Two Blunders on The King Monument?
Newer Post Older Post
show comments
  • Corlyss

    “Someone, somewhere along the line, made a decision that makes King look like something he was not: an arrogant jerk.”

    Wow! You ain’t kiddin’! I saw the monstrosity on the news the other night. Setting aside my strong opposition to the explosion of fatuous massive memorials for usually humble people (like the WW2 and Korean War vets) for the moment, I think the MLK monument is unspeakably bad. It looks like a cross between some African tyrant’s narcisstic stone paean to himself and Rodin’s Balzac. The hat tip to Rodin is not poetic or serious. It possesses all the subtle gravity of statues to Mao and Stalin and Saddam and Mubarak. It’s hard to believe that anyone in the King family had anything to do with it.

    The unfortunate fact is because of who it is, it will never be edged off to reside in obsurity in some remote, tangentially related national park, out of embarrassing sight, preferably covered with a tarp. Nope. It will perch there until Time wears it down.

  • Anthony

    I heard Lei Yixin (sculptor of memorial) explain via interpreter his creation of MLK on Mall; made sense to me. By virtue of the immense moral authority vested in Martin Luther King in 1950s, he boasted a mandate possessed by no other black spokesman in twentieth century. From 1955 through 1965, MLK molded a leadership philosophy premised on moral indignation – segregation deserving of it. From 1955 to 1968, MLK’s persona hovered over and above the clamorous black American secular protest for equality.

    Dr. King as a southerner knew segregation was more than just a matter of the oppression of an inferior race by a superior race; more than merely a violation of constitutional precepts; more than just the continued imposition of an inferior caste status on a minority. MLK practiced Satyagraha and focused the nation’s attention on it’s American Dilemma and as a result our nation evolved.

    The memorial while physical(and controversial for some) in abstraction represents an American ethos.

  • Kenny

    “[But] King is not the source of that quote…Theodore Parker, a long-gone Bostonian abolitionist and Unitarian minister, is the true author.”

    Rather appropriate, don’t you think, Mr. Mead, given MLK’s history of plagiarism?

  • Corlyss

    @ Anthony
    “The memorial while physical(and controversial for some) in abstraction represents an American ethos.”

    Oy! A repugnant sentiment at best.

    You don’t think it just a tad odd, if not savagely and cynically ironic, that the Foundation, the King family friends, and other underwriters should turn in the end to an “artist” endorsed by the PLA in the eagerly tyrannical China to represent a universal symbol of freedom and civil rights? I wondered if it was some of Obama’s outreach program, to convince the Gangs in Shanghai and Beijing that we weren’t going to bother with all that silly civil rights nonsense we used to hammer them with.

  • Anthony

    @4, I don’t view “all” ocurrences through ideological lens;I try hard to make significant distinctions, to analyze, compare, reflect and consider points of view without tendentiousness (certainly avoiding sentimentalism). To quote WRM: “end of thread.”

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.