Black Journal; 57; An Evaluation of Martin Luther King. Part 1

Grammys from WNET Thirteen. [music playing in background] [Tony Brown]: It is a frequently held notion that a great man cannot be judged accurately during his lifetime. It is only after his death that his contributions can be evaluated in the context of history. Although loved by millions, Martin Luther King was also a very controversial figure, both to blacks

who did not share his integrationist philosophy and to many whites who saw him as an immediate danger. We've asked three leading black journalists to reflect on the life and death of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. They are Gerald Fraser, a New York Times reporter who frequently wrote articles on King while he was alive and interviewed King his last day in New York. Chester Higgins, a veteran journalist, a senior editor at Jet magazine and a former editor of The Detroit Courier. Peter Bailey is an associate editor of Ebony magazine and closely followed the career of Martin Luther King when he was alive. Brother Fraser. [Gerald Fraser]: Well, uh, I believe that it's my personal feeling that, uh, that King died or was killed at the right time. Uhm, that, uh, the black people of the United States learned, uh, a good deal more about being black in the United States as a result of

his death than they did learn from him, uhm, while he was alive. And especially they learned this, uh, in the because of the manner of his death. Uh, his assassination really exposed the, uh, American system, uh, a system which incidentally hasn't even been able to satisfy, I guess, mine as, as well as other people's, uh, questions about how King died and who actually killed him. Uhm, I think that I, I, uh, [clears throat] I guess I sort of watched him first like other newspaper readers did from '55 on with the Montgomery boycott and then followed him, uh, closer as a journalist later on. And, uh, over those, I guess, 13 years or so, I changed my mind about King. Uh, I got to, I would say, I got to like him more and, uh, to appreciate what he was doing and, and not to be, uh, turned off by

some of the things that he, the little things that he pulled, like the, being at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in, in Selma, Alabama, and leading the folks out there one Sunday, and then kneeling down to pray, and then going back, you know, uh, which, which as was prearranged with the, uh, government authorities, uh, when people thought they were going to start marching to Montgomery. Uhm, some of these, uh, uh, I got to think that King knew where he was going and he was trying to, you know, take me with him. And I was willing to go I guess at the end, uh, at his end. And, uh, [clears throat] I certainly admired his rhetoric. Uhm, I, I didn't understand it all. He used to say things like, uh, "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." And all these ladies in the Baptist church would applaud, and I would wonder what I had missed. I, I guess I did miss something, in that. But, uh, King, he could still reach me,

and, uh, he did obviously. And, uhm, I think that today I understand a good deal more of what's, uh, what happened over the years because of King. And, uh, [clears throat] I suppose that had he lived he could have made even greater contributions, but I don't even dwell with that. I think I look at him for the contribution that he did make. [Host]: Brother Higgin. [Chester Higgins]: Uhm, Martin Luther King's murder, in my opinion, uh, dealt blacks an irrepressible, I mean, irreparable loss. Uh, he was a charismatic leader. He, uh, was a person who could inspire and, uhm, to uplift masses of people with his, uh, rhetoric. Uh, he was a man who, uh, in my opinion, more than any other black man or white man for that matter in the last, uh, 20 years or more, uh, inspired masses of people to, to, to, to, to, uh, mobilize and organize and fight for their rights. Uhm, I'm not very much of a religious person myself. And, uh, at first I was

as, as a newsman I was, uh, more or less tempted to look down upon King's, uh, Baptist fervor, his, uh, his talk about God, and nonviolence, and all that sort of thing. But as I came to know him more, especially in 1960s, uh, during the turbulent 1960s, I became more and more impressed with this man. Personally, I, uh, met King, and I talked with him, I followed him around all over the country in fact. And I got to know him in, in a very intimate way. And, uhm, I can say I believe that he's one of the most honest and one of the most de, was one of the most dedicated men that I had have ever met. His nonviolent principles, I think, sprang from a very honest core. Uh, he thought that blacks had a tactical need, uh, to, uh, as well as a spiritual, uh, need to, uh, do this. He felt that blacks tactically, uh, lacked numbers and firepower to win in violent confrontation with whites.

