Excellent. Light always seems brighter when contrasted with deep shadow. MLK jr was a flawed human being which makes his accomplishments all the greater because they were not a result of his perfection, but in spite of his imperfections.
Thank you for this. It is always good to remember the messy reality of being a human and that still, we can do good things or in MLK’s case, great life changing things.
I’ll admit, as an ardent MLK, Jr. fan - I was coming with pitchforks with this think piece. However, you are totally right.
Deification of historic figures is simply inaccurate. Worse, placing greats on pedestals does hold us back from measuring up to their achievements, if we continue to think what greats did in their time is beyond reach due to their alleged better moral character or inherent superiority.
I'm a boomer, child of the 60's. My father was my hero, MLK was his, and by extension, mine as well. We are all humans, with human frailties. How we live our lives despite those shortcomings, is a big measure of our humanity.
I am 73. As a teenager I admired MLK and still do. (By the way, I’m white.). I don’t admire him any less for his human frailties. He knew his life was at risk, but he carried on. Also, in the Sixties the Hoover FBI was constantly trying to dirty his name. So to the extent what we know about MLK’s personal life came from the FBI, those reports can only be trusted as far as we could trust the Hoover FBI.
This is such a great piece. Yes, positive dehumanization backfires! A mere man accomplishing great things is more impressive than one deemed irrevocably great simply fulfilling expectations.
I was expounding the virtues of FAIR to some friends yesterday during a large lunch to celebrate a friend's birthday. Then I opened this morning's FAIR roundup and read this article and another by Pastor Corey Brooks. Two great articles to help convince my friends that FAIR is the most sensible, pro-human way of resolving our political differences. Thank you Angel, for another great article. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
I wonder how many people really view MLK as a myth or a messiah. I think Angel is making a straw man argument here. King's character flaws are well known to anyone who has taken the time to know him. I didn't learn anything here that I didn't know already and, in my opinion, it doesn't help anyone, except those who wish to compare themselves with King perhaps, to better understand what he stood for and what he died for. Compared with his writing, his outward actions and leadership, living in constant fear of his life, these character flaws don't amount to a hill of beans. Perhaps there are some ways that we compare favorably to King in our character. On balance though, very few of us come anywhere close to his stature. King doesn't have to be viewed as a myth or a messiah to know that. In view of the ways we have disregarded King's teaching, example and vision to the detriment of race relations ever since his death, I think we need a renewed understanding and acceptance of his principles rather than his personal flaws.
I don't think I'm making a straw man argument at all. Many, many people deify King in the way I describe—starting with the people on his team who struggled to preserve his image and conceal the truth from others.
My entire point, Paul, is that his character flaws do nothing to tarnish King's reputation—and in fact they emphasize just how great and important the man's actions were. We are in full agreement on all of that.
I also agree that we need a renewed understanding and acceptance of his principles, and I don't think his flaws should (or do) stand in the way of that.
Fair enough. But I would rather be concerned with the many people who vilify him, particularly black people--I don't mean white racists, but the people who have most benefited from his work--rather than those who supposedly "deify" him. Bob Woodson broke with our current crop of BLM style race warriors with their "f*ck MLK" attitude. The Woodson Center is doing far more good than BLM. They've totally abandoned King's principles and profit from the racial strife they help create and their views have become the dominant ones today. George Floyd is their deity. I don't see how a high view of King hurts his legacy even if it's excessive. On the the other hand ... emphasizing personal character flaws that matter very little doesn't really help and only adds weight to those who thoughtlessly reject his principles.
I understand that concern, but in a way what I'm trying to do here is also address those people.
An unreasonably rose-tinted view of King hurts his legacy because his legacy is most powerful in light of his flawed humanity. That's the point.
Emphasizing personal character flaws in the way I've attempted to do in this piece is how we show how little they matter. If people are thoughtlessly rejecting his principles it won't help or convince them to pretend King is some perfect being because, as I wrote in the piece, that's an easy illusion to break through. Acknowledging his faults and showing how they only make his activism more remarkable is the better way forward.
You can't convince people who don't want to be convinced, but that's no reason to abandon reality. As for those who have taken a different tack with their activism, that's where we model people like King in our response to them and let the best method win. I am confident that compassion, courage, love, and unity will beat cynicism and division every time, over time.
Thought provoking insights. I would also be interested to know how the Reverend Dr. King viewed himself, his personal attitude and choices, in light of being a Christian minister in the Baptist tradition.
The flaw in the writer’s thesis is glaring and unaddressed. I will pose it as a question: Would White America have been sufficiently enamored of the preachy character of a philandering chain smoking charmer as to elevate him to sainthood so that his reputation could have the transformative impact that it did? We will never know, and perhaps better that the truth remained concealed until we, over time that was influence by the polished version gained the emotional maturity to handle the truth about the man...and about ourselves.
Hi Blake, I'm missing the flaw. Angel is not writing to people in 1960, but to today's. More specifically, I find that he's attacking the idea that a "Hero" (let alone the average human being) must be without flaws in order to remain worthy. MLK, on MLK day, is the specific example used to drive this point home. Can you elaborate on the flaw which you find to be glaring and unaddressed?
Thanks for the feedback, Blake. And Brad, I think you've addressed Blake's point well.
I am indeed addressing a modern audience, but even in 1960, I would be making the same points. MLK's movement was right and good not because he was perfect, but because what he was saying and advocating for was right and good on its own merits. One need only point to the Founding Fathers and their obvious, sometimes horrifying flaws to make a concordant point and show just how destructive and limiting this line of argumentation would be for anyone—"White America" included.
Good is good and right is right, and the imperfection of the messenger has no bearing on the message itself.
The flaw in this response is there is no, and was no, White America. There are hundreds of millions of people, opposed to the death then and now, who are not brown or black. Thats it.
So, white conservative Christian far right America probably would have done even more to prevent his success.
I would say liberal, educated, enlightened white America would have, even then, done precisely the same thing. The right thing.
Agreed!❤️…… this very thing is what makes the people we read about in the Bible SO compelling and believable, to me anyway. Besides Yeshua (Jesus), they are not portrayed as superhuman beings without failures and flaws. This makes it MORE believable and precious to me, not LESS… because it suggests that WE can also do right and live truthful, loving, & forgiving lives…while simultaneously failing miserably and constantly needing to change our hearts & minds and begin again.🙏❤️🥹
Of course you are correct. King wouldn't have been human if he didn't have human characteristics. He was the best person at a critical time in our history and is appropriately honored.
Forgive me please, I swear I’m not trolling, I’m just wondering, if you do a thought experiment and apply this same argument to Donald Trump could he be seen in the same light? I’m by no means a fan of his but I do wonder after reading this article if the proverbial shoe was on the other foot… a lot of people could say that Trump made positive changes during his term and that his flaws just make him more real? Again—not trolling! Please help me understand where the fine line is and why. Thanks!!
I firmly believe in accepting the fact that Trump did something good if in fact he did something good, and his flaws as a human being have no bearing on that one way or another--so it is the same thing.
It is my personal belief that all human beings deserve compassion because they are the product of circumstances beyond their control. Trump was once a baby, and exposed to the environment and experiences that would lead him to become who he is today. He did not choose that environment or those experiences, but they fundamentally shaped who he is.
This doesn’t mean agreeing with or condoning what he does and says, but it does mean that righteous anger and smug condescension of him make no real sense, because all of us are the products of our environment and experiences, and if we were him and lived his life we would behave and think precisely as he does.
Thank you very much for your quick reply and this clarification, I really appreciate it. Compassion can be really difficult sometimes and it's all too easy to lapse into "righteous anger and smug condescension." I try to check myself regularly to make sure I'm not falling into the latter categories...
Just to follow up on “Trump was once a baby, and exposed to the environment and experiences that would lead him to become who he is today. He did not choose that environment or those experiences, but they fundamentally shaped who he is.” I agree but there comes a point in our adult lives where we have the ability to choose the person we want to be. Every moment of every day we have a choice to react or act. It takes a great deal of self-reflection and control to shape ourselves into becoming a better person. At what point does a person become accountable for the person they chose to be?
In my view, never—not in the way you mean. Even our capacity to recognize our flaws, and to have the wherewithal to do something positive about it, is *also* the result of our genes + environment. Our ability to choose the person we want to be is also informed by our experiences, education, psychology, and temperament, as well as our current options. There is no escaping this chain.
Think about it: at what point is he given the tools to be that self-aware? At what point is he psychologically and temperamentally equipped to recognize, accept, and want those tools? Does he get a software update when he turns 25? No. He continues along the same trajectory he has been on since birth. He cannot think things that simply do not occur to him, and what occurs to him is the result of his genes and previous experiences. It's like asking you to think of the title of a movie, and you suddenly naming the title of a movie you had no idea was even a movie. Seems unlikely that you'd ever do that.
That doesn't mean there's no difference between good and bad behavior, however, and it doesn't mean that the choices we make don't matter. They do. The choices we make, and the people we decide to be, have an effect on the world and on others, and it matters whether that effect is positive or negative because it directly relates to suffering versus flourishing.
The only thing that changes by recognizing that we are products of our circumstances is that we can have compassion for people like Trump, who obviously did not get the optimal tools for being or becoming someone other than who he has become. But we are never "finished." It is possible, for most people, to be influenced and given *better* experiences, educations, and options to make better decisions about the people we will be tomorrow.
That's why this conversation still matters, and it matters that we have it rather than not have it. It matters whether or not I persuade you here, because if I do it will shift the way you behave and think about others, which will be yet another link in their "genes + environment" chain that make up who *they* are.
We are systems, but we are *open* systems—still susceptible to influence and incentive. And it matters very much what those influences and incentives are. We've seen what happens when they are bad influences and bad incentives. So those of us with the wherewithal to make better choices and be better influences have a moral duty to continue on that path for the sake of everyone.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I don't mean to diminish your answer but you didn't need to persuade me. I thought I knew what you were going to say because I’ve had this conversation with myself often and have come to the same conclusion. But you said it way better than I ever could! These were my thoughts: If we are victims of time and space, and all those moments make us who we are, who we become is inescapable…? We could not have made any choices other than the ones we did?
But as you said, we are works in progress. Those who by random chance experienced thousands of tiny moments that led them toward being better have a moral duty to continue to make good choices. The desire to become a better person, and in turn make the world a better place for everyone, is a very heavy burden to bear.
How do we create incentives for people to become better than the worst moments that have shaped them? To not succumb to spreading suffering because they themselves suffered but despite their suffering, choose to flourish?
That's a difficult question, but the fact that you're asking it and thinking in that way means we're headed in the right direction. The ultimate goal is maximizing flourishing while minimizing needless suffering. Whatever incentives we can create to help people flourish, we should pursue them!
Absolutely LOVED this exchange. Well done you two. Please read Robert Sapolsky's book (I hope I have spelt his name right, apologies if I haven't) "Behave" in which he discusses these issues. His conclusion is that, right up to the point at which we (as Society) convict a person for a crime we must assume that (s)he had agency over their decisions. BUT, as soon as they do become so convicted, we need to switch to understand that they are indeed a product of their genes and their experience, over which they had no control. We must then use their 'correctional punishment' = my phrase - to give them an "experience" that will help them understand their error and prevent them from making a similar mistake again. In the context of Trump, I certainly hope that one of the legal cases against him now, might teach him the error of his ways before he can do any more damage to American Society. Bruce Danckwerts CHOMA, Zambia
Knowing his flaws as well as his virtues makes him a more rounded and relatable figure.
Totally.
Exactly right. And exactly why the current push to remove statues and other remembrances of those who held slaves 200 years ago is equally misguided.
Excellent. Light always seems brighter when contrasted with deep shadow. MLK jr was a flawed human being which makes his accomplishments all the greater because they were not a result of his perfection, but in spite of his imperfections.
