In this reading, Carson describes Dr. King in a very different manner than he is often thought of today. I liked how Carson emphasized just how much of a controversial figure King really was, and that if he was still alive today, he would not nearly be as popular as modern scholarship and history perceive him to be. This gives readers an idea of just how radically different Dr. King’s ideology was in the 1960s and helps us understand that he risked, and ultimately lost his life in order to preach and spread the ideals he believed in. While history today looks at King’s movement as an example of courageous activism and praises the ideals he was fighting for, I think Carson’s piece explains that if the modern people of today who praise him actually lived in King’s time, they would not see him as this static, mythically constructed figure who can do no wrong. When Carson explains the way history today views King, he compared him to larger than life figures such as George Washington, people who are seen as untouchable in American history. This metaphor helped me understand the difference between modern scholarship about King, and the actual perception of him in the 1960s, two very different schools of thought.
I think it is also important to note that King had an understanding of his shortcomings, and he was adamant about having his followers think for themselves as opposed to blindly following him. This is an example of leadership that deviates from the traditional charismatic model, and I believe that differentiating between these models of leadership can have serious implications when evaluating the ethical and moral values and intentions of our future leaders.
I agree with your statement. I thought it was very interesting how Carson said how things still would have occurred even if MLK was not involved. For example Carson said The Montgomery bus boycott still would have occurred and MLK did not initiate it. I feel as though we were taught that he did.
I also found the point, that in today’s world King would’ve likely been much less effective than he was during the times he lived in, very intriguing. Carson had a way of making it seem that the civil rights movement would’ve turned out the same, regardless of MLK’s involvement, which is a point of view I think many of us had not encountered before this reading.
Going off of what you and Sean said, I think it is incredibly interesting how public figures in the past who were held in such high regard engaged in behaviors that would be considered very controversial today. Also, I found this part of the reading that you mentioned in your second point about how MLK jr encouraged his following to think for themselves to be very interesting and valuable in a leader.