And more than that, he felt it was wrong. He, he felt it was wrong, morally wrong, you know, to use immoral, uh, means to, uh, reach a moral end. He felt that, uh, through, that, that man, that man struggling for his freedom and that sort of thing in a nonviolent way, uh, could through his suffering, I mean, uh, redeem himself and his oppressor. Uh, he's, he felt that if we, if we use the same, uh, the same means to get our freedom that, uh, that the oppressor uses to keep us down that, uh, this would, uh, only merely reinstate the old, ugly order of things if we won. We'd have the same kind of person, you know, in, in the saddle. He said nonviolence is sought not only to, uh, to, uh, free the oppressed, but also to free the oppressor. That, uh, if a man really, if a man really, uh, wanted his freedom and really wanted to work for something better in life, you

know, that he must do that, must do the, must do the thing that he's doing in a very, uh, you know, concrete way. On top of that, I think King was, uh, one of the first black leaders to articulate, uh, opposition to the Vietnamese War and to relate that war to the whole struggle for black people. Uh, this was the thing he was vilified for, and in many instances even some present day Negro leaders, I won't call their names, uh, uh, came out and condemned him for, for, for taking a stand against the Vietnamese War and, uh, calling it an immoral war and urging and saying that black people were, uh, definitely affected by this particular thing. Uh, all in all I think that we have lost in King, in King's death, I think black people and and white people, too, have lost a very inspiring leader. There's no one who has come along and stepped into the vacuum. No one has come along and, and has done or inspired people the way that King has done or had done. and I think

that, uh, in the future unless we do develop a person of, of this kind of stature, a man with this kind of vision, a man with this kind of belief, and deep down, a, a drive that we're going to be in trouble in this country. [Brown]: Brother Bailey. [Peter Bailey]: Uh, I've, uh, first heard of Martin Luther king in 1956, uh, when I was a teenager. I grew up in Tuskagee Ala, Institute of Alabama. And when the Montgomery bus boycott started in 1956, I was a teenager. And I more or less always followed his career very closely, you know, all up until he was assassinated. Uh, and I use the term assassinated all the time when I talk about, uh, Martin Luther King and, uh, Brother Malcolm X, uh, whom I was a devoted follower of, because when you say assassinated right away it goes into a political context. When you say murdered, you know, could have, you know, could have been anything. When you say killed, it could have been anything. So I make sure I always use the word assassinated, so the, the listeners will know right away that you put it into a political context, uh, because I think his assassination was a political act. Uhm,

Martin Luther King, uh, I feel, you know, was a, was a man who understood the Southern black man, and I like to make that very clear, because I don't think he ever was able to really understand what happened in the urban areas of the North, the black man of the urban North. I really don't think he, he was very good at understanding what made this man tick and how to deal with him. But he did understand the Southern black man. And I think that, uh, uh, what I initially heard of his, uh, you know, his, his philosophy, his nonviolent philosophy, of course you know, I was violently opposed to it and I still don't think it was, you know, was the correct one. But I feel that, uh, you know, as you, you know, you grow old and you begin to see things, you can understand, uh, why he did this and you can believe that he sincerely believed that this was, you know, the, the best role for black people to take. I think that, uh, uh, uh, Martin Luther King was assassinated finally, because he was beginning to, to realize what he was up against.

And I think before he could take this belief into its logical conclusions, he was assassinated. Uh, I would like to very quickly read a quote, uh, from a book, uh, "The King God Didn't Save" by John Williams about Martin Luther King in which he said: "Black men who deal in foreign policy for what, whatsoever reasons are not well liked either at home or abroad. One thinks back to men like William Monroe Trotter, W. E. B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X. They're faced with the dis, distressingly similar, perhaps suspiciously similar exile as accidental death, assassination." And I think, uh, what happened with Martin Luther King as what happened with Brother Malcolm and what happend with other black leaders is that in the United States of America a black man can stand on 125th street to use it as a symbol of, you know, in a black community and call the president or, or the attorney general or anyone he wants to any names he want to 24 hours a day, you know. And although he will be watched closely, I don't think too much will happen to him. But when he begins to go

abroad, he becomes an international figure, he becomes a factor in American foreign policy. Uh, then that man is, you know, is getting very close to, to, to signing his death warrant. He, uh, when he does this he had better be very, very careful and have all of his, you know, his things together, because he's getting into a very dangerous area and all you have to do is, you know like, check, uh, the quote, and you will see what happened to men who do this. And I think that when Martin Luther King made a speech called, uh, "Time To Break the Silence on the Vietnam War," uh, that was the beginning of the end for him; because he, he definitely because of his stature as a Nobel Peace, Peace Prize winner, uh, and as a member, you know, as a pacifist, uh, became a factor, you know, in the American foreign policy in Vietnam at a time, uh, uh, when, you know, when it was at its height, you know, when there was no, no, the peace movement was still like really getting started, and King became a very strong factor in this. And I think from the time he made that speech, when he more or less was like declaring himself and getting involved in America's international situation just as

