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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s, 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\u2019s 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?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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\u2019s…<\/p>\n