" MLK fits nicely into the good men vs. great men theory. Good men do well by their community and family and live solid lives. They are remembered fondly by loved ones. Great men change the world but have chaotic personal lives. They are remembered by all."
As we celebrate MLK Day, we are bombarded with both sides of MLK's legacy. On the one side, his push for Civil Rights was a positive step for the US. On the other side, he was not necessarily a man of sterling character. Much like we draw a distinction between the artist and their art, I think that we can honor his public legacy without denying the whole of his life.
If we look through history, this obviously applies to many (if not all) great men and women who have moved society forward.
Personally, I would be immensely satisfied to be known as a good man.
2 comments:
I celebrated MLK Day with a colonoscopy.
The distinction cited is a good point of discussion. For my part, I acknowledge the work he did for a great cause and the risks he took in doing it, but I regard his him as a bit on the overrated side. Modern progressives like to think of him as something more god-like and beyond reproach. Objectivity means nothing when their heroes are being scrutinized. But think of it this way: how does the left really act in a manner which reflects his general message of equality? They don't. Leftists of every color continue to wallow in identity politics.
Getting back to his "sterling character", the modern progressive won't tolerate judging MLK by the content of his character. Dan and I went round and round on this not so very long ago...possibly last year at this time. Setting aside a level of lecherous debauchery Dan likes to insist is true of and unique to Donald Trump, and also a turn toward leftism likely influenced by his association with known communists, he may also have been a great influence on Claudine Gay as he is guilty of several instances of plagiarism. In fact, even his most famous "I Have A Dream" speech is evidence of it. In a discussion on another platform, one commenter provided a website which discusses it and links to or references an online service which allows one to scrutinize papers for plagiarism, and that speech had several examples.
So again, despite the cause to which he dedicated most of his adult life, I wouldn't put him next to Frederick Douglass who I think is far more deserving of a National Holiday if any non-president is in this country.
I think the point of the distinction is the "great" men are the one's who push societal change. Obviously the focus on King leads to him being somewhat deified, and to minimizing/ignoring the work of the vast number of people (including lots of white people and Jews) who actually made this happen. Obviously, racial conditions needed to be addressed and King was the right person in the right place with the ability to articulate his position well, to be a/the face of the movement.
The problem is that the same people who are happily destroying the great men who founded the US and trying to eradicate as much history as possible, don't like it when their sacred cows are treated the way they treat others. King was a flawed, imperfect, man with significant personal failings. Let's be honest about the totality of his character, without diminishing his accomplishments.
I completely agree that Douglass and others get short shrift when it comes to how race issues are presented. But King was "right place/right time" to be the figurehead.
But that gets back to the original point doesn't it.
Post a Comment