Brother Malcolm did when he traveled in Africa. Uh, that was the beginning of the end. And, uh, I think the end was his assassination. And like Brother Malcolm's assassination, I do not for one second and have not for one second believed the official, uh, uh, account of either one of those assassinations. I think that Martin Luther King [clears throat], uh, was assassinated because he was becoming a factor, you know, in, in the international politics, uh, of the United States. And when a black man does this, he really is for all practical purposes, you know, putting himself into a real bind. And I think that's what happened with Martin Luther King. And, and, uh, that's why he was assassinated in Memphis. [Higgins]: Mr. Brown, I'd like to, uh, take issue with one thing that Mr. Bailey said here in terms of Dr. King not understanding very well the, uh, the character and psyche of the Southern black man, but not understanding too well the, uh, the same things,uh, that occur with the, uh, Northern black man. Uh,

I think in his, uh, "Why We Can't Wait" book that was written I think it was in 1964 or something like that, his own autobiographical thing. Or no, I think it was Lerone Bennett who wrote it in his book, uh, called, uh, "What Manner of Man", Johnson Publishing Company in 1964 or thereabout. Uh, had a very lengthy talks with King before in the preparation of his book, and he was talking to King in terms uh, of, uh, well you know, about King's assessment of the overall mood as, as it relates to, uh, to black people. And, uh, Bennett said that King was aware, you know, of Northern bias. That, uh, that it was subtle, you know. But the terrors in it were equally in many instances as great as that in the South. Uh, more than that, as a personal sort of thing, I know that King understood universal suffering, universal, uh, desire to be equal and to be free.

And he talked about this. This was a recurring theme in all of his conversations, uh, about the universal man, you know, wherever he was situated, whether he was in the Harlem of, uh, of New York or sitting on a, a wooden step down in Birmingham, Alabama in the slums. That this black man, you know, had, had the same feeling; that the same emotional thread from New York stretched to Birmingham. And they both had the same needs, and both, both would be amenable to the same kinds of approach. [Bailey]: Well I'm not saying that when I say that I'm, I'm not saying that, that Martin Luther King did not understand that there was also great prejudice in the North. What I'm saying is that Martin Luther King's basic philosophy and appeal, uh, never reached into the urban, you know, the urban areas, you know, the large urban cities, that he never had a mass following there. And I think it was because, you know, his, his basic philosophy, which was the, you know, the, the very religious nonviolent approach just could note penetrate into, you know, the urban black communities. Now I think for instance that

Brother Malcolm did know how to reach, you know, the urban black communities and probably would have, although we would never know because he didn't get a chance to do much traveling in the South. He might have had a more difficult time penetrating into the, you know, into the Southern, you know, the Southern areas, not because the, uh, both black people North and South do not, you know, are not on the same amount, the same understanding about oppression, but because of the different, uhm, environments out of which they operate. King's approach was most effective, you know, among, among the Southern black people. And, uh, I'm not saying that he did not understand, you know, that there was bias in the North. But I'm just saying that his appeal, which was the, you know, the, the nonviolent approach, uh, was not able to penetrate, and black people in the North as a general rule did not accept this philosophy. [Brown]: What in anybody's opinion do you feel would have been King's role had he lived, let's say, in present day, under present day circumstances? [Higgins]: I, uh, my own personal feeling is that King would have gone if he had lived another fifty years, I think he would have stayed stuck with his, uh, nonviolent approach to, to, uh, civil

disobedience, to the whole black fight for liberation. I think he would have stuck with that, because he told me, uh, once at, in Lorraine Motel, you know, about a year or so before he was killed there that, uh, he could understand, you know, the drive that, or the passions that made black men want to separate, you know, and to be done with this whole, uh, white society. He understood the hopelessness, you know, and the cynicism that sets in and all that sort of thing. But he felt that, that if mankind or if our country was ever to, to, to, to, uh, to succeed and ever, ever to, uh, become a viable place for, where all, all men could aspire to, to, to, uh, greatness that, uh, the nonviolent approach to our whole problems would have to be, uh, dealt with. Otherwise, I mean, we would be just instituting one, you know, tearing down one oppressive, uh, and brutal sort of situation for another and instituting another. I felt that he would've done that. And I think that he would have, uh, gathered more and more adherents

