43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Policy

[Costanza]

This was brought to my attention by a thread on the main forum titled "Tavis & Dr. West gettin' at Obama again" with 40 replies to date, unanimously critical of Tavis other than my posts.

PSB is going to air Tavis Smiley's "MLK: A Call to Conscious" on Wednesday at 8 PM Eastern, four days before the 43rd anniversary of King's "Beyond Vietnam" speech and just a couple of days after Obama's return from visiting Afghanistan.

Smiley discussed the project on MSNBC, with this clip becoming the subject of the thread linked above:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789//vp/36081038#36081038

Most of the responses were along the lines of "Tavis needs to cut this shit out," that he's "still being a bitch" or that his "hate knows no bounds."

I'd like to bring the conversation to this side by showing one response which quotes from President Obama's Nobel speech and my response to that post:

And this is why you can't take Tavis seriously. He's blatantly making up what he thinks the president said.

Because here's what the President said in his speech:


I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I watched the clip and while Obama did not "criticize Martin" as Cornel West said, it is not really a stretch to say that he did mildly criticize Martin's ideas as "not useful for commander-in-chief," as West said.

The trouble with Obama's remarks is that they are contradictory. He tries to have it both ways.

On one hand, he says "I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."

Directly after, though, he says "I cannot be guided by their examples alone." Okay. He doesn't say here who else he follows but he does say "I face the world as it is," which is a pretty clear implication that Gandhi and King did not, that they were naïve idealists. They philosophized about the world as it should be while President Obama is forced to face the world as it is.

On one hand, Obama says there is nothing passive about the creed of Gandhi and King. Yet he states that his point of departure from their example is that he "cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people."

How is he not saying that the creed of King is insufficient idealism and that his realism, built upon a "recognition of history," is better suited for presidential leadership?

"For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world." As if the naïve nonviolent philosophy of King did not recognize this truth. Please. Cornel West's indignation at this patronizing counsel seems more than justified. Tavis Smiley did not at all misrepresent President Obama.

I suggest everyone in this thread look at Wednesday night's special with an open and objective mind-- It seems as if Smiley is helping to present a very worthwhile and necessary message.

 

[QueEx]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

The trouble with Obama's remarks is that they are contradictory. He tries to have it both ways.

On one hand, he says "I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."

Directly after, though, he says "I cannot be guided by their examples alone." Okay. He doesn't say here who else he follows but he does say "I face the world as it is," which is a pretty clear implication that Gandhi and King did not, that they were naïve idealists. They philosophized about the world as it should be while President Obama is forced to face the world as it is.

On one hand, Obama says there is nothing passive about the creed of Gandhi and King. Yet he states that his point of departure from their example is that he "cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people."

How is he not saying that the creed of King is insufficient idealism and that his realism, built upon a "recognition of history," is better suited for presidential leadership?

My grandmother was full of wisdom some of which was as timely as her Creole cooking was delicious. One of her more simple admonishments to me: "young man, there is a time and place for everything."

Non-violent passive resistance has its place as proven by Ghandi and King. It does not work, however, all the time. If passive resistance is met, for example, by brutal or deadly force, the first law of nature, self preservation, becomes operative. Moreover, if, when faced with brutal or deadly force, one cannot escape or retreat to safety, self-defense demands any appropriate means including the use of deadly force to preserve one's life or the life of another. Surely, neither King nor Ghandi would line people up simply to be slaughtered by an oncoming steam-roller. There is a time and place for everything.

There is a time to say "if you unclench your fist, we will unclench ours" and there is a time to pursue dialogue and diplomacy. When none of that works there is a time to protect or be prepared to protect your/the nation's interest.

If the other side refuses to unclench; if diplomacy and dialogue are not met in kind; common sense dictates that there is the time to protect your interest by appropriate means, including the use of violence, where/when, necessary.

There is no conflict or contradiction in non-violence and the use of violence for self-defense in the face of violent harm. They are in time & place harmony.

