2008 Woodie Awards
OUT OF MY HEAD: Davis speech represented the historical, not idealized, MLK
Joe Killian
Issue date: 1/24/06 Section: Opinions
When it was announced that Angela Davis would be the keynote speaker at this year's Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration there was, I thought, surprisingly little controversy. A few days before the event UNCG's Conservative Union sent a formal letter of protest to the University and drew up a press release that got them a short spot on local TV news. But that was it. No picketing, no chanting, not even a letter to the editor - here or at the News and Record.
Frankly, I had expected more. We are talking about one of the most divisive figures in American political history here.
The conservative argument against Davis' appearance at the MLK event was that having a militant radical as the keynote speaker insulted the memory of Dr. King, who was famous for his pacifism even in the face of violent opposition. Carolinian columnist Melissa Westmoreland made that argument last week - and, when I first heard Davis had been invited, I had much the same reaction.
The argument against Davis seemed to make sense. A militant radical, a member of the Black Panther Party, speaking at an event celebrating one of history's most famous pacifists? Incongruous, to say the least. But, even as I sat down to write the column Westmoreland eventually did, I wondered if I was bothered by Davis, or the way in which her presence reminded me - and a lot of other Americans - that our view of Dr. King is warped and over-simplistic.
Davis and King were, stylistically, very different. But anyone who thinks their differences outweigh their overwhelming similarities is neglecting their history.
Today we tend to focus almost exclusively on King's pacifism - forgetting his larger politics and goals, his essential humanity. The Christ-like composite figure of King we celebrate this time each year actually has much less in common with the historical King than King has in common with Angela Davis. The historical, demonstrable truth is that King was, by the standards of his time, very much a leftist political radical.
King's pacifism was a function of his deep religiosity - and it was more effective than Davis' brand of militance because it was more palatable to both black and white Americans. But he was (like Jesus Christ and Ghandi before him) a political revolutionary who engaged in systematic civil disobedience in order to bring down governmental and societal systems with which he disagreed. Before he was an American hero he was hated by millions of his countrymen and feared by both the American Left and Right. Prominent Democrats and Republicans of the period felt (and said) that King was an embarrassment to America - providing the Soviets with high-profile stories and images of a nation that clearly didn't embrace at home the peace and equality it espoused abroad. Some of his closest friends and associates were communists, democratic socialists and open homosexuals - facts that divided even the communities King spent (and gave) his life trying to help.
King's own government considered him such a threat that the FBI conducted an extensive spy and wiretap operation to monitor and undermine his work. In fact, newly declassified documents show the FBI's COINTELPRO ("Counter Intelligence Program") initiative listed King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Davis' Black Panthers on a list of "Black Nationalist Hate Groups." Thousands of pages on the FBI's surveillance of King won't be completely declassified until 2027. But what we do know, if we care to take a look at the actual man and his work, is that his legacy is much more than his pacifism. The largest insult to King's memory would be our forgetting King the anti-war, anti-imperialist and labor activist, the fiery social critic who called the United States government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
It was for all these reasons I decided to reserve my criticism until I'd heard Davis speak. I thought she could easily have concentrated on what she and Martin Luther King Jr. shared while weaving her concerns for America into the tapestry of a talk about Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy.
In my estimation she fell short of that.
I thought Davis' style was rambling and disjointed and, given a little more structure, she could have made a better case for her laundry list of complaints about the state of civil and human rights in America directly relating King's legacy.
That said, I was more disappointed to hear people come away from the talk complaining that they didn't understand what all that leftist political rhetoric had to do with Dr. King. I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that Davis said anything with which King would have disagreed - even if he would have made the points more artfully.
What bothered me more was that Davis - an out lesbian - talked about myriad social injustices and inequities from poverty and racism to health care and the plight of political prisoners...but not one word about homophobia. When Cornell West came to UNCG last year he made a point, in front of a mostly black audience, to talk about the ridiculousness of black homophobia and how the civil and gay rights movement are, of course, intertwined.
But what I think Davis should have said is irrelevant. As an academic whose life and work has revolved around race and class she's certainly qualified to speak at such an event. As one of the most prominent public figures to come out of the Civil Rights movement inspired and personified by King she can certainly speak to his legacy. She chose to do that by expressing modern political sentiments with which King would have agreed. Given the two standing ovations she received from the capacity crowd she was clearly appreciated. It's up to each of us who made up the audience that night to decide the speech's merits from there.