to as you go, as he went along. For a period of time, like now in this particular period where blacks feel a real need to, to separate themselves, a real, uh, feeling that despair, that the whole thing is not worth it, you know, and there's no point in, in our trying to stand to this burning house, you know, integrate into a burning house. But I think, uh, once this feeling is out of the way, once we, uh, the blacks get together and, uh, can solidify themselves and to, to assuage their hurts and to make themselves feel, uh, like they do have some worth, you know, this whole thing will be turned around and that there will be a move toward it. [Brown]: Well in, in your opinion what, what is the, uhm, practicality of the integrationist philosophy? [Bailey]: I think that, you know, to answer the other question, uh, Mr. Brown, I would like to say that I think that if Martin Luther King had lived he would have had to, you know, to go back and to and forget about talking about America's foreign policy.

The minute he did that, if, to live, he would have to do that. Because not only was his, you know, was, he was, a lot of his funds began to get, you know, cut off and everything else. So, you know, he would have been, if he had lived, I think he would have been, you know, just another, you know, he would have been along the stature of the, you know, of some of the men who are still alive and acting as leaders. Because there's no way that you, that you could get involved in America's foreign policy at the rate he was doing, with his, with his whole position on the Vietnam War and be black and be, and live. He would have had to compromise and stop, you know, just get out of that area. [Brown]:You raise an interesting point. [Bailey]: Altogether. [Brown]: Then what about quality of present day black leadership? [Bailey]: But I'm not going to, you know, I don't, you know, very much you can say about that. But all I know is that you don't find too many of them doing very much talk about, you know, America's foreign policy... [Higgins talking over Bailey]: Well, I, I would say, I, I would say that, uh... [Bailey]: if they are, uh, supporting it, because you know it's, uh, it's just a very dangerous thing. And, and the, the leaders of that stature who want to be around for a while just don't say too much about it. [Higgins]: Well I can say this, I, I think that, uh, King is, King was a very fearless person in, in, in, uh, in taking the tack that he did in attacking, uh, the, uh,

Vietnamese, uh, War. And, uh, that any black leader today that doesn't address himself to, to, to, to the ills that, uh, you know, that foment. We, we, that we, uh, you know, send our soldiers to suppress other people, and if we don't deal, if these leaders don't deal with this kind of situation then they're doing our people an injustice, you know. [Brown]: Next week Black Journal will present part 2, an evaluation of Martin Luther King, dealing with the specifics in John Williams' book "The King that God Didn't Save." [music playing] [Brown]: The National Black Political Convention raised a very important issue in communications. In the, uh, national black political agenda, it had a segment on communications and how it affects the black community, which has been quite popular recently as a topic. With me in the studio is Paul Delaney

of The New York Times, who will discuss with me the implication of communications to blacks and the implication politically and how the recent convention was reported. Paul, what do you feel in general was the tone, the manner in which the convention was reported by the press? [Paul Delaney]: I think, uh, the tone of the, the coverage by the press was unfortunate, unfortunately bad. Uhm. Outside of the 1963 demonstration March on Washington, I think this event attracted more press people than any other black event. Uh, and significantly, it, it attracted a good percentage of, of black reporters, probably, uh, uh, a majority that were 400 press people registered and maybe half of them working press. So, so you had at least 100, 125 black reporters there. And, uh, I think, uh, it was significant

that, uh, this number of black reporters, mostly young I might add, were, were covering this event. [Brown]: I, uh, remember many conversations in the press room among blacks who were rather irritated with one black print reporter, uh, in general. And I also recall, uh, one of the network's analysis, or not analysis really, but, uh, reports of the convention. And each of the TV reports ended up, uh, with a, uh, with a scene in which an observer, a black observer was saying that the convention, uhm, had run a train [clearing of throat in background] but he wouldn't mention who the conductor was and things of this nature. Obviously, the, uh, intention of the way the film was edited was to have made the convention seem as though it were bankrupt. Unfortunately, the correspondent was a black correspondent for that network. This raises, uh, an issue that Sam Yette has raised frequently. And that is, uh, particularly a few weeks ago at the Howard University communicate, black communicators conference, that in, in

