If you ask a student of any age what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is known for, they almost always answer with King's "I Have a Dream" speech. And why shouldn't they? The speech is mentioned in classrooms all across America. While the speech is no doubt a powerful one that still holds relevance today, there is another side of MLK that is virtually never brought up in school: Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Loving Your Enemies" speech.

It is forgotten that in April 1967 King claimed that "the greatest purveyor of violence [is] my own government." That declaration was not quoted on a statue nor the Senate floor.

It is forgotten that the bold King once admitted that we are "a society gone mad with war...If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read 'Vietnam.' It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over." It was true in the 1960s, it was true before that, and it is true now: we are a nation addicted to violence and we are a planet addicted to violence. Failing to recognize that is failing to improve the world.

It is forgotten that in Montgomery, Alabama, on Christmas in 1957, King delivered his "Loving Your Enemies" sermon, a piece of work he wrote while in jail for committing the — dare I say it — "crime" of nonviolent civil disobedience during the Montgomery bus boycott. It was King who wrote about how "our capacity to forgive" is the starting point once we've been hurt. "He who is devoid of power to forgive is devoid of the power to love." Furthermore, King explains how forgiveness must always come from the one who has been hurt, the victim of torture, and the recipient of oppression. This is an extremely difficult and complex concept to not only grasp but to put to action as well. I've seen it fail numerous times — someone doesn't feel like they owe forgiveness to someone else who has wronged them so badly, so they're on bad terms with that person. In their defense, it's quite understandable. Who would want to immediately forgive those who do us harm? As impulsive human beings, our first reaction is to hold grudges or something of the sort.

The tiny problem with this type of thinking is that the obligation to forgive is such a subjective course of action. Who is to say whether or not you should forgive? What are the guidelines? This is why I play it safe and side with King's opinion — to forgive every time, regardless of if it feels "right."

It is forgotten that King said that forgiveness means "that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship." Forgiveness is the spark necessary for starting over on the right foot with those who have wronged us. It eliminates any previous "you owe me this because you hurt me" claims. Many people are under the false impression that saying "I forgive you but I won't forget what you've done" or "I forgive you but I don't want anything to do with you" are acceptable examples of forgiving. These sayings avoid feelings of reconciliation and unity which are prominent outcomes of proper forgiveness.

It is forgotten that it was King who said, "An element of goodness may be found even in our worst enemy." This statement is a reminder that there is "some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us." Deep within our enemies, beneath the evil, corruptness, and violent tendencies, we are able to see some level of good in our enemy-neighbors and conclude that this person is not entirely composed of evil acts. Therefore, evil is not a fair complete representation of our enemies. Making this discovery lends a new perspective on the human race. King accurately elaborates that the hate in our enemies "grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding...Then we love our enemies by realizing that they are not totally bad."

It is forgotten how King stressed the importance of understanding and winning others and fostering loving friendships. He said that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that," meaning hate cannot diminish hate, only love can. King called Hitler a "hate-obsessed madman" and he called groups that commit racial violence "bloodthirsty mobs." He spoke about how hate twists our personality and perception of others and "destroys a man's sense of values."

I'm on board with King when he says that love is the only remedy that turns an enemy into a friend. "By its very nature, hate destroys and tears down; by its very nature, love creates and builds up." He concludes this speech by connecting the dots between loving your enemies and race relations. "There will be no permanent solution to the race problem until oppressed men develop the capacity to love their enemies." Meeting hate with love has been proven to work; it isn't mere speculation. Similarly, that bitter urge we have inside to retaliate with hate has proven to be as destructive as, if not more so, the way things were initially. It's amazing how MLK was right during his time and he's right now. And yet, he gets hardly any recognition for this speech.

If not for King's nonviolence action, it's very questionable as to when the 1961 civil rights law would have passed. For some reason that escapes me, voices of respectability encouraged King to focus solely on race and leave the antiwar dissent mumbo jumbo to other peaceful leaders whose recognition also goes virtually unnoticed. Joan Baez and Albert Einstein come to mind. What, you didn't think that Baez was just a singer and Einstein was just a scientist? Peacemakers are all around us, but that's for another article.

By reducing King's importance to just civil rights, we actually sanitize his record. Accepting him as anything less than the rare, inspirational nonviolent leader he was is a disgrace.

It is forgotten that Martin Luther King Jr. was, at his core, committed to pacifism.