정책은 새로이 교묘하게 더 큰 것을 계속 요구할 수 있는 근거를 만들어 마침내는 폭력만이 유일한 代案이 되는 상황을 초래하고 맙니다. 저 의 병사들이 제게 물었습니다, 왜 전장에서 적에게 군사적 우위를 내주느냐고. 저는 대답을 할 수가 없었습니다. 

어떤 사람들은 중국과의 전면전으로까지 분쟁이 확대되는 것을 피하기 위해 서라고 말할 것입니다. 또 소련의 개입을 피하기 위해서라고 말하는 사람도 있을 수 있습니다. 하지만 그 어떤 설명도 타당성이 없습니다. 중국은 이미 동원 가능한 최대한의 병력으로 교전을 벌이고 있고, 소련은 공연히 우리의 조처와 맞물려 행동하지는 않을 것이기 때문입니다. 마치 코브라 뱀처럼, 새로운 적들은 누구나 군사적인 면에서건 다른 힘에서건 全세계적으로 자신에게 상대적으로 유리하다고 느끼면 언제든지 공격해 올 것입니다. 한국의 비극은 한반도 내에서밖에 군사적 행동을 할 수 없다는 사실 때문에 더욱 심각해지고 있습니다. 이것은, 우리가 구원하려고 하는 그 나라가 해군과 공군의 전면적인 폭격으로 인해 초토화되는 참상을 겪도록 형벌을 내리는 것과 같습니다. 적군의 聖域은 이런 공격과 참화로부터 안전하게 보호 받고 있는데 말입니다. 

全세계 국가들 중에서 한국만이 지금까지 모든 위험을 무릅쓰고 공산주의에 대항해 싸워 온 유일한 나라입니다. 한국 국민들이 보여준 그 대단한 용기와 불굴의 의지는 말로는 다 표현할 수 없습니다. 그들은 노예 상태를 택하느니 차라리 죽음을 무릅쓰고자 했습니다. 그들이 내게 한 마지막 말은 『 태평양을 포기하지 말라』는 것이었습니다. 

저는 지금 전투중인 여러분의 아들들을 한국에 두고 왔습니다. 그들은 그곳에서 모든 시련을 견뎌왔습니다. 그리고 저는 그들이 모든 면에서 정말 훌 륭하다고 주저없이 말씀드릴 수 있습니다. 저는 그들을 보호하고 이 야만적인 분쟁을 명예롭게, 그리고 시간 손실과 인명의 희생을 최소한으로 줄이면서 끝내고자 끝없이 노력했습니다. 점차 심각해지는 유혈참사는 저를 깊은 고뇌와 근심 속에 빠뜨리고 있습니다. 이 용감한 젊은이들은 저의 마음속 에 그리고 항상 저의 기도 속에 남아 있을 것입니다. 

저는 지금 52년간의 군복무를 마치려고 합니다. 제가 처음 군에 입대할 때 , 20세기가 시작되기도 전이었습니다만, 그것은 제 소년 시절의 모든 희망 과 꿈의 실현이었습니다. 제가 웨스트 포인트 연병장에서 임관하던 그 날 이후로 세상은 여러 번 바뀌었습니다. 그리고 저의 희망과 꿈도 오래 전에 사라졌지만, 저는 그 시절 가장 즐겨 부르던 어느 軍歌의 후렴 한 구절을 기억하고 있습니다. 그 노래는 『老兵(노병)은 죽지 않는다, 다만 사라질 뿐이다』라고 당당하게 선언하고 있습니다. 그리고 그 노래 속의 老兵처럼 이제 저는 제 軍생활을 마감하고 사라지려 합니다. 神께서 의무에 대한 깨 달음을 주신 바에 따라, 자신의 의무를 다하려고 애쓴 한 노병으로 말입니다. 감사합니다.

Ronald Reagan

The Space Shuttle "Challenger" Tragedy Address

 delivered 28 January 1986

1986년 챌린저호 사고가 난 직후 레이건대통령의 방송연설
이 사건 저는 TV에서 중계했었는데 아주 큰 충격이었습니다. 
미국은 저 30년 전에도 나라를 위해 죽어간 이들을 기렸는데
대한민국은 여전히 독재하였고 지금까지도 많은 적폐들이 남아있다는 점에서 참 서글픈 마음이 들게 하는 연설문입니다.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd planned to speak to you tonight to report on the state of the Union, but the events of earlier today have led me to change those plans. Today is a day for mourning and remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this pain with all of the people of our country. This is truly a national loss.

Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. But we've never lost an astronaut in flight. We've never had a tragedy like this.

And perhaps we've forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle. But they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe.

We mourn their loss as a nation together.

For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy. But we feel the loss, and we're thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, "Give me a challenge, and I'll meet it with joy." They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve, and they did. They served all of us.

We've grown used to wonders in this century. It's hard to dazzle us. But for twenty-five years the United States space program has been doing just that. We've grown used to the idea of space, and, perhaps we forget that we've only just begun. We're still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.

And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's take-off. I know it's hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.

I've always had great faith in and respect for our space program. And what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute.

We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.

I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works for NASA, or who worked on this mission and tell them: "Your dedication and professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades. And we know of your anguish. We share it."

There's a coincidence today. On this day three hundred and ninety years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said, "He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it." Well, today, we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake's, complete.

The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and "slipped the surly bonds of earth" to "touch the face of God."¹

Thank you.

Malcolm X - The Ballot or the Bullet 연설문

Malcolm X (1925.5.19. ~ 1965.2.21)
흑인의 자유와 권리를 위해 투쟁했으나 여러 가지 면에서 마틴 루터 킹과 대조를 이루는 인물이 맬컴 엑스다. 뉴욕 할렘의 밑바닥 인생을 전전하다 무슬림이 되어 급진적 흑인해방운동을 이끈 맬컴 엑스. 스파이크 리 감독, 덴젤 워싱턴 주연의 영화 ‘맬컴 X’로도 잘 알려진 그의 치열했던 삶의 이야기를 들어보자.

Mr. Moderator, Rev. Cleage, brothers and sisters and friends, and I see some enemies. [laughter, applause] In fact, I think we'd be fooling ourselves if we had an audience this large and didn't realize that there were some enemies present.

This afternoon we want to talk about the ballot or the bullet. The ballot or the bullet explains itself. But before we get into it, since this is the year of the ballot or the bullet, I would like to clarify some things that refer to me personally, concerning my own personal position.

I'm still a Muslim. That is, my religion is still Islam. [applause] My religion is still Islam. I still credit Mr. Muhammad for what I know and what I am. He's the one who opened my eyes. [applause] At present I am the minister of the newly founded Muslim Mosque Incorporated, which has its offices in the Theresa Hotel right in the heart of Harlem, that's the black belt in New York City. And when we realize that Adam Clayton Powell, is a Christian minister, he has Abyssinian Baptist Church, but at the same time he's more famous for his political struggling. And Dr. King is a Christian minister from Atlanta Georgia, or in Atlanta Georgia, but he's become more famous for being involved in the civil rights struggle. There's another in New York, Rev. Galamison, I don't know if you've heard of him out here, he's a Christian minister from Brooklyn, but has become famous for his fight against the segregated school system in Brooklyn. Rev. Cleage, right here, is a Christian minister, here in Detroit, he's head of the Freedom Now Party. All of these are Christian ministers [applause] …all of these are Christian ministers but they don't come to us as Christian ministers, they come to us as fighters in some other category.

I am a Muslim minister. The same as they are Christian ministers, I'm a Muslim minister. And I don't believe in fighting today on any one front, but on all fronts. [applause] In fact, I'm a Black Nationalist freedom fighter. [applause] Islam is my religion but I believe my religion is my personal business. [applause] It governs my personal life, my personal morals. And my religious philosophy is personal between me and the God in whom I believe, just as the religious philosophy of these others is between them and the God in whom they believe. And this is best this way. Were we to come out here discussing religion, we'd have too many differences from the out start and we could never get together.

So today, though Islam is my religious philosophy, my political, economic and social philosophy is black nationalism. You and I – [applause] As I say, if we bring up religion, we'll have differences, we'll have arguments, and we'll never be able to get together. But if we keep our religion at home, keep our religion in the closet, keep our religion between ourselves and our God, but when we come out here we have a fight that's common to all of us against a enemy who is common to all of us. [applause]

The political philosophy of black nationalism only means that the black man should control the politics and the politicians in his own community. The time when white people can come in our community and get us to vote for them so that they can be our political leaders and tell us what to do and what not to do is long gone. [applause]

By the same token, the time when that same white man, knowing that your eyes are too far open, can send another Negro in the community, and get you and me to support him, so that he can use him to lead us astray, those days are long gone too. [applause]

The political philosophy of black nationalism only means that if you and I are going to live in a black community – and that's where we're going to live, 'cause as soon as you move into one of their….soon as you move out of the black community into their community, it's mixed for a period of time, but they're gone and you're right there all by yourself again. [applause]

We must, we must understand the politics of our community and we must know what politics is supposed to produce. We must know what part politics play in our lives. And until we become politically mature, we will always be misled, led astray, or deceived or maneuvered into supporting someone politically who doesn't have the good of our community at heart. So the political philosophy of black nationalism only means that we will have to carry on a program, a political program, of reeducation – to open our people's eyes, make us become more politically conscious, politically mature. And then, we will – whenever we are ready to cast our ballot, that ballot will be cast for a man of the community, who has the good of the community at heart. [applause]

The economic philosophy of black nationalism only means that we should own and operate and control the economy of our community. You would never have found—you can't open up a black store in a white community. White man won't even patronize you. And he's not wrong. He got sense enough to look out for himself. It's you who don't have sense enough to look out for yourself. [applause]

The white man, the white man is too intelligent to let someone else come and gain control of the economy of his community. But you will let anybody come in and control the economy of your community, control the housing, control the education, control the jobs, control the businesses, under the pretext that you want to integrate. Nah, you're out of your mind. [applause]

The political … the economic philosophy of black nationalism only means that we have to become involved in a program of reeducation, to educate our people into the importance of knowing that when you spend your dollar out of the community in which you live, the community in which you spend your money becomes richer and richer, the community out of which you take your money becomes poorer and poorer. And because these Negroes, who have been misled, misguided, are breaking their necks to take their money and spend it with the Man, the Man is becoming richer and richer, and you're becoming poorer and poorer. And then what happens? The community in which you live becomes a slum. It becomes a ghetto. The conditions become rundown. And then you have the audacity to complain about poor housing in a rundown community, while you're running down yourselves when you take your dollar out. [applause]

And you and I are in a double trap because not only do we lose by taking our money someplace else and spending it, when we try and spend it in our own community we're trapped because we haven't had sense enough to set up stores and control the businesses of our community. The man who is controlling the stores in our community is a man who doesn't look like we do. He's a man who doesn't even live in the community. So you and I, even when we try and spend our money on the block where we live or the area where we live, we're spending it with a man who, when the sun goes down, takes that basket full of money in another part of the town. [applause]

So we're trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped. Any way we go, we find that we're trapped. Any every kind of solution that someone comes up with is just another trap. But the political and economic philosophy of black nationalism…the economic philosophy of black nationalism shows our people the importance of setting up these little stores, and developing them and expanding them into larger operations. Woolworth didn't start out big like they are today; they started out with a dime store, and expanded, and expanded, and expanded until today they are all over the country and all over the world and they getting some of everybody's money.

Now this is what you and I – General Motors, the same way, it didn't start out like it is. It started out just a little rat-race type operation. And it expanded and it expanded until today it's where it is right now. And you and I have to make a start. And the best place to start is right in the community where we live. [applause]

So our people not only have to be reeducated to the importance of supporting black business, but the black man himself has to be made aware of the importance of going into business. And once you and I go into business, we own and operate at least the businesses in our community. What we will be doing is developing a situation, wherein, we will actually be able to create employment for the people in the community. And once you can create some employment in the community where you live, it will eliminate the necessity of you and me having to act ignorantly and disgracefully, boycotting and picketing some cracker someplace else trying to beg him for a job. [applause]

Anytime you have to rely upon your enemy for a job, you're in bad shape. [applause]When you — and he is your enemy. You wouldn't be in this country if some enemy hadn't kidnapped you and brought you here. [applause] On the other hand, some of you think you came here on the Mayflower. [laughter]

So as you can see, brothers and sisters, today – this afternoon it is not our intention to discuss religion. We're going to forget religion. If we bring up religion we'll be in an argument. And the best way to keep away from arguments and differences, as I said earlier, put your religion at home, in the closet, keep it between you and your God. Because if it hasn't done anything more for you than it has, you need to forget it anyway. [laughter, applause]

Whether you are a Christian or a Muslim or a nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don't hang you because you're a Baptist; they hang you 'cause you're black. [applause] They don't attack me because I'm a Muslim. They attack me 'cause I'm black. They attacked all of us for the same reason. All of us catch hell from the same enemy. We're all in the same bag, in the same boat.

We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation and social degradation. All of 'em from the same enemy. The government has failed us. You can't deny that. Any time you're living in the 20th century, 1964, and you walking around here singing "We Shall Overcome," the government has failed you. [applause] This is part of what's wrong with you, you do too much singing. [laughter] Today it's time to stop singing and start swinging. [laughter, applause]

You can't sing up on freedom. But you can swing up on some freedom. [cheering]Cassius Clay can sing. But singing didn't help him to become the heavyweight champion of the world. Swinging helped him. [applause]

So this government has failed us. The government itself has failed us. And the white liberals who have been posing as our friends have failed us. And once we see that all of these other sources to which we've turned have failed, we stop turning to them and turn to ourselves. We need a self-help program, a do-it-yourself philosophy, a do-it-right-now philosophy, a it's-already-too-late philosophy. This is what you and I need to get with. And the only time – the only way we're going to solve our problem is with a self-help program. Before we can get a self-help program started, we have to have a self-help philosophy. Black nationalism is a self-help philosophy.