QueEx

 

[AllState17]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

This was brought to my attention by a thread on the main forum titled "Tavis & Dr. West gettin' at Obama again" with 40 replies to date, unanimously critical of Tavis other than my posts.

PSB is going to air Tavis Smiley's "MLK: A Call to Conscious" on Wednesday at 8 PM Eastern, four days before the 43rd anniversary of King's "Beyond Vietnam" speech and just a couple of days after Obama's return from visiting Afghanistan.

Smiley discussed the project on MSNBC, with this clip becoming the subject of the thread linked above:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789//vp/36081038#36081038

Most of the responses were along the lines of "Tavis needs to cut this shit out," that he's "still being a bitch" or that his "hate knows no bounds."

I'd like to bring the conversation to this side by showing one response which quotes from President Obama's Nobel speech and my response to that post:



I watched the clip and while Obama did not "criticize Martin" as Cornel West said, it is not really a stretch to say that he did mildly criticize Martin's ideas as "not useful for commander-in-chief," as West said.

The trouble with Obama's remarks is that they are contradictory. He tries to have it both ways.

On one hand, he says "I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."

Directly after, though, he says "I cannot be guided by their examples alone." Okay. He doesn't say here who else he follows but he does say "I face the world as it is," which is a pretty clear implication that Gandhi and King did not, that they were naïve idealists. They philosophized about the world as it should be while President Obama is forced to face the world as it is.

On one hand, Obama says there is nothing passive about the creed of Gandhi and King. Yet he states that his point of departure from their example is that he "cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people."

How is he not saying that the creed of King is insufficient idealism and that his realism, built upon a "recognition of history," is better suited for presidential leadership?

"For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world." As if the naïve nonviolent philosophy of King did not recognize this truth. Please. Cornel West's indignation at this patronizing counsel seems more than justified. Tavis Smiley did not at all misrepresent President Obama.

I suggest everyone in this thread look at Wednesday night's special with an open and objective mind-- It seems as if Smiley is helping to present a very worthwhile and necessary message.

You are fell in the same trap West did.

You are putting words in Obama's mouth and jumping to all sorts of shady conclusions.

He never said King did not face his world as is. He only said he has to do it, and its not the same world, not the same challenges, not the same reality. Him pretending that King's ideology answers to the challenges he now faces would be to turn his back on his own reality.

He never called King's ideology "naive". You did that.

I still fail to see whats patronizing in what he said.

 

[QueEx]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli


Martin Luther King, Jr., Holiday-Memorial Weekend, 2011

 

[Fuckallyall]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

"You can't speak French to a German, and expect him to understand you."

Malik el-hajj el-Shabazz

 

[Fuckallyall]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

"You can't speak French to a German, and expect him to understand you."

Malik el-hajj el-Shabazz

 

[Fuckallyall]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

"You can't speak French to a German, and expect him to understand you."

Malik el-hajj el-Shabazz

 

[Costanza]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

Pentagon Official: King Would Support Iraq, Afghan Wars

WASHINGTON -- Although the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is best remembered by the American public for fighting against racial discrimination, he was also an outspoken opponent of war and violence, most notably of the war in Vietnam. A top Obama administration official at the Department of Defense, however, argued Thursday that if King were alive, he would understand and perhaps even support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At a Pentagon commemoration of King's accomplishments, DOD General Counsel Jeh Johnson suggested that today's wars are in line with the reverend's teachings.

"I believe that if Dr. King were alive today, he would recognize that we live in a complicated world, and that our nation's military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack," Johnson said. "Every day, our servicemen and women practice the dangerousness -- the dangerous unselfishness Dr. King preached on April 3, 1968."

In April 1967, King spoke out forcefully against the Vietnam War in a landmark speech at Riverside Church in New York City, criticizing the large amounts of money the United States was spending on fighting rather than taking care of its citizens domestically:

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the young black men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8,000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor. [...]

This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.​

Salon's Justin Elliott wrote that while it's impossible to know what King would think of today's wars, this speech "strongly suggests that he would be an opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, for that matter, the secret wars in Yemen and Pakistan."