So very true, this is true of so many figures of history, it doesn't take away from their accomplishments, and indeed just makes them more human.
Thank you for this. It is always good to remember the messy reality of being a human and that still, we can do good things or in MLK’s case, great life changing things.
Absolutely. Thank you, Jo.
I’ll admit, as an ardent MLK, Jr. fan - I was coming with pitchforks with this think piece. However, you are totally right.
Deification of historic figures is simply inaccurate. Worse, placing greats on pedestals does hold us back from measuring up to their achievements, if we continue to think what greats did in their time is beyond reach due to their alleged better moral character or inherent superiority.
I'm a boomer, child of the 60's. My father was my hero, MLK was his, and by extension, mine as well. We are all humans, with human frailties. How we live our lives despite those shortcomings, is a big measure of our humanity.
I am 73. As a teenager I admired MLK and still do. (By the way, I’m white.). I don’t admire him any less for his human frailties. He knew his life was at risk, but he carried on. Also, in the Sixties the Hoover FBI was constantly trying to dirty his name. So to the extent what we know about MLK’s personal life came from the FBI, those reports can only be trusted as far as we could trust the Hoover FBI.
This is such a great piece. Yes, positive dehumanization backfires! A mere man accomplishing great things is more impressive than one deemed irrevocably great simply fulfilling expectations.
I was expounding the virtues of FAIR to some friends yesterday during a large lunch to celebrate a friend's birthday. Then I opened this morning's FAIR roundup and read this article and another by Pastor Corey Brooks. Two great articles to help convince my friends that FAIR is the most sensible, pro-human way of resolving our political differences. Thank you Angel, for another great article. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
Thank you Bruce!
I wonder how many people really view MLK as a myth or a messiah. I think Angel is making a straw man argument here. King's character flaws are well known to anyone who has taken the time to know him. I didn't learn anything here that I didn't know already and, in my opinion, it doesn't help anyone, except those who wish to compare themselves with King perhaps, to better understand what he stood for and what he died for. Compared with his writing, his outward actions and leadership, living in constant fear of his life, these character flaws don't amount to a hill of beans. Perhaps there are some ways that we compare favorably to King in our character. On balance though, very few of us come anywhere close to his stature. King doesn't have to be viewed as a myth or a messiah to know that. In view of the ways we have disregarded King's teaching, example and vision to the detriment of race relations ever since his death, I think we need a renewed understanding and acceptance of his principles rather than his personal flaws.
I don't think I'm making a straw man argument at all. Many, many people deify King in the way I describe—starting with the people on his team who struggled to preserve his image and conceal the truth from others.
My entire point, Paul, is that his character flaws do nothing to tarnish King's reputation—and in fact they emphasize just how great and important the man's actions were. We are in full agreement on all of that.
I also agree that we need a renewed understanding and acceptance of his principles, and I don't think his flaws should (or do) stand in the way of that.
Fair enough. But I would rather be concerned with the many people who vilify him, particularly black people--I don't mean white racists, but the people who have most benefited from his work--rather than those who supposedly "deify" him. Bob Woodson broke with our current crop of BLM style race warriors with their "f*ck MLK" attitude. The Woodson Center is doing far more good than BLM. They've totally abandoned King's principles and profit from the racial strife they help create and their views have become the dominant ones today. George Floyd is their deity. I don't see how a high view of King hurts his legacy even if it's excessive. On the the other hand ... emphasizing personal character flaws that matter very little doesn't really help and only adds weight to those who thoughtlessly reject his principles.
I understand that concern, but in a way what I'm trying to do here is also address those people.
An unreasonably rose-tinted view of King hurts his legacy because his legacy is most powerful in light of his flawed humanity. That's the point.
Emphasizing personal character flaws in the way I've attempted to do in this piece is how we show how little they matter. If people are thoughtlessly rejecting his principles it won't help or convince them to pretend King is some perfect being because, as I wrote in the piece, that's an easy illusion to break through. Acknowledging his faults and showing how they only make his activism more remarkable is the better way forward.