What's so good about it – you can stay right in the church where you are and still take black nationalism as your philosophy. You can stay in any kind of civic organization that you belong to and still take black nationalism as your philosophy. You can be an atheist and still take black nationalism as your philosophy. This is a philosophy that eliminates the necessity for division and argument, 'cause if you're black, you should be thinking black. And if you're black and you not thinking black at this late date, well, I'm sorry for you. [applause]

Once you change your philosophy, you change your thought pattern. Once you change your thought pattern you change your attitude. Once you change your attitude it changes your behavior pattern. And then you go on into some action. As long as you got a sit-down philosophy you'll have a sit-down thought pattern. And as long as you think that old sit-down thought, you'll be in some kind of sit-down action. They'll have you sitting in everywhere. [laughter]

It's not so good to refer to what you're going to do as a sit-in. That right there castrates you. Right there it brings you down. What goes with it? What – think of the image of someone sitting. An old woman can sit. An old man can sit. A chump can sit, a coward can sit, anything can sit. Well, you and I been sitting long enough and it's time for us today to start doing some standing and some fighting to back that up. [applause]

When we look at other parts of this Earth upon which we live, we find that black, brown, red and yellow people in Africa and Asia are getting their independence. They're not getting it by singing, 'We Shall Overcome." No, they're getting it through nationalism. It is nationalism that brought about the independence of the people in Asia. Every nation in Asia gained its independence through the philosophy of nationalism. Every nation on the African continent that has gotten its independence brought it about through the philosophy of nationalism. And it will take black nationalism to bring about the freedom of 22 million Afro-Americans, here in this country, where we have suffered colonialism for the past 400 years. [applause]

America is just as much a colonial power as England ever was. America is just as much a colonial power as France ever was. In fact, America is more so a colonial power than they, because she is a hypocritical colonial power behind it. [applause] What is 20th — what, what do you call second-class citizenship? Why, that's colonization. Second-class citizenship is nothing but 20th slavery. How you gonna to tell me you're a second-class citizen? They don't have second-class citizenship in any other government on this Earth. They just have slaves and people who are free! Well, this country is a hypocrite! They try and make you think they set you free by calling you a second-class citizen. No, you're nothing but a 20th century slave. [applause]

Just as it took nationalism to remove colonialism from Asia and Africa, it'll take black nationalism today to remove colonialism from the backs and the minds of twenty-two million Afro-Americans here in this country. And 1964 looks like it might be the year of the ballot or the bullet. [applause]

Why does it look like it might be the year of the ballot or the bullet? Because Negroes have listened to the trickery and the lies and the false promises of the white man now for too long, and they're fed up. They've become disenchanted. They've become disillusioned. They've become dissatisfied. And all of this has built up frustrations in the black community that makes the black community throughout America today more explosive than all of the atomic bombs the Russians can ever invent. Whenever you got a racial powder keg sitting in your lap, you're in more trouble than if you had an atomic powder keg sitting in your lap. When a racial powder keg goes off, it doesn't care who it knocks out the way. Understand this, it's dangerous.

And in 1964, this seems to be the year. Because what can the white man use, now, to fool us? After he put down that March on Washington – and you see all through that now, he tricked you, had you marching down to Washington. Had you marching back and forth between the feet of a dead man named Lincoln and another dead man named George Washington, singing, "We Shall Overcome." [applause]

He made a chump out of you. He made a fool out of you. He made you think you were going somewhere and you end up going nowhere but between Lincoln and Washington. [laughter]

So today our people are disillusioned. They've become disenchanted. They've become dissatisfied. And in their frustrations they want action. And in 1964 you'll see this young black man, this new generation, asking for the ballot or the bullet. That old Uncle Tom action is outdated. The young generation don't want to hear anything about "the odds are against us." What do we care about odds? [applause]

When this country here was first being founded, there were thirteen colonies. The whites were colonized. They were fed up with this taxation without representation. So some of them stood up and said, "Liberty or death!" I went to a white school over here in Mason, Michigan. The white man made the mistake of letting me read his history books. [laughter] He made the mistake of teaching me that Patrick Henry was a patriot, and George Washington – wasn't nothing non-violent about ol' Pat, or George Washington. "Liberty or death" is was what brought about the freedom of whites in this country from the English. [applause]

They didn't care about the odds. Why, they faced the wrath of the entire British Empire. And in those days, they used to say that the British Empire was so vast and so powerful that the sun would never set on it. This is how big it was, yet these thirteen little scrawny states, tired of taxation without representation, tired of being exploited and oppressed and degraded, told that big British Empire, "Liberty or death." And here you have 22 million Afro-Americans, black people today, catching more hell than Patrick Henry ever saw. [applause]

And I'm here to tell you in case you don't know it – that you got a new, you got a new generation of black people in this country who don't care anything whatsoever about odds. They don't want to hear you ol' Uncle Tom, handkerchief-heads talking about the odds. No! [laughter, applause] This is a new generation. If they're going to draft these young black men, and send them over to Korea or to South Vietnam to face 800 million Chinese… [laughter, applause] If you're not afraid of those odds, you shouldn't be afraid of these odds. [applause]

Why is America – why does this loom to be such an explosive political year? Because this is the year of politics. This is the year when all of the white politicians are going to come into the Negro community. You never see them until election time. You can't find them until election time. [applause] They're going to come in with false promises. And as they make these false promises they're going to feed our frustrations, and this will only serve to make matters worse. I'm no politician. I'm not even a student of politics. I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor an American – and got sense enough to know it. [applause]

I'm one of the 22 million black victims of the Democrats. One of the 22 million black victims of the Republicans and one of the 22 million black victims of Americanism. [applause] And when I speak, I don't speak as a Democrat or a Republican, nor an American. I speak as a victim of America's so-called democracy. You and I have never seen democracy – all we've seen is hypocrisy. [applause]

When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism. We see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don't see any American dream. We've experienced only the American nightmare. We haven't benefited from America's democracy. We've only suffered from America's hypocrisy. And the generation that's coming up now can see it. And are not afraid to say it. If you go to jail, so what? If you're black, you were born in jail. [applause]

If you black you were born in jail, in the North as well as the South. Stop talking about the South. As long as you south of the Canadian border, you South. [laughter, applause] Don't call Governor Wallace a Dixie governor, Romney is a Dixie Governor. [applause]

Twenty-two million black victims of Americanism are waking up and they are gaining a new political consciousness, becoming politically mature. And as they become – develop this political maturity, they're able to see the recent trends in these political elections. They see that the whites are so evenly divided that every time they vote, the race is so close they have to go back and count the votes all over again. Which means that any block, any minority that has a block of votes that stick together is in a strategic position. Either way you go, that's who gets it. You're in a position to determine who'll go to the White House and who'll stay in the doghouse. [laughter]

You're the one who has that power. You can keep Johnson in Washington D.C., or you can send him back to his Texas cotton patch. [applause] You're the one who sent Kennedy to Washington. You're the one who put the present Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. The whites were evenly divided. It was the fact that you threw 80 percent of your votes behind the Democrats that put the Democrats in the White House.

When you see this, you can see that the Negro vote is the key factor. And despite the fact that you are in a position to be the determining factor, what do you get out of it? The Democrats have been in Washington, D.C. only because of the Negro vote. They've been down there four years. And they're – all other legislation they wanted to bring up they've brought it up, and gotten it out of the way, and now they bring up you. And now they bring up you! You put them first and they put you last. Because you're a chump! [applause] A political chump.

In Washington, D.C., in the House of Representatives there are 257 who are Democrats. Only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats. Only 33 are Republicans. The party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate and still they can't keep their promise to you. 'Cause you're a chump. [applause]

Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election-time, and you're dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party, you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race. [applause]

What kind of alibi do come up with? They try and pass the buck to the Dixiecrats. Now, back during the days when you were blind, deaf and dumb, ignorant, politically immature, naturally you went along with that. But today, as your eyes come open, and you develop political maturity, you're able to see and think for yourself, and you can see that a Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat – in disguise. [applause]

You look at the structure of the government that controls this country, is controlled by 16 senatorial committees and 20 congressional committees. Of the 16 senatorial committees that run the government, 10 of them are in the hands of southern segregationists. Of the 20 congressional committees that run the government, 12 of them are in the hands of southern segregationists. And they're going to tell you and me that the South lost the war? [laughter, applause]

You, today, are in the hands of a government of segregationists. Racists, white supremacists, who belong to the Democratic party but disguise themselves as Dixiecrats. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat. Whoever runs the Democrats is also the father of the Dixiecrats. And the father of all of them is sitting in the White House. [applause] I say, and I'll say it again, you got a president who's nothing but a southern segregationist [applause] from the state of Texas. They'll lynch in Texas as quick as they'll lynch you in Mississippi. Only in Texas they lynch you with a Texas accent, in Mississippi they lynch you with a Mississippi accent. [cheering]

The first thing the cracker does when he comes in power, he takes all the Negro leaders and invites them for coffee. To show that he's all right. And those Uncle Toms can't pass up the coffee. [laughter, applause] They come away from the coffee table telling you and me that this man is all right [laughter]. 'Cause he's from the South and since he's from the South he can deal with the South. Look at the logic that they're using. What about Eastland? He's from the South. Why not make him the president? If Johnson is a good man 'cause he's from Texas, and being from Texas will enable him to deal with the South, Eastland can deal with the South better than Johnson! [laughter, applause]

Oh, I say you been misled. You been had. You been took. [laughter, applause] I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago while the senators were filibustering and I noticed in the back of the Senate a huge map, and on this map it showed the distribution of Negroes in America. And surprisingly, the same senators that were involved in the filibuster were from the states where there were the most Negroes. Why were they filibustering the civil rights legislation? Because the civil rights legislation is supposed to guarantee boarding rights to Negroes from those states. And those senators from those states know that if the Negroes in those states can vote, those senators are down the drain. [applause] The representatives of those states go down the drain.

And in the Constitution of this country it has a stipulation, wherein, whenever the rights, the voting rights of people in a certain district are violated, then the representative who's from that particular district, according to the Constitution, is supposed to be expelled from the Congress. Now, if this particular aspect of the Constitution was enforced, why, you wouldn't have a cracker in Washington, D.C. [applause]

But what would happen? When you expel the Dixiecrat, you're expelling the Democrat. When you destroy the power of the Dixiecrat, you are destroying the power of the Democratic Party. So how in the world can the Democratic Party in the South actually side with you, in sincerity, when all of its power is based in the South?

These Northern Democrats are in cahoots with the southern Democrats. [applause]They're playing a giant con game, a political con game. You know how it goes. One of 'em comes to you and make believe he's for you. And he's in cahoots with the other one that's not for you. Why? Because neither one of 'em is for you. But they got to make you go with one of 'em or the other.

So this is a con game, and this is what they've been doing with you and me all of these years. First thing, Johnson got off the plane when he become president, he ask, "Where's Dickey?" You know who Dickey is? Dickey is old southern cracker Richard Russell. Lookie here! Yes, Lyndon B. Johnson's best friend is the one who is a head, who's heading the forces that are filibustering civil rights legislation. You tell me how in the hell is he going to be Johnson's best friend? [applause] How can Johnson be his friend and your friend too? No, that man is too tricky. Especially if his friend is still ol' Dickey. [laughter, applause]

Whenever the Negroes keep the Democrats in power they're keeping the Dixiecrats in power. This is true! A vote for a Democrat is nothing but a vote for a Dixiecrat. I know you don't like me saying that. I'm not the kind of person who come here to say what you like. I'm going to tell you the truth whether you like it or not. [applause]

Up here in the North you have the same thing. The Democratic Party don't – they don't do it that way. They got a thing they call gerrymandering. They maneuver you out of power. Even though you can vote they fix it so you're voting for nobody. They got you going and coming. In the South they're outright political wolves, in the North they're political foxes. A fox and a wolf are both canine, both belong to the dog family. [laughter, applause] Now, you take your choice. You going to choose a northern dog or a southern dog? Because either dog you choose, I guarantee you, you'll still be in the doghouse.

This is why I say it's the ballot or the bullet. It's liberty or it's death. It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. [applause] America today finds herself in a unique situation. Historically, revolutions are bloody, oh yes they are. They have never had a bloodless revolution. Or a non-violent revolution. That don't happen even in Hollywood [laughter] You don't have a revolution in which you love your enemy. And you don't have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it. Revolutions overturn systems. Revolutions destroy systems.

A revolution is bloody, but America is in a unique position. She's the only country in history, in the position actually to become involved in a bloodless revolution. The Russian Revolution was bloody, Chinese Revolution was bloody, French Revolution was bloody, Cuban Revolution was bloody. And there was nothing more bloody than the American Revolution. But today, this country can become involved in a revolution that won't take bloodshed. All she's got to do is give the black man in this country everything that's due him, everything. [applause]

I hope that the white man can see this. 'Cause if you don't see it you're finished. If you don't see it you're going to become involved in some action in which you don't have a chance. We don't care anything about your atomic bomb; it's useless, because other countries have atomic bombs. When two or three different countries have atomic bombs, nobody can use them. So it means that the white man today is without a weapon. If you want some action you've got to come on down to Earth, and there's more black people on Earth than there are white people. [applause]

I only got a couple more minutes. The white man can never win another war on the ground. His days of war – victory – his days of battleground victory are over. Can I prove it? Yes. Take all the action that's going on this Earth right now that he's involved in. Tell me where he's winning – nowhere. Why, some rice farmers, some rice farmers! Some rice-eaters ran him out of Korea, yes they ran him out of Korea. Rice-eaters, with nothing but gym shoes and a rifle and a bowl of rice, took him and his tanks and his napalm and all that other action he's supposed to have and ran him across the Yalu. Why? Because the day that he can win on the ground has passed.

Up in French Indochina, those little peasants, rice-growers, took on the might of the French army and ran all the Frenchmen, you remember Dien Bien Phu! The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa. They didn't have anything but a rifle. The French had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare. But they put some guerilla action on. And a white man can't fight a guerilla warfare. Guerilla action takes heart, take nerve, and he doesn't have that. [cheering] He's brave when he's got tanks. He's brave when he's got planes. He's brave when he's got bombs. He's brave when he's got a whole lot of company along with him. But you take that little man from Africa and Asia; turn him loose in the woods with a blade. A blade. [cheering] That's all he needs. All he needs is a blade. And when the sun comes down – goes down and it's dark, it's even-Stephen. [cheering]

So it's the, it's the ballot or the bullet. Today, our people can see that we're faced with a government conspiracy. This government has failed us. The senators who are filibustering concerning your and my rights, that's the government. Don't say it's southern senators, this is the government. This is a government filibuster. It's not a segregationist filibuster, it's a government filibuster. Any kind of activity that takes place on the floor of the Congress or the Senate, that's the government. Any kind of dilly-dallying, that's the government. Any kind of pussy-footing, that's the government. Any kind of act that's designed to delay or deprive you and me, right now, of getting full rights, that's the government that's responsible. And anytime you find the government involved in a conspiracy to violate the citizenship or the civil rights of a people in 1964, then you are wasting your time going to that government expecting redress. Instead you have to take that government to the world court and accuse it of genocide and all of the other crimes that it is guilty of today. [applause]

So those of us whose political and economic and social philosophy is black nationalism have become involved in the civil rights struggle. We have injected ourselves into the civil rights struggle. And we intend to expand it from the level of civil rights to the level of human rights. As long as you fight it on the level of civil rights, you're under Uncle Sam's jurisdiction. You're going to his court expecting him to correct the problem. He created the problem. He's the criminal! You don't take your case to the criminal, you take your criminal to court. [applause]

When the government of South Africa began to trample upon the human rights of the people of South Africa they were taken to the U.N. When the government of Portugal began to trample upon the rights of our brothers and sisters in Angola, it was taken before the U.N. Why, even the white man took the Hungarian question to the U.N. And just this week, Chief Justice Goldberg was crying over three million Jews in Russia, about their human rights – charging Russia with violating the U.N. Charter because of its mistreatment of the human rights of Jews in Russia. Now you tell me how can the plight of everybody on this Earth reach the halls of the United Nations and you have twenty-two million Afro-Americans whose churches are being bombed, whose little girls are being murdered, whose leaders are being shot down in broad daylight? Now you tell me why the leaders of this struggle have never taken [recording impaired ] [their case to the U.N.?]