​

King's widow, Coretta Scott King, was an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq before her death in 2006. "She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar," said the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a major figure in the civil rights movement who knew King. "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we knew, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor."

U.S. taxpayers have spent more than $1 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States could build 20 schools with the cost of funding one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

The Pentagon did not return a request for comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...ars-iraq-afghanistan_n_809031.html?view=print

 

[Lamarr]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

Pentagon Official: King Would Support Iraq, Afghan Wars

WASHINGTON -- Although the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is best remembered by the American public for fighting against racial discrimination, he was also an outspoken opponent of war and violence, most notably of the war in Vietnam. A top Obama administration official at the Department of Defense, however, argued Thursday that if King were alive, he would understand and perhaps even support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I guess, since King has been dead for a while now, Pentagon officials have now seized the oppurtunity & make it quite clear that Dr. King was a "hawk"

“Don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be - a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America 'You are too arrogant!'” - MLK

Stop following Dick Cheney's foreign policy & bring our kids home NOW, All of Them

Lameduck House Approves Largest Military Spending Bill In History

 

[QueEx]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

April 4, 2011, Forty-three years to the day after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s slaying, those who fight for social and economic justice still face real threats to their safety and rights, says the NAACP's president.
​

 

[QueEx]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

​

 

[Art Vandelay]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

The current situation with Iran demonstrates how war-loving our government is and how difficult it is for an executive to overcome that. A major bright spot for Obama.

 

[SPECTRE1]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3Qf6x9_MLD0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Soon after his death, some press reports described the crash as suspicious. Earlier the previous day, Hastings indicated that he believed he was being investigated by the FBI. In an email to colleagues, which was copied to and released by Hastings' friend, Army Staff Sergeant Joe Biggs, Hastings said that he was "onto a big story", that he needed to "go off the radar", and that the FBI might interview them WikiLeaks announced that Hastings had also contacted Jennifer Robinson, one of its lawyers, a few hours prior to the crash, and the LA Weekly reported that he was preparing new reports on the CIA at the time of his demise. His widow Elise Jordan said his final story was a profile of CIA Director John O. Brennan. The FBI released a statement denying that Hastings was being investigated.

Hastings' widow, Elise Jordan, said she believes "it was just a really tragic accident." His older brother, Jonathan, said he believed Michael was experiencing a "manic episode" shortly before his death, and that he may have had suspicions were it not for this observation. Cenk Uygur, friend of Hastings' and host of The Young Turks, told KTLA that many of Michael's friends were concerned that he was "in a very agitated state", saying he was "incredibly tense" and worried that his material was being surveilled by the government. USA Today reported that in the days before his death, Hastings believed his car was being "tampered with" and that he was scared and wanted to leave town

I am sick of these uninvestigated assassinations by the government, I can compile much longer list. When is it going to end? I have seen these people in operation applying the same tactics, he was being openly watch and killed.

If they don't like somebody, they should just openly execute them like North Korea, no need to hide or cover it up.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Re: 43 Years Later: King's "Beyond Vietnam" Applied to President Obama's Foreign Poli

Thousands Protest At The White House As New Wave Of Violence Erupts In Gaza
BY AVIVA SHEN
AUGUST 3, 2014

Protests against the violence in Gaza broke out across the world over the weekend after another ceasefire collapsed in Israel’s nearly month-long Operation Protective Edge.

Thousands marched in Washington, DC in support of Palestinians, congregating in front of the White House holding up cardboard boxes designed to look like coffins. Estimates put the crowd between 10,000 and 50,000. Among the protesters were Cornel West and 15-year-old Tariq Abu Khdeir, who was beaten by Israeli military forces while visiting family in Jerusalem. Twenty or so pro-Israel protesters also showed up at the White House, where the two groups traded barbs.

Anti-war demonstrators also gathered in Israel over the weekend. Fourteen were arrested at Bima Square in Tel Aviv, where several hundred Israelis called for peace on Saturday night.

