One thing I found interesting in the Carson piece was the backlash against the mainstream/national memorialization of MLK. Carson believes that this memorialization distorts MLK’s historical importance by posing him as a force of oratory nature holding the civil rights movement together, rather than one among many skilled people driving the movement (Carson, 28-29). I liked how Carson contextualized MLK as more than just a charismatic leader. Describing MLK as both a charismatic leader and a self-doubting person aware of his limitations creates a more human and relatable impression.
Stemming off the point above, an interesting question that came to mind for me was the association of leaders with their respective actions or movements. Carson argues against the narrow view of a leader comprising a movement because it is too simplistic, but is not that how we have primarily related historical events for thousands of years? When we talk about the Egyptians, we tend to focus primarily on Pharaohs, Julius Caesar with the Romans, Hitler with the Nazi’s, etc. I agree with Carson that the notion surrounding Great Men/Women is flawed for understanding human history. However, as we move farther away from the 1960’s and the civil right movement, how do we stop the simplification of the civil rights movement from becoming synonymous with MLK if doing so is historically distorting?
I agree with your point that we tend to associate historical movements with prominent leaders from that time period. I think it’s interesting that all of the people you mention had the traits of a charismatic leader, even though some used these abilities for evil, and this says a lot about the way we think about leaders. In order to remember Martin Luther King’s important work without diminishing the work of other civil rights activists, I think we need to remember that people can lead in many different ways.
I completely agree with you about your like for the way Carson describes MLK. Showing some of his flaws brings exposure to the fact that even “Legends” such as MLK were human just like the rest of us, and therefore bound to make mistakes and have flaws.
I agree with your point about the flawed nature of the Great (Wo)man theory. I do not believe that every leader must follow and fit into a strict set of characteristics. I think it is important to note also, that the Great (Wo)man theory does not leave much room for the possibilities for social change because it propagates a poor understanding of the full picture: historical context, what allows certain leaders to rise up during their time periods. Your question about how to separate MLK from the Civil Rights Movement as a whole is an important one to ask and I think we need to add more stories about groups like the SNCC and smaller organizations to the history surrounding the Civil Rights Movement to make sure other groups and individuals are credited for their work alongside MLK.