So our next move is to take the entire civil rights struggle – problem – into the United Nations and let the world see that Uncle Sam is guilty of violating the human rights of 22 million Afro-Americans right down to the year of 1964 and still has the audacity or the nerve to stand up and represent himself as the leader of the free world? [cheering]Not only is he a crook, he's a hypocrite. Here he is standing up in front of other people, Uncle Sam, with the blood of your and mine mothers and fathers on his hands. With the blood dripping down his jaws like a bloody-jawed wolf. And still got the nerve to point his finger at other countries. In 1964 you can't even get civil rights legislation and this man has got the nerve to stand up and talk about South Africa or talk about Nazi Germany or talk about Portugal. No, no more days like those! [applause]

So I say in my conclusion, the only way we're going to solve it: we got to unite. We got to work together in unity and harmony. And black nationalism is the key. How we gonna overcome the tendency to be at each other's throats that always exists in our neighborhood? And the reason this tendency exists – the strategy of the white man has always been divide and conquer. He keeps us divided in order to conquer us. He tells you, I'm for separation and you for integration, and keep us fighting with each other. No, I'm not for separation and you're not for integration, what you and I are for is freedom. [applause] Only, you think that integration will get you freedom; I think that separation will get me freedom. We both got the same objective, we just got different ways of getting' at it. [applause]

So I studied this man, Billy Graham, who preaches white nationalism. That's what he preaches. [applause] I say, that's what he preaches. The whole church structure in this country is white nationalism, you go inside a white church – that's what they preaching, white nationalism. They got Jesus white, Mary white, God white, everybody white – that's white nationalism. [cheering]

So what he does – the way he circumvents the jealousy and envy that he ordinarily would incur among the heads of the church – whenever you go into an area where the church already is, you going to run into trouble. Because they got that thing, what you call it, syndicated … they got a syndicate just like the racketeers have. I'm going to say what's on my mind because the preachers already proved to you that they got a syndicate. [applause] And when you're out in the rackets, whenever you're getting in another man's territory, you know, they gang up on you. And that's the same way with you. You run into the same thing. So how Billy Graham gets around that, instead of going into somebody else's territory, like he going to start a new church, he doesn't try and start a church, he just goes in preaching Christ. And he says anybody who believe in him, you go wherever you find him.

So, this helps all the churches, and since it helps all the churches, they don't fight him. Well, we going to do the same thing, only our gospel is black nationalism. His gospel is white nationalism, our gospel is black nationalism. And the gospel of black nationalism, as I told you, means you should control your own, the politics of your community, the economy of your community, and all of the society in which you live should be under your control. And once you…feel that this philosophy will solve your problem, go join any church where that's preached. Don't join any church where white nationalism is preached. Why, you can go to a Negro church and be exposed to white nationalism. 'Cause when you are on – when you walk in a Negro church and see a white Jesus and a white Mary and some white angels, that Negro church is preaching white nationalism. [applause]

But, when you go to a church and you see the pastor of that church with a philosophy and a program that's designed to bring black people together and elevate black people, join that church. Join that church. If you see where the NAACP is preaching and practicing that which is designed to make black nationalism materialize, join the NAACP. Join any kind of organization – civic, religious, fraternal, political or otherwise that's based on lifting the black man up and making him master of his own community. 

< 연설문 번역내용 >

진행자님, Cleage (장로교회의) 목사님, 형제 Lomax, 형제 자매 분들과 친구들, 그리고 몇분의 반대파들도 보이네요. 사실 이렇게 많은 청중이 있는 가운데 반대자들이 같이 존재한다는 것을 인정하지 않는다면 그것은 우리 스스로를 기만하는 것이겠지요.

오늘 오후, 우리는 the ballot or the bullet(투표권과 총알)이라는 주제로 이야기하고자 합니다.

투표권과 총알이란 말 자체가 스스로 의미를 나타내고 있는 것이지만, 투표권 획득을 위한 저항의 해이기 때문에 이야기를 시작하기 전에 저는 저의 개인적인 것들 - 개인적인 입장과 관련해 몇가지 말씀드리고자 합니다.

저는 여전히 이슬람교도입니다. 저의 종교가 이슬람교라는 말이지요. 저의 종교는 아직 이슬람교입니다. 저는 여전히 제가 알고 있는 것과 저 자신의 지금 모습이 Mr. Mohammed의 덕분이라고 생각합니다. 그는 저의 눈을 뜨게 해 준 분입니다. 현재 저는 Harlem의 중심부에 있는 Teresa Hotel에 - 뉴욕시의 흑인지역이지요 - 사무실이 있는, 새로 설립된 이슬람 사원의 목사입니다.

그리고 우리는 Adam Clayton Powell은 기독교 목사임을 알고 있습니다. 그는 아비시니아(에티오피아의 옛이름) 침례교회를 이끌고 있으며 동시에 그의 정치적 저항 때문에 더욱 유명하기도 합니다. 또 King 박사는 Atlanta의 기독교 목사시지요 - 아틀란타 조지아 출신 또는 조지아주 아틀란타라고 할까요? 하지만 그는 시민권 투쟁에 참여하면서 더욱 유명해졌습니다. 뉴욕에도  Galamison 목사님이 계시지요 - 여러분들이 이전에 들어보신 적이 있나 모르겠습니다만 - 그는 Brooklyn의 기독교 목사인데 Brooklyn 학교의 인종차별 시스템에 대한 투쟁으로 유명해지셨습니다. 이곳 Detroit의 기독교 목사이신 Clee 목사님은 “Freedom Now Party(우리에게 당장 자유를 정당)"의 총재이시지요.

이 모든 분들이 기독교 목사이신데, 그들은 우리에게 기독교 목사로써가 아니라 다른 영역에서의 전사로써 다가옵니다. 그분들이 기독교 목사이신 것처럼 저는 이슬람 목사입니다. 저는 이슬람 목사입니다. 그리고 저는 오늘날의 투쟁이 어느 한사람만의 것이 아니라 우리 모두의 앞에 놓여져 있는 문제라고 믿습니다.

사실, 저는 흑인 민족주의의 자유 투사입니다. 저의 종교는 이슬람교이지만, 저의 종교는 개인적인 일이라고 생각합니다. 이슬람교는 저의 개인생활과 개인의 도덕을 지배합니다. 그리고 저의 종교적인 철학은 저와 제가 믿는 신 사이의 개인적인 것이라고 믿습니다. 다른 분들의 종교적 철학이 다른 분들이 그들과 그들이 믿는 신 사이의 일인 것처럼 말이지요.

그리고 이것이 최선의 방식입니다. 만약 우리가 이곳에서 종교를 논하자고 한다면 처음부터 너무나 많은 차이점들로 인해 결코 함께 하지 못할 것입니다. 따라서 오늘 저의 종교가 이슬람교라는 점을 말씀음에도, 저의 정치적, 경제적, 그리고 사회적 철학은 흑인 민족주의라는 것입니다.

여러분과 저는 - 말씀드렸다시피 우리가 종교에 대해 얘기한다면 우리는 다릅니다. 우리는 논쟁을 하게 될 것이고, 결코 함께 할 수 없을 것입니다. 그러나 우리가 우리의 종교문제는 집에 두고 나온다면, 우리의 벽장 속에 넣어놓고 나온다면, 우리의 종교문제는 우리 자신과 우리가 믿는 신 사이의 문제로 놓아 둔다면, 우리는 여기 모여서 우리 모두의 공동의 적에 대항하여 싸우게 될 것입니다.

흑인 민족주의의 정치적 철학은 흑인사회의 정치와 정치인에 대해 흑인들이 통제할 수 있어야 한다는 것입니다. 백인들이 우리 흑인사회에 와서 그들이 정치적 지도자가 될 수 있도록 우리가 자신들에게 투표하게끔 하고, 또 우리에게 무엇을 하고 무엇을 하지 말아야 할 것인가에 대해 말하는 시대는 이제 끝났습니다.

마찬가지로, 여러분들이 눈을 뜨게 되었다는 것을 알고, 똑같은 백인들이 다른 흑인을 여러분의 사회에 보내 여러분과 제가 그를 지지하게 하여 우리로 하여금 또다시 길을 잃고 방황하게 하던 시대도 이제 끝났습니다.

흑인 민족주의의 정치 철학은 단지 여러분과 제가 - 우리가 살고자 하는 곳으로 옮겨가게 된다면 - 흑인 커뮤니티에 살게 된다면 흑인 커뮤니티를 나와서 일정기간동안 섞여 있던 그들의 커뮤니티로 옮겨가게 될 것입니다. 그들은 가고 이제 여러분들은 다시 혼자 남게 되었습니다.

우리는 반드시 - 반드시 우리 커뮤니티의 정치를 이해하고 정치행태를 이해해야 합니다. 우리는 우리의 삶에서 정치의 역할을 이해해야 합니다. 그리고 우리가 정치적으로 성숙해지지 않는다면 우리는 항상 잘못 이끌어지고, 길을 잃게끔 만들어지고, 또는 기만당하거나 우리의 커뮤니티에 진심으로 선의를 가지고 있지 않은 누군가를 지지하게끔 이용당하게 될 것입니다.

따라서 흑인민족주의의 정치철학이란 우리 민중의 눈을 뜨게 해 줄 재교육에 대한 정치적 프로그램을 수행한다는 것을 의미하는 것 뿐이며, 정치적으로 자각하게끔 하고 정치적으로 성숙하고 우리의 투표권이나 투쟁을 행할 준비가 되는 때가 언제이던지 진심으로 우리 커뮤니티에 대해 선의를 지닌 자에게 투표할 것입니다.

흑인민족주의의 경제철학은 우리가 스스로의 커뮤니티 경제를 보유가고, 운영하며 통제한다는 것입니다. 절대로 발견할 수 없는게 있습니다 - 당신들은 백인 커뮤니티에서 흑인의 가게를 열지 못합니다. 백인들은 그 가게에는 오지도 않지요. 그들이 잘못된 것이 아닙니다. 그들은 자신을 간수할 정도의 자각이 있습니다. 당신이야말로 자기 앞가림도 못하는 사람인 것이지요.

백인들 - 백인들은 다른 누군가가 자신의 커뮤니티 경제를 좌지우지하는 것을 허용할 정도로 멍청하지 않습니다. 하지만 당신은 통합을 원한다는 핑계로 누구든지 당신의 커뮤니티에 들어와 주택, 교육, 직업, 기업들을 통제할 수 있도록 하겠지요.

흑인 민족주의의 정치경제적 철학은 당신이 당신이 속해 있는 커뮤니티 밖에서 돈을 쓸때 당신이 돈을 쓰는 커뮤니티는 점점 부유해지게 되고 당신이 돈을 가지고 나가는 커뮤니티는 점점 가난해질 뿐이라는 것을 알아야 한다는 것을 교육하는 재교육 프로그램에 참여하게 하는 것을 의미할 뿐입니다.

그리고 이렇게 잘못 교육되어진 흑인들이 자신들의 돈을 영악한 백인들에게 쓰고 다니니, 백인들은 갈수록 부유해지고 여러분들의 가난은 갈수록 심각해지고 있습니다. 그래서 뭐가 어떻게 된 것이냐구요? 당신이 살고 있는 커뮤니티는 슬럼화되고, 빈민가가 됩니다. 황폐해지는 주변환경에 대해 당신은 형편없는 커뮤니티의 주거환경에 대해 뻔뻔하게도 불평을 늘어놓겠지요. 왜 돈을 밖으로 가지고 나가서 스스로를 불행하게 만듭니까.

우리는 두가지 길 앞에 있습니다. 우리가 다른 장소로 우리의 돈을 가져가 쓰기 때문만이 아니고, 우리가 우리 자신의 커뮤니티 안에서 돈을 쓰고자 할 때 가게를 차리고 사업을 운영하는 것에 대해 별로 아는 게 없다는 어려움에 처하게 됩니다.

우리의 커뮤니티에서 상점을 경영하는 사람들은 우리와는 다른 외양을 가지고 있지요. 심지어 그들은 우리와 같이 살지도 않습니다. 그러니 우리는, 우리의 돈을 우리가 살고 있는 동네에서 사용한다고 해도 그 돈은 해가 지면 바구니 한가득 돈을 담아 다른 마을에 있는 자기 집으로 퇴근하는 인간들에게 지불하게 되는 것이지요.

그러니 우리는 곤경 중에도, 이중 삼중의 곤경에 맞닥뜨려 있는 것입니다. 고민해봐도 답이 없다는 걸 깨닫게 됩니다. 다른 누군가가 제안하는 모든 종류의 해결책은 또 다른 덫일 뿐입니다. 하지만 흑인 민족주의의 정치경제 철학은 - 흑인 민족주의의 경제철학은 작은 가게를 차려서 발전시켜 나가는 것의 중요함을 보여주고 있으며 그 가게들은 큰 규모로 발전될 것입니다.

Woolworth(백화점)가 처음부터 지금처럼 크게 시작한 것은 아닙니다. 싸구려 물건을 파는 가게를 계속해서 확장한 결과 지금이 있게 된 것입니다. Woolworth는 전국에, 전세계에 퍼져서 전세계 모든 사람들로부터 돈을 벌어들입니다.

이것이 당신과 내가 - GM도 마찬가지 방식으로 성장했습니다. 그들이 갑자기 지금 모습으로 등장한 것이 아닙니다. 작은 경쟁을 거치며 운영하는 방법으로 시작했을 뿐입니다. 그리고 지금의 모습으로 확장을 거듭해 왔지요. 그리고 당신과 내가 시작하기에 최고의 장소는 우리가 살고 있는 바로 그 커뮤니티라는 것입니다.

따라서 우리(커뮤니티의) 국민들은 흑인 사업을 지원하는 것의 중요성을 재교육받아야 할 뿐 아니라 흑인 자신이 사업을 한다는 것의 중요성에 대해서도 자각해야 할 것입니다. 일단 당신과 내가 사업을 시작하게 된다면, 적어도 우리는 우리 커뮤니티에서 사업을 영위하도록 합시다. 우리가 하려고 하는 것은 상황을 개선해서 커뮤니티에서 고용을 창출해 내는 것입니다. 일단 고용 창출에 성공한다면 우리는 무지하고도 품위 없게 다른 어떤 장소에서 일자리를 구걸하며 보이코트와 피켓시위를 해야 할 필요가 없을 것입니다.

당신의 적에게 직장을 의존한다는 것은 - 그닥 좋은 모양새는 아닙니다. 그는 당신의 적이니까요. 이렇게 생각해볼까요. 만약 적들이 당신을 납치해서 이곳에 떨궈놓지 않았다면 당신은 이 나라에 있을 수도 없는 사람인 것이라는 것이지요.

다른 한편으로는, 여러분 중의 일부는 조상이 Mayflower호를 타고 왔다고 생각하고 계시겠지요.

형제자매들이 알고 계시듯 오늘 오후 우리가 종교 얘기를 하자고 모인 것은 아닙니다. 종교는 잊으세요. 종교에 대해 얘기하기 시작하면 논쟁하게 됩니다. 논쟁과 서로의 다름에 대한 얘기를 하는 것보다는 - 말씀드렸듯 당신의 종교를 집에 옷장에 넣어놓고 오세요. 종교는 당신과 당신이 믿는 신과의 문제로 두시고, 지금까지 종교가 당신에게 준 그 이상의 것을 할 수 없다면 지금은 잠시 잊을 필요도 있습니다.

당신이 기독교인, 이슬람교도, 민족주의자 무엇이건간에 우리의 문제는 같은 것입니다. 그들은 당신이 침례교도라서가 아니라 흑인이기 때문에 당신을 목매답니다. 제가 이슬람교도라서 저를 공격하는게 아니고 흑인이기 때문인 것이며, 우리 모두를 같은 이유로 공격하고 있는 것입니다.

