What Makes a Political Martyr? The Cultural and Political Deification of Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Undergraduate Research Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for graduation with “Honors Research Distinction” in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University

By Adam Levine

The Ohio State University May 2017

Project Advisor: Professor Hassan Kwame-Jeffries, Department of History Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my parents for their unconditional support of my pursuit of a liberal arts degree and for putting up with me complaining about my thesis. I would like to thank all of the teachers I have had from CJDS to Ohio State who only yelled at me after the fifth time to stop asking questions. Lastly, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr.

Jeffries, for working with me on this project, answering my questions and giving me advice as a mentor and a teacher.

2 Table of Contents

0. Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………… 4 1. Topic Choice ………………………………………………………………...………...5 2. Structure ……………………………………………………………………………... 6 3. Jesus ………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 i. Fact or Fiction …………………………………………………………………. 8 ii. The Apostles ………………………………………………………………….. 9 iii. Jesus’ Relationship with his Contemporaries ………………………………. 12 iv. Ready to Die …………………………………………………………………15 v. Life After Death ……………………………………………………………... 17 vi. The Spread of Christianity ………………………………………………….. 19 vii. Jesus Conclusion …………………………………………………………… 22 4. Dr. Martin Luther King …………………………………………………………… 25 i. Beginnings, Montgomery Bus Boycott and Fame …………………………… 26 ii. Voting Rights, Letter from Birmingham Jail, The March on Washington and Response ………………………………………………………………………...29 iii. Chicago, The Tail End and Assassination …………………………………...34 iv. The Holiday ………………………………………………………………… 41 v. MLK Conclusion ……………………………………………………………. 44 5. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………...45 6. Works Cited ...... 48

3

0. Abstract

In the western world, Jesus stands alone as a deified persona. Today he is seen as a symbol for peace, love and moral righteousness, often used by people who don’t even share his philosophy. Misuse happens, people will use things correctly or incorrectly to justify their actions. This thesis studies how a person, particularly a martyr, gets to that point. Moreover, his ascension to a deity-like figure in western culture has weight. His words and actions (or actions in the stories) are powerful symbols just like his philosophy.

Likewise, during the middle twentieth century in America, Dr. Martin Luther

King began his rise Jesus like rise as counter to the contemporary political and social culture. Similarly disliked for challenging the status quo, Dr. King is not the only

American political figure assassinated for disrupting the status quo. Yet aside from Jesus, he remains the only figure in America society with his own day as a federal holiday.

Why? What similarities are there to Jesus that might explain this and does Jesus’s path to cultural and societal deification explain King’s rise? Additionally this thesis will cover how close King is to Jesus as a political tool.

Political and cultural deification is clearly a question that has no objective conclusion but it’s something I wanted to research more, to see if there was some path and formula for these martyrs, possibly even considering whether martyrdom is required.

I argue a variety of factors contribute to this, as explained by their lives, but the main factor is their dual use as a symbol: one for political power and one for uniting against the political power. Other martyrs do not reach this dual status in the way Jesus and King do and I use political history to defend my idea.

4 1. Topic choice

I’ve mentioned in the abstract some of the questions I will explorebut I want to take a moment to explain why I am researching this topic. Growing up in the Midwest, seeing a billboard depicting an image or message of “Jesus died for your sins” is fairly common across interstate travel. Curious, I wanted to learn why Jesus earned this status usually reserved for Apple products and casinos. I understood the story, whether a fabrication or grounded in truth, and decided if people believed in the story then he deserved the praise he got. However, as I grew up and read more about biblical and historical figures I didn’t quite understand why he was put ahead of other historical characters: Moses, Isaac, etc…

To even further complicate the problem I discovered many people misused and misrepresented Jesus’s philosophy and sayings. Moreover I questioned Jesus’ historical significance and relevance today. Does he deserve this fame, recognition and memorialization?

Likewise in American socio-political history it seemed to me there were two men who stood above the rest in terms of long-term perseverance and relevancy as symbols.

Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King. In the beginning I chose to study all three characters but as the year progressed I felt more strongly about producing a more concise thesis focusing on King and Jesus alone.

Growing up I knew King faced push back during the Civil Rights movement but I assumed after time became universally accepted like Jesus, transcending even his opposition’s views. After taking an African American history course with Dr. Jeffries I

5 realized my naiveté. Although King’s transcendence rivals most American if not all

American figures I wanted to find out if connections existed between King and Jesus.

This thesis is not just for my own intellectual curiosity. I think it is important to study grandiose historical figures like King and Jesus. Learning about them helps put in perspective how we view, criticize and project the legacies of contemporary leaders.

Likewise it allows us to criticize people who misuse them in the future. It also gives us a sense of what is important in a world dominated by 24/7 news coverage. We see the bigger picture. At least that is the goal of this paper. When people misuse people as symbols for some cause this type of study allows us to accurately see if that symbol represents the cause. Ultimately this thesis hopes to uncover trends, US cultural history, and anything else to help us determine legacy.

2. Structure

The question I’m looking to answer is if there is anything in Jesus’ rise as a deity and the world’s use of him posthumously that helps predict King’s rise in American history. If it does, understanding whether this theory holds prescriptive or merely descriptive powers is important too. The thesis will be divided into three parts. First, an examination of the events, philosophy and sayings by Jesus’, resonating throughout his time and throughout the expansion of Christianity, then a subsequent section examines

King’s life and his use posthumously and finally a conclusion section discussing the prescriptive and descriptive powers of the thesis. The outcome here is to identify both the accuracy of using Jesus as justification as well as what Jesus as a symbol has come to mean in the two thousand years since his story started.

6 Moreover, it is important to know characters like King and Jesus were not like artists discovered years after their death. They both had followings during their time in addition to their opposition. Therefore it will be important to know why Paul and the apostles followed Jesus in addition to knowing why Churches and countries embraced him. Likewise it will be important to know why King had the following and opposition he had during the civil rights era.

In comparing how they were viewed contemporarily in light of their legacy will provide the crux of what we’re looking for. It must matter somewhat what people do or else the storytellers (apostles, etc…) could make up similar stories for fictional characters and they might become American political martyrs just like King. I initially hypothesize it matters up to a certain point of fame, legacy and infamy. After some time the original story gets misconstrued; people misquote King or misinterpret Jesus.

The next section will cover Dr. King in a similar manner to how I covered Jesus;

Researching what events gained him an initial following and notoriety. After that the thesis will look into certain events like the creation of the MLK holiday as to how the public perceived his legacy. Obviously King has not reached complete deified status in

America or the world, but as far as his place in American political history it seems to me that King, Lincoln and Washington stand above the rest. Part of the end goal of this thesis is to determine if that his legacy is actually cemented as one of the American political and cultural fathers. As part of a comprehensive look at King in America it will be important to compare him with other highly thought of American figures like JFK, Lincoln and others as to why he ranks higher than them in legacy.

