No Kings Left
I very much doubt Stokely Carmichael would have been a candidate for post-King general civil rights leadership. In 1967-68, he was at high revolutionary tide, at least rhetorically--take a look at his Oakland speech of fall 1967, full of blustery threats about "offing" not only "the pig" but black bourgeois types who didn't get with the program. I don't know what his tactical maneuvers were like in Washington in early '68 but my guess is that he was reeling between Third World revolutionary bombast and practical politics at this point. Of course we don't know what he would have evolved into had he not left the country, but when he did become a pan-Africanist, that was no surprise, given the way other SNCC militants had been going after Watts. The surprise (to me, for sure, who knew Stokely starting in high school) was that this intelligent man at some point in the '70s started ranting against "Zionism" as if it were responsible for all the horrors of neocolonialism. That kind of junk doesn't come out of the blue. When defeat masquerades as blustery victory, you have taken leave of reality. So soon it came to pass that he would answer the phone, "Ready for the revolution").
As for the great Bayard Rustin, he was already anathema to the New Left before Ocean Hill-Brownsville, as a coalitionist. (His old comrade Staughton Lynd denounced him in 1965, publicly, for proposing "coalition with the Marines.")
Only King had the nonviolent credentials to hold at least some white liberals and most radicals once the pseudo-revolutionary tide went out and a lot of people started returning to their senses.
I can't see what's the point of this debate and why bring Stokely Carmichael into this.
April 3, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because they know not whereof they speak.
They need to pursue the idea that there is "one acceptable black leader at a time" and they need to propose someone to "take up the mantle of King" (to use Risen's words).
To suggest that there are "no Kings left," provides cover to avoid dealing with the problems of racism -- even the color-blind variety that they practice -- which, although more covert now than then, still plague this country.
It offers the opportunity to wistfully lament how different things could be if only there was another Martin Luther King -- or as regards the book from a couple of weeks ago, Norrell's Up From History, another Booker T. Washington.
Same old sh&t. Different book.
April 4, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with you.
For those who have a limited scope of history, I can think of over 100 Native Americans and they too saw the 'struggle' along the same lines as King. And therefore, let me give you the Tribal Elders.
And from the Spanish-speaking community, I can think of dozens of Chican(o/as) who held to the King 'vision' as well as the 'genius' of LBJ. To wit, standing outside the window of the candy store and 'admiring' the goodies inside, brings home 'reality' and quickly changes the 'mental hostility' to a desire to change the institutional mindsets. And one name comes quickly to mind and which continues to hold the mindset of a staunch Progressive. Yet, is has not received much if any recognition. Even Bill Moyers would have to hustle to keep up. :-)
His name is Alfredo Gutierrez of Arizona. In his teens, he started out as a Brown Beret and subsequently enlisted in the Army. And upon his honorable discharge, entered politics. As the young and tender age of 25, he was the Majority Leader of the Democrats in the Arizona Legislature. Today, he hosts a talk radio show on a daily basis, and has the largest audience of any program on radio. Limbaugh and his ilk, can't hold a candle to him.
Today, it's unusual to see a Chicano military vet taking a public leadership role in local/community politics. This decision was taken shortly after King died. Why? It was better to build an expansiive leadership base in the community for the long term. Military vets WWII were the crux of politics. Chicano military vets held all the leadership positions, and thusly, no room for further perpetuation. Consequently, 'talent spotting' was the requisite 'need' and which was addressed by expanding this leadership base and where military vets did not pre-dominate. And that's "the" sociological aspect that's never been recognized when the Quality of Leadership is questioned or discussed. And that's where Gutierrez comes into this picture. He was a 'star' and not to be denied. And he's proven himself quite capable for these past 45 years.
In a similiar vein of thought, 'noticiero' or the local news program on Spanish-language television here in Phoenix, has the largest audience of any news program including those in English. As such, the world is changing, and no one in the MSM, gives one iota of thought for what's occurring among us. Consequently 'leaders' abound in the Spanish-speaking world, and yet, none see their self-interest or 'need' to 'edumacate' our fellow citizens. And one needs to ask why?
Of course, reality informs that a historical book on Native American/Chicano/Hispanic/Latinos does not do well in the large books stores, and therefore, traditional historians will move on to more enlightened subject areas, and this behavior is quite understandable when tenure is critical for academic freedom.
In the meantime, we get DryDipSticks such as the Cardinal in Chicago and who is embarrassed for the University of Notre Dame for extending an invitation to the President of the United States for a commencement speech. As such, narrow-minded and short-sighted when science 'must' be opposed, does not spell well for the future.
Now, don't get me started again. :-)
Jaango
April 4, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink