White supremacy does many things but I doubt it turns pacifist preachers into philandering patriarchs. Men cheat because of desire and opportunity. Unfortunately, Dyson writes just like he speaks so if your not a fan of his style, read every third word and not get too upset over his defense of King even in situations when King is indefensible. ( )

I will try to keep this review brief, as the one below is quite good.

But I do want to say that this book confused the heck out of me. I read it out of a want to learn more about the legend of Martin Luther King and the information was indeed quite revealing, but not as balanced as I would have liked

I have always heard how amazing MLK was, so imagine my surprise that this book would reveal a side of MLK that is undeniably sexist and authoritarian (sorry, I know MLK is untouchable to many...) The book left me feeling those things far more than the positive characteristics of compassion that most know of, his understanding of the connection between racism, poverty, and the military-industrial complex and of his accompanying devotion to fight those evils.

It is tragic that Martin passed away before he could make the next 2 connections in theory and action (those would be feminism and anti-authoritarianism). But this book doesn't focus enough on Martin's positive influence, of his amazing capacity for practicing what he preached. There are plenty of theorists out there that were leaps and bounds ahead of Martin in theory, but what separated Martin from the rest were his actions that followed his beliefs. Martin reached that fine line between theory and practice (praxis), even if his theory wasn't honed completely. Michael should have tried harder to leave the reader feeling deep down that Martin was amazing in his actions, despite his theoretical flaws.
I actually left the book thinking less of Martin and of of the merits of religion....which was not my intention, and which is exactly the opposite of what I think Michael was intending. However, kudos to Michael for honesty. ( )

Michael Eric Dyson intends to reveal the "real" Martin Luther King, Jr., whom he posits was a much more radical figure than he is currently remembered as being. To what extent he has succeeded, and to what extent his argument is colored by his own politics, I am really not competent to say. One great strength of Dyson's approach is that he understands that communication occurs in a context. So often, I read biographers who examine their subjects' statements as if they were all the result of intensive self-scrutiny, delivered under oath. In fact, without necessarily being dishonest, communication is shaped by its purpose: persuasive people address the audience's concerns, rather than merely expressing their own. Dyson often analyzes King's statements with regard to the intended audience.

I found the book thought-provoking, but somewhat uneven; sometimes I was gripped, other material could only have improved the book by being dropped. Chapter Five, on Black Power, is somewhat vacuous. I was left with the feeling that Black nationalism is an idea that Dyson swears loyalty as proof that he is "authentic," but has little concrete meaning. The contention by Dyson's colleague that begins the chapter, and his response, bears out the suspicion that academics strive to prove the first Grand Duke of Fenwick's contention that yes can be turned into no if one just talks long enough. Personally, I have always thought that Plato, with his Ideals, was the one sitting in a cave looking at shadows, and this is all too abstract for me. I don't really accept Dyson's assumption that freeing Blacks from the ghetto or enhancing Black self-esteem is inconsistent with integration or that Clarence Thomas is the model of an integrated African-American, especially at this stage, let alone that it is King and not George Bush who put him on the Supreme Court. Even if this were a color-blind society, which it is not, all Blacks would be unlikely to all be like Thomas. Dyson holds up the still severely segregated school system as an example of how integration may have cost African-Americans more than they gained "Segregated schools provided a culture of expectation in which black students were taught that they could perform well," and then says, "Studies show that black students in integrated schools complete more years of schooling ... and make higher wages than their segregated peers." The latter sounds more like integration, unfortunately, failed to be successfully enacted, not that it was a bad idea. Worse, the idea of Black Power remains rather nebulous: what does it mean to Dyson, and more to the point, what did it mean to King? If Dyson means this book for non-Black people, he may need to explain more. Dyson's only good point in the chapter is that the Black church, from which King drew so much strength, is the greatest Black institution that has ever existed.

Dyson's later psychobabble (chapter 8) about what King's adulteries meant to him strikes me as equally empty. Personally, I don't have heroes: there are people that I admire for particular accomplishments and traits. I could admire no-one and nothing if I held out for perfection, and I'd have no friends if they were waiting for me to be perfect. So I agree emphatically with Dyson that King's personal misconduct does not negate his enormous public accomplishments. I wish that he had left it at that.

Dyson also takes the opportunity to go off on a tangent about Hip Hop (chapter 9). He compiles a long list of similarities between King and Tupac Shakur, but many of them do not rise much above the fact that they were both men and both black, while others involve traits that King considered to be his flaws. As Dyson has repeatedly warned us not to be overly reverential, he might ask whether he elevates Shakur or denigrates King. At several points, Dyson acknowledges the significant point that the difference is that King regretted his less admirable traits and the Hip Hop artists seem to celebrate them, but then he ignores that insight for most of the chapter. The best he seems to be able to come up with is to argue that Hip Hop artists are also angry, but it is what King did with his anger that made him great.

I also wonder about how fair Dyson was to the King family (chapter 12). He mentions in the middle of the chapter that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was insensitive to the needs of a family with modest means suddenly bereft of its breadwinner. Her attempts to profit by King's legacy are not systematically reviewed in light of her need to support a family, let alone found the King Center. King's failure to provide for his family in the event of an early death that he was sure was coming may be seen as a failing to equal his marital infidelities. Dyson is a bit vague about the King famly's track record as activists, especially Coretta King, which would give them a bit more moral standing. Still, Dyson raises some very good points about the difference between inheriting copyright and inheriting moral standing. I found this to be one of the most interesting chapters.

Praise, unfortunately, always seems to be briefer than criticism; this is a book worth reading for those contemplating the legacy of King and remembering the distance that we still have to go. Be sure to read the notes, as they often contain a great deal of information, and can be very interesting. The book includes a bibliography and index. ( )