In a New York Times piece, The Man Who Knew Exactly What the F.B.I. Was Doing to Martin Luther King Jr., Jonathan Eig and Jeanne Theoharis dig into a little history. I don’t take issue with the facts. I do take issue with the interpretation. Here is a key excerpt:
But historians, journalists and contemporary political leaders have largely portrayed Hoover as a kind of uncontrollable vigilante, an all too powerful and obsessive lawman, and Johnson as a genuine civil rights partner until [Martin Luther] King [Jr.] broke with the president over the Vietnam War. In reality, as new documents reveal, Johnson was more of an antagonist to King, and a conspirator with Hoover, than he has been portrayed.
By personalizing the F.B.I.’s assault on King, Americans cling to a view of history that isolates a few bad actors who opposed the civil rights movement — including Hoover, Gov. George Wallace of Alabama and Birmingham lawman Bull Connor. They thus fail to acknowledge the institutionalized, well organized resistance to change in our society. Americans prefer a version of history where most decent people did the right thing in the end.
It’s time to move past that comfortable story and recognize the power structure that supported the F.B.I.’s campaign. Many Americans — starting with the president — thought movement activists like King posed threats to the established order and needed to be watched and controlled. Members of the press could have exposed the bureau’s campaign. And many government officials who could have stopped, curtailed or exposed the F.B.I.’s attack on King instead enabled or encouraged it.
I take issue with the use of the term "institutionalized," which I believe is misused. "Institutionalized" means "created and controlled by an established organization" or "established as a common and accepted part of a system or culture." In this context, the use of the term “institutionalized” strongly implies that resistance to King's movement for equal justice and rights for negroes (black Americans in today's common usage) is embedded in the ideological underpinnings of American law and constitution.
But that is the opposite of the truth. Institutionally——that is, in law and philosophy—America is about universal individual rights, equality before the law, and justice. It's embedded in our Founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. In fact, it was King who fought for the American institution. Just read King’s I Have a Dream and Emancipation Proclamation Centennial Address speeches, in which King gave his ringing endorsement and tribute to America’s Founding principles. Fundamentally—that is, institutionally—these principles are what America is about. It was the "members of the press" and "many government officials" who went against it. It is they, not the institution, that should be called out. In truth, they are the reactionaries. Conflating Johnson, Hoover, and the other villains under the term "institutionalized" only undermines what King fought against and for.
Has America had more than a few bad actors? Of Course. Half the country abandoned the principles of equal rights to protect slavery. A major racist political movement, Progressivism, at times claimed majority support and elected racist presidents like Woodrow Wilson and FDR, and led the drive to segregate America. Genuine Americans—individuals who actually adhere to the Founding principles—have at times, maybe most of the time, been in the minority—and I would argue, in a critical sense, still are. But political and cultural dominance is not the same as American institutionalism.
Speaking broadly, resistance to change is a common feature, not limited to the United States. But if any country embodies change more than others, it is America, which was Founded on powerful and radical individualist principles. The Civil Rights Movement is evidence of that. From the abolition of slavery to the breaking of Baseball’s “color barrier” by Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby to the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by some 2/3 of Democrats and 4/5 of Republicans on the heels of a massive cultural change for the better that occurred in that 1947 - 64 period. Without hyperbole or exaggeration, I would equate that period in importance with the period 1760 - 1776, when a philosophical Revolution in the American Mind led to the Declaration of Independence. Philosophical scholar Jason D. Hill called this period America’s Third Founding. And it was led by the power of Americanism.
Related Reading:
Juneteenth, the Offspring of the Fourth of July
What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression by Jason D. Hill
A New Textbook of Americanism — edited by Jonathan Hoenig
America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It by C. Bradley Thompson.
On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence
“I Have a Dream”: Martin Luther King Urges Consistency to Founding Principles -- my article for The Objective Standard
42: The Triumph of Courage and Moral Certitude over Irrationality and Bigotry -- my article for The Objective Standard
Larry Doby, American Hero -- my article for The Objective Standard
The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein
No comments:
Post a Comment