By Melissa Harris-Perry
In anticipation of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, I began meeting, discussing, and planning with theGrio team nearly six months ago. Our goal was to honor the legacy of Dr. King by examining both historic and contemporary African-American leadership. We knew that producing a list of the most influential, groundbreaking, creative, and impactful black leaders in American history would be both difficult and controversial; therefore, rather than relying on the editorial judgments of just a few people, we chose to tap into the expertise of more than two dozen African-American historians, artists, and political leaders.
In our first meeting we wondered aloud who would make the top ten. Surely Dr. King would appear, but in what position? Would someone outrank King on his own holiday? Would our panel chose only the names of the best known leaders or would their expertise lead them to assess less famous individuals are more important than is typically recognized. Would President Obama make the list or would his embattled presidency and brief tenure on the national scene cause our experts to hesitate in choosing him?
All of these questions are answered by the expert panel's decisions in theGrio's top 25 African-American leaders. You can read the full report and learn more about both the expert panel and the leaders they chose by clicking here.
This project led to many interesting outcomes, but for me, the most fascinating, puzzling, and potentially controversial is the pair who top the list: Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and President Barack Obama.
Both men are brilliant orators, both had a unique ability to capture the American political imagination, both were tremendous authors, both are deeply introspective and both endured harsh criticism. But there are stunning differences between these men. Dr. King led an interracial social movement, but his efforts were primarily focused on organizing African-American communities for action. Constrained by the realities of his time, King never competed for or held elected office. He worked closely with elected leaders, but his extraordinary achievements were the result of pressure tactics applied from outside the political system, not embedded within it.
Alternately, President Obama is the elected leader of a racially diverse nation where African-Americans still constitute less than 15 percent of the population. Though he has some personal experience with community organizing, his achievements are wrought within the context of government and constrained by the realities of partisan politics. Both were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace, but King was the prophetic voice speaking against the war in Vietnam while Obama is the commander-in-chief trying to lead a nation still mired in two wars.
The close proximity of Dr. King and President Obama at the top of the list makes me wonder how we judge leadership and to ask what these two men share that lead our experts to evaluate both so highly. I believe that one reason Dr. King and President Obama share top billing is because they both insist that means are as important as ends in our efforts to achieve freedom, equality, and a more racially just America.
Popular imagination sometimes recalls the civil rights movement of the 1960s as if it were a period of uncontested embrace of King's leadership, the goals of desegregation, and the tactics of non-violent direct resistance. These are false memories. During his life Dr. King was derided, criticized, and challenged, in part, because of his unwavering commitment to non-violence. These criticisms became increasingly harsh beginning in 1966 when Dr. King turned his attention to economic issues and anti-war efforts. Within a matter of months civil rights demonstrators led by King were brutally attacked in Chicago. School children were savagely beaten by an angry mob of white adults in Grenada, Mississippi.
A leading minister in the movement was found bludgeoned to death in Ohio. Acts of racial violence and murder had long marked the movement, but many had grown weary of absorbing such violence without returning it. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act appeared inconsequential in stemming the continuing danger faced by protesters. Many openly castigated King for his continuing insistence on non-violence.
Discontent mounted among those who said America would never change until black Americans fought back. Despite all of his accomplishments, some called King a coward, unwilling to defend himself or his community.
Yet despite the reprisals and criticisms King held firm that the movement could only achieve its goals if its means were as noble as its ends. Legislative action and economic empowerment would mean nothing, he suggested, if America ripped itself apart with violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment