In Clark Johnson’s Boycott, how are boycotters’ trust in King depicted? How does this improve our understanding of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and the Civil Rights Movement?
In Boycott, boycotters and members of the MIA’s trust in King varied. Near the beginning, we see E.D. Nixon’s disapproval of Rufus Lewis’ unexpected nomination of Dr. King. Although this conflict subsides as Nixon sees how powerful of a leader King is, we still see how Nixon represents many of other black boycotters later on in the movie. After his garage burns down, Nixon says, “I don’t doubt [King’s] ability to be a leader. I just don’t know where he’s leading us.” Although Nixon’s opinion seems to contradictory of his approval of King, it shows how he puts a significant amount of trust and commitment onto King, which breeds nervousness and fear in times of danger, such as when his house is being burned. We see this idea of putting trust in the hands of King in Abernathy’s conversation with King after being nominated, with Abernathy saying, “Of course they [think you’re the best man for the job], cause you fail, ain’t they ass in the ringer is it? It’s yours.” This was said towards the beginning of the movement; however, now that King’s followers have already sacrificed so much for the boycott, they are now in the “ringer” and have a stake in the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Also, we see how nonviolence was a topic of disagreement between many boycotters and King. In the previously mentioned interaction with Nixon and King after the garage burning, Nixon grits his teeth while emphasizing how much he wants white people to pay for what they did, and how he and King are different. After King’s arrest, we see crowds gathering in front of King’s house, some with bats and other weapons. Despite this, we see how Nixon and gatherers listened to King and his pleas of nonviolence. The Montgomery Bus Boycott and Civil Rights Movement were a result of discrimination and segregation, prompting many in the black community to want to retaliate. Boycotters’ trust in King, both in the movie and in the actual movements, emphasizes the patience and the endurance that boycotters had to have in order to achieve what they saw as a common goal, despite disagreements on the methods to obtain what they rightfully deserved.
I agree with your analysis of how there were different perspectives among the boycotters on how to achieve the common goal of desegregation. Like you said, one ideology among the boycotters revolved around retaliation and an “eye for an eye” mentality in which violence seemed like the only viable option to achieve justice. E.D. Dixon embodied this ideology. On the other hand, a nonviolent approach to justice, which required great patience, courage, and resilience, characterized many other boycotters, including Dr. King and Bayard Rustin. Overall, I find very insightful the examples you brought up of the different kinds of ideologies present among the boycotters.
The nonviolent approach that King and the boycotters deployed was the most important tactic contributing to their ultimately causing legal change. As the opposition (ex. police department, KKK, etc.) utilized more and more violence as a fear mechanism, King emphasized that he and his followers respond with love because it is simply who they are as individuals. In fact, a great deal of irony is present throughout the film in how African Americans were often portrayed as the issue when in reality, these very people reacted with civility despite the violence committed against them (ex. King’s house being bombed, countless bogus arrests). Additionally, I believe that the unrelenting faith of King and his followers in their religion contributed to their nonviolent strategies. In doing so, King’s responding with love to his political enemies perhaps inspired his followers to do the same.
I agree with the analysis of the community’s trust in King and want to add an additional observation I made of that dynamic. I found that King’s identity as a pastor further propelled the community’s trust in him. With the strong religious trust and faith the black community shared during this time period, I believe King being a “man of the lord” made it easier for people to get accept him as the leader of the movement and follow his lead. To go even further, his first speech to the community occurred in the church – almost as if he was being appointed, not only by man but by God, into his position – further taking advantage of the faith and trust the community already has in the Lord. One could even go as far as comparing Martin and the black community’s dynamic to Jesus and his disciples – where both of these groups were quick to trust in the leader because of their faith in God.
I think a significant part of this film that you touched on was the trust instilled in King during the beginning of the movement. Nowadays, King is portrayed as an infallible leader who faced no criticism, but this movie offers another narrative. King’s leadership focused on the principle of nonviolence and the decision to trust his vision allowed the movement to move along in a unified way. E.D. Nixon’s initial skepticism of Martin Luther King Jr.’s leadership nomination illustrates the diversity of opinions among boycotters. By placing their trust in King, boycotters demonstrated a remarkable commitment to nonviolent resistance, even in the face of adversity and violence. King’s moral authority and grace in situations like being jailed in Birmingham or facing resistance in the Selma March showed his commitment to the cause. As you mentioned, Nixon grinding his teeth while stating how white people should pay for what they did. I think rage is a common reaction to all the injustice African Americans were facing in the segregated South, but MLK’s devotion to nonviolence shows his character and the backbone of the movement. What do you think of the portrayal of Martin Luther King Jr.’s leadership contributing to the effectiveness of the civil rights movement depicted in the film? I think the trust placed in King created a sense of solidarity among boycotters and helped to move the civil rights movement towards achieving its goals. This nonviolence allowed anyone to have their voices heard and did not open the movement to criticism of being a “violent” or “vicious” way of protest.