우리 모두는 동일한 적으로부터 공격을 당하고 있습니다. 우리는 같은 운명의, 한 배를 타고 있는 것입니다. 우리는 정치적 억압과 경제적 착취, 사회적 퇴락을 - 동일한 적으로 인해 - 겪고 있는 것입니다. 정부는 우리를 버렸다는 것을 여러분도 부인할 수 없을 것입니다. 20세기, 1964년을 살면서 여러분은 “We shall overcome(흑인해방가)"을 부르고 있지만, 정부는 우리를 버렸습니다.

이것은 당신이 처한 문제의 일부일 뿐입니다 - 너무 인생을 낙관하고 있는거지요. 이제 노래부르는 건 멈추고 한방 먹여야 할 때입니다. 자유 위에서 노래할 수는 없으나 약간의 자유 위에서 주먹을 휘두를 순 있지요. Cassius Clay(무하마드 알리)가 노래 부를 줄 알지만 노래가 세계헤비급 챔피언이 되는데 도움된 게 뭐 있습니까 - 주먹을 휘둘러서 헤비급챔피언이 된 겁니다. 이 정부는 우리를 버렸습니다. 정부 자신이 우리를 버린겁니다. 우리에게 우호적인 입장이었던 백인 급진주의자들도 우리를 버렸습니다.

우리가 시도해 본 다른 모든 방법들이 실패했다는걸 깨닫는다면, 우리는 타자에 의존해 무언가를 시도하기 보다는 우리 자신을 변화시켜야 할 것입니다. 우리는 우리 스스로를 돕는 프로그램을 필요로 하며, 스스로 한다는 철학과 당장 시작한다는 철학, 지금도 많이 늦었다는 철학을 필요로 합니다. 이것이 우리가 필요로 하는, 우리 문제를 해결하는 오직 하나뿐인 시기와 방법으로 스스로를 돕는 프로그램으로 대처해야 하는 것입니다. 스스로를 돕는 프로그램을 시작하기 전에 우리는 스스로를 돕는 철학을 먼저 가져야 할 것입니다.

흑인 민족주의는 스스로를 돕는 철학입니다. 그것의 장점은 무엇일까요? 당신은 계속해서 스스로의 종교를 유지하면서 당신의 철학으로 흑인 민족주의를 택할 수 있습니다. 당신이 어떤 종류의 시민 조직에 몸담고 있더라도 흑인 민족주의를 당신의 철학으로 선택할 수 있습니다.

무신론자도 흑인 민족주의를 철학으로 가질 수 있지요. 이것은 분리와 논쟁의 필요를 없애주는 철학입니다. 왜냐면 당신이 흑인이라면 흑인처럼 사고해야 하기 때문입니다. 만약 당신이 흑인인데 최근처럼 흑인으로서의 생각을 하지 않는다면, 유감스러운 일이겠지요.

일단 철학을 바꾸게 되면 당신의 사고방식이 변하게 됩니다. 사고방식이 바뀌게 되면 당신의 태도가 바뀌게 됩니다. 태도가 바뀌게 되면 행동방식이 바뀌게 되고 어떠한 활동을 시작하게 될 것입니다. 주저앉아 있는 철학을 택하게 된다면 주저앉아서 생각하게 될 것이며, 주저앉아 생각하게 되면 그런 식으로 행동하게 될 것입니다.

그들은 모든 곳에서 당신을 앉아 있게 할 것입니다. 당신이  하려고 하는 것은 소위 연좌농성보다 나을게 없습니다. 거기서 당신은 거세되고 주저앉게 될 것입니다. 그러면 무슨 일이 생길까요? 누군가 앉아 있는 모습을 그려 보십시오. 나이든 노인들은 앉을 수 있습니다. 바보도 앉을 수 있습니다. 겁쟁이도 앉을 수 있습니다. 그게 뭐든지 앉을 수 있습니다. 우리는 너무 오래 앉아 있었습니다 그리고 이제 일어날 때가 되었으며 그러기 위해 투쟁해야 합니다.

우리가 살고 있는 지구의 다른 곳을 들여다보면 검은색, 갈색, 붉은 색, 노란색의 사람들이 아프리카와 아시아에서 독립을 얻어내고 있습니다. 그들은 “We shall overcome"따위 노래불러서 독립을 얻어낸 것이 아닙니다. 그들은 민족주의를 통해 쟁취했습니다. 아시아 국민들을 독립하게 한 것은 민족주의인 것입니다.

아시아의 모든 국가들은 민족주의를 통해 독립하였습니다. 아프리카 대륙의 모든 나라들은 민족주의를 통해 독립하였습니다. 흑인 민족주의는 400년간 우리를 괴롭힌 이 나라의 식민주의로부터 2200만명의 Afro-American들에게 자유를 가져올 것입니다.

미국은 영국이 그랬듯 식민지배 국가입니다. 프랑스가 그랬던것처럼 미국도 식민지배 국가입니다. 사실상 미국은 그 이면의 위선적인 식민지배의 힘 때문에 영국, 프랑스보다 더한 식민지배 국가입니다.

20세기는 무엇이고 2등급 시민권이라는 것은 또 무엇입니까? 그게 식민주의입니다. 2등급 시민권이라는 것은 20세기의 노예를 의미할 뿐입니다. 어떻게 당신은 당신이 2등급 시민이라고 말할 수 있습니까. 지구상의 어떤 나라에도 2등급 시민권이라는 것은 존재하지 않습니다. 그들은 다만 노예들과 자유로운 국민을 갖고 있을 뿐이지요. 이 나라는 위선적입니다. 그들은 당신을 2등급 시민이라고 불러주며 당신이 자유롭다고 생각하게끔 합니다. 그러나 당신은 20세기의 노예일 뿐 아무 것도 아닌 것이지요.

아시아와 아프리카에서 식민지배를 없애기 위하여 민족주의를 택하고, 이 나라에서 2200만의 Afro-American들의 마음과 등에서 식민지배를 떨어내기 위해 흑인 민족주의를 선택할 것입니다.

1964년은 투표권을 위한 투쟁의 해가 될 것입니다. 왜 그렇게 생각하느냐구요? 흑인들은 너무나 오랜 시간동안 백인들의 속임수와 거짓말, 거짓된 약속에 귀기울여 왔기 때문입니다. 이제 넌더리가 납니다. 이제 꿈과 환상에서 깨어나게 된 겁니다.

그들은 불만스러워하고 있으며 흑인 커뮤니티에서 생겨난 좌절들은 미국 전역의 흑인 커뮤니티로 하여금 러시아에서 지금까지 만들어낸 어떤 핵폭탄보다 더 강력한 폭발력을 지니게 하였습니다. 인종주의의 화약통을 무릎위에 놓고 있는 것은 핵폭발물을 무릎위에 놓고 있는 것보다 더 골치아픈 일입니다. 인종주의의 화약통이 터지게 되면 그것은 누가 그것을 폭발시켰는지 관계없어집니다. 이것을 이해하여야 합니다. 위험합니다.

그리고 1964년이 바로 그 해인 것처럼 보입니다. 왜냐면 백인들이 워싱턴으로의 행진을 진압한 후에 더 이상 우리를 기만하기 위한 수단이 없기 때문입니다. 당신은 이제 모든 것을 보게 되었습니다. 그들은 당신을 속이고 워싱턴 행진을 무력화하였습니다. 여러분들은 고인이 된 링컨과 조지 워싱턴이라는 사람들의 이름 아래 “We shall overcome"을 부르며 행진하였지요. 그들은 당신을 모욕하였습니다. 당신을 바보로 만들었지요. 그들은 당신이 어딘가로 향하고 있다고 생각하게 만들었으나 결국 링컨과 워싱턴 사이의 어딘가 아무 곳도 아닌 곳에서 여정은 끝나고 말았습니다.

그리하여 이제 우리 국민들은 환상에서 벗어나고, 꿈에서 깨어났습니다. 그들은 불만스러운 상황을 깨닫게 되었으며, 좌절 속에서 그들은 어떤 행동을 취하고자 합니다. 1964년 당신은 이러한 흑인 청년들, 새로운 세대가 투표권이냐 투쟁이냐를 외치고 있는 것입니다. 톰아저씨같은 대응은 시대에 뒤떨어진 방식입니다. 젊은 세대는 우리들에게 반하는 기묘한 일들에 대해 듣고자 하지 않습니다. 왜 우리가 그런 이상한 일들을 신경써야 합니까?

처음 이 나라가 만들어졌을 때 13개의 식민지가 존재했습니다. 백인들은 식민지배를 받고 있었지요. 그들은 대표성 없는 세금부과에 넌더리가 났으며, 그들 중의 일부가 일어나 “자유가 아니면 죽음을 달라”고 외쳤습니다. 그러나 제가 미시간의 메이슨에서 백인학교를 다닐 때, 백인들은 저에게 그들의 역사책을 읽게 하는 실수를 저질렀습니다. 그들은 Patrick Henry, George Washington이 애국자였다고 저에게 가르쳤으며, 그들은 절대 비폭력주의자가 아니었습니다.

자유냐 죽음이냐의 투쟁이 영국으로부터 이 나라의 백인들에게 자유를 가져다 주었습니다. 그들은 형세의 불리함은 신경쓰지 않았습니다. 그들은 왜 대영제국의 분노에 맞섰습니까. 그 당시 그들은 대영제국이 너무나 광대하고 강력해서 해가 지지 않는다고 하였습니다. 이 제국이 얼마나 컸던간에 13개의 조그맣고 보잘것 없는 주들은 대표성 없는 과세에 질렸으며, 이용당하고 압제 하에서 모욕당하는 것에 지쳐 대영제국에 “자유가 아니면 죽음을”이라고 외쳤던 것입니다.

그리고 이제 오늘날의 2200만 Afro-American 흑인들은 Patrick Henry가 보았던 어느 것보다도 열악한 상황을 겪고 있습니다. 그리고 저는 이곳에서 여러분들이 모르고 있는 것에 대해 말하고자 합니다. 여러분들은 이 나라의 새로운 흑인 세대를 맞이하고 있습니다. 그들은 상황의 불리함같은 건 신경쓰지 않습니다. 그들은 늙은 톰 아저씨가 형세의 불리함을 얘기하는 것 따위에 결코 귀기울이지 않습니다. 이들은 신세대들입니다. 만약 그들이 이러한 신세대 흑인들을 징집해 한국, 남부 베트남으로 파병해 8억의 중국인들과 대치하게 한다면 - 여러분들이 이러한 상황을 두려워하지 않는다면 우리의 상황을 겁낼 이유도 없는 것입니다.

왜 미국이 - 어떻게 이런 불분명한 상황이 폭발력을 지닌 정치적 해가 될 수 있을까요? 왜냐면 올해는 정치의 해이기 때문입니다. 올해는 흑인 커뮤니티에 백인 정치인들이 들어오려 하는 해이기 때문입니다. 선거날까지 당신은 그들을 보지 못할 것입니다. 선거날까지 찾아봐도 안 나타나겠지요. 그들은 거짓 약속을 가지고 찾아올 것입니다. 그들의 거짓된 약속은 우리의 좌절감을 악화시켜 사태를 악화시키게 될 것입니다.

저는 정치인이 아닙니다. 정치학을 공부하지도 않습니다. 공화당원이거나 민주당원도, 미국인도 아니지만 이런 내용을 알 정도의 지각은 있습니다. 저는 2200만 민주당원 흑인 희생자 중의 하나이며, 2200만 공화당원 흑인 희생자 중 하나입니다. 또한 2200만 미국 숭배주의의 흑인 희생자 중 하나입니다. 따라서 제가 말할 때 저는 민주당원이나 공화당원으로서 말하는 것이 아니며 미국인으로서 말하는 것도 아닙니다. 저는 소위 민주주의라고 하는 미국의 희생자로서 말하고 있는 것입니다. 우리는 결코 민주주의를 본 적이 없으며 우리가 보아온 것은 위선입니다.

눈을 뜨고 미국을 둘러보면, 우리는 미국숭배의 과실을 즐기는 자의 눈으로 보는 것이 아닙니다, 우리는 미국숭배의 희생자의 눈으로 보는 것입니다. 우리는 아메리칸 드림(American dream)이라는 것을 볼 수가 없습니다. 우리는 미국의 악몽(American nightmare)만을 경험해 왔습니다. 우리는 미국의 민주주의로부터 혜택을 입은 바 없으며, 미국의 위선에 의해 고통받아 왔을 뿐입니다. 새로운 세대는 그것을 볼 수 있으며 그것을 말하는 것을 두려워하지 않습니다.

만약 당신이 감옥에 가게 된다 하더라도, 그게 무슨 상관이란 말입니까? 만일 당신이 흑인이라면 당신은 태어나기를 감옥에서 태어난 것입니다. 당신이 흑인이라면 북부이건 남부이건간에 당신은 감옥에서 태어난 것입니다. 남부 얘긴 그만합시다. 캐나다와의 국경 남쪽에서 태어났다면, 당신은 남부에서 태어난 것입니다.

Wallace 주지사를 남부 주지사라고 부르지 마세요. Romney는 남부 주지사입니다. 2200만 미국숭배의 흑인 희생자들은 깨어나고 있으며, 새로운 정치적 의식을 얻어가며 정치적으로 성숙하고 있습니다. 그리고 그들이 이러한 정치적 성숙함을 발전시킴에 따라 그들은 정치선거에서의 최근 경향을 볼 수 있는 것입니다.

백인집단은 동일한 규모로 양분되어 있어 경선에서 투표할 때면 언제나 집계를 다시 해야 할 정도의 상황이 됩니다. 이것은 어떠한 집단, 소수자들도 함께 투표를 하게 된다면 전략적 지위를 가질 수 있다는 점을 의미하는데, 여러분이 투표하는 곳이 승리를 차지한다는 것이지요.

당신은 누가 백악관에 입성하고 누구는 패자가 될지를 결정할 수 있는 자리에 있습니다. 힘이 있다는 것이지요. 당신은 Johnson이 워싱턴에 남을지를 결정하고, 텍사스 목화밭으로 돌려보낼 수도 있습니다. 당신은 케네디를 워싱턴으로 보낸 사람이며, 워싱턴에 민주당 행정부를 들어앉힌 장본인이기도 합니다. 백인은 양분되어 있습니다. 민주당에게 여러분 투표의 80퍼센트를 몰아준다면 민주당이 백악관에 들어간다는 얘기지요.

이러한 관점에서 보면, 여러분들은 흑인의 투표가 핵심요소라는걸 알 수 있으실 겁니다. 그러나 당신이 결정적인 역할을 하고 있다지만 당신이 얻는 것은 무엇입니까. 민주당은 단지 흑인의 표때문에 워싱턴에 입성했습니다. 그들은 4년간 억눌려 있었습니다. 그들이 제기하고자 했던 다른 모든 법령들도 그러했는데 그들은 문제를 제기하고 쓸모없게 만들어 버렸으며, 이제 여러분에게 그러한 문제를 제기하고 있습니다. 여러분들은 그들을 최우선시하고 있습니다만 그들은 당신을 제일 마지막 순위로 두고 있습니다. 왜냐하면 여러분들이 머저리같기 때문이지요. 정치적 머저리 말입니다

워싱턴DC 의회에는 257명의 민주당 의원들이 있고 단지 177명의 공화당 의원들이 있을 뿐입니다. 상원에는 67명의 민주당 의원과 33명의 공화당 의원이 있습니다. 당신이 지지하는 당은 상하원의 2/3를 차지하고 있는데도 여전히 그들은 당신에게 한 약속을 지키지 않고 있습니다. 왜냐면 당신은 머저리이기 때문입니다.

