The Pitfalls of Drawing Parallels to Martin Luther King Jr.

In January of 1963, TIME magazine named Martin Luther King Jr. as its Man of the Year, making him the first solo Black American to receive the title. However, a closer look at the article reveals a portrayal of King that is vastly different from the mythologized figure we see today. The article describes King as imperfect, mercurial, and more inspirational than administrative. It highlights his raw-nerved sensitivity and apparent lack of imagination. This portrayal stands in stark contrast to the deified image of King that is often portrayed today.

The mythologization of King has had significant consequences for democracy. By placing King on a pedestal, it creates a contrast between him and present-day social movement leaders. Critics can then dismiss their tactics and movements as being un-King-like, which discourages the necessary activism needed for social change. The public adoration of King also leads Americans to wait for the next transcendent leader to emerge, rather than understanding that social progress requires the collective efforts of many flawed individuals.

Despite the reverence with which King is remembered today, he was highly divisive during his life. In fact, only 35% of white Americans had a favorable view of him in 1963, and media coverage reflected this skepticism. The Man of the Year feature in TIME, while largely positive about the civil rights movement, expressed skepticism about King’s leadership. The article questioned his administrative capabilities and described his style as “funeral conservatism.” It also criticized his lack of humor and embarrassing use of metaphors.

This skeptical depiction of King was consistent with media narratives at the time, both in the North and the South. Journalists continually questioned his leadership, substance, and tactics. They often charged him with inciting violence and treated his philosophy of nonviolence with skepticism. Newspapers also perpetuated conspiracy theories about alleged communist ties held by King and the civil rights movement.

The gap between how King was seen during his life and the mythologized hero celebrated today can be attributed to a process of historical revisionism. The fight to establish a national holiday commemorating King’s birthday led to a whitewashed version of him that was palatable to moderates and conservatives. This sanitized understanding of King distorts how Americans understand social movements today. It allows for a cultural disdain for civil disobedience and enables the denouncement of present-day movements like Black Lives Matter by contrasting them with the “good” protests of King’s time.

In conclusion, the mythologization of Martin Luther King Jr. has had significant consequences for democracy and the understanding of social movements. By deifying him and creating a contrast between him and present-day leaders, it discourages necessary activism and dismisses the tactics of current movements. It is important to recognize the complex and flawed nature of King and the collective efforts of many individuals that led to the civil rights gains of the 1960s.