Meanwhile, bloodshed continued in Gaza. The disappearance of an Israeli soldier, initially thought to be kidnapped by Hamas, almost immediately destroyed a ceasefire agreement on Friday and prompted Israel to pull out of further ceasefire negotiations in Cairo, where Hamas and the more moderate Palestinian Authority have sent delegations. The soldier, 23-year-old Hadar Goldin, was in fact killed in battle on Friday, the Israeli Defense Forces announced Sunday morning.

But over the weekend, a new round of shelling was already bombarding Rafah, where Goldin was believed to have been abducted. Airstrikes outside a UN school being used as a shelter in Rafah killed 10 Palestinians and injured 35 others who were waiting in line for food supplies, according to witnesses who spoke to the New York Times. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called the shelling of the UN school “a moral outrage and a criminal act.” The Rafah school was the third UN school to be struck.

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu said Saturday that Israel would keep military actions going “as long as necessary.” The IDF is expected to announce within the next day that they have successfully razed all known tunnels into Gaza. But rocket fire was detected by the Iron Dome targeting central Israel and Tel Aviv early Sunday, suggesting the conflict will continue.

The weeks of violence have claimed the lives of more than 1,600 Palestinians, 67 Israelis, and 9 UN workers. Additionally, Egyptian officials say the bombardment has left at least one million Gazans without electricity.

 

[QueEx]

50 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. turned his activism

against the Vietnam War, and lost allies as a result​

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., center, marches against the Vietnam War with pediatrician Dr. Benjamin
Spock, left, and Father Frederick Reed in New York in 1967. Agence France-Presse
​

Matt Pearce

In January 1967, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. packed several suitcases and secluded himself on the coast of Jamaica, far from the telephone, far from the crises roiling America.

It would not go down in history as one of his most famous trips. King was trying to finish writing a new book, “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?” But the answer King found would change the course of his activism until his death.

Back in the U.S., tensions were rising. Congress had passed civil-rights protections after his campaigns in the South, but many black Americans remained crushed under poverty. Younger black activists were beginning to question King’s strategy of nonviolence, which had won him a Nobel Peace Prize three years earlier.

And the nation was at war. While flipping through Ramparts, a leftist literary and political magazine, at a Jamaican restaurant, King came across a 28-page photographic essay documenting children who had been scorched by U.S. military napalm attacks in Vietnam. King pushed a plate of food away.

Fifty years ago this year, King began agitating against the Vietnam War, a lesser-remembered chapter of his career in which the preacher once again launched an unpopular battle against the prevailing opinions of the establishment, the broader public and even some allies.

The war is now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. But in remembrances today, on the national holiday bearing his name, it’s likely that few public figures will hearken back to King’s solemn “Beyond Vietnam” speech at the Riverside Church in New York, where he said, “If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read ‘Vietnam.’ ”

"If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned,
part of the autopsy must read ‘Vietnam."

— Martin Luther King Jr.​

America’s entanglement in Vietnam dated back to the end of World War II, when France wanted to keep control of its Indochina possessions and the Vietnamese rebelled. The U.S. had provided advisors for France’s failed effort to quell the rebellion.

In the 1960s, the United States allied itself with South Vietnam, claiming that a takeover by communist-led North Vietnam would pave the way for communism to spread throughout Southeast Asia. By the mid-1960s, the U.S. began an escalation of bombings and troop deployments.

In the beginning, the public had largely accepted politicians’ arguments that the war was necessary, though a growing number of protesters were starting to raise their voices.

King was not the first black activist to take a bold public stand against the war. His wife, Coretta, spoke at an antiwar rally in Washington in 1965. Stokely Carmichael, in his famous “Black Power” speech in October 1966, given after stepping down as chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, called the Vietnam conflict “an illegal and immoral war.”

And while King was in Jamaica in January 1967, James Bevel, a fellow leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, made a surprise visit to tell King he’d had a revelation: “Why are you teaching nonviolence to Negroes in Mississippi but not to Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam?” Bevel said, according to historian Taylor Branch in his book “At Canaan’s Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68.”