Joe Killian's column, Out Of My Head, is in its fourth year. For more of Joe's writing check out his blog, AUTOMATIC WRITING, at www.joekillian.blogpsot.com.
Frankly, I had expected more. We are talking about one of the most divisive figures in American political history here.
The conservative argument against Davis' appearance at the MLK event was that having a militant radical as the keynote speaker insulted the memory of Dr. King, who was famous for his pacifism even in the face of violent opposition. Carolinian columnist Melissa Westmoreland made that argument last week - and, when I first heard Davis had been invited, I had much the same reaction.
The argument against Davis seemed to make sense. A militant radical, a member of the Black Panther Party, speaking at an event celebrating one of history's most famous pacifists? Incongruous, to say the least. But, even as I sat down to write the column Westmoreland eventually did, I wondered if I was bothered by Davis, or the way in which her presence reminded me - and a lot of other Americans - that our view of Dr. King is warped and over-simplistic.
Davis and King were, stylistically, very different. But anyone who thinks their differences outweigh their overwhelming similarities is neglecting their history.
Today we tend to focus almost exclusively on King's pacifism - forgetting his larger politics and goals, his essential humanity. The Christ-like composite figure of King we celebrate this time each year actually has much less in common with the historical King than King has in common with Angela Davis. The historical, demonstrable truth is that King was, by the standards of his time, very much a leftist political radical.
King's pacifism was a function of his deep religiosity - and it was more effective than Davis' brand of militance because it was more palatable to both black and white Americans. But he was (like Jesus Christ and Ghandi before him) a political revolutionary who engaged in systematic civil disobedience in order to bring down governmental and societal systems with which he disagreed. Before he was an American hero he was hated by millions of his countrymen and feared by both the American Left and Right. Prominent Democrats and Republicans of the period felt (and said) that King was an embarrassment to America - providing the Soviets with high-profile stories and images of a nation that clearly didn't embrace at home the peace and equality it espoused abroad. Some of his closest friends and associates were communists, democratic socialists and open homosexuals - facts that divided even the communities King spent (and gave) his life trying to help.
King's own government considered him such a threat that the FBI conducted an extensive spy and wiretap operation to monitor and undermine his work. In fact, newly declassified documents show the FBI's COINTELPRO ("Counter Intelligence Program") initiative listed King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Davis' Black Panthers on a list of "Black Nationalist Hate Groups." Thousands of pages on the FBI's surveillance of King won't be completely declassified until 2027. But what we do know, if we care to take a look at the actual man and his work, is that his legacy is much more than his pacifism. The largest insult to King's memory would be our forgetting King the anti-war, anti-imperialist and labor activist, the fiery social critic who called the United States government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
It was for all these reasons I decided to reserve my criticism until I'd heard Davis speak. I thought she could easily have concentrated on what she and Martin Luther King Jr. shared while weaving her concerns for America into the tapestry of a talk about Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy.
In my estimation she fell short of that.
I thought Davis' style was rambling and disjointed and, given a little more structure, she could have made a better case for her laundry list of complaints about the state of civil and human rights in America directly relating King's legacy.
That said, I was more disappointed to hear people come away from the talk complaining that they didn't understand what all that leftist political rhetoric had to do with Dr. King. I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that Davis said anything with which King would have disagreed - even if he would have made the points more artfully.
What bothered me more was that Davis - an out lesbian - talked about myriad social injustices and inequities from poverty and racism to health care and the plight of political prisoners...but not one word about homophobia. When Cornell West came to UNCG last year he made a point, in front of a mostly black audience, to talk about the ridiculousness of black homophobia and how the civil and gay rights movement are, of course, intertwined.
But what I think Davis should have said is irrelevant. As an academic whose life and work has revolved around race and class she's certainly qualified to speak at such an event. As one of the most prominent public figures to come out of the Civil Rights movement inspired and personified by King she can certainly speak to his legacy. She chose to do that by expressing modern political sentiments with which King would have agreed. Given the two standing ovations she received from the capacity crowd she was clearly appreciated. It's up to each of us who made up the audience that night to decide the speech's merits from there.
Joe Killian's column, Out Of My Head, is in its fourth year. For more of Joe's writing check out his blog, AUTOMATIC WRITING, at www.joekillian.blogpsot.com.