정부의 2/3를 좌지우지할 정당에 힘을 실어주는 족족, 그 정당은 유세기간 중 내세운 공약을 지키지 않고 그럼에도 당신은 그 정당과 자신을 동일시하면서 함께 어울릴 정도로 멍청합니다. 멍청한 정도가 아니라 인종적 배신자인 것입니다.

그리고 그들이 만들어낸 알리바이는 무엇이던가요? 그들은 민주당 탈당자인 Dixiecrats에게 예산안을 넘깁니다. 그리고 당신이 눈멀고, 귀멀고, 벙어리에 무지하고 정치적으로 미숙아니 상태에서 다시 원상복귀되고 당신은 자연스럽게 그렇게 계속 살아갑니다. 하지만 오늘날 여러분이 눈을 뜨고 정치적 성숙함을 발전시키면서 여러분들은 이제 자신을 위해 보고 생각할 수 있게 되었으며 Dixiecrats가 결국 가면을 뒤집어쓴 민주당원일 뿐이라는 것을 알 수 있을 것입니다.

여러분들은 이 나라를 움직이는 정부조직을 알고 있습니다 ; 16개의 상원 위원회와 20개의 하원위원회로 구성되어 있지요. 16개 상원 위원회 중 10개가 남부 분리주의자들의 몫입니다. 20개의 하원 위원회 중 12개가 또한 남부 분리주의자들이 차지하고 있습니다. 그리고 그들은 우리에게 남부가 전쟁에서 패했다고 말하고자 하는 것입니다.

오늘날 여러분들은 Dixiecrats 인척 위장하고 있는 민주당 분리주의자, 인종주의자, 백인지상주의자들의 손에 놓여져 있습니다. Dixiecrat이라는 것은 민주당에 다름 아닙니다. 민주당을 운영하는 자라면 Dixiecrats의 두목이라고 할 수 있을 것입니다. 그리고 그들 모두의 총두목은 백악관에 앉아 있습니다.

제가 반복해 말하고 있듯이, 여러분들의 대통령은 텍사스주 출신의 남부 분리주의자일 뿐입니다. 그들은 미시시피에서만큼이나 재빠르게 텍사스에서도 당신에게 린치를 가할 것입니다. 단지 텍사스에서는 텍사스 악센트를 가진 사람들이 당신에게 린치를 가하고 ; 미시시피주에서는 미시시피 악센트를 가진 사람들이 린치를 가한다는 것 뿐이지요.

보잘것 없던 백인이 권력을 쥐게 되었을 때 처음 하는 일은 모든 흑인지도자들을 초대해 차를 한잔 하며 자신이 괜찮은 친구라는 것을 과시하는 것입니다. 이 톰아저씨들은 초대를 거절할 수 없습니다. 그들은 커피테이블로부터 일어서 우리에게 다가와서는 이 백인친구는 남부 출신이기 때문에 괜찮은 친구이며, 그렇기 때문에 남부를 잘 다룰 수 있을 것이라고 말하는 것입니다.

그들이 말하고 있는 논리를 들여다보세요. James Eastland는 어떻습니까? 그는 남부에서 왔습니다. 그를 대통령으로 뽑읍시다. 만약 Lyndon Johnson이 텍사스 출신이기 때문에 좋은 사람이고, 텍사스 출신이라는 이유 때문에 그는 남부를 다룰 수 있다고 한다면, Eastland는 Johnson보다 더 잘 남부를 다룰 수 있겠지요. 오, 제가 여러분은 오도되었다고 말씀드렸지요. 당신들은 오도되었고, 그렇게 이끌어졌습니다. 

저는 몇주 전 상원의원들이 의사진행을 방해하던 기간 중에 워싱턴에 있었고, 상원의 배경에는 거대한 지도가 존재하고 있다는 것을 깨달았습니다. 그리고 이 지도상에는 미국 내 흑인의 분포가 나타나 있었습니다. 놀랍게도 의사진행 방해에 참여하고 있는 바로 그 상원의원들은 주민의 대부분이 흑인인 주 출신이었습니다.

그들은 왜 시민의 권리에 대한 입법을 방해하고 있었을까요? 왜냐면 그 시민의 권리에 대한 입법이라는 것이 그들의 주에서의 투표권을 보장하게 될 것이기 때문이며, 그러한 주에서 온 상원의원들은 자신들의 주에서 흑인들이 투표를 할 수 있게 된다면 자신들은 물러나게 될 것이기 때문이지요. 이들 주의 대표들은 사라지는 것입니다. 

이 나라의 제도에는 특정지역에서 국민들의 투표권이 어떤 방식으로든 침해되면, 제도에 따라 그 지역의 대표는 의회에서 퇴출되도록 되어 있습니다. 이러한 제도의 측면이 제대로 작동되었다면 우리가 워싱턴 D.C에 백인 거짓말쟁이들을 보냈겠습니까?

그러나 당신이 Dixiecrat을 추방하게 된다면 무슨 일이 생길까요. 당신은 민주당원을 추방하고 있는 것입니다. Dixiecrat의 권력을 빼앗아 버릴 때, 여러분은 민주당의 권력을 파괴하는 것입니다. 자신들의 권력의 기반이 그곳 남부에 있는데, 도대체 어떻게 민주당이 남부에서 진심으로 여러분의 편에 서 있을 수 있겠습니까? 

북부지역의 민주당원들은 남부 민주당원들과 공모하고 있습니다. 그들은 거대한 사기극을 펼치고 있지요, 정치적인 사기극입니다. 어떻게 진행되는 것일까요. 그들 중의 하나가 당신에게 다가와 자신이 당신의 편이라고 믿게 만들고 그는 당신의 편이 아닌 다른 누군가와 같은 편이 되는 것이지요. 

왜냐구요? 왜냐면 그들 중 어느 누구도 당신의 편이 아님에도 그들은 당신을 그들 중 누군가와 함게 하도록 만들기 때문입니다. 그래서 이것이 사기라는 것이지요. 그리고 이것이 지난 세월동안 계속해서 그들이 당신과 나에게 해 왔던 짓이기도 합니다.

Johnson이 대통령이 되었을 때, 비행기에서 내려 처음으로 한 일이 "Dicky는 어디 있는가?" 질문한 것이었습니다. Dicky가 누군지 아십니까? Dicky는 남부 백인 노친네인 Richard - Richard Russell입니다. 이걸 보세요. Lyndon B. Johnson의 가장 친한 친구가 시민권 입법을 방해하는 무리를 이끌었던 바로 그 우두머리입니다. 대체 Richard Russell이 어떻게 Johnson의 절친한 친구가 될 수 있는지 그 이유를 알고 계시나요? 어떻게 Johnson이 그의 친구가 될 수 있는지, 그리고 동시에 우리의 친구가 될 수 있는지 말이지요. 아닙니다. 이 친구는 믿을 수가 없어요. 특히나 그의 친구가 여전히 늙은이 Dicky라면 말입니다. 

그게 언제든 흑인들이 민주당의 권력을 지켜준다는 것은 Dixiecrats의 권력을 지켜 준다는 것과 같습니다. 사실일까요? 민주당에 투표하는 것은 Dixiecrat에 투표하는 것일 뿐입니다. 제가 이런 말을 하는게 듣기 편하지는 않겠지만 저는 여러분 듣기 좋은 소리만 하는 그런 사람은 아닙니다. 저는 여러분들이 원하던 원치 않던 진실을 말할 것입니다.

북쪽도 마찬가지지요. 민주당은 다른 방법을 씁니다. 그들은 게리멘더링(선거구 조작)이라고 하는 것을 생각해 냈습니다. 그들은 당신이 권력을 얻을 수 없도록 교묘히 유도합니다. 심지어 당신이 투표를 하더라도 그들은 당신이 결국 누구에게도 투표한 효과가 없도록 만들어 버립니다. 당신을 우왕좌왕하게 만들지요.

남부에서는 그들은 노골적인 정치적 늑대들입니다. 북부에서는 그들은 정치적인 여우들이지요. 여우나 늑대나 결국 개과의 동물입니다. 이제 여러분에게 선택이 달려 있습니다. 북부의 개를 선택하시겠습니까 아니면 남부의 개를 선택하시겠습니까? 왜냐면 어떤 개를 선택하던지 장담하건데 여러분은 여전히 개집에 살게 될 것이기 때문입니다.

이것이 제가 투표권이냐 총알이냐라는 것을 말하는 이유입니다. 자유 아니면 죽음을과 같은 말입니다. 모두의 자유이거나 헛된 일이 되는 것이지요. 최근 미국은 독특한 상황을 맞고 있습니다. 역사적으로, 혁명은 피를 요구합니다. 그렇습니다 혁명은 그런 것입니다. 피를 흘리지 않은 혁명은 없으며 비폭력 혁명도 없었습니다.

영화 속에서도 그런 일은 일어나지 않았습니다. 여러분의 적을 사랑하는 혁명도 없습니다. 당신을 끌어들이려고 하는 노동력 착취 시스템에 구걸하는 혁명도 없습니다. 혁명은 시스템을 전복시킵니다. 혁명은 시스템을 파괴합니다. 혁명은 피를 요구합니다.

그러나 미국은 독특한 상황에 놓여 있습니다. 미국은 무혈의 혁명에 말려든 유일한 국가입니다. 러시아혁명, 중국혁명, 프랑스혁명, 쿠바혁명은 유혈이었으며, 미국혁명보다 더 선혈이 낭자한 것은 없었습니다. 그러나 오늘날 이 나라는 유혈참사 없는 혁명이 진행될 수 있습니다. 이 나라가 해야 할 일은 흑인들에게 마땅히 주어졌어야 할 것을 모두 허용하는 것 뿐입니다.

백인들이 여러분들이 최후의 순간에 처해 있다는 현실을 모르기 때문에, 이러한 현실을 볼 수 있었으면 좋겠습니다. 그렇지 않다면 여러분들은 장래가 보이지 않을 때 취하게 될 최후의 행동을 하게 될 것이기 때문입니다.

그리고 우리는 당신들이 핵무기를 가지고 있다는 사실에는 신경쓰지 않습니다. 다른 나라들이 핵무기를 가지고 있기 때문에 그것은 이제 쓸모 없게 되어 버렸습니다. 두개 또는 세 개의 서로 다른 나라들이 핵무기를 가지고 있으면, 아무도 그것을 사용할 수 없습니다. 결국 백인들은 무기가 없는 것이나 마찬가지인 셈입니다. 당신이 어떤... 어떤 행동을 취하려고 할 때, 당신은 보다 현실적이게 됩니다. 그리고 현실적인 백인보다 현실적인 흑인들이 더 많습니다. 

시간이 얼마 안 남았군요. 백인들은 지구상에서 더 이상 어떠한 전쟁도 승리할 수 없습니다. 그들의 전쟁, 승리, 제국의 나날들은 이제 끝났습니다. 증명해 보라구요? 좋습니다. 그들이 개입된 모든 지구상의 전쟁을 예로 들어보지요. 저에게 그들이 승리하고 있는 전쟁을 말해보세요. 없습니다.

왜 어떤 쌀농사짓는 농부들이 - 농부들이 - 어떤 쌀을 먹는 사람들이 그를 한국 밖으로 추방하였을까요. 네 그들은 그를 한국 밖으로 쫓아냈습니다. 운동화를 신고 총과 밥그릇을 든 보잘것 없는 사람들이 그의 탱크, 네이팜탄, 그리고 그가 취할 수 있는 모든 다른 행동들과 함께 압록강 저편으로 쫓아내 버렸습니다. 왜냐구요? 그가 지상에서 승리할 수 있는 시절은 이제 갔기 때문이지요. 

프랑스는 인도차이나에서 작은 소작인들, 농부들이 프랑스 군대와 프랑스인들을 몰라냈지요 - 디엔 비엔 푸 전투를 기억하십니까. 알제리, 아프리카에서도 같은 일이 벌어졌습니다. 그들이 가지고 있는 것은 소총뿐이었습니다. 프랑스인들은 고도로 기계화된 전쟁도구를 가지고 있었으나, 그들은 게릴라전을 펼쳤고 백인들은 게릴라전에 대항할 수 없었습니다. 게릴라전이라는 것은 신념과 용기를 필요로 하는 것인데, 그들은 그게 없습니다.

그는 탱크를 가지고 있을 때만 용감합니다. 그는 비행기가 있으면 용감합니다. 그는 폭탄이 있을 때 용감합니다. 그는 많은 동료들과 함께 할 때 용감합니다. 그러나 아프리카와 아시아의 조그만 사람들은 그를 칼 한자루만 쥐어주고 숲 속에 끌어들였습니다. 그가 필요한 것은 오직 칼 한자루였고 태양이 지고 밤이 찾아왔을 때 상황은 공평해졌습니다. 따라서 이제 문제는 투표권 쟁취냐 죽음이냐는 것입니다.

오늘날 국민들은 우리가 정부의 음모에 맞닥뜨려 있다는 것을 알 수 있습니다. 이 정부는 우리를 기만했습니다. 당신과 나의 권리에 대해 의사진행을 방해하는 상원의원들, 그것이 정부인 것입니다. 남부의 상원의원이라고 말하지 마십시오. 이것이 정부입니다. 이것이 의사진행 방해 정부입니다. 분리주의자의 방해가 아니라 정부의 방해인 것입니다.

의회나 상원에서 이루어지는 어떠한 활동도, 정부의 활동인 것입니다. 어떤 종류의 시간낭비도, 바로 정부가 하는 것입니다. 어떤 종류의 기회주의적인 행동도, 바로 정부의 짓입니다. 우리들의 모든 권리를 당장에 찾는 것을 지연시키고 기회를 빼앗아 버리는 어떠한 행동도 정부에 책임이 있는 것입니다. 

그리고 시민과 국민의 권리를 침해하는 음모에 정부가 개입하는 경우에는, 당신이 정부에 시정을 기대하는 것이 헛수고일 뿐인 것입니다. 오히려 당신은 그 정부를 세계의 법정에 세워 인종말살과 다른 모든 범죄행위에 대해 기소해야만 하는 것입니다.

따라서 정치적, 경제적, 사회적 철학을 흑인민족주의로 하는 우리들은 시민권 투쟁을 시작하게 되었습니다. 우리는 우리 자신들을 시민권 투쟁에 참여하게끔 하였고, 우리는 시민권의 수준을 인권의 수준으로 확장하고자 합니다. 시민권 투쟁의 수준에서 머무르는 한 미국 사법체계에서 머물러야 하는 것이니까요. 

여러분들은 그들이 문제를 해결해 줄 것을 기대하며 법정으로 갑니다. 그가 문제를 만들어 냈으며, 그가 죄인인데 말이지요. 누가 죄인인 당사자에게 사건을 들고 해결해 달라고 가져갑니까. 죄인은 법정으로 끌고 가야 하는 것입니다. 남아프리카공화국 정부가 남아공 국민의 인권을 짓밟기 시작했을 때, 그들은 유엔으로 끌려 갔습니다. 포르투갈 정부가 앙골라의 우리 형제자매들의 인권을 짓밟았을 때, 그들도 유엔에 출석해야 했지요.

