During the civil rights movement Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached about the brotherhood of all.  He rallied for the co-existence of God's children regardless of race, socioeconomic status, political views, and religion.  In "The World House", King focuses on the role of poverty in dividing the world between the rich and the poor.  King uses the metaphor the "world house" considering different groups of the world as family members, who must learn to put aside each other's differences in order to have a unified and successful world.  The burden of poverty and other problems are making it impossible to co-exist in the world successfully, risking the future well being of humankind.  The legitimacy of problems and solutions in King's "The World House" are supported and rejected by others, and lead me to question the feasibility of King's ideas. 

Doctor King blames poverty as the main preventer of universal brotherhood.  As the developed countries have continued to develop, the undeveloped countries have lagged further behind.  Canadian Diplomat Escott Reid claims that while developed countries continue to become richer and richer, the population of undeveloped countries grows at "twice the rate of developed countries" (Reid 144).  This supports King's claim of what he calls a "scientific and technological abundance" (King 286). Because of this technological abundance and the distractions of the developed and wealthy world, the rich continue to get richer while they ignore the struggling poor.  I agree with these notions from King and Reid.  The people of developed countries are too wrapped up in their own lives that they forget about the other 80% of people living in poverty across the world (Reid 144).  Also, if one does not go through hardship them selves, they don't empathize with the struggle and don't feel compelled to help combat a problem they cannot relate to and that seems foreign.  This explains why such a huge disconnect and divide exists between rich and poor nations.

Both King and Reid plea for rich nations to aid in developing the undeveloped countries (King 290).  King claims that the developed countries are experiencing a "poverty of the spirit", while the undeveloped countries face literal poverty (King 286).  This contrasts between the state of the rich countries and the state of the poor, and how their shortcomings are different: lack of concern for their peer countries success, and lack of development and economic success respectfully.  Reid states that if poverty is not addressed "the world ... will be a bleak place for ourselves and our children"(Reid 143). Reid validates King's claim that world poverty risks the future security of the world.  I agree with King and Reid in that the gap between the rich and the poor is one factor that prevents brotherhood between them, but King also fails to mention other factors like difference in culture and religion will always create tension between groups.  This tension draws into question the possibility of universal brotherhood. King thinks without the poverty problem being solved, there can't be universal brotherhood and we cant all live successfully in the "world house" (King 285). I also agree with King and Reid that if poverty is not addressed, it may be difficult for the world to coexist in the future and live in what King describes as siblings in "the world house" (King 285).  However, I disagree with King about the resources available to address the issue.

King claims that economically successful countries have the resources to eradicate poverty (King 286).  King gives an example of this by questioning the reason of the existence of world hunger.  King cites the world's agricultural and scientific ability as one of these resources, which he claims is not being fully taken advantage of.  I question this statement, which Doctor King presents as fact.  If these resources really did exist and could be easily and practically taken advantage of, the nature of capitalist exploration would have already led to its development.  King says "there is no deficit in human resources, [but] a deficit in human will"(King 290).  King believes all the resources exist making it easy to address world poverty, but the developed world lacks the motivation to help undeveloped nations. I argue that those resources do not exist and neither does the motivation.  King would like to use the existing resources of developed countries to aid undeveloped countries, but it's not that easy.

In an ideal world, countries would voluntarily provide aid to the less fortunate with motives of philanthropy.  Dr. King believes that "all wealthy nations ...  must see it as a moral obligation to provide capital and technical assistance to undeveloped areas"(King 290-291).  King states this because countries should have the responsibility to take care of their brother nations.  Reid supports that "the main reason [behind aid] is humanitarianism" (Reid 145).  Reid also supports King's idea of brotherhood motivating aid (Reid 145).  I disagree and believe that morality doesn't exist in countries.  University of Oxford economists Griffin and Enos support my belief in saying, "it would be naive to assume that the major objective of foreign assistance is economic development"(Griffin & Enos 314).  Griffin and Enos also discount the motive of philanthropy by saying, "people may be humane and disinterested, but nations are not"(Griffin & Enos 314).  King and Reid call upon philanthropy while Griffin and Enos agree with me saying it doesn't exist.  In present day America, there is evidence discounting the motive of philanthropy behind aid.  President Bush bluntly announced that US aid would not be provided to areas that have no strategic importance to America.  During his campaign for President leading up to the 2000 election, President Bush spoke against providing development aid to Africa because "Africa [wasn't] an area of strategic importance to the US"(Smith 698).  It was only after the discovery of oil in the area that the Bush administration decided to provide aid.  President Bush's words and actions prove my point that King is wrong.  Countries are motivated by self interest. In addition to the rationale of philanthropy, Doctor King also calls foreign aid as an alternative to war.

Because King's "The World House" was written during the Cold War, Doctor King cites that the "final problem that mankind must solve in order to survive in the world house [is] finding an alternative to war and human destruction"(King 292).  This comment was fueled by the arms race consuming America's finances and political sphere at the time.  King also calls out the politically powerful for "talk[ing] passionately of pursuing peace while expanding defense budgets that already bulge"(King 293).  In other words, the powerful world leaders speak advocating for world peace while they hypocritically fund their defense budgets and war initiatives.  Reid provides evidence that leaders are doing this by pointing out that "NATO countries spent alone on defense $104 billion US dollars in 1968" while only contributing to the economic development of the poor nations $5 billion a year (Reid 143). This is because countries are self interested.  Countries are going to first and foremost protect themselves before providing aid to others.  King thinks instead of massive spending on unjustifiable military defense, the money needs to be reallocated toward foreign aid, which has humanitarian effect and can prevent violence and war.  King states that the use of aid can "remove ...  conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of Communism grows"(King 297).  In other words, foreign aid eradicating poverty wouldn't just work toward ending war, but it would kill the cause of war.  I agree that stopping poverty will help stop the spread of communism and reduce war.  Poverty leaves countries vulnerable and open for the infiltration of communism.  As a result of stopping the spread of communism, you are therefore stopping the spread of war and conflict.  Not only would investment in world development be an alternative to concentrating our energy on the destruction and horrors of war, it would also prevent these destruction and horrors.  This investment would not just unite the rich and poor countries, but also work toward uniting the communist world with the free world.  But what King fails to realize is that no country is going to stop funding their military and start using the money for aid.  This would cause countries to be weak and vulnerable, which is something no one wants to do.

Doctor Martin Luther King preaches the need for foreign aid addressing poverty and its urgency.  Although King's ideas for solving the issue are discounted and contested by others and unrealistic, he has the will and new ideas to unite the 'world house".  Dr. King's speech didn't offer realistic solutions to the poverty problem, but rather spread ideas and sent messages supporting helping thy brother and peace.  His ability to think progressively and peacefully in depressing times of poverty, violence, threat and hostility is what made Dr. King such a unique and outstanding figure of the civil rights period.  Dr. King was able to rise above the dark times and think about problems in a way most people couldn't.