King had previously publicly expressed some concerns about the war, but Johnson posed a major strategic conundrum. Johnson had been one of King’s greatest allies in Washington and had helped shepherd through Congress the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Democratic president also had championed antipoverty programs, another of King’s signature causes.

But the growing war also had come under Johnson’s leadership.

“There was a strong feeling that to get the antipoverty programs — the support they needed — King should not publicly oppose Lyndon Johnson’s policies, because that would push him out of the circle of people who Johnson relied on for supporting his domestic agenda,” said Clayborne Carson, an editor of King’s papers and the director of the Martin Luther King Jr., Research and Education Institute at Stanford University.

King pushed ahead. His aides began drafting a speech. Clarence Jones prepared one of the earliest drafts, which King rejected.

“He said, ‘Clarence, I thought you were my radical,’” Jones recalled in an interview with the journalist Tavis Smiley, adding that he told King, “I don’t quite understand what you mean.”

King said the speech was too wishy-washy. “The Vietnam War is either morally right or morally wrong — it’s not ‘on the one hand’ or ‘on the other hand,’” King told Jones.

Above all, the war in Vietnam symptomized a larger problem with American society, King said, calling for a rapid shift “from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.”

“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered,” King said.

The speech was refined, and on April 4, 1967, in front of a packed audience at the Riverside Church, King called the war “an enemy of the poor” that was swallowing the nation’s young men and its resources for antipoverty programs like a “demonic, destructive suction tube.”

King complained that black soldiers who couldn’t get their full rights at home were doing a disproportionate amount of the fighting in Vietnam. He also said that it was becoming difficult to tell young radicals in America not to pursue their agendas using violence when that’s what the nation was doing abroad.

Above all, the war in Vietnam symptomized a larger problem with American society, King said, calling for a rapid shift “from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.”

“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered,” King said.

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., center right, marches in a protest against the Vietnam War with others including
Dr. Benjamin Spock, tall, white-–haired man with glasses, in Chicago on March 25, 1967. Associated Press

​

Public condemnation came quickly, especially in the news media.

“Many who have listened to him with respect will never again accord him the same confidence,” the Washington Post said in an editorial. “He has diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country and to his people.”​

An April 16 news article in the Los Angeles Times described King’s antiwar views as “extreme,” and the next day, the newspaper ran an editorial cartoon captioned “Dr. King takes the plunge,” showing him diving head-first into an empty swimming pool labeled, “Vietnam criticism.” One opinion poll from that spring showed that 73% of Americans disagreed with King’s denunciations of the war.

King also caught flack from his own allies. The NAACP’s board of directors unanimously voted that combining the civil rights and antiwar movements was a “serious tactical mistake.”

One professor at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama wrote to King: “For many years I have considered you one of the greatest living Americans — indeed, one of the greatest living men. Now, however, that you have joined the anti-Vietnam War movement, I am ashamed of you.” Donations to King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference began to drop.

King also lost his biggest ally in Washington. “Once he took the stand against the war, he was really not welcome at the White House anymore,” Carson said.

Ultimately, King’s speeches and rallies were not instrumental in ending the war, at least not in the way they undermined Jim Crow laws across the South. He was assassinated in Memphis by a small-time criminal in 1968 on April 4, one year to the day after the “Beyond Vietnam” speech. His antipoverty and job campaigns had minimal effect, and the war didn’t end until 1975.

“The last three years of his life, he failed,” Carson said, noting that poverty and war remain ongoing issues for America today.​

“The importance of King’s book — ‘Where Do We Go From Here?’ — we still haven’t answered that question,” Carson said. “The ‘I have a dream’ speech is played 100 times as much as the Riverside speech. … Probably every American knows the words — ‘I have a dream,’ ‘Free at last’ — those phrases.”

But when Americans listen to King speeches and see his memorials, Carson said, “You don’t see that phrase where he’s talking about the United States as ‘the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.’”


SOURCE: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-martin-luther-king-vietnam-20170113-story.html