In going over these readings, something I found especially interesting was an idea presented Clayborne Carson in “Martin Luther King, Jr.: Charismatic Leadership in a Mass Struggle”. Carson says that because of the surrounding support, as well as the other leaders of the civil rights movement, “If King had never lived, the black struggle would have followed a course of development similar to the one it did”. The idea that taking out the central figure of a movement or government and it still ending up going down the same path, with a similar result is something most people never consider.
I believe that this premise can not be used as a blanket statement. Each case must be judged individually. In the case of Martin Luther King Jr., I would agree with Carson’s assessment. King was more part of a group of leaders as opposed to being the sole head of the civil rights movement. One of the most famous boycotts in the civil rights movement, the Montgomery bus boycott, was not initiated by King but by local black leaders such as E. D. Nixon, Rosa Parks, and Jo Ann Robinson. The same goes for the lunch counter sit-ins, which was launched by students (though they were inspired by King). Another example of this would be Abraham Lincoln, who was also part of a group of leaders lobbying for the abolishment of slavery. Although he helped move along the process of abolishing slavery, I believe that the same process would have eventually taken place because of the growth of the abolitionist movement and the leaders at the forefront of it such as Frederick Douglas and William Lloyd Garrison who helped gain support for the movement.
I found Carson’s idea interesting too, and I agree that it can’t be a blanket statement and should be judged on a case by case basis. In class toady we talked about how people can lead in many different ways and not everyone is going to have a prominent role. In the case of Martin Luther King, I agree that the civil rights movement would most likely have had the same eventual outcome, and I would also add that without the support of other local and lesser known activists, Martin Luther King would not have been so successful.
I thought this idea was very interesting, the notion that the leaders we value and see as essential parts of the Civil Rights movement are just merely part of a larger plan. It is true that most policies such as abolishing slavery and enacting voting rights were fueled and pushed by millions of people. But it is also important to remember that without a central leader these followers could’ve been misdirected, torn over different ideas and overall the movement would not have gone as successfully as it did.
I agree with Nysa’s comment; it is hard to imagine how the movement for civil rights would have been altered without MLK forging the path. But on the other hand the ideas of attempting to live in a nation with social and racial equality were ideas many Americans had had for many years and as Noah said, there were other leaders along with MLK who took the movement to the next level.