In Birmingham in 1963 Black school children were used in a protest, the governor of Birmingham, ‘Bull’ Connor was renowned for his racism and violent action towards blacks. Connor set dogs out and allowed police to use their clubs and fire hoses; Kings critics emphasized the point that this put the children in grave danger and was an irresponsible move by Martin Luther King, to exploit children for public purposes. Nevertheless, it did increase dramatically the sympathy of the public showing Bull Connor’s ruthless ways. It did not look good to the outside world to be fire-hosing children, some as young as eight or nine years old, as they came out of church to begin a demonstration. Bull Connor apparently enjoyed seeing the ‘niggers run’ as he put it.
King travelled the country making speeches and inspiring people to become involved in the civil rights movement. As well as advocating non-violent student sit-ins, king also urged economic boycotts similar to the one that took place at Montgomery. He argued that as African Americans made up 10% of the population they had considerable economic power. By selective buying, they could reward companies that were sympathetic to the civil rights movement while punishing those who still segregated their workforce. Many people supported this idea.
Martin Luther King had a difficult relationship with other black leaders. Adam Clayton Powell and Jesse Jackson were a new breed of young protestors who were not afraid of speaking out against King. Other black leaders such as Malcolm X thought King relied too much on northern whites, put too much faith in the vote and civil rights, non –violence and integration. The strategy failed to solve the problems of black poverty, diminished black pride values and institutions, left blacks open to white repression and were irrelevant to the needs of a black urban underclass. However, it was argued that from start to finish King was concerned about economic issues and the inadequacy of civil rights on their own, he realized that it was one thing to gain the vote and another to enforce it. His concerns about economic and social issues forced him to visit northern ghettos. The main reason for his disagreement with other black leaders is that they felt that his non-violent protests were unsuccessful and more direct action needed to be taken. Nevertheless, there had been a long tradition of nonviolent resistance to racism in the United States. Frederick Douglass had advocated these methods during the fight against slavery. Other black leader such as Phillip Randolph and Bayard Rustin had successfully used nonviolence against racism in the 1940s.
His attempts to dramatise the evils of poverty and demand change in Chicago’s ghettos provoked an angry reaction from whites, who saw him as threatening the value of their homes. The security of their jobs and the secure parochialism of their childrens schools. Beneficiaries of institutional racism, they despised King as a hypocrite who spoke about peace and non-violence but created strife and disorder.
King’s insistence on non-violence was not an easy message to put over- the recent historiography of the importance of armed self-defence in the black community and the extent of violence, or its threat, around the movement highlights that violence as a strategy in the south did not bring gains, rather it brought increased repression, as did riots in the North. Martin Luther King was alone among the major civil rights leaders but made every effort to remain in touch with younger radical black leaders like Stockely Carmichael.
Martin Luther King was criticized for plagiarism and womanizing. King had lots of marital affairs and one-night stands, which was used by many of his critics as propaganda against him. He was branded a hypocrite for preaching from the pulpit the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage. On one occasion at the SCLC’s headquarters, there was a party being held and a reporter notes that there were lots of alcohol and many women were making passes at King. The head officer of the FBI J. Edgar. Hoover despised King, due to the fact he was racist. Hoover gathered much evidence to support these allegations of king’s womanizing he tapped his home phone line he had 24-hour surveillance and all his rooms were bugged. King was deeply saddened by this as it caused much distress in the family household as he was away 25 days a month.
Neglect of family was an issue which was raised on many occasions apart from the affairs he had as mentioned above; Martin Luther King was a reverend a was supposedly very Christian however he spent little time with his family. When the civil rights act was passed in 1964 he went to Washington for the signing, despite both of his sons being in hospital not once did he phone to check if they were okay and their operations were successful. This was not the only case where he put the civil rights movement before his own flesh and blood. King won the Nobel peace prize which was £50,000 his wife asked if he would put aside £5,000 for each child’s education but he refused.
King believed he had a calling from god to carry out his duty. It is argued that that a messiah complex weakened his leadership by encouraging a neglect of more basic, organizing measures, however, the concession merely heightens the need to understand the considerable leadership that King actually provided. King was often criticized by students and was referred to sarcastically as ‘De Lawd’- they mistrusted a leader who preferred to cheer from the sidelines, some women colleagues called him sexist and pompous. He would get carried away in the moment this was especially apparent in his speeches he would explain he was on a mission and was prepared to die for the cause. He went to places which were very dangerous despite being given numerous death threats warning him not to go there. However, one place he avoided was Mississippi until 1964 which was the worst southern state. If he wanted to become a martyr and die for the cause, he could have gone to Mississippi before for this reason King was criticized for being fearful and cautious.