7 Lastly I’ll conclude the research with an answer about King’s place in American political deification. Ideally I’ll develop a formula or rough sketch of the criteria necessary for pseudo-deification and offer some brief insights on characters like Obama.

3. Jesus

Jesus’s legacy arguably singlehandedly affected western culture more than any one person. Whether it was interpreting his meaning through Catholicism or

Protestantism and dividing up Western Europe or influencing the enlightenment philosophy that gave birth to America and the New World, Jesus’ name found its way into almost every contentious idea and debate (e.g. slavery). i. Fact or Fiction?

Jesus miraculous acts live in infamy: turning water to wine, walking on water, multiplying bread, etc… Does it matter though? Does it matter if Jesus actually did those things or if they are partial-truths, full fibs or exaggerations? Conventional thought convinces me that praising another person for miraculous acts requires those acts to occur. People used Jesus and Christianity in general to justify a lot of actions that conflict with the Gospels (e.g. slavery, crusades, etc…). If it is true Jesus didn’t do or say some of these things, a door opens for using Jesus to justify anything merely as a piece of propaganda and symbol of unity.

However, we’re not using Jesus’ actual story. So what becomes important is the initial branding. In Jesus Apocalyptic prophet of the New Millenium Author Bart Ehrman masterfully details the logical possibility of Jesus actually being born in Nazareth or potential explanations for walking on water. He argues it doesn’t really matter the exact details of Jesus’s life. Perhaps the apostles fabricated portions of his life to individual or

8 societal needs. Jesus was and is a symbol as an apocalyptic prophet. He foretold of the world’s destruction if not for a change in human empathy and condition. He helped those less fortunate and cast away by society. According to Ehrman, his hometown, his community, Jews and even his own mother hated him. He angered the priests and rulers of Nazareth. Regardless of whether or not Jesus was right or wrong, he clearly caused some uncomforting resentment by those who knew him best.

Some of that gets leaked into his current story. His religion resented him and accused him of heretical teachings and prophecies. Portraying Jesus as the brave hero standing up to the establishment (Romans and Jews) bodes well for early recruitment even if the message bought doesn’t exactly mirror Jesus’ teachings. As it will become clearer later, whether or not Jesus’ miracles happened or his story of birthplace logically follows, is largely irrelevant; those are not the defining aspects of a political martyrdom.

Jesus’ story then is much more complex than just he was the Son of God and he performed miracles. His love and following isn’t entirely based on all of the facts and it isn’t necessarily based on how the surrounding circumstance of his rebellious acts. In order to understand the deification, examining his relationship with the Apostles is crucial. ii. The Apostles

Although Jesus’ death did not instantaneously vault him to hero status, it affected his legacy. But before that happened, he had the Apostles who followed him. Why? What did they see that the Jews, his family, the Romans, and his hometown community failed to see? That answer should then also give us insight as to why they spread his story, how it spread and what eventually stuck about Jesus and his deification process.

9 According to the Gospels, Jesus did not just present himself as the Messiah- he would have not only been ridiculed but potentially killed (obvious joke here). Nor according to E.I. Bosworth’s How Jesus Gathered His First Disciples did Jesus necessarily want his apostles to think of him as the Messiah but as a prophet instead.

However, this is not evidence that Jesus was not who he claimed to be or who John the

Baptist thought he was (Bosworth, 113).

Jesus’ wishes and his apparent actions support the notion he cared more about his words than his title. As Bosworth notes, Jesus left it remarkably ambiguous for the apostles to decide. Now there can be a few takeaways from this. First, Jesus was aware of his position. Claiming oneself as the Messiah would have put Jesus in a difficult position.

He argued for a different type of God than the Jewish God, a god and philosophy juxtaposing each other with both apocalyptic and benevolent characteristics. That statement didn’t win him over many people and despite not anointing himself as the son of God, his community never embraced him. Additionally it went against Jesus’ thesis; his message didn’t advocate for titles and an organizational chart for the religious powers.

Rather he preached for equality and love; putting himself above others as the Son of God undermines his thesis. Second, it gives a glimpse of Jesus’ end goal. What did Jesus want the public to view him as while he performed acts and preached his unique philosophy?

Even if they did accept him, his (supposed) actions of turning water to wine, multiplying bread, etc… converted others and convinced people of two things: He performed miracles, not showing his prophetic status but as evidence of the behavior he expected of people in support of his philosophy. By doing miraculous acts rather than claiming a

10 miraculous origin, the evidence Jesus presents makes his philosophy more digestible

(Bosworth, 115-117).

Additionally, revisionist history tends to simplify multi-dimensional views held by groups of people. It’s commonplace to assume Jesus’ disciples had a unilateral view of Jesus. However, Bosworth notes some disciples, like Levi, questioned how to categorize Jesus: messiah, prophet, hack or other. Therefore, it becomes an interesting question to ask as to what compelled the disciples to follow Jesus if they did not accept him as the messiah. We first need to understand why these men choose to follow Jesus first before understanding why anyone else would because Peter and Paul, the chief disciples, led spreading his thesis (and it will be examined why and how closely it resembled Jesus’ actual thesis) upon his death.

Bosworth’s piece theorizes that Jesus’ personal encounters persuaded the disciples to follow him. His penchant for “truth”, “grace” and authority convinced them that he deserved further studying and follow; it wasn’t apparent he possessed any connection to a Messiah but his philosophy shifted far away from what they were accustomed to. Now, that doesn’t complete the circle entirely because plenty of other heretics came and went before and after Jesus. Jesus’ positivity elicited an emotional response others could not reciprocate.

For instance Levi collected taxes for the Roman Empire prior to Jesus extending an invite towards joining the disciples. Levi accepted the invitation in part because of

Jesus’ unique kindness and friendship. He already fell into place with Jesus’ kingdom by attending some of his sermons; this personal outreach signified Jesus meant what he said, which made Levi comfortable devoting his life to him.

11 This proves something important here. Jesus made people feel better who he swayed with his personal connection, especially those society threw to the side like lepers, tax collectors and prostitutes. That seems like an obvious conclusion but there is an important distinction for historical purpose about his specific actions. His personal actions only gave him 12 followers but what we are looking at here is that Jesus’ actions made his philosophy easier to sell for the disciples, future priests and missionaries. So it is true that the story and his word influenced the converted Christian. The fact that his disciples could frame a recruiting plan around actions and proverbs helped his cultural deification process. iii. Jesus’ Relationship with his Contemporaries

Before discussing the product the disciples sold, we need to know how Jesus’ community viewed him. Obviously, as the thesis addressed earlier Jesus faced pushback from even his closest community in Nazareth; clearly there is a reason he didn’t connect with them in the way he connected with Paul, Levi and the other disciples.

For starters, the Jews had a complicated relationship with the Roman Empire.

They did not receive full citizen status but were exempt from several Roman laws and could practice Judaism in almost full accordance with Jewish laws, customs and norms.

Despite this freedom for a controlled country, new branches of Judaism formed: The

Zealots, The Saducees, The Pharisees and the Essenes. Each group formed as a reaction to the new Roman Empire with different agendas for political and economics purposes

(Tabor). So why are these important to know? Jesus was an apocalyptic philosopher and with the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. the divergent sects of Judaism catered to people to provide clarity and hope in the dark time; if it couldn’t be explained

12 by God then it crumbled many foundations of their lives. Jewish scripture called for an appointed future redeemer, a Messiah, to restore order to the Jewish Davidic Kingdom.

With different interests and interpretations of the Torah, achieving a unified view of a

Messianic prophet appeared impossible. Some branches wanted a Moses or a King David or Aaron. Some wanted a combination of all of them with strict adherence to the Torah.

Regardless the feeling of grasping for hope needed attention in order to understand Jesus’ ascension (Kohler, 155).

The Essene are of note because of their for contributions as a possible reason for the spread of early Christianity. While disputes remain about John the Baptist’s inclusion in the Essenes, evidence found in the Dead Sea Scrolls points to them as originators of

Baptisms as well as community organizers. However, they also were named Essenes after

Greek origination of doing, so practically speaking, scholars often link them to some of the more strict Torah bound Jewish groups like the Hasidics. Although they disappeared during 68 CE, around the time of the destruction of the second temple, it is important to note them in the rise of early Christianity (Kohler, 161).

As mentioned, the Jews sought a symbol of hope during the aftermath of the temple’s destruction. They saw attacks from Romans, Babylonians, Greeks and Persians.

Then Jesus came along, anointed as the Son of God, and the Jews offered mix reactions.

Most clearly did not like his message. This is necessary information to understand because the goal of this thesis is to understand why Jesus became a popular martyr; part of that popularity is entangled with resentment from the Jews. EP Saunders’ Book, The

Historical Figure of Jesus described the paradoxical climate: the Jewish climate, in both the socio-political climate and Jewish Law, allowed for revolutionary change.

13 Jewish customs and law are ordered commanded under divine law with little to no direction for political power. The leaders of the community, the priests, followed and help the community interpret the Torah. Jesus, or anyone, had an opportunity to rise up the ranks within the confines of preaching the strict Torah. Obviously that’s where the problem for Jewish resentment began. Some Jews hoped for total conversion of gentiles into their customs and looked down upon practices (such as keeping Kosher, no work on the Sabbath, etc…). (Saunders, 43). But Jesus’s message appeared antithetical to the

Jewish vision.

John 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved

you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my

disciples, if you love one another.”

Jewish law didn’t advocate for this. Moses brought 10 commandments and the Torah gives 613 commandments in total under divine law. However, further stipulations apply to the Jewish faith. Becoming a member of their community and ultimately God’s

Kingdom requires a strenuous process of rule following. Jesus wiped it clean. For one he proposed God loved everyone and looked after everyone in his Kingdom and that no rules prevented anyone from acceptance by God. Jesus’ God looked for lost sheep in a way the Jewish God looked after the sheep in his eyesight. Jesus didn’t advocate rules, rather putting forth a set of principles. Moreover, maintaining ruling control over a community without a set of strict moral rules left Jewish Priests uneasy about anointing him the Messiah. Rightfully so, they stood to lose the way of people.

Despite a yearning for a leader to come in to step up to the Romans and other invaders, Jews clearly resented Jesus for his view of God. Yet, EP Saunders makes

14 another distinction, often misinterpreted by Jesus’ contemporary Jews and current historians. Jesus didn’t proclaim the Jewish God was wrong per say in terms of laws and customs like circumcision and keeping Kosher. He just didn’t think it mattered that much. However, his inclusion of the entire world as well downplaying the importance of the laws lead to his Jewish contemporaries’ mistrust of his purpose (Saunders, 203).

Cynically speaking, the Jews lost control over their God through Jesus’ behavior.

If they could no longer control access to a God, in terms of acting like a middle man to the congregation, and restrict and motivate behavior through God’s decree, what certain need was there for the priests, rabbis and the laws? Moreover, Jesus the apocalyptic philosopher proposed a more nihilistic view of Earth than the Jews thought of. The

Jewish view was more grounded in Earth. Jesus thought more about the afterlife and acceptance into God’s kingdom. (Ehrman, 165). As evident by the splitting branches of

Judaism, the Jews looked for interpretations of the Torah to assist them on Earth from

Romans, Greek, Persians and all future invaders to the Land of Israel. Jesus argued it didn’t much matter and that shifted the leverage Jewish leaders could wield over their communities. iv. Ready to Die

Without going into the details of Jesus’ death, I’ll instead choose to discuss the significance of his death; I don’t think it necessarily matters Judas betrayed Jesus because the means of death don’t factor into his use later on by political powers. However, knowing why the Romans and Jews wanted to crucify him is because it gives another contemporary view of Jesus. Moreover it leads us into the more important section about

15 Jesus’ martyrdom; the story wrapped up with his death that helped spread and preserve

Christianity, using Jesus as a symbol of martyrdom.

Jesus was a troublemaker in the eyes of those who ruled over the Jews, which also included Jews. If we think about Jesus’ teaching from the Jewish Leaders’ perspective, he could have cost them their power as outlined in the previous section. Caiaphas, the supreme political leader of the Jewish People, worked in tandem with Roman governors.

(BBC). He wished to retain power and as a state on the outskirts of the Roman Empire,

Rome wanted as little drama as possible on the fringes of the empire. So Jesus benefitted neither the Empire nor Caiaphas.

His philosophy did not require donating money to the temple nor practicing all of the rules and rituals commanded under Jewish Law. With a threat of losing members,

Caiaphas needed to condemn Jesus in order to avoid a power collapse. Likewise, the

Roman Empire sought to avoid a revolt in Jerusalem. For Jesus, this was no problem; spreading his message was more important than keeping the peace for the Jewish Priests and the Roman Governor. Caiaphas wanted to slander Jesus but understood the strength of his small following. Instead, if the Romans executed him he could shift the blame and retain the temple’s income and support. Pilate, the Roman Governor, chose to crucify

Jesus in order to keep the peace and his job as a politician.

Jesus hadn’t actually broken Jewish or Roman law; he never claimed himself as the Messiah or the Son of God- a crime in Jewish scripture but not in Roman law. And even as the Jewish leaders put him on trial in front of Pilate for Blasphemy against God,

Pilate could not condemn him because no Roman Law prohibited blasphemy. Yet, he went with the political decision to execute him (Collins, 187).

16

v. Life After Death

In her article, The First Christian Community, Shirley Case reveals the disciples and Jesus’ other followers, family and others, left no first hand record after Jesus’ death.

What we know comes from The Acts, books written by a historian, telling the story of the first Christian community after Jesus’ death. It’s important to understand why the disciples, as well as his small community of followers, stayed with him despite his death because knowing what they attached to regardless of his personal charisma demonstrates and isolates characteristics of Jesus’ person that allowed him to achieve a deified martyr status.

In Mark 14: 32-42 (Case, 57) the disciples faith in Jesus ascended upon his return.

The author notes their faith reversed from an external relation with Jesus and his philosophy to one of personal trust. However, it’s not that they didn’t see the importance of Jesus’ past work and message but his resurrection confirmed Jesus as working through

God, inspiring a religious awakening in the disciples.

This marks a notable shift in thinking about Jesus; they previously followed Jesus because they saw virtue in his message and may have held resenting views towards the

Jewish leaders. Now, Peter firmly believed Jesus represented the Messianic prophet and

Son of God (Case, 59). Therefore, the message, while important to gather an initial following, did not inspire the disciples to spread his word quite like his resurrection.

Moreover, Peter decided people needed to repent their sins, for some day God and perhaps Jesus as well, would come back to Earth requiring the people be holy enough to ascend to his kingdom in the heaven. Yet, that’s a misinterpretation of Jesus and a closer

17 alignment of contemporary Jewish philosophy. In fact it definitely contradicts Jesus’ thesis: God loves everyone and desires to save all of the lost sheep.

Sharyn Dowd and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon explored the Markan Jesus in The

Significance of Jesus’ Death in Mark in search of significance of Jesus’ death in terms of understanding God. They conclude a dominant opinion of Jesus’ death to be twofold- life contains less importance because Jesus’ death did not mark the end of him and that God meant for people to serve like Jesus, not be served, in their remarkably short time on

Earth. And Adela Yarbro Collins, in Finding Meaning in the Death of Jesus, notes the literary components Mark uses to promote Jesus’ story; she compares his death to those in Greek tragedies in the Gospel of Mark. The Deity (God) abandons the hero, rivals desecrate his body but then his traitors are destroyed in revenge. But, unlike the Greek tragedies, the apocalyptic version of Jesus’ story gives meaning to his death. He died for a cause and will come back in order to carry out his legacy and promise.

Clearly it’s a much different story and tale of Jesus to include two important factors- 1) his resurrection and 2) his imminent return as the Son of God. His resurrection eternally linked him with God unlike his miracles and prophetic sayings according to his disciples because that’s when they truly felt the strength of God in Jesus. Additionally, the writings following his death portray Jesus as an apocalyptic philosopher, not that

Jesus dissuaded them during his life with what he said. However, it adds meaning to his eventual death in a way that might not have been there prior. Thus an important logical conclusion attaches to Jesus. He preached about God’s kingdom and perhaps the disciples grasped the concept easier, or could at least express the narrative easier, by playing up the

Messianic return of Jesus. A feat that reinforces two parts: his connection with God and

18 the need to follow Jesus’ message. Later on I will explain how and why Jesus’ message was not followed strictly and was instead misused inappropriately. vi. The Spread of Christianity

The previous section added further explanation to the reason why Jesus’ followers, mainly his disciples, decided to stick with him. They felt compelled, because of this, to spread Jesus’ word as he did throughout the Jewish State. Or was it for different reasons? His death marks the beginning of Jesus’ loss of his own image and likeness. Although the disciples could have previously altered his message like Caiphas and Pilate did, the disciples followed Jesus. So if a change in message existed there must be a reason; it also should give an explanation in his mainstream deification. If a message alteration occurred, does that better explain Jesus’ popularity? Moreover, observing the schism between a Jewish branch and its own religious seems important too for Jesus must have been so popular that a new religion originated; the argument could be that he was much more radical in philosophy then other Jewish heretics but that’s important to decipher.

Although Jesus preached humans as part of God’s Kingdom, his relatively small circle limited his reach to Jews. More importantly, the disciples still considered themselves Jewish and followed Jewish customs until a split occurred.

Stephen, a Hellenist Jew in Jerusalem, became one of the first divergent Christian thinkers amongst those in the immediacy following Jesus’ death. He actually took a more literal interpretation of Jesus’ teaching along the lines of a spiritual endeavor rather than a religious one; he believed the gospels superseded Judaism and even Gentiles deserved his love. This marked a divide between Stephen and the other disciples because they still

19 loved and promoted Judaism around Jesus’ core principles instead of dismantling the entire ceremonial aspect of Judaism. Not unsurprisingly, Jewish sects, the Pharisees amongst them, saw Stephen as larger threat and put him on trial preceding his eventual death (Votaw, 213). Note that Stephen, technically a martyr, has and will not reach Jesus’ deification. But it shows Jesus’ philosophy still could not stand on its own even by the disciples, at least not at that time.

As time passed since Jesus’ death and Paul and others sought out new Christians, a fundamental decision about Christianity. Did Jesus’ philosophy, particularly the essential changes in one’s life, necessitate an entirely new religion? Previously, Paul just preached to Jews in the area to become Christians. However, through Stephen’s contributions the spread reached Gentile areas in Syria and Galatia. Ultimately, the church leaders, lead by Paul, concluded Gentiles had every right to accept Jesus’ doctrine under Christianity as Jews did.

Paul travelled throughout modern day Middle East, writing letters, giving sermons and delivering the Gospels in order to convince the gentiles to convert to Christianity. As more Gentiles converted, Jewish and Roman authorities attempted to squash it because of its potential threat; however, this only increased the popularity because people saw

Christianity as a form of rebellion. This decision arguably impacted the Jesus’ popularity more so than his preaching because the power of his word appealed to an array of cultures, not just Jews. Once this decree materialized, the floodgates of Christianity’s potential opened up a whole new world for Jesus’ cultural deification.

Although the decision to disperse the apostles and spread Christianity to Gentiles, as well as the resulting separation from Judaism causing Christianity to become its own

20 identity, Roman political infrastructure allowed for expansive recruiting. Known for the developed roads connected cities, the mission to convert gentiles faced less obstacles than one might for mass marketing. Aside from the physical process of traveling the Roman

Empire’s laws were relatively laissez faire in terms of religion. So long as it did not hinder the state from conducting business the people were free to practice as they chose.