essence Sam Yette feels that all blacks who work for white media are advertently or inadvertently spies, because their notes and resources that they gather in the name of their blackness and acceptability can be, uh, subpoenaed or whatever. What do you feel about that? [Delaney]: I, I question the use of, of spies, uhm, frankly and in deference to the Earl Caldwell case, where there was an attempt made on, made to subpoena his notes, uh, eh, well in the form of him appearing behind closed doors. Uh, I don't think I'd go as far to say that black reporters are used as spies or anything. I think, uh, I think our notes, uh, I think we're dealing in communications and what we do is pretty open anyway. Uh, they're very few secret things that reporters do at least when we are investigating, uh, uh, stories. Uh, it'll eventually appear, the story will eventually appear in print. Now if some of our notes, uh, some of our sources, uh, are

confidential, of course, but, uh, I don't think, we're, as reporters, we're dealing in any kind of, of secret information that, uh, we can go to the black community and get and turn into the authorities that the authorities couldn't get from the regular FBI or whatever police agencies. [Brown]: Paul, you are a black person who works for a very large, prestigious paper, The New York Times. How do you feel, uh, how do you operate when you turn your story into an editor? How do the black reporters operate? What ends up in the, in print? How does that process work? [Delaney]: It's a, it's a long process, especially on The Times, being a, a big paper. And it's, uh, it's not as lengthy on other papers. But a reporter goes out and, and gathers the facts. He puts, uh, the facts in, in words. In many cases, depending on the personality of the paper, he puts it in, uh, words that, that, uh, indicate this personality of the paper. The Times is one personality. The Washington Post is another one. The Washington Star is another one. But once you do this the

news, the story is turned over to editors. Uh, there I think in some cases the reporter can lose touch with his story. Uh, and in most cases most good reporters will not let that happen. [Brown]: Well, in the, uh, reporting specifically on the, uh, black convention, uh, in the Chicago papers, Angela Parker, who was black, was consistently negative in her view of the convention. Lou Palmer in another Chicago paper, who was black, uh, was consistently, I would say, uh, objective in, uh, his reporting. Uh, his, he said the same thing in his story that she said in hers, but the perspective was different. For an example, on Saturday, which was the second day of the convention, her lead was that the NAACP was threatening to boycott because of unacceptable, uh, resolutions. His lead was that blacks were debating the goals, which was in my estimation rather objective. So I really believe that, uh, there are really two roles that a black person can play, you know, in

the white press. [Delaney, at first talking over Brown]: I think, I think that example, uh, too, Tony, is uh, is significant. That is, uh, Angela Parker is with The Chicago Tribune, Lou Palmer is with The Chicago Daily News. There is a vast difference in the, in the way these two papers look and cover the black community. Chicago Tribune is very conservative. Uh, Chi, Chicago Daily News is, is, is not as conservative. And, uh, uh, I don't know, I personally don't know, uh, whether Angela was responsible for her copy after she called it in, indeed if that was her copy. If, uh, and if so, how much control she had over it after it left her, how much, uh, pressure the editors to put on her to, to certainly, uh... [Brown]: Let me ask you about your article. [Delaney]: Yes. [Brown]: You did a profile on, uh, March 13 of Imamu Baraka; on the head, uh, called him a conciliator at black parley. I was, I must admit that my first reaction to that was that, uh, you and perhaps The Times was attempting to paint Imamu Baraka as a moderate. Uh, there's a statement somewhere in

here that, uh, he was now being separated from the ultranationalists. Just give me succinctly what you were trying to say in that profile. [Delaney]: I was trying to say, and if it, if it didn't say that, I, I disclaim the headline; I don't write headlines. [laughter] But, uh, I was simply trying to say that uh, uh, Baraka has, uh, changed his tactic. He has not lost any of his nationalism, any of his nationalistic fervor. I think he still, he is very, uh, the most, uh, well his integrity cannot be questioned, and I certainly did not question it. But I think he's, he's changed his tactics, uh, to, to working, uh, with the system as it is now; and he's, I think, trying to convince, uh, some of his nationalist brothers to do the same thing, that let's do it this way for a change fellas. [Brown]: Paul, I'd like to say that, uhm, I think particularly Tom Johnson's reporting from, from The Times and your profile were very, uh, helpful and very instructive to black and white people as to a true perspective. And I'd like to thank you very much for joining us on Black Journal. [Delaney]: Thank you. [Brown]: Next week, uh, we're going

to have part 2 of an evaluation of Martin Luther King. [music playing] [music playing] [end of show chimes] [end of show chimes fade out]