I Disagree

It is impossible to grow up a descendant of slaves in America, without a great deal of exposure to at least some history of Dr. Martin Luther King. My grandmothers, along with the majority of their generation, kept pictures of him and JFK in their home. I too, am a big admirer of his accomplishments, and his legacy.

Like any man of renown, Dr. King has his detractors. “Critics” point out his infidelity, his real ‘Johnny-come-lately’ role in the Civil Rights movement, question his academic credentials, and introduce the notion of his plagiarism.

(For a fascinating perspective on King’s plagiarism, from a source without an ‘agenda,’ check out: http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/additional_resources/articles/palimp.htm)

Every year, we celebrate the accomplishments and influence of this particular great American. It seems to me, that to fully appreciate our leaders, it’s important to do MORE than just idolize and imitate them. We are best served by exploring their humanity, discussing and debating their ideas, and clearing the context that surrounds them so we can appreciate them not as legends or myths, but as men and women whose actions left some mark on our world.

In THAT spirit, I’d like to put an issue that has always troubled me, namely the use of small children in the Civil Rights movement, on the table.

To understand the premise and genesis of the non-violent movement spearheaded by King, one must be familiar with the teachings of Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869 – 1948). In short, the Mahatma taught that truth is a force, like … gravity, or inertia. Using a concept called “satyagraha,” he believed that the downtrodden could harness this force and overcome bullies, oppressors, and overseers. He very consistently taught that a child could learn what truth is, and at that point could join the struggle.

In fact, one of his tenets against the English was the notion of putting children in the front of the action. His theory was that confronted with the impact of their behavior on a child, the civilized Englishman would be haunted by the barbarism of his acts, particularly of violence.

Dr. King adopted this strategy in the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60’s.

I think it’s wrong, and potentially abusive. One of the reasons we shield children from so many ‘grown-up’ things, is because they lack the capacity to make reasoned judgments about their experiences.

I’m willing to be wrong. I’m open to discussion. What do you think?

(originally posted 15 Jan 07)