왜 백인들조차도 헝가리 국민의 문제를 유엔에 제기해야 했을까요. 그리고 이번 주에 골드버그 연방대법원장이 러시아의 3백만 유대인 인권문제로 분노하며 러시아에서 유대인 인권탄압에 대해 유엔 헌장 위반으로 러시아를 제소했습니다. 

이제 여러분들은 지구상에서 곤경에 처한 사람들의 경우가 어떠한 방식으로 유엔에 제출되는지를 알게 되셨습니다. 그리고 우리 2200만의 미국흑인들이 선택에 제한되어 있고, 어린 딸들이 살해당하며, 그들의 지도자가 대낮에 큰길에서 총에 맞고 있지 않습니까.

왜 이러한 투쟁의 지도자가 유엔에 이러한 문제를 단 한번도 제기하지 않았는지 알고 계십니까. 당연히 우리의 다음 행동은 이러한 총체적인 시민의 권리 투쟁에 대한 문제를 유엔으로 가져가는 것입니다. 그리고 온 세상이 미국 정부가 2200만 미국 흑인의 인권을 침해한 죄인이라는 것을 알게 해야 합니다. 

미국 정부는 여전히 거만하거나 자유세계의 지도자로서 자신을 주장할 정도로 용감합니다. 사기꾼일 뿐 아니라 위선적이기도 하지요. 미국정부는 다른 이들 앞에 서서는 당신과 우리의 형제, 부모님의 피를 손에 묻히고, 피칠갑을 한 턱을 가진 늑대처럼 그의 턱에서 피를 뚝뚝 흘리고 있습니다. 그리고 여전히 다른 나라들을 노리고 있을 만큼 뻔뻔하기도 합니다. 

여러분들은 시민권이 입법화되는 것을 볼 수 없습니다. 그리고 이 정부는 똑바로 서서 남아공과 나찌독일, 또는 독일연방에 대해 말하는 뻔뻔함을 가지고 있습니다. 어떻게 이럴 수가 있습니까? 왜냐면 이제 이런 일들은 다 지나간 과거의 일들이기 때문이지요.

따라서 저는 결론적으로 우리가 이 문제를 해결하는 유일한 방법은 단결과 협력이며, 흑인 민족주의가 열쇠라고 말씀드리고자 합니다. 언제나 우리 주위에 존재해 왔고 우리의 삶과 직결되는 이러한 풍조를 우리는 어떻게 극복할 수 있을까요? 이러한 풍조로 인해 백인들의 전략은 항상 분열과 지배였던 것입니다.

그들은 우리를 지배하기 위해 항상 분열시켜 왔습니다. 그는 여러분에게 나는 분리주의자이고 당신은 통합주의자라며 서로 끊임없이 싸우게 했습니다. 우리가 원하는 것은 자유입니다. 당신은 통합을 통해 자유를 얻는 것을 생각하고, 저는 분리를 통해 자유를 얻고자 생각합니다. 우리 모두 같은 목표를 가지고 있으며 그 방법에서의 차이가 있을 뿐입니다. 

그래서 저는 백인민족주의를 전도하고 다니는 빌리 그래험(Billy Graham)에 대해 연구해 봤습니다. 제가 그가 설교하고 다니는 것들이 곧 백인 민족주의라고 말씀드렸지요. 이 나라의 모든 교회의 구조 자체가 백인 민족주의입니다. 백인교회에 들어가 보면, 그들이 설교하는 것은 백인 민족주의입니다. 그들은 백인 예수와, 백인 성모마리아, 백인 신을 가지고 있으며 모두 다 백인입니다 - 그게 백인 민족주의지요. 

그가 하는 행동은 - 그 방식은 - 그는 시기와 질투로 교회 지도자들간에 좋지 않은 일들을 만들어 냅니다. 그가 가는 곳이면 어디든 여러분이 다니는 교회에 문제가 발생하는 이유는 그들이 소위 말하는 신디케이트(조직)를 가지고 있기 때문입니다 - 다른 나머지 사기꾼같은 놈들과 마찬가지로 말이지요. 저는 제가 생각하는 바를 말씀드리고자 하는 것입니다. 왜냐면 교회란, 목사들이란 이미 그들이 신디케이트를 가지고 있다는 것을 여러분들에게 보여주었기 때문이지요. 

그런 위험에서 벗어나 다른 누군가의 영역으로 옮겨가게 되더라도 그들은 집단으로 당신을 공격합니다. 여러분도 마찬가지입니다. 여러분도 똑같은 상황에 처하게 될 것입니다. 그러면 빌리 그래험은 다른 누군가의 영역으로 들어가는 대신 어떻게 그런 일들을 새로운 교회를 시작해 내는 것처럼 해 내고 있을까요. 그는 교회를 개척하지 않습니다. 그는 단지 예수를 전도하고 다닙니다. 예수를 믿는 모두에게 말하고 있지요. 어디를 가던지 그를 발견할 수 있을 것입니다. 모든 교회들이 그와 싸우는 것을 꺼려하지 않도록 하기 때문에 교회를 돕게 되는 것입니다. 

우리도 똑같은 일을 해야 합니다. 우리의 복음은 흑인 민족주의입니다. 그의 복음은 백인 민족주의입니다. 우리의 복음은 흑인 민족주의입니다. 그리고 흑인 민족주의의 복음은, 말씀드렸듯이여러분이 스스로를, 여러분 사회의 정치를, 여러분 사회의 경제를, 그리고 여러분이 살고 있는 사회의 모든 것이 여러분의 통제하에 있어야 한다는 것입니다.

일단 이러한 철학이 여러분의 문제를 해결해 줄 것이라고 느끼게 된다면, 흑인 민족주의를 전도하는 교회 어디든 참가를 하십시오. 백인 민족주의를 전도하는 교회에는 가지 마세요. 여러분이 흑인 교회를 가더라도 백인 민족주의에 노출됩니다. 왜냐면 흑인교회에 들어가더라도 백인 성모마리아와 몇몇의 백인 천사들이 있고 - 흑인 교회도 백인 민족주의를 전도하고 있기 때문입니다.

그러나 당신이 교회에 들어가서 흑인들을 단결시키고 발전시키기 위한 철학과 계획을 가지고 있는 교회의 목사를 만나게 된다면 - 그 교회를 다니세요. 여러분이 흑인 민족주의를 구체화시키기 위한 설교와 실천의 NAACP(흑인 발전을 위한 민족연합)를 발견한다면, NAACP에 가입하세요. 사회, 종교, 친목, 정치 또는 어떤 형태로든 흑인의 권리를 향상시키고 흑인 커뮤니티에 대해 공부하게 해주는 어떠한 조직이라도 좋으니 가입하세요. 

그것이 투표가 아니면 맞게 될 총알이 될 것입니다. 자유 아니면 죽음인 것과 마찬가지로 말입니다. 만약 그러한 댓가를 치를 준비가 되어 있지 않다면, 당신의 어휘에서 자유라는 단어는 빼 버리십시오.

한가지 더 말씀드리지요. 저는 최근 일리노이주에서 상원의원 Paul Douglas와 같은 과정에 참여하였습니다. 그는 소위 진보적이고, 민주당이며, 백인인 자로서 당시 그는 저에게 우리 아프리카의 형제들은 우리에게 관심이 없다고 말했습니다. 그는 아프리카 사람들은 미국의 흑인들에 관심이 없다고 말했습니다. 

저는 그가 거짓말을 하고 있다는 것을 알고 있었습니다. 그러나 그 2~3주 기간 동안 저는 우리의 아프리카 고향땅을 방문하는 계획을 세우게 되었습니다. 그리고 제가 돌아왔을 때, 저는 여러분들에게 우리의 아프리카 형제들이 우리들을 어떻게 생각하고 있는가에 대해 말씀드릴 수 있을 것입니다. 그리고 가보지 않았으나 그들이 우리를 사랑하고 있음을 알고 있습니다. 우리는 하나이며 같은 형제입니다. 지난 세월동안 똑같은 사람들이 그들을 식민지배해 왔으며, 여러분과 저 또한 지배당해 왔습니다. 그리고 이제 우리는 깨어나 단결과 협력을 통해 그 싸움을 끝낼 것입니다.

저는 Freedom Now Party와 그 목표에 감사를 표하고자 합니다. 저는 Milton과 Richard Henley, Cleage 목사님이 오늘 오후에 저를 초대해 주신 것에 감사를 표합니다. 그리고 제가 할 수 있는 것이라면 무엇이던지, 그게 언제이던지 디트로이트 또는 그 어디라도 우리 모두가 직면하고 있는 정치적, 경제적, 사회적 악을 제거하기 위해 만들어진 프로그램에서 같이 일할 것입니다. 전화만 주세요. 당장 그곳으로 다음 비행기를 타고 달려갈 것입니다.

Barack Obama

Commencement Address at Knox College

delivered 4 June 2005, Galesburg, Illinois

버락 오바마 전 대통령이 상원의원 시절인 2005년 6월 녹스대학 졸업식에서 한 연설문

Good morning President Taylor, Board of Trustees, faculty, parents, family, friends, the community of Galesburg, the class of 1955 -- which I understand was out partying last night, and yet still showed up here on time -- and most of all, the Class of 2005. Congratulations on your graduation, and thank you -- thank you for the honor of allowing me to be a part of it. Thank you also, Mr. President, for this honorary degree. It was only a couple of years ago that I stopped paying my student loans in law school. Had I known it was this easy, I would have ran [sic] for the United States Senate earlier.

You know, it has been about six months now since you sent me to Washington as your United States Senator. I recognize that not all of you voted for me, so for those of you muttering under your breath "I didn’t send you anywhere," that's ok too. Maybe we’ll hold -- What do you call it? -- a little Pumphandle after the ceremony. Change your mind for the next time.

It has been a fascinating journey thus far. Each time I walk onto the Senate floor, I'm reminded of the history, for good and for ill, that has been made there. But there have been a few surreal moments. For example, I remember the day before I was sworn in, myself and my staff, we decided to hold a press conference in our office. Now, keep in mind that I am ranked 99th in seniority. I was proud that I wasn’t ranked dead last until I found out that it’s just because Illinois is bigger than Colorado. So I’m 99th in seniority, and all the reporters are crammed into the tiny transition office that I have, which is right next to the janitor’s closet in the basement of the Dirksen Office Building. It’s my first day in the building, I have not taken a single vote, I have not introduced one bill, had not even sat down in my desk, and this very earnest reporter raises his hand and says:

“Senator Obama, what is your place in history?”

I did what you just did, which is laugh out loud. I said, "place in history?" I thought he was kidding. At that point, I wasn’t even sure the other Senators would save a place for me at the cool kids’ table.

But as I was thinking about the words to share with this class, about what’s next, about what’s possible, and what opportunities lay ahead, I actually think it’s not a bad question for you, the class of 2005, to ask yourselves: What will be your place in history?

In other eras, across distant lands, this question could be answered with relative ease and certainty. As a servant in Rome, you knew you’d spend your life forced to build somebody else’s Empire. As a peasant in 11th Century China, you knew that no matter how hard you worked, the local warlord might come and take everything you had -- and you also knew that famine might come knocking at the door. As a subject of King George, you knew that your freedom of worship and your freedom to speak and to build your own life would be ultimately limited by the throne.

And then America happened.

A place where destiny was not a destination, but a journey to be shared and shaped and remade by people who had the gall, the temerity to believe that, against all odds, they could form “a more perfect union” on this new frontier.

And as people around the world began to hear the tale of the lowly colonists who overthrew an empire for the sake of an idea, they started to come. Across oceans and the ages, they settled in Boston and Charleston, Chicago and St. Louis, Kalamazoo and Galesburg, to try and build their own American Dream. This collective dream moved forward imperfectly -- it was scarred by our treatment of native peoples, betrayed by slavery, clouded by the subjugation of women, shaken by war and depression. And yet, brick by brick, rail by rail, calloused hand by calloused hand, people kept dreaming, and building, and working, and marching, and petitioning their government, until they made America a land where the question of our place in history is not answered for us. It’s answered by us.

Have we failed at times? Absolutely. Will you occasionally fail when you embark on your own American journey? You surely will. But the test is not perfection.
The true test of the American ideal is whether we’re able to recognize our failings and then rise together to meet the challenges of our time. Whether we allow ourselves to be shaped by events and history, or whether we act to shape them. Whether chance of birth or circumstance decides life’s big winners and losers, or whether we build a community where, at the very least, everyone has a chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams.

We have faced this choice before.

At the end of the Civil War, when farmers and their families began moving into the cities to work in the big factories that were sprouting up all across America, we had to decide:  Do we do nothing and allow captains of industry and robber barons to run roughshod over the economy and workers by competing to see who can pay the lowest wages at the worst working conditions? Or do we try to make the system work by setting up basic rules for the market, instituting the first public schools, busting up monopolies, letting workers organize into unions?

We chose to act, and we rose together.

When the irrational exuberance of the Roaring Twenties came crashing down with the stock market, we had to decide: do we follow the call of leaders who would do nothing, or the call of a leader who, perhaps because of his physical paralysis, refused to accept political paralysis?

We chose to act -- regulating the market, putting people back to work, expanding bargaining rights to include health care and a secure retirement -- and together we rose.

When World War II required the most massive home front mobilization in history and we needed every single American to lend a hand, we had to decide: Do we listen to skeptics who told us it wasn’t possible to produce that many tanks and planes? Or, did we build Roosevelt’s Arsenal for Democracy and grow our economy even further by providing our returning heroes with a chance to go to college and own their own home?

Again, we chose to act, and again, we rose together.

Today, at the beginning of this young century, we have to decide again. But this time, it is your turn to choose.

Here in Galesburg, you know what this new challenge is. You’ve seen it. All of you, your first year in college saw what happened at 9/11. It’s already been noted, the degree to which your lives will be intertwined with the war on terrorism that currently is taking place. But what you’ve also seen, perhaps not as spectacularly, is the fact that when you drive by the old Maytag plant around lunchtime, no one walks out anymore. I saw it during the campaign when I met union guys who worked at the plant for 20, 30 years and now wonder what they’re gonna do at the age of 55 without a pension or health care; when I met the man who’s son needed a new liver but because he’d been laid off, didn’t know if he could afford to provide his child the care that he needed.

It’s as if someone changed the rules in the middle of the game and no wonder -- no one bothered to tell these folks. And, in reality, the rules have changed.

It started with technology and automation that rendered entire occupations obsolete. When was the last time anybody here stood in line for the bank teller instead of going to the ATM, or talked to a switchboard operator? Then it continued when companies like Maytag were able to pick up and move their factories to some under developed country where workers were a lot cheaper than they are in the United States.

As Tom Friedman points out in his new book, The World Is Flat, over the last decade or so, these forces -- technology and globalization -- have combined like never before. So that while most of us have been paying attention to how much easier technology has made our own lives -- sending e-mails back and forth on our blackberries, surfing the Web on our cell phones, instant messaging with friends across the world -- a quiet revolution has been breaking down barriers and connecting the world’s economies. Now business not only has the ability to move jobs wherever there’s a factory, but wherever there’s an internet connection.