(Rayner, 114)

The Roman impact on spreading Christianity opens a lot of questions and blurs the spread of Christianity and Jesus’ rise. While it is important, for the scope of this thesis at least, to separate the two they are undoubtedly linked together. Any analysis that doesn’t at least acknowledge that will fail to produce a worthy conclusion. I write that knowing it may hinder my forthcoming conclusion.

Christianity, in the first hundred years and change faced scrutiny in the Roman

Empire. It was looked down upon as having strange and foreign rituals. Moreover, it differed from typical Roman Pagan tradition. However as Christianity spread in the empire more and more regions had converted Christian citizens, from Gaul to Germany to Egypt, Christianity spread like wildfire. Especially after the issuance of the Edict of

Milan by Constantine and Licinious, Christianity offered a change for the empire.

Previously the stoicism of the Roman and Greek empires encouraged a law and order culture. Christianity, particularly Jesus’ message about a Kingdom of God, preached a different outlook on life, one that offered a personal union between Humans and Gods.

Losing attachment to both material objects and this world the Earth, Roman culture in accordance with original Christian teachings faced a threat to its survival as an Empire.

(Rayner, 121).

21 As Jesus preached a love for all mankind, the dominant aggressive and conquering Roman Empire confront dissenting Christian values on the topic of war and expansion. It wasn’t until much later when the Church and the Empire fused together did

Jesus’ values of preaching peace takes a backseat. The ideals of power had won out at that point during the crusades. vii. Jesus Conclusion

Examples of misusing Jesus could in itself call for an entire thesis: The Crusades,

Colonization, Slavery are just a few examples. Considering the fact that there are many interpretations of Jesus, even by groups exploited by Christianity like slaves who turned to Jesus, Jesus’ rightful symbol as a martyr gets cloudy. I argue that these political martyrs gain this position because interpretations can depict the character as both a controlling force and a uniting force.

Rulers used Christianity and Jesus as a dominating force because they saw many of the common folk dedicated to the religion. During one of the Roman Empire’s many wars, Emperor Constantine saw soldiers praying to a Cross, which turned out to represent

Jesus Christ. He later instructed everyone to paint crosses on their shields with the hopes of uniting towards a victory. After winning the battle Constantine desired to spread

Christianity as he believed it helped in battle. Moreover, the Romans fought barbarians, who happened to be non-believers in part to convert them (Partner, 59).

As the empire and the Church became intertwined it became harder for the

Church to separate despite the misuse of Jesus’ philosophy of loving thy neighbor, a figurative statement about loving enemies like friends.

22 Likewise, much of the justification for slavery in the New World rested on saving barbarians; the only way they could be saved was by showing them Christ as they worked as slaves. However slaves conversion to Christianity did not find them a path to freedom

(Jernegan, 507). So even if it did count as an interpretation, the logic fell apart.

For Slaves what would appeal did a religion centered on a guy who their masters used to enslave them? Well his faith in the meek and humble and love for all man, whom slaves saw in themselves. Some slave owners even forbade Christian conversions for slaves because it gave them too much confidence in the way of defiance of their masters.

However, conversion spread too fast and popularity gained amongst slaves. As slave preacher John Jasper put it, the process of conversion made him feel special, “de light broke; I was light as a feather; my feet was on de mount'n; salvation rol'd like a flood thru my soul, an' I felt as if I could knock off de fact'ry roof wid my shouts.” (Galli).

Additionally many slaves took the view of the apocalyptic philosopher and a judgment day that would serve revenge to the slaves’ masters. As an ex-slave storyteller

Jacob Stoyer explained, ‘during violent thunderstorms whites hid between their feather beds, whereas slaves went outside and, lifting up their hands, thanked God that judgment day was coming at last.’ (Galli).

So what becomes in important for Jesus to be a cultural and political martyr? It seems from my brief explanations in this conclusion that his ability to appeal to both superiors and inferiors in terms of power classes explains his mass appeal. But what explains his appeal to both groups? Well for one thing, the group in power’s goal is to remain in power. Since sizeable supporters who personally felt the power of Jesus’ message (from soldiers in Rome to Jews in Israel) existed, the powers could channel that

23 and by accepting Jesus Christ as a symbol, even if misguided, they could continue to exert power and squash promising uprisings.

Jesus is not the only religious leader considered a martyr or to have performed tremendous acts, so does the crucifixion explain his popularity? For starters, the death impacts his legacy as he died because of his actions, message and the impact it already had on people since it garnered enough support that establishment feared loss of power.

Moses died a natural death and despite leading the Jews out of Egypt, a feat no less miraculous than turning water to wine, he completed his mission; Jesus’ mission involved personal interactions and although his death marked the end of his preaching his apostles could finish his work because of what he started for them.

So why not revere Socrates in the same light as Jesus? He challenged the status quo, he had followers that spread his word and it has impacted much of western philosophy and education. It’s arguable he has had just as great of an effect but Jesus’ behavior always related to his purpose of serving people first, rather than proving a point.

Additionally, Socrates’ connection with those on the bottom of society is not as strong as that with Jesus; Jesus has much more common man appeal than Socrates, one that remains simpler than Socrates’. Through the various points in history where Christianity spread like wildfire that personal connection persuades people, those in power and not in power.

Before this section wraps up, I do want to note the “luck” involved in

Christianity’s movement. It spread slowly throughout the Roman Empire but once

Constantine promoted it, the potential number of new Christians grew exponentially covering almost the entire continent. Likewise, as Europe first reached the New World it

24 gained the advantage of populating the entire Americas with religion. Perhaps had

Muslims or Confucians discovered the Americas first the continent’s obsession with

Jesus may be lowered. Regardless, the reason for his popular martyrdom doesn’t change in Europe or the Americas.

4. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The reason I chose Dr. King over other political figures in American history is because my intuition led me to think he most closely matched Jesus as a deified martyr in

American culture. Perhaps I could have chosen another historical martyr to compare with

Jesus: Abraham Lincoln, Paul the Apostle, JFK, Malcolm X, Socrates, etc… The reason I chose to study MLK was in part based on a bias; I grew up in America and was largely unaware of other international martyrs and in learning about the civil rights movement I connected his philosophy to what I knew about Jesus’. Moreover, I see signs of worship of both throughout the country: Jesus crosses, signs, t-shirts, sayings, etc… and for MLK there is a holiday (no other person in America, other than Jesus has a holiday for just themselves), he has schools and streets named after him. So I couldn’t think of another martyr that had been deified to Jesus’ level. Still, I wanted to research and find out if I was 1) correct in assuming King’s level of martyrdom and 2) to see if my thesis was correct in describing these deified martyrs and 3) if it had any prescriptive power in predicting future martyrs. Since there is objective evidence in King’s case I will focus on a three parts of King’s life: His early career/Montgomery bus boycott, his fight to change voting rights in the south, and his surprising failed attempt of civil rights activism in

Chicago. Focusing on these will give an explanation of his philosophy in action in comparison to Jesus’ miracles. In addition to covering those events I will explain the

25 response from various demographics to show King did not posses universal approval, even from African Americans and northerners. Then I will discuss his moment of death and how the media, politicians and the public, discussed it; this should give an account of what death in the moment means for our martyrs. From there, the public perception of

King will be important. How did politicians use him posthumously? Did they pick apart certain speeches that sounded good? Sell him to demographics that opposed King during his life? This links well with a discussion of the holiday. These moments in his career and his posthumous symbolism should then point to a clearer direction of martyrdom. i. Beginnings, Montgomery Buys Boycott and Fame

In King’s Autobiography he opens up about some of the aspects from his childhood influencing his almost Jesus like philosophy, including his Childhood exposure to Christianity and lessons learned from his father, a preacher as well. He credited a loving family and community for creating a personality embracing love and could only imagine a God of Love. “It is easy for me to lean towards optimism over pessimism,”

King writes, a remarkably similar philosophy to Jesus. If one took a strict reading of the

Gospels, the apparent paradox of racism would be alarming (King and Carson). Now, this is by no way claiming King as a unique person sensing the contradictions between

Christianity and racism in America, but linking the two, especially on the similarity of philosophies is noteworthy. It may even give prescriptive power about optimism’s effect on political deification. Is it perhaps the humanist logic in that philosophy that raises them above the rest of the martyrs? Perhaps. Although political agents misuse both King and Jesus in terms of their philosophies, their symbols as loving humanists dying in the

26 face of opposition may vault them to this status. Regardless, this connection sets up the rest of King’s story as a preacher, philosopher and martyr.

King’s first exercised his philosophy during his college years at Morehouse

College with a letter to the editor of the Atlanta Constitution (King).

“We want and are entitled to the basic rights and opportunities of American citizens: The right to earn a living at work for which we are fitted by training and ability; equal opportunities in education, health, recreation, and similar public services; the right to vote; equality before the law; some of the same courtesy and good manners that we ourselves bring to all human relations.”

Right away, King demonstrated a humanist philosophy. However, diverging from Jesus, he argued for those in authority to recognize the human equality. Jesus’ message focused on seeing God and life in a new light for every citizen not just the faith leaders; King’s letter focused on equality for this life on Earth. However, further contrasts will arise and a more thorough comparison will appear in the conclusion.

King finished his schooling at Morehouse and then continued on, studying theology in order to become a pastor. Yet King was not predestined to become anything by characters such as the Three Wise Men or even his family, despite being born into a family of preachers. King accepted the Pastoral position in Montgomery while still earning a PhD student at Boston University and gave rather modest remarks about his strategic plans. ‘I have no pretense to being a great preacher or even a profound scholar. I certainly have no pretence to infallibility—that is reserved for the height of the divine rather than the depth of the human.’ (King Institute Encyclopedia - Stanford).

It’s impossible to determine whether or not King actually meant these words or if they sounded good as rhetoric. Shortly after accepting the position at the Church, he devised the Bus Boycott plan (King Institute Encyclopedia – Stanford), which seems

27 antithetical to his acceptance speech and aligns more closely with his college letter to the

Constitution about economic equality. Moreover, no opposition formed against King for the remarks, proving his opponents, like Jesus’, cared less about the content of his words and worried more about his persuasive powers upending cultural and economic norms.

This change from just rhetoric to action that upended the inequality started with the Montgomery Bus Boycott. In his memoir about the boycotts, Stride Towards

Freedom, King explains the power of nonviolent protest such as the bus boycott. Because the African American community trusted him and the other leaders they were willing to following the unconventional protest method for racial equality.

Kings’ education and belief in Active Christianity through protests rather than prayers, influenced his nonviolent philosophy. He figured friendship with opponents instead of humiliation via retaliation organically would lead to a friendlier relationship;

African Americans oppressors, clearly unaware of the irony of King’s philosophy’s relationship with Jesus’ message, saw a direct threat to their leverage in the relationship.

Despite the success critical success of Strides Towards Freedom, the book’s intent was as much for African American’s sense of self worth as it was a case to persuade Whites. As

Benjamin Mays, Morehouse College President, explained, “Negroes can not afford to miss it because it tells us again how we can work against evil with dignity, pride and self- respect.” Racists did not see it that way. Like the Jewish sects worried about the

Temple’s income, they needed to instill fear in King as well as his followers. On January

30th, 1956 members of the Klu Klux Klan bombed his home after the bus boycott began and were eventually arrested. Eventually legislation passed integrating the Montgomery bus lines and King garnered national attention (King Institute Encyclopedia – Stanford).

28 King then vaulted into the spotlight after the bus boycotts. He took leadership over the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and appeared on the cover of Time magazine in early 1957. And as the King’s miraculous action occurred during his lifetime he reaped the benefits of increased exposure- reaching a larger audience with his message, including presidents and foreign leaders. However, it came with increased scrutiny from the authority (FBI and local police stations) and hatred from southern whites.

At the time President Eisenhower took a laid back approach to improving Civil rights in the country and meeting with King only one time. He acknowledged the issue in an interview, ‘you cannot change people’s hearts merely by changing the law. Laws presumably reflect the conscience of a nation. But the laws here are to be executed gradually.’ (Serwer). This was in regards to the process of school desegregation, but his sentiment barely changed until social pressure pushed him to federalize the state national guard to protect black children entering school.

Even in correspondence with King, President Eisenhower chose passivity over action. King wrote in a letter pleading Eisenhower to intervene in the terror in the South.

Eisenhower responded, “I don’t know what another speech would do right now.”

(Serwer). Although Eisenhower did not come out striking down King, his weakness allowed states and militant racist groups like the KKK to control most of the path for civil rights. ii. Voting Rights, Letter From Birmingham Jail, The March on Washington and Response

“So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably the right to vote, I do not possess myself.” – King at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom rally, May, 1957 (King). Later in

29 the speech he requested the federal government for voting rights and hypothesized the angry [black] mobs will turn into behaving citizens who do not complain about lynching anymore. The speech in 1957 and the voting rights act provide King’s main point in his philosophy- equality in the eyes of the government. He knew, like Eisenhower, that laws would not immediately change behavior of racists and the surrounding culture. But he believed if the federal government recognized their full personhood, then they could participate in society fully, eventually demonstrating their worth as functioning citizens in America.