When America went to war in Vietnam, King was against it he made many anti Vietnam War comments, this showed the public that he was unpatriotic and sparked off a lot of disapproval from families of soldiers who were in Vietnam fighting for their country he was even suspected as a communist for speaking out against the war. 60% of the American public thought he had damaged the civil rights movement speaking out about the war, he did not think of the political implications and just said what he thought.
40% of black people were against his opinion of wanting to fight for civil rights not just for black but also for all races who are treated with disrespect . However, people thought he should just concentrate on black people. The reasoning behind his view is a reasonable, he was a Christian leader and believed strongly in peace and non-violent action, fighting was not the way to solve a problem.
Despite his need to appeal to whites, it did not lead him to capitulate to liberal anti-communism or back down from criticism of the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, his opinion made him many enemies, president Johnson did not approve of his view; black working class citizens made up the majority of the American army because they were going to go to university and therefore were unable to avoid the draft plus the fact it was made out to be an adventure an escape. Many blacks believed fighting the war alongside white Americans would help them gain more respect and would help end the racial tension.
King was blamed for being a poor organizer. King and the SCLC used ‘hit and run’ tactics going into communities organized by others, and often leaving behind embittered, betrayed communities. However, in his defence he was a religious leader and not a politician he didn’t believe in leadership the only person we should follow is God.
King was not as important as local people grass roots activists women and students. However, as radicals admitted, king reached out to ordinary southerns who would be foot soldiers in local movements. He was not the initiator of black protests or the bus boycott in Montgomery and in 1960-65 it was students and not the SCLC who sparked off the wave of confrontational protests. King was only involved in a handful of the thousands of protest across the south. An example of a poorly orgainsed event which ended in failure was the Albany Campaign. When King visited Albany a second time to protest about the lack of action, he was arrested again when released king left Albany for good in August 1962. The campaign had not produced local change. Rather than being desegregated, the parks were closed and all the chairs were removed from the ‘desegregated’ library. The campaign had also failed to create a situation where the federal government felt obliged to act. It caused some radicals in the SNCC to become impatient with king and what they saw as a too gentle a policy. It was Kings campaigns at Birmingham and Selma that produced the decisive federal legislation of 1964 and 1965.
King was concerned with the government passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964. After the passing of this important piece of legislation, King concentrated on helping those suffering from poverty. King realized that race and economic issues were closely connected and he began talking about the need to redistribute wealth. However, there was no apparent improvement.
Racial change was not going to come to the south inevitably and gradually as the result of economic modernization and white goodwill: it would have to be coerced and the civil rights movement and this could not done on its own, it needed the federal government. King was essential to securing that federal intervention by direct action protest
Thanks to the miracle of television, King was vividly remembered as an inspirational speaker, whose leadership was seemingly rooted in oratory. Speeches such as the ‘I Have A Dream’ speech at the civil rights march on Washington of August 1963 galvanized people of all races, and created an unprecedented bipartisan coalition for anti-racist legislation. King undoubtedly spoke to, and for, African Americans, and their mounting challenge to white oppression sprang from hearing his non- violent call to arms. When he died the non-violent movement seemed unable to continue without him, and this deepened the impression that he was its essential leader.
King had a remarkable ability to get people who would otherwise be constantly feuding to work together. He was consistently reluctant to sever or sour relations with any one who might help the cause. This was particularly important because a by-product of racism was a pronounced tendency to factionalism inside the black community. King became the vital centre- a point of balance and unity.
In conclusion, despite being bitterly criticised whilst at the forefront of the civil rights movement, after his death the extent to which he had contributed to the movement became more apparent as the old saying goes’ you don’t miss it until its gone’. Kings contribution to the organization of the SCLC could be seen in the collapse of the organization after his death. In addition some people believed before and after his death the way he dealt with his personal life and his lack of organization failed him miserably. While other have always thought of him as inspirational role model who deserves to have a national holiday named after him.