You can't convince people who don't want to be convinced, but that's no reason to abandon reality. As for those who have taken a different tack with their activism, that's where we model people like King in our response to them and let the best method win. I am confident that compassion, courage, love, and unity will beat cynicism and division every time, over time.
Well said, Angel. Thanks so much for clarifying your intent like this! I apologize for misconstruing the intent of your writing.
No worries at all, Paul. I'm very grateful to you for engaging in good faith. That's what we need!
Thought provoking insights. I would also be interested to know how the Reverend Dr. King viewed himself, his personal attitude and choices, in light of being a Christian minister in the Baptist tradition.
The flaw in the writer’s thesis is glaring and unaddressed. I will pose it as a question: Would White America have been sufficiently enamored of the preachy character of a philandering chain smoking charmer as to elevate him to sainthood so that his reputation could have the transformative impact that it did? We will never know, and perhaps better that the truth remained concealed until we, over time that was influence by the polished version gained the emotional maturity to handle the truth about the man...and about ourselves.
Hi Blake, I'm missing the flaw. Angel is not writing to people in 1960, but to today's. More specifically, I find that he's attacking the idea that a "Hero" (let alone the average human being) must be without flaws in order to remain worthy. MLK, on MLK day, is the specific example used to drive this point home. Can you elaborate on the flaw which you find to be glaring and unaddressed?
Thanks for the feedback, Blake. And Brad, I think you've addressed Blake's point well.
I am indeed addressing a modern audience, but even in 1960, I would be making the same points. MLK's movement was right and good not because he was perfect, but because what he was saying and advocating for was right and good on its own merits. One need only point to the Founding Fathers and their obvious, sometimes horrifying flaws to make a concordant point and show just how destructive and limiting this line of argumentation would be for anyone—"White America" included.
Good is good and right is right, and the imperfection of the messenger has no bearing on the message itself.
Well said.
The flaw in this response is there is no, and was no, White America. There are hundreds of millions of people, opposed to the death then and now, who are not brown or black. Thats it.
So, white conservative Christian far right America probably would have done even more to prevent his success.
I would say liberal, educated, enlightened white America would have, even then, done precisely the same thing. The right thing.
Agreed!❤️…… this very thing is what makes the people we read about in the Bible SO compelling and believable, to me anyway. Besides Yeshua (Jesus), they are not portrayed as superhuman beings without failures and flaws. This makes it MORE believable and precious to me, not LESS… because it suggests that WE can also do right and live truthful, loving, & forgiving lives…while simultaneously failing miserably and constantly needing to change our hearts & minds and begin again.🙏❤️🥹
Of course you are correct. King wouldn't have been human if he didn't have human characteristics. He was the best person at a critical time in our history and is appropriately honored.
Forgive me please, I swear I’m not trolling, I’m just wondering, if you do a thought experiment and apply this same argument to Donald Trump could he be seen in the same light? I’m by no means a fan of his but I do wonder after reading this article if the proverbial shoe was on the other foot… a lot of people could say that Trump made positive changes during his term and that his flaws just make him more real? Again—not trolling! Please help me understand where the fine line is and why. Thanks!!
I firmly believe in accepting the fact that Trump did something good if in fact he did something good, and his flaws as a human being have no bearing on that one way or another--so it is the same thing.
It is my personal belief that all human beings deserve compassion because they are the product of circumstances beyond their control. Trump was once a baby, and exposed to the environment and experiences that would lead him to become who he is today. He did not choose that environment or those experiences, but they fundamentally shaped who he is.
This doesn’t mean agreeing with or condoning what he does and says, but it does mean that righteous anger and smug condescension of him make no real sense, because all of us are the products of our environment and experiences, and if we were him and lived his life we would behave and think precisely as he does.
Thank you very much for your quick reply and this clarification, I really appreciate it. Compassion can be really difficult sometimes and it's all too easy to lapse into "righteous anger and smug condescension." I try to check myself regularly to make sure I'm not falling into the latter categories...
It's a daily challenge, and I fail often despite more or less making that exact approach my raison d'etre.