Obviously, white opposition existed in southern America towards voting rights legislation. Officials and state workers created informal norms designed to prevent

African Americans from registering to vote. It made sense; they determined to maintain superiority and control over African Americans.

The SCLC, based on King’s thesis, agreed voting rights ultimately lead to freedom, power and equal rights.

30 (Garrow, 396). But the SCLC represented the southern blacks and as someone who most of the nation celebrates as a civil rights leader, it’s important to uncover how universal

King’s reach was. For example, in 1963, Gallup polled King at a positive approval rating with 41% respondents saying he was positive. In 1966, that number dipped to 32% positive and 63% negative (Newport).

Views of King varied across the country and for multiple reasons. The student arm of the civil rights movement, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, complained King just yearned for the spotlight. By the Mid 1960’s, Stokely Carmichael, chairman of SNCC, turned the youth activist movement against King. While at one point

King endorsed the young Carmichael as a promising young leader in the movement and for promoting non-violence, deaths of friends and leaders in the movement despite media coverage of Selma and other protests. Carmichael saw it differently, “In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent has to have a conscience. The United States has no conscience.” (Bates). At this point, with divergent philosophies and attitudes towards not only successful equality, but also what successful equality looked like, King began to lose favor even amongst his own race. The slow pace of King’s philosophy no longer justified the murders, beatings and still prevalent racism many faced according to

Carmichael and other leaders.

Ironically, as King’s tenure began as leader of the nonviolent movement, he faced backlash from both the NAACP and Urban League. Roy Wilkins, leader of the NAACP during the Montgomery boycotts preferred litigation compared to King’s preference for mass action (King Institute Encyclopedia – Stanford). The fact that King wasn’t moving fast enough caused tension and division in the movement.

31 Yet King took his share of aggressive measures, sometimes even to the effect of moral quandaries. He understood how the power of media could influence the nation, which if weighed down by the tension, could influence a president. While focusing on inequality in Birmingham in ’63, King purposely led himself and others into getting arrested. However, they were shorthanded and ended up using young children to help in the protests, leading to their imprisonment as well. Bull Connor, Public Safety

Commissioner of Birmingham, directed the violent opposition and an SCLC official thanked him because it brought in media attention and forced the hand of Kennedy (King

Institute Encyclopedia – Stanford). King’s ethics of using children to forward his agenda was criticized even by Malcolm X. Kennedy was later quoted as being motivated to put an end to the mess in Birmingham because, “a worse leader could take his place.”

(Matthews).

From this, it’s clear the argument King makes is less compelling than it may seem. King made strategic moves to incite the media to pressure Kennedy into enacting legislation. Some critics even believed King, while physically doing nothing non violent, did not fully embrace the philosophy because of the many initiatives that led to violence questioned his belief that non violence matter above all else to King. “I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.” (King Institute Encyclopedia – Stanford). In his Letter from a

Birmingham Jail King acknowledged some of the criticism he faced about his decision for direct action. But he posits that tension, a deep ugly tension no less, is the only way to wake up society. King essentially calls out the “white moderate” in the north and south for failing to more aggressively support civil rights legislation.

32 When we think of King now and when King is taught now in schools the most memorable moment of his career taught is the “I Have a Dream” speech given for the

March on Washington in ’63. The march featured around a quarter of a million people

(for comparison the Women’s March in January 2017 had an estimated 470,000 marchers

[Pryzbyla & Schouten]) with 25% of the march comprised by white folk (King Institute

Encyclopedia – Stanford).

It was an extravagant event, King uniting many of the forces of the civil rights movement to DC and giving a televised speech looking good uniting both whites and blacks together with appeals to Great American White heroes: Lincoln and the

Emancipation Proclamation freeing the Negro and our forefathers writing a promissory note for all citizens which the negro had received a bad check (King & Washington). The spectacle thrilled many people but historians and contemporaries argue the impact the rally had on actual legislation and racism.

Southern politicians came to find the speech filled with outrageous demands. At the time Senator Strom Thurmond (SC-D) remarked, “The Negroes in this country are better fed, they are better clothed, and they have better houses here than in any other country in the world.” (Whitaker). This statement follows logic that King was indeed wrong about equality in America because blacks in America had it better than blacks across the world. Some still stuck with an individual’s rights position like senator Russell

Long of Louisiana, “I plan to fight for a man to choose the neighbors among who will live… I think if someone wants to be left alone by those people I think he’s entitled to be left alone.” (Whitaker). Granted, those comments come from southerners representing the centuries of racism existed by the country and politicians that King called out in his

33 speech. But what we typically remember King for best for was called into question by

Malcolm X and others.

“How was a ‘one day’ picnic going to counter-influence those representatives of prejudice rooted deep in the psyche of the American white man for 400 years?” (X and

Haley). Malcolm X thought little of the movement. It’s hard to say exactly what direct effect it had. Kennedy, a proponent of the civil rights movement, was hesitant towards the march associating with The White House because any potential trouble would hinder civil rights legislation. Kennedy was assassinated three months after the March and congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and President Johnson signed it into law a year later. But the unrest in Birmingham and the violence there most likely contributed a greater cause of the bill. Two years later King registered a mere 33% positive rating with

Americans according to a Gallup poll (Newport). iii. Chicago, The Tail End and Assassination

In 1966 King sought to venture outside of the South and the Nation’s capital by tackling housing segregation in Chicago. Despite Northerner’s relative support of some

Civil Rights legislation, whites (particularly middle and upper class) benefited from superior housing and negotiating did not appeal to them. One protest sign read, “King would look good with a knife in his back.” (James).

In 1965 Chicago activist Albert Raby invited King and the SCLC to help out

Chicago’s segregation problem and after witnessing riots across the country King agreed to take his efforts to the Northern cities (King Institute Encyclopedia – Stanford).

Chicago had seen incidents of housing segregation directly (not forcing banks to offer

34 mortgages regardless of race) and indirectly related to legislation (worse education leading to lower paying jobs etc…).

During marches he faced hatred he had never seen before, confusing him as whites Chicagoans supporting the voting rights act the previous year. Rocks were thrown, chants of “White Power” rang in the background, the police arrested 40 people and King noted, “The people of Mississippi should come here to learn to hate.” (James). How could this be? We celebrate King’s moral and ethical attitude standing up to violence and racism in the south but even in the late 60’s his presence in Chicago angered the white population.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley even felt uncomfortable by the criticism. “Maybe he doesn't have all the facts on the local situation," the mayor said. "After all, he is a resident of another city." Although Mayor Daley eventually reached an agreement with

King to enact legislation banning housing discrimination, the victory and appreciation

King thought he had in the north did not exist and it alarmed him. Eventually after King left Chicago for home, the agreement fizzled, as there was no substantial pressure to enforce the new laws (James).