Countries like India and China realized this. They understand that they no longer need to be just a source of cheap labor or cheap exports. They can compete with us on a global scale. The one resource they needed were skilled, educated workers. So they started schooling their kids earlier, longer, with a greater emphasis on math and science and technology, until their most talented students realized they don’t have to come to America to have a decent life -- they can stay right where they are.

The result? China is graduating four times the number of engineers that the United States is graduating. Not only are those Maytag employees competing with Chinese and Indian and Indonesian and Mexican workers, you are too. Today, accounting firms are e-mailing your tax returns to workers in India who will figure them out and send them back to you as fast as any worker in Illinois or Indiana could.

When you lose your luggage in Boston at an airport, tracking it down may involve a call to an agent in Bangalore, who will find it by making a phone call to Baltimore. Even the Associated Press has outsourced some of their jobs to writers all over the world who can send in a story at a click of a mouse.

As Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, in this new economy, "Talent is the 21st century wealth."  If you've got the skills, you've got the education, and you have the opportunity to upgrade and improve both, you’ll be able to compete and win anywhere. If not, the fall will be further and harder than it ever was before.

So what do we do about this? How does America find its way in this new, global economy? What will our place in history be?

Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn’t much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government -- divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it -- Social Darwinism -- every man or woman for him or herself. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say that those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford -- tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job -- life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child who was born into poverty -- pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we’re the one who will be the next Donald Trump, or at least we won’t be the chump who Donald Trump says: “You’re fired!”

But there is a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it’s been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the internet possible. It’s been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools that allowed us all to prosper. Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity. That’s what’s produced our unrivaled political stability.

And so if we do nothing in the face of globalization, more people will continue to lose their health care. Fewer kids will be able to afford the diploma you’re about to receive.

More companies like United Airlines won’t be able to provide pensions for their employees. And those Maytag workers will be joined in the unemployment line by any worker whose skills can be bought and sold on the global market.

So today I’m here to tell you what most of you already know. This is not us -- the option that I just mentioned. Doing nothing. It’s not how our story ends -- not in this country. America is a land of big dreamers and big hopes.

It is this hope that has sustained us through revolution and civil war, depression and world war, a struggle for civil and social rights and the brink of nuclear crisis. And it is because our dreamers dreamed that we have emerged from each challenge more united, more prosperous, and more admired than before.

So let’s dream. Instead of doing nothing or simply defending 20th century solutions, let’s imagine together what we could do to give every American a fighting chance in the 21st century.

What if we prepared every child in America with the education and skills they need to compete in the new economy?  If we made sure that college was affordable for everyone who wanted to go? If we walked up to those Maytag workers and we said “Your old job is not coming back, but a new job will be there because we’re going to seriously retrain you and there’s life-long education that’s waiting for you -- the sorts of opportunities that Knox has created with the Strong Futures scholarship program.

What if no matter where you worked or how many times you switched jobs, you had health care and a pension that stayed with you always, so you all had the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business? What if instead of cutting budgets for research and development and science, we fueled the genius and the innovation that will lead to the new jobs and new industries of the future?

Right now, all across America, there are amazing discoveries being made. If we supported these discoveries on a national level, if we committed ourselves to investing in these possibilities, just imagine what it could do for a town like Galesburg. Ten or twenty years down the road, that old Maytag plant could re-open its doors as an Ethanol refinery that turned corn into fuel. Down the street, a biotechnology research lab could open up on the cusp of discovering a cure for cancer. And across the way, a new auto company could be busy churning out electric cars. The new jobs created would be filled by American workers trained with new skills and a world-class education.

All of that is possible but none of it will come easy. Every one of us is going to have to work more, read more, train more, think more. We will have to slough off some bad habits -- like driving gas guzzlers that weaken our economy and feed our enemies abroad. Our children will have to turn off the TV set once in a while and put away the video games and start hitting the books. We’ll have to reform institutions, like our public schools, that were designed for an earlier time. Republicans will have to recognize our collective responsibilities, even as Democrats recognize that we have to do more than just defend old programs.

It won’t be easy, but it can be done. It can be our future. We have the talent and the resources and brainpower. But now we need the political will. We need a national commitment.

And we need each of you.

Now, no one can force you to meet these challenges. If you want, it will be pretty easy for you to leave here today and not give another thought to towns like Galesburg and the challenges they face. There is no community service requirement in the real world; no one is forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and go chasing after the big house, and the nice suits, and all the other things that our money culture says that you should want, that you should aspire to, that you can buy.

But I hope you don’t walk away from the challenge. Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. You need to take up the challenges that we face as a nation and make them your own. Not because you have a debt to those who helped you get here, although you do have that debt. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate than you, although I do think you do have that obligation. It’s primarily because you have an obligation to yourself. Because individual salvation has always depended on collective salvation. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential.

And I know that all of you are wondering how you’ll do this, the challenges seem so big. They seem so difficult for one person to make a difference.

But we know it can be done. Because where you’re sitting, in this very place, in this town, it’s happened before.

Nearly two centuries ago, before civil rights, before voting rights, before Abraham Lincoln, before the Civil War, before all of that, America was stained by the sin of slavery. In the sweltering heat of southern plantations, men and women who looked like me could not escape the life of pain and servitude in which they were sold. And yet, year after year, as this moral cancer ate away at the American ideals of liberty and equality, the nation was silent.

But its people didn’t stay silent for long.

One by one, abolitionists emerged to tell their fellow Americans that this would not be our place in history -- that this was not the America that had captured the imagination of the world.

This resistance that they met was fierce, and some paid with their lives. But they would not be deterred, and they soon spread out across the country to fight for their cause. One man from New York went west, all the way to the prairies of Illinois to start a colony.

And here in Galesburg, freedom found a home.

Here in Galesburg, the main depot for the Underground Railroad in Illinois, escaped slaves could roam freely on the streets and take shelter in people’s homes. And when their masters or the police would come for them, the people of this town would help them escape north, some literally carrying them in their arms to freedom.

Think about the risks that involved. If they were caught abetting a fugitive, you could’ve been jailed or lynched. It would have been simple for these townspeople to turn the other way; to go live their lives in a private peace.

And yet, they didn’t do that. Why?

Because they knew that we were all Americans; that we were all brothers and sisters; the same reason that a century later, young men and women your age would take Freedom Rides down south, to work for the Civil Rights movement. The same reason that black women would walk instead of ride a bus after a long day of doing somebody else’s laundry and cleaning somebody else’s kitchen. Because they were marching for freedom.

Today, on this day of possibility, we stand in the shadow of a lanky, raw-boned man with little formal education who once took the stage at Old Main and told the nation that if anyone did not believe the American principles of freedom and equality, that those principles were timeless and all-inclusive, they should go rip that page out of the Declaration of Independence.

My hope for all of you is that as you leave here today, you decide to keep these principles alive in your own life and in the life of this country. You will be tested. You won’t always succeed. But know that you have it within your power to try. That generations who have come before you faced these same fears and uncertainties in their own time. And that through our collective labor, and through God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that distant horizon, and a better day.

Thank you so much class of 2005, and congratulations on your graduation. Thank you.

오바마 전 대통령의 유명한 2004년 민주당 전당대회 기조연설문

Barack Obama

2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address

delivered 27 July 2004, Fleet Center, Boston

Audio AR-XE mp3 of Address

click for pdf 

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]

On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, Land of Lincoln, let me express my deepest gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention.

Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father -- my grandfather -- was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before.

While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor my grandfather signed up for duty; joined Patton’s army, marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised a baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through F.H.A., and later moved west all the way to Hawaii in search of opportunity.

And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter. A common dream, born of two continents.

My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or ”blessed,” believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined -- They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential.

They're both passed away now. And yet, I know that on this night they look down on me with great pride.

They stand here, and I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents’ dreams live on in my two precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible.

Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our Nation -- not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That is the true genius of America, a faith -- a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted -- at least most of the time.

This year, in this election we are called to reaffirm our values and our commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we're measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers and the promise of future generations.

And fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, I say to you tonight: We have more work to do --  more work to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that’s moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour; more to do for the father that I met who was losing his job and choking back the tears, wondering how he would pay 4500 dollars a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits that he counted on; more to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn’t have the money to go to college.

Now, don’t get me wrong. The people I meet -- in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks -- they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead,  and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted, by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon. Go in -- Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach our kids to learn; they know that parents have to teach, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

People don’t expect -- People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all.

They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

In this election, we offer that choice. Our Party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. And that man is John Kerry.

John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and service because they’ve defined his life. From his heroic service to Vietnam, to his years as a prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he's devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we’ve seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available.

His values and his record affirm what is best in us. John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded; so instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he offers them to companies creating jobs here at home.

John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves.

John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren’t held hostage to the profits of oil companies, or the sabotage of foreign oil fields.

John Kerry believes in the Constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties, nor use faith as a wedge to divide us.

And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world war must be an option sometimes, but it should never be the first option.

You know, a while back -- awhile back I met a young man named Shamus in a V.F.W. Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid -- six two, six three, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. And as I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, the absolute faith he had in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might ever hope for in a child.

But then I asked myself, "Are we serving Shamus as well as he is serving us?"

I thought of the 900 men and women -- sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who won’t be returning to their own hometowns. I thought of the families I’ve met who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but still lacked long-term health benefits because they were Reservists.

When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now -- Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued. And they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure.

John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper -- for alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga,  a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end -- In the end -- In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?

John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope.

I’m not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t think about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker’s son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.

Hope -- Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!

In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.

I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.

I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.

I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.

America! Tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I do, if you feel the same passion that I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do -- if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as President, and John Edwards will be sworn in as Vice President, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come.

Thank you very much everybody.

God bless you.

Thank you.

거대한 주, 전국을 가로지르는, 링컨의 고향 일리노이를 대표하여 저에게 이번 전당대회 연설의 특혜를 허락해주셔서 깊은 감사의 말씀을 드립니다. 오늘은 저에게 아주 명예로운 밤입니다. 왜냐하면, 보십시오, 이 무대에서의 저의 참석은 아주 이례적인 일입니다. 저의 아버지는 국제 학생이셨으며 케냐의 작은 마을에서 태어나 자라셨습니다. 아버지는 염소를 몰면서 자랐으며 낡아빠진 지붕아래 학교에 다니셨습니다. 아버지의 아버지, 나의 할아버지께서는 영국의 가사 노예로서, 요리사였습니다.

하지만 할아버지는 그의 자식에 대한 보다 큰 꿈을 가지고 있었습니다. 근면 성실과 인내를 통하여 아버지는 장학금을 받으셨고 꿈의 장소에서 공부할 수 있었습니다. 그 마법과 같은 장소는 미국입니다. 예전에 그 곳의 사람들에게 자유와 기회의 등불을 밝히었던 곳입니다. 아버지는 거기서 공부하시는 동안 어머니를 만나셨습니다. 어머니께서는 나라의 아주 변두리에 있는 자그마한 마을, 켄사스에서 태어나셨습니다. 어머니의 아버지는 세계 대공황 가운데서 오일 공장과 농사를 지으며 일하셨습니다. 진주만 습격 사건 다음날 그는 패턴 장군의 군대에 입대하셨고 유럽으로 진군하셨습니다. 집으로 돌아오셨을 때, 저의 외할머니는 그 분의 자식들을 폭탄 제조 공장으로 일을 보내셨습니다. 전쟁이 끝나고, 그들은 GI Bill을 공부하셨고, FHA를 통해 집을 구입하셨으며 기회를 좇아 서부로 이사를 가셨습니다.

그리고 그들 역시 그 분들의 딸에 대해서 큰 꿈을 가지고 있었습니다. 저의 부모님들은 아주 멋진 사랑을 나누셨을 뿐만 아니라 이 국가의 가능성에 대한 변치 않는 믿음도 나누셨습니다. 부모님은 저에게 아프리카의 이름을 주셨습니다. 그것은 바로‘버락’입니다. 이것은‘축복받은’을 의미합니다. 이 이름에는 관용의 나라인 미국에서 사람의 이름은 성공에 대한 장애를 주지 않는 다는 믿음이 있습니다. 부모님은 제가 미국에서 가장 좋은 대학에 가기를 꿈꾸셨습니다. 비록 우리집은 가난했지만요. 왜냐하면 관대한 나라 미국에서는 우리의 잠재력을 발휘하기 위해 꼭 부자가 될 필요는 없었으니까요. 우리 부모님들은 지금 모두 돌아가셨습니다. 하지만 저는 압니다. 오늘 이 밤, 우리 부모님께서는 저를 자랑스러운 눈으로 보고 계시다는 것을.

오늘 저는 여기에 서있고, 나의 다양한 유산에 감사하고 있습니다. 그리고 나는 저의 부모님의 꿈이 나의 소중한 딸들 안에 존재하고 있다고 믿고 있습니다. 그리고 나의 스토리는 보다 큰 미국인들의 스토리 중에 일부분임을 알며, 내가 오기 전의 많은 사람들에게 제가 빚이 있음을 알고 있습니다. 왜냐하면 (미국이 아닌 이상)지구상의 그 어떤 나라에서도 저의 이야기는 불가능하기 때문입니다. 오늘 밤, 저는 미국의 위대함을 확인시키고자 이 자리에 왔습니다. 그것은 초고층 빌딩, 군사력의 막강함, 우리 경제의 거대한 규모에 있지 않습니다. 우리의 자부심은 매우 단순한 전제에 기초하고 있습니다. 그 전제는 200년 전에 만들어진 공언인데 그것은 바로“모든 사람은 평등하게 창조되었다 라는 자명한 진리를 단단히 붙들고 있으며, 우리는 창조자에게 결코 굽힐 수 없는 권리, 삶과 자유와 행복의 추구라는 권리를 부여 받았다. ”라는 것입니다.

이것이 바로 미국의 참된 자질이요, 아주 작은 기적을 향한 미국인들의 담백한 신앙입니다. 우리는 자녀들에게 밤에 이불을 덮어줄 수 있고, 먹여주고 입혀주며 해로부터 안전하게 해줄 수 있다는 그러한 아주 작은 기적 안에 담백한 믿음 말입니다. 누구의 방해 없이 우리가 생각한 것을 말할 수 있고, 우리가 생각하는 것을 쓸 수 있는 그런 작은 기적 안에 담백한 믿음 말입니다. 뇌물이나 비리 없이 우리의 생각을 우리 자신의 사업으로 창업할 수 있는, 보복에 대한 두려움 없이 정치 행렬에 참여할 수 있고 최소한 선거의 시간동안 우리의 한 표가 귀중하게 여겨질 수 있는 그런 작은 기적 안에 담백한 믿음 말입니다.

올해, 선거에서, 우리는 우리의 가치와 서약을 재 확증하고자 하는 부름을 받고 있습니다. 그 확증은 고된 현실을 대항하여 그 가치와 서약을 지키고 우리가 어떻게 우리 선조들의 유산을 헤아리고 미래의 세대들을 위한 약속의 가능성의 측정을 염두에 둔 것입니다. 그리고 미국인들로서 민주당원들 공화당원들 무소속인들 모두에게 나는 오늘 말하고 싶습니다. 우리는 해야 할 일들이 많이 있습니다. 게일스버그, 일리노이에서 내가 만난 맥시코로 옮겨버린 메이테그 회사에서 직장을 잃어버린 노동자들을 위해 할 일이 많습니다. 또한 시간당 7달러 밖에 주지 않는 직업을 위해 그들의 자식과 함께 싸워야만 노동자들을 위해 할 일이 많습니다. 또한, 직장을 잃어버리고 의료 혜택을 받지 못해 한 달에 아들을 위해 약 값으로 4500 달러를 어떻게 감당해야할지 몰라 당황하며 눈물을 삼키고 있는 제가 만난 한 아버지를 위해서도 할 일이 많습니다. 또한, 동기가 있고 의지는 있지만 돈이 없어서 대학에 가지 못하는 동부 세인트루이스에 사는 수천 명의 젊은 여성들을 위해서도 할 일이 많습니다.  

