Philosophy Now Forum

Heard an interesting story on NPR about the final months in the life of Martin Luther King.

He was understandably exhausted from more than a decade of very important work. He was eating too much, and putting on weight. His marriage was falling apart.

The FBI had it's nose everywhere in his life, he couldn't fart without it being recorded and a report being filed at FBI headquarters.

He was being challenged within his own community by those who didn't have the patience for non-violence resistance. He went to Memphis to lead a demonstration on behalf of garbage workers, and the event was hijacked by violent black activists and high school kids bent on a night of chaos, making him look like yesterday's news.

The Memphis campaign was really a just a last minute sideshow, as real focus was to create another mass demonstration in Washington, a huge shanty town of poor people from all over the country.

He was shifting his focus away from black people specifically, to poor people in general, and this was an unwelcome change among some of his supporters.

Point being, every movement and political figure has their day, and then the moment passes.

Because of James Earl Ray, we never got to see MLK fall. We never saw him go through divorce, get old, get fat, have tax problems, say something stupid somewhere, make appearances on celebrity talk shows, and who knows what else that can befall such a public figure.

James Earl Ray preserved for all time the iconic historic image of MLK at his peak, when he was on top of the mountain, a super human example for generations to come, a truly heroic figure without blemish.

That is who we will always remember, because of James Earl Ray.

Life is rich in irony.

We have a image of MLK which is unblemished by the bad things that might have happened but didn't because he was killed before they could happen. And it was James Earl Ray who killed him.

I don't see any irony.

I thought typist's post was just absurd.

Yes we can discuss whether celebrities live longer in our memory because they died young or whether batman needs the joker or bush needs usama.

None of us here knew MLK. We knew his public image.

The man who took MLK's life, the killer we despise... Is who preserved the pristine public image of MLK we cherish.

An example of what might have happened...

Jesse Jackson was an aide to MLK, and was standing next to MLK when he got shot. Like MLK, Jesse Jackson was an important leader of the civil rights movement.



Jesse Jackson lived on, and his public image has become a bit of a cartoon character over the years. We won't remember the brave young attractive Jesse Jackson, we'll remember the old stuffy semi-pompous blowhard he's become in his later years.

Okay, Typist, it looks to me as if you have created this thread for the purpose of smearing and sneering at the Civil Rights Movement. That has no place here at PhiNow, in my view.

Right, I knew when I started this thread somebody would feel compelled to do the guilt trip political correctness group consensus worship dance thingy etc. So dance on, I don't mind.

Let's use an easier example. My cartoon show career has had many ups and downs. After decades of struggle, at one point for a few years I had a lot of success. This was followed by more struggle.

If James Earl Ray had shot me the day after I sold a company, and made more money in one day than in the entire rest of my life put together, my family would have remembered me as a savvy business man.

But because I didn't die at that moment of success, and instead returned to my normal routines, they will remember me more realistically, as a regular human being who struggled a lot with his career.

Is the point easier to swallow now that I've removed all your politically correct sacred cows?

Another example, which may be easier for the politically correct to swallow.

But you are assuming that that is all he would have achieved in his life. If life goes on there is more of a possibility for greater acts as well as not so great acts. If someone is dead it ends there. You have no way of predicting the future. There is no science behind any of your statements therefore they just seem silly.

I am assuming, true. But not quite that.

I think I'm assuming that it's not likely for any human being to stay in a state of public relations perfection over a long period of time, simply for the reason that we're human, and sooner or later we're gonna screw up.

There's not much possibility any of us, even MLK, are going to get through a full life without eventually doing something that would tarnish the reputation of a saint.



Yes, true, good point. It does seem likely MLK would have achieved more.



Um, please show us the science behind your statements??

Um...I'm a woman...I don need no stinkin science to be right!

I'll use woman logic to make my point:

Life = possibilities

death = zero possibilities

T:I think I'm assuming that it's not likely for any human being to stay in a state of public relations perfection over a long period of time, simply for the reason that we're human, and sooner or later we're gonna screw up.

AS: So then using that logic, should we all have a James Earl Ray in our life to end it before we screw up? Does 1 screw up undo all of the good? I am not getting were you are coming from.

This seems like a discussion in a pub that could be boiled down to:

"MLK was assassinated before he had the chance to do something that would damage his reputation."

"Yeah, it's like we should thank the assassin."

"Makes you think eh?"

"Yeah....Another beer?"


Now, who do we thank for Buddy Holly and James Dean?

Pretend this is a class on public relations, and we are trying to examine a brand in an objective detached manner, as if the brand was say, Campbell's Soup.

The Martin Luther King brand is rated AAA+, the highest rating a brand can get. He's perceived to be a saint. We can see the saint status of this brand in the emotional reactions to this thread. The Martin Luther King brand has achieved saint status for some very good reasons. We all agree on this.

Examining this brand is not really about MLK, it's about us, we are the ones who decide what the brand will be.

Let's return to the example of Jesse Jackson. Jackson stood side by side with King. Jackson did all the same work as King, had the same commitment, took all the same risks, put his life on the line, went to jail like King, etc. Based purely on the merits, the Jackson brand deserves a saint status too.

But we don't think of Jesse Jackson the same way we think of King. Jackson is not seen as a saint. Why is that?

I'm proposing that's because we've had the opportunity to get to know Jackson as a real world human being. We respect Jackson, but don't worship him, because we've had the opportunity to see that he's an imperfect human being just like us.

If this example is too sensitive for some politically correct readers, simply replace MLK with JFK. Same branding process underway there.

Typist, I get what you're saying but I'm not sure what discussion you want to engender from it as your basic conclusion seems fairly straight forward.

I don't know if the disagreement stems from what might seem like you elevating the status of the assassin as though he did MLK a favour by offing him before he got a chance to reveal his weaknesses.

Right, I agree, it's an obvious kind of point. A reflection on sainthood, that's all.

Honestly, the only reason I posted it was I heard an interesting story on NPR about the last few months of MLK's life. He was facing many challenges across the full scope of his life, and it struck me how impossible it would be for anybody, even a saint, to maintain the high level of glorious achievement he reached during the sixties. When one is on the mountain top, there is no where to go but down.

Or, on to heaven...



Yes, it's the nature of my writing style to invite disagreement, I get that. I don't object.

To be more precise, we could say Ray did a favor to King's brand, but obviously not to King himself. I'm sure King would have chosen life over being a saint.

The more interesting question might be, did Ray do us a favor? Because King is seen as a saint, he is an iconic figure whose example will inspire and provide leadership for many succeeding generations. King's impact has been extended far beyond his temporal life, due in part to the fact that his public image is blemish free.

There's a show business phrase that comes to mind here. Always leave them wanting more. John Lennon showed his understanding of this concept when he dissolved the Beatles.

I went to the same high school as the Allman Brothers, and thus am steeped in AB culture. This same thing happened when Duane Allman died in a motorcycle crash. He was lionized, sainted, and we'll always remember him 24 years old, wild, free, and at the peak of his popularity. We never got to see the pot belly that was likely part of his future.

Ha, ha, can't you see Janis Joplin on a celebrity talk show today? She'd likely be fat, loud, rude, drunk and not all that attractive, her voice gone from years of abuse etc.

You know, kinda like me.

BURP!

It seems that you're asking whether it's possible that more good has been created in the world as a result of King's early death than might otherwise have been the case had he lived longer. That may be the case but it's purely speculative as for all we know King could have gone on to become the first black President and the world today could be a very different place. Any number of things could have happened, good and bad.

The act of murdering King is bad though no matter what good may have resulted from it so bad acts should be condemned and saying that James Earl Ray might have done us a favour seems to imply that he did something good when he didn't.