The way Clayborne sets the background for king as a myth and legend, even though Dr. King has only been dead for a short time is really intriguing to me. He argues that this is extremely wrong to do. It reminds me of a book I am currently reading entitled Lies My Teacher Told Me By James W. Lowen. The book discusses how hero-fication of Leaders like King and George Washington white wash them to the point where in most cases their flaws are hidden, but in Kings case a large portion of who he was and how he went about the reform. It was peaceful, yes, but also forceful and his Hero-fication undermines a lot of those qualities.
Clayborne also suggests that King is only perceived as such a great leader because he was in the right place at the right time. He specifically notes that the Civil Rights movement had many leaders long before King took the spotlight, people like E.D. Nixon and Rosa Parks, Clayborne continues down this path and openly says that the movement would have continued no matter if King had lived or not. This is a weird thought to me, but it made me realize that we as humans put almost too much faith in the great leaders of our time and giving them the credit all to them when in reality the public should get a majority of the credit for actually “moving the machine” so to speak.
The book you are reading sounds very interesting and somehow fits perfectly with the leadership course. I would have to agree with you when you said that King is considered a good leader due to being in the right place at the right time.
I agree that King was in the right place at the right time as well. It is important to know that leaders and heroes many times would not be in the position they are in if it was not for a previous one before them.
I agree that it is a very compelling argument that we can be put into a place and time that gives us an opportunity to be a leader. I also think while we don’t give them too much credit, as being a leader is hard, we do have this blind faith that they were “chosen” even if the circumstance was accidental.
Carson’s article also made me think about the importance of leaders, but I believe that it’s nearly impossible to yield ideal results without leaders being the face of a movement or organization. This isn’t to discredit the more local leaders that are necessary in any operation/movement, but I still believe in the necessity of leaders in our society.
I also found the fact that if King did not exist that the same social movements would have occurred extremely surprising. Many of us think of MLK as the man who single handedly ended the disparity between blacks and whites and forget to acknowledge the people like Rosa Parks and E.D. Nixon who played just as an important role in ending the oppression.
It also seems weird to me, based on what I have been taught, that the civil rights movement would have continued with or without MLK. Meanwhile, I do think that King had a profound affect on society and his ability to convince the white government officials of anything was unordinary in his time.