저를 오해 하지는 마십시오. 크고 작은 마을에서, 저녁 식탁과 직장 공원에서 내가 만난 사람들은 정부가 그들의 모든 문제를 해결해 줄 것이라고 생각하지 않습니다. 그들은 그들 스스로가 열심히 일하며 앞으로 나아가야 한다는 것을 알고 있으며 기꺼이 그것을 원합니다. 시카고 주위의 collar counties(<-- 이게 뭔지 모르겠네요) 로 가 보십시오, 그들은 당신에게 말할 것입니다. “우리는 우리의 세금이 복지 당국과 국방부에 의해서 낭비되는 것을 원하지 않아요.” 라고. 주위의 아무 슬럼가(inner city)로 가 보세요, 거기에 사람들 당신에게 말할 것입니다. “정부 혼자서는 그들의 자녀를 가르칠 수 없다고.” 그들은 부모들이 부모역할을 해야 한다는 것을 압니다. 또한 우리가 우리 자녀들의 기대를 올려주지 않는 이상, 텔레비전을 끄지 않는 이상, 공부하는 흑인들은 백인을 흉내 낸다는 그런 중상을 근절하지 않는 이상 우리의 자녀들이 목표한 바를 성취하지 못할 것이라는 것을 알고 있습니다. 결코, 사람들은 정부가 그들의 모든 문제를 해결해 줄 것이라 기대치는 않습니다. 그들은 우선 사항들을 변화함으로써, 미국의 모든 어린이들에게 삶의 바람직한 기회가 주어지고 모두에게 기회의 창이 열릴 수 있다는 확신을 뼈 속 깊이 느끼고 있습니다. 그들은 우리 스스로가 더 잘할 수 있다는 것을 알고 있으며 그러한 기회를 원합니다.

이번 선거에서, 우리는 그 선택의 기회를 제공하고 있습니다. 민주당은 우리를 이끌어 나갈, 이 나라가 제공해야만 하는 최고의 것을 실현화 하는 한 사람을 선택했습니다. 그 사람은 바로 존 캐리입니다. 수많은 사람들이 그의 삶을 특징 지웠기에(define을 그가 해야 할 일을 특징짓는 다로 해석했습니다), 존 캐리는 지역사회와 믿음과 희생의 이념들을 이해하고 있습니다. 베트남전에서의 장교와 검찰관으로서의 영웅적인 군복무부터 시작하여 20년간의 미국 상원의원으로서 그는 자기 자신을 이 나라를 위해 바쳤습니다. 몇 번이고, 우리는 그가 쉬운 길을 갈 수 있음에도 힘든 길을 선택해 나가는 그를 보았습니다. 그의 가치와 행적은 우리에게 무엇이 가장 최선인지를 확인해주고 있습니다.

존 캐리는 이 미국 땅에서 근면 성실이 인정받는 것을 믿고 있습니다. 때문에, 해외로 일터를 옮겨가는 기업에 세금 감면을 제공하는 대신(정확한 해석인지 모르겠습니다), 그는 이 땅에 일자리 창출을 제공할 것입니다. 존 캐리는 미국이 워싱턴 정계의 정치인들의 건강 보험 범위가 미국인 모두에게 똑같이 적용되는 땅이라고 믿고 있습니다. 존 캐리는 우리가 오일 회사의 이윤이나 해외 유전 파괴행위의 인질이 되지 않기 위한 에너지 독립을 믿습니다. 존 캐리는 세계의 부러움을 자아내는 헌법의 자유를 믿습니다. 그리고 그는 결코 우리의 기본적 자유를 희생시키거나 우리를 이간질 하는 신념 따위는 사용하지 않을 것입니다. 그리고 존 캐리는 위험에 빠진 이 세상에서, 전쟁은 치러져야 하지만, 결코 다른 것보다 중요한 선택 사항이 되어서는 안 된다고 믿습니다.

예전, 저는 일리노이 동쪽 몰린(Moline)해안에 VFW Hall에서 샤무스(Shamus)라는 한 청년을 만났습니다. 그는 훤칠한 사내였고, 183~185정도로 보이는 총명한 눈과 편안한 미소를 가진 청년이었습니다. 그는 자기가 군대에 입대했고 이번 주에 이라크로 출병할 것이라고 말했습니다. 그에게서 그가 왜 군에 입대했는지, 그의 국가와 국가의 지도자에 대한 신념, 의무와 사명에 대한 헌신을 들었을 때, 이 청년이야 말로 우리가 다음 세대에 기대하는 바로 그런 사람이라고 생각했습니다. 하지만 그때 저는 스스로에게 물었습니다. 그가 우리를 위해 이토록 봉사하는 것처럼 우리도 그에게 봉사할 수 있는가? 나는 900명 이상의 고향에 돌아오지 못하는 군복무 남성과 여성, 아들과 딸, 남편과 아내, 친구와 이웃들을 생각했습니다. 저는 사랑하는 이들의 완전한 보수도 받지 못하고 살아가려고 근근이 애쓰는 가족들 혹은 사랑하는 가족이 돌아왔지만 불구가 되거나 정신적인 전쟁 후유증을 겪어야만 했고 예비병이기 때문에 장기 보험혜택을 받을 수 없는 그런 가족들을 생각했습니다.

우리가 우리의 젊은 청년들을 전쟁터로 보낼 때는, 우리는 그 숫자(인원수)를 조작해서는 해서는 안 되며, 그들이 왜 가는지에 대한 진실을 감춰서도 안 되며, 그들이 나가있는 동안 그들의 가족들을 보살펴 주어야 하며, 군인들에게 마땅한 보수를 줘야하며, 전쟁을 승리하고, 평화를 지키고 세계의 신망을 받을만한 충분한 병력이 없이는 결코, 절대로 보내지 말아야 하는 엄숙한 의무를 가지고 있습니다. 

(진정하시고) 저에게 좀더 명백히 할 기회를 주십시오. 제 말을 좀더 들어주십시오. 우리는 이 세계에 진정한 적을 가지고 있습니다. 이 적은 반드시 색출해내어야 합니다. 그들은 반드시 추적되어야 합니다. 그리고 그들을 반드시 패배시켜야만 합니다. 존 캐리는 이 방법을 알고 있습니다. 그리고 존 캐리가 당시 장교였을 때 베트남전에서 그들의 전우들을 위해 자신의 목숨 아끼기를 주저하지 않은 것과 같이, 캐리가 대통령이 된다면 우리의 병력을 미국의 안보와 안전을 지키게 사용하는 것에 대해 단 한 순간의 주저함도 없을 것입니다.

존 캐리는 미국에 대한 믿음이 있습니다. 그리고 그는 우리 중에 몇 명만이 잘 사는 것으로는 충분치 않다는 것을 압니다. 우리의 훌륭한 개인주의의 더불어, 우리를 하나로 연결해주는 지혜와 믿음이라는 미국의 고유한 또 다른 요소가 존재합니다. 만약 시카고 남쪽 지역의 글을 읽지 못하는 한 아이가 있으면, 그 아이가 비록 나의 자식은 아니지만, 그것은 저에게 중요한 문제입니다. 만약 어딘가 약 값을 제대로 감당할 수 없고 병원에 갈 것이냐 집을 임대할 것이냐 하는 하나를 포기해야만 하는 그러한 선택을 해야 하는 어르신이 있다면, 그 분은 비록 저의 할아버지가 아닐지라도, 그 사실은 나의 삶을 더욱 가난하게 만듭니다. 만약 변호사나 다른 정당한 과정의 혜택 없이 살아가고 있는 아랍에서 이민한 미국인 가족이 있다면, 그것은 분명 나의 시민의 자유를 위협하는 것입니다.

여기에 근본적인 믿음이 있습니다. 나는 내 형제의 지킴이요, 나는 내 자매의 지킴이라는 믿음 말입니다. 이것이 이 나라를 움직이게 하는 것입니다. 그것이 우리가 우리 개인의 꿈을 추구하게 허락해주면서도 우리는 여전히 미국‘한가족’이라는 것입니다. “E pluribus unum: 많은 사람 중에, 우리는 하나”입니다.

제가 연설을 하는 와중에도, 누군가는 우리를 갈라놓으려고 수작을 부리고 있습니다. 그것은 바로 “무엇이든 되긴 된다.”라는 정책을 품고 있는 부정적 광고업자들인 spin master(무슨 의미인지 모르겠습니다. 안 좋은 뜻이겠죠?)입니다. 자, 오늘 밤 저는 그들에게 말합니다. 급진적인 미국은 없습니다. 보수적인 미국도 없습니다. 미'합'중국만이 있습니다. 흑인들의 미국도 백인들의 미국도 라틴계 인들의 미국도 아시아인들의 미국도 없습니다. 미'합'중국만이 있습니다.

그 젠체하는 사람은 우리의 나라를 레드 스테이트(공화당)와 블루 스테이트(민주당)으로 나누는 것을 좋아합니다. 하지만 저는 그들에 향한 소식을 가지고 있습니다. 우리는“경외로우신 하나님”만을 블루스테이트 안에서 경배합니다. 그리고 우리는 연방 에이전트(agent)들이 레드 스테이트 안에 있는 우리 도서관을 쿡쿡 찌르는 것을 원치 않습니다. (무슨 말일까요?--;;) 우리는 블루 스테이트에서 작은 리그(League) 를 안고, 그래요, 우리는 레드 스테이트에 게이 친구들이 있습니다. (무슨 말인지 정작 저도 모르겠습니다. 오바마가 미국을 갈라놓는 사람들을 향해서 풍자하는 듯합니다.) 이라크 전쟁을 반대하는 애국자도 있고, 이라크 전쟁을 옹호하는 애국자도 있습니다. (하지만) 우리 모두는 별과 줄무늬(미국의 국기를 뜻함)를 향한 충성을 맹세하고, 미합중국을 지키는 한 사람입니다.

결국, 이것이 이 선거가 의미하는 것입니다. 우리는 냉소주의의 정치에 가담할 것입니까 희망의 정치에 참여할 것입니까?

존 캐리는 우리에게 희망을 갖기를 요청합니다. 존 에드워드 또한 우리에게 희망을 갖기를 바랍니다.

저는 여기서 맹목적 낙관주의를 말하고자 하는 것이 아닙니다. 고집 센 무지한 사람들은 우리가 실업에 대해서 생각하지 않으면 실업은 해결될 것이라고 생각합니다. 또 우리가 의료 보험 위기에 대해서 무시하면 그것은 스스로가 알아서 해결될 것이라고 생각합니다. 이것은 제가 말하고자 하는 바가 아닙니다. 저는 좀더 실체적이고 본질적인 것을 말하고자 합니다. 그것은 화로 가에 앉아 희망의 노래를 부르고 있는 노예들의 희망입니다. 저 먼 바다에서 이민한 사람들의 희망입니다. 메콩 삼각주(Mekong Delta)를 용감하게 거니는 청년 해군 장교들의 희망입니다. 불의를 용감히 참지 않는 공장노동자의 아들의 희망입니다. 미국이 언젠가는 빼짝 곯고 웃긴 이름을 가진(오바마 자신을 뜻함) 사람을 위한 자리를 마련해줄 것이라는 믿음을 가지고 있는 사람의 희망이기도 합니다.

어려움에 맞서는 희망. 불확실성에 맞서는 희망. (바로 이것이) 희망의 대담성입니다!

결국, 그것(희망)은 하나님께서 우리에게 주신 선물이자, 이 국가의 토대입니다. 희망 안에 있는 믿음은 보이는 것이 아닙니다. (하지만)보다 밝은 미래로 향하는 믿음이 있습니다.

저는 우리가 우리 중산층들에게 위안을 주고 일하는 가족들에게 기회의 길을 제공해 줄 수 있다고 믿습니다.

저는 우리가 우리의 등을 밀어(앞을 향해 나아가도록 도와주는) 의로운 바람을 가지고 있음을, 그리고 역사의 갈림길에 서있는 지금, 우리는 바른 선택을 할 수 있고 우리를 직면하고 있는 역경들을 맞을 준비가 되어 있다고 믿습니다.

미국이여! 오늘밤, 만약 당신들이 제가 느끼고 있는 것과 같은 에너지를 느끼고 있다면, 만약 당신들이 제가 느끼고 있는 긴박함을 느끼고 있다면, 만약 당신들이 제가 느끼고 있는 열정을 느끼고 있다면, 만약 당신들이 제가 느끼고 있는 희망을 느끼고 있다면, 만약 우리게 해야 할 무엇이 있다면, 저는 플로리다로부터 오리곤까지, 워싱턴으로부터 메인까지 전국에 걸쳐 사람들이 11월 모두 함께 일어나 존 캐리를 대통령으로, 존 에드워드를 부통령으로 지명시킬 것을 의심치 않습니다. 그러면 조국은 그 약속대로 쇄신되고 이 길고 긴 정치적 암흑에서 벗어나 보다 밝은 빛을 맞이할 것임을 믿습니다.

감사합니다, 정말 감사합니다. 신의 축복이 있기를! 감사합니다.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation

delivered 8 December 1941, Washington, D.C

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of Statea formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.¹

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

프랭클린 루스벨트는 대공황이 최악에 달했던 1933년에 32대 미국 대통령으로 취임하면서 "우리가 두려워해야 할 것은 두려움 그 자체일 뿐이다"라는 유명한 연설을 하였습니다. 그리고 여러가지 정책으로 미국 경제를 회복 시키기 위해서 노력하였고 이때 그가 했던 정기적인 라디오 방송은 국민에게 많은 희망과 용기를 주었다고 합니다. 

President Hoover, Mr. Chief Justice, my friends: 

This is a day of national consecration. And I am certain that on this day my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency, I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impels.

This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure, as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunk to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

And yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered, because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.

Primarily, this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True, they have tried. But their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

Yes, the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy, the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves, to our fellow men.

Recognition of that falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation is asking for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing great -- greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our great natural resources.

Hand in hand with that we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.

Yes, the task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products, and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, the State, and the local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities that have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped by merely talking about it.

We must act. We must act quickly.

  And finally, in our progress towards a resumption of work, we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order. There must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments. There must be an end to speculation with other people's money. And there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

These, my friends, are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the 48 States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time, and necessity, secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor, as a practical policy, the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment; but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not nationally -- narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in and parts of the United States of America -- a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy, I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor: the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others; the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize, as we have never realized before, our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take, but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress can be made, no leadership becomes effective.

We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and our property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at the larger good. This, I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us, bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in times of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image, action to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple, so practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has ever seen.

It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations. And it is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly equal, wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But, in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me, I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded, a permanent national life.

We do not distrust the -- the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication -- In this dedication of a Nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God.

May He protect each and every one of us.

May He guide me in the days to come.