Point taken, but the article reads a little better 7 years later, IMHO. A comprehensive treatment of African American history might include this murder, though the race and mental issues of the perpetrator lead to a more complex narrative.
I happen to be reading a book on Japanese history now. I agree that US popular conceptions of both history and heck international relations have stadium sized blind spots. I try at least to master my ignorance - to identify what areas I know little or nothing about.
The authorâs ignorance of history is nobodyâs fault but his own. Kingâs motherâs murder was not a political assassination; so dishonest to imply that it was. It was just another black-on-black crime. This article is beneath TPM standards.
I see. So, if Jacqueline Kennedy had been shot to death a few years after JFK, it wouldnât be âhistoryâ, because she, as a woman, had âno historical significanceâ? The news media would have listed it on the Obit page, or not at all? (It would definitely have gone unremarked by the NYTâŚ)
You are purposefully misinterpreting his words to make your point. It would be history, just as Jackueline Kennedyâs death was history when it occurred after a long life and a second, happier, marriage. But it wouldnât be historical, in the sense that JFKâs assassination was a pivotal moment in Americaâs history, not just his own or his familyâs history. Princess Dianaâs death was no, more or less history than jacqueline, but it was more historically significant in Britain due to her long mistreatment by the British press and that institutions willingness to pay for photoâs of her at obvious risk to her own safety. It was revealing of 2 important institutions, the press and the monarchy.
If she had died in a random traffic accident, it would have been less of a historical event, though no less tragic for her children, and other loved ones, as well as many Britians. No less that MLKâs motherâs death was probably a well known tragedy at the time in many black families (and probably some white families as well) but did not have the historical resonance that would lead us to teach it in schoolâs today.
The authorâs overall point about women often being missing from history is completely accurate, but his primary example was was deeply misleading, and frankly partially derailed a discussion on an important subject. But heck, he got more clicks.
While I respect your desire for more substance in articles and I am not a subject matter expert on this topic, it does seem to me that âassassinationâ is the correct label for this. She was targeted as a Christian leader and murdered while acting in that role. Yitzhak Rabinâs murderer was mentally ill as well, and we could probably name many other assassins with severe mental health issues (Sirhan Sirhan, for example). I love TPM and while I would like to see more depth in some articles, there are notable deep dives that are done within the site.
This article could have been better written, but the authorâs main point is that Black history has neglected Black womenâs roles in that history, just as nearly all other types of history have failed to note females in vital roles. The author also chose to make his point by giving examples of his own experience of education about Black history and how easy it was to think he was being educated about Black history even though women were seldom mentioned. I certainly came away from the article thinking more about how I could expand my awareness beyond the surface of the things I read. And truthfully, your comments have also been informative â I will read more critically in the future, noting the degree to which authors/editors provide background and other details about their stories.
Mr. Squire uses the word assassinated in his lead paragraph.
I think itâs a poor word choice: martyrdom more closely fits the circumstances than assassination, but thatâs my opinion. The authorâs free to have his opinion, but I think he owes it to the reader to explain how her death was a political murder.
But I think the lead paragraph is being used as a springboard (speaking for the author now: "I know something about Black history. How in the hell do I not know this? What else donât I know?) into the articleâs real thesis, which is that standard tales of Black history (like standard tales of history generally) tend to ignore women. The rare exceptions that forced themselves into the books (Harriet Tubman among Black women, Queen Victoria [not the first Queen Regnant of England/UK: that would be Mary Tudor], Jeanne dâArc, Marie Curie [compare Rosalind Franklin, who produced and interpreted the X-ray crystallographic images that showed DNA has a double helical structure but didnât get a Nobel for it] etc.) merely prove the rule.
Thatâs how the title should have read. But, woulda, shoulda, couldaâŚ
Thank you, Goldspinner, for that review of Mother Kingâs story!
I kept thinking that this history of the King family could be so well told, in its broad sweep, from Alberta Williamsâ point of view. It has a range of emotions through which to engage with its message, hope, joy, tragedy. And the political and social issues and questions it raises are layered and relevant: who gets amplified, who gets silenced.
Musically, the longer span of time covered by the story offers a wealth of styles from which to gain inspiration and to which a composer could give reference.
Mr. Squire, you may not have meant this as an elevator pitch, but if you are looking for an idea that attracts broad interest, I would say this one does! For a composer and librettist it would be a big challenge, but well worth it for just the reasons youâve begun to express in this essay for TPM.
(Wow! Just thinking about it gets me imagining some of the choruses full of controversy and counterpointâjust reading the comments here!âor a septet of sisterhood⌠Damn! I better stop! But really: Do it!)
