When They Call You a Terrorist: a Black Lives Matter Memoir by Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Asha Bandele is an eloquent and just outcry against injustice. It also reflects a world and a way of thinking that I’m not comfortable with.
A few months ago I learned a new phrase—”liquid modernity.” The idea is that we no longer live in a world of fixed structures—political, economic, social and moral—that we can either cling to or fight against. Everything is fluid and ever-changing, and individuals have to continually reinvent themselves and start anew.
I can best explain what I mean by comparing and contrasting Patrisse Cullors today and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 50 years ago.
I make the comparison not to rank them or nor to denigrate Cullors. She has overcome difficulties I can barely imagine and accomplished orders of magnitude more in 30-some years I have in 80-some. The comparison is to show how thinking about justice and society has changed in 50 years.
Black Lives Matter and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference are not opposites. They both engaged in non-violent protest in order to bring about social justice. Although most Americans now venerate Dr. King, it is through a golden haze of amnesia that makes us forget he and his movement were as controversial and as hated in their day as Black Lives Matter is today.
The SCLC was tightly organized and highly disciplined. Dr. King was highly protective of its image. People who wanted to participate in SCLC protests had to submit to training in the discipline of non-violence and provide assurance that they would not do anything to harm the cause.
Although Dr. King had a low opinion of the average white American’s sense of justice, he was concerned about white public opinion and sought out white allies, including journalists, labor leaders and Christian and Jewish clergy.
Which is not to say he was subservient to white opinion. His opposition to the Vietnam War, while justified in the light of history, cost him the support of President Johnson and many white allies.
Black Lives Matter is loosely organized. In its early days, it consisted of people following a meme on Twitter and Facebook, and there was confusion as to who had a right to speak for Black Lives Matter and who didn’t. It’s now a more formal organization with authorized chapters. I’m not familiar with its inner structure, but my impression is that it still is not highly centralized.
This has advantages, of course. Individuals and local chapters are able to act on their own initiative without getting permission from a central governing body.
Black Lives Matter does not rely on the mainstream press to get the word out. Communication is by means of social media, which did not exist in Dr. King’s time.
Nor do Black Lives Matter leaders frame their statements or their actions with an eye to what white people think of them. Its emphasis is on solidarity among black people, whether male or female, native-born or immigrant, straight or LGBTQ, and unity in pressing their case.