All we can do is try. And when we lapse—as we inevitably will—we should acknowledge it, learn from it, and try again.
Just to follow up on “Trump was once a baby, and exposed to the environment and experiences that would lead him to become who he is today. He did not choose that environment or those experiences, but they fundamentally shaped who he is.” I agree but there comes a point in our adult lives where we have the ability to choose the person we want to be. Every moment of every day we have a choice to react or act. It takes a great deal of self-reflection and control to shape ourselves into becoming a better person. At what point does a person become accountable for the person they chose to be?
In my view, never—not in the way you mean. Even our capacity to recognize our flaws, and to have the wherewithal to do something positive about it, is *also* the result of our genes + environment. Our ability to choose the person we want to be is also informed by our experiences, education, psychology, and temperament, as well as our current options. There is no escaping this chain.
Think about it: at what point is he given the tools to be that self-aware? At what point is he psychologically and temperamentally equipped to recognize, accept, and want those tools? Does he get a software update when he turns 25? No. He continues along the same trajectory he has been on since birth. He cannot think things that simply do not occur to him, and what occurs to him is the result of his genes and previous experiences. It's like asking you to think of the title of a movie, and you suddenly naming the title of a movie you had no idea was even a movie. Seems unlikely that you'd ever do that.
That doesn't mean there's no difference between good and bad behavior, however, and it doesn't mean that the choices we make don't matter. They do. The choices we make, and the people we decide to be, have an effect on the world and on others, and it matters whether that effect is positive or negative because it directly relates to suffering versus flourishing.
The only thing that changes by recognizing that we are products of our circumstances is that we can have compassion for people like Trump, who obviously did not get the optimal tools for being or becoming someone other than who he has become. But we are never "finished." It is possible, for most people, to be influenced and given *better* experiences, educations, and options to make better decisions about the people we will be tomorrow.
That's why this conversation still matters, and it matters that we have it rather than not have it. It matters whether or not I persuade you here, because if I do it will shift the way you behave and think about others, which will be yet another link in their "genes + environment" chain that make up who *they* are.
We are systems, but we are *open* systems—still susceptible to influence and incentive. And it matters very much what those influences and incentives are. We've seen what happens when they are bad influences and bad incentives. So those of us with the wherewithal to make better choices and be better influences have a moral duty to continue on that path for the sake of everyone.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I don't mean to diminish your answer but you didn't need to persuade me. I thought I knew what you were going to say because I’ve had this conversation with myself often and have come to the same conclusion. But you said it way better than I ever could! These were my thoughts: If we are victims of time and space, and all those moments make us who we are, who we become is inescapable…? We could not have made any choices other than the ones we did?
But as you said, we are works in progress. Those who by random chance experienced thousands of tiny moments that led them toward being better have a moral duty to continue to make good choices. The desire to become a better person, and in turn make the world a better place for everyone, is a very heavy burden to bear.
How do we create incentives for people to become better than the worst moments that have shaped them? To not succumb to spreading suffering because they themselves suffered but despite their suffering, choose to flourish?
That's a difficult question, but the fact that you're asking it and thinking in that way means we're headed in the right direction. The ultimate goal is maximizing flourishing while minimizing needless suffering. Whatever incentives we can create to help people flourish, we should pursue them!
Thanks very much for engaging, Stephanie.
Thank YOU, Angel!!!
Absolutely LOVED this exchange. Well done you two. Please read Robert Sapolsky's book (I hope I have spelt his name right, apologies if I haven't) "Behave" in which he discusses these issues. His conclusion is that, right up to the point at which we (as Society) convict a person for a crime we must assume that (s)he had agency over their decisions. BUT, as soon as they do become so convicted, we need to switch to understand that they are indeed a product of their genes and their experience, over which they had no control. We must then use their 'correctional punishment' = my phrase - to give them an "experience" that will help them understand their error and prevent them from making a similar mistake again. In the context of Trump, I certainly hope that one of the legal cases against him now, might teach him the error of his ways before he can do any more damage to American Society. Bruce Danckwerts CHOMA, Zambia