As noted earlier, public opinion of King began to wane. Additionally, FBI investigations by J. Edgar Hoover added to the pressure King had to endure alongside some of the perceived failures he faced as a leader. While an entire thesis could be written on King and the FBI, I’ll briefly introduce it here because it is notable but I don’t think necessarily within the scope of this thesis. The FBI followed him around initially because of links to the Communist party due to King’s relationship with adviser Stanley

Levinson. Through intense spying they never discovered any communist subplots but

35 they did discover his extramarital affairs and sent a letter to his home, where his wife,

Coretta Scott King, found and read its contents (Gage).

The pressures intensified and lead to a breakdown. His aides had to convince him not to commit suicide based on the FBI’s nudging and criticism from all sides on his opposition to the Vietnam War on principal. Had Dr. King committed suicide due to FBI and communist subplots, his potential for cultural martyr would definitely have been altered. Although King was never found to have communist ties, that branding upon death would have followed him forever. The media to this day still awkwardly dances around Communism.

However he did not die that way. A sniper assassinated Dr. King on April 4th,

1968 in Memphis, Tennessee. His death altered the way many Americans viewed not only King himself but also other factors of the political institution. The next section will cover the longer view of King’s death but for now the contemporary view of King is most necessary.

36

Table 1 shows a snapshot of King’s assassination’s effect on politics (Hofstetter,

177). Granted the limited sample size of African Americans and whites limits sweeping conclusions but that shouldn’t prevent us from analyzing some of the larger changes. The assassination seemed to have little effect on whites’ outlook on political institution noting the small change in percentages from most of the variables. The assassination affected

Afriacan Americans’ outlook even more. The police, Nixon and National Politicians took a more negative hit while President Johnson and the Democratic Party became more

37 polarizing as noted by the decrease in neutral responses. Positive ties with the NAACP and Negroes boosted as a result, possibly as a symbol of unification.

Then there is another data set attempting to view at political ideology’s effect on agreement with King’s views postmortem from a Clark Atlanta University Study.

The study included a questionnaire about political views and views about their similarities with King (Hartnett and Libby, 85). The respondents, trustees and governors of American colleges, are certainly not representative of the American people- both economically, socially or by race but still an important study to be done of a segment of the American population. From this study King received a large bump in overall sharing of view from this group, particularly dominated by Republican, conservative and moderate factions of the country. Perhaps, grief over a national figure triggered guilt and remorse for King and his life work. It’s hard to say; a possibility, one that raises more interesting flags is the realization for white people that King’s non-violence approach appealed more than the vacuum of power leading to the 1968 riots.

The night of and the following days of King’s assassination riots engulfed many major U.S. Cities including New York, Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati and others. They ranged in level of violence to arrests to death to responses from city leaders. For example

38 NYC mayor John Lindsay travelled to Harlem in order to discuss the death and future policy with residents, which most likely prevented a large-scale riot and subsequent deaths. However, Chicago Mayor Daley requested additional police and federal forces with the operative mission to “to shoot or kill any arsonist or anyone looting stores in our city.” (Coates).

So did King’s death trigger more violence across the nation, counter to his non- violence message? It’s difficult to say. His death may have been the tipping point (some cities’ riots were looming regardless of King’s death). But there’s evidence to point blacks grew tired of waiting after King’s death. Philip Meyer’s Aftermath of Martyrdom:

Negro Militancy and Martin Luther King examined data from The Miami Herald, a city void of the ’68 riots.

Meyer chose to use Miami data since there was no riot because he thought it he would observe a fairly neutral city in King’s lifetime to see King’s actual effect rather than other southern or northern cities with previous dispositions to riots.

There are two responses to the questionnaire that jumped out. The number of respondents disagreeing with "Negroes should spend more time praying and less time demonstrating," increased from 41 per cent to 55 per cent and those disagreeing with

"Before Negroes are given equal rights they have to show that they deserve them" increased from 52 per cent to 61 per cent. Although these statements alone do not provide a clear conclusion that African Americans supported more (violent) demonstrations or if they believed prayer to instead be an ineffective tool, it is clear that patience waned in the aftermath of King’s death. Likewise an increase in disagreeing opinions on the ladder statement also indicates a loss in patience for equal rights.

39

Respondents indicate a shift in thinking from opposing violence and militancy to ambivalence towards the philosophy (Meyer, 165-166). This information pushes us to question how whites and blacks viewed King’s success. From the data, African

Americans reportedly felt as if King’s work may not have been that successful; the faith in nonviolence and King’s work decreased, whereas whites, especially from the conservative wing, saw success in King’s work following his death. But strangely enough, King’s death did not entirely eliminate non-violence; it seems to have just strengthened middle militancy. Meyer believed the reason for this was that blacks viewed riots as means of communication and as threats rather than intentions of terror. To explain he referenced Thomas Schelling on game theory, “If I say, ‘Row, or I'll tip the boat over and drown us both,’ you'll say you don't believe me. But if I rock the boat so that it may tip over, you'll be more impressed . . To make it work, I must really put the boat in jeopardy.' (Meyer 171).

If indeed blacks’ opinions changed after his death, then it is fair to question whether King’s impact and reverence was due more to his philosophy or the assassination of a black leader by a white man, sparking more energy for African Americans and more appreciation for the fight King fought by white Americans. Assessing opinions of King in the short term after his death also presents more problems. Assassination tends to add a

40 cause of death to their actions in a way that death by illness does not. Add in the fact

King was still near his prime doing work compared to retirement gives a purpose to his death. But grief passes over time and as his martyrdom became a political tool, we can properly assess what people thought of him, his philosophy and his actions. iv. The Holiday

President Lyndon. B Johnson immediately proposed a national day of mourning on April 7th, three days after the assassination. Shortly after Johnson’s address,

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) drafted legislation proposing a federal holiday honoring King and his service to the country. Following limited support The Martin

Luther King, Jr. Memorial Center established a base in Atlanta with Coretta Scott King serving as first chairwoman of the institute, with her first action directed at planning national observance of a holiday honoring her late husband. However, congress did not share the same enthusiasm Mrs. King, the SCLC and the King center showed (Stack).

Between 1973-75 only four states passed legislation mandating a state holiday honoring King: Illinois, Connecticut, Massachusetts and by State Supreme Court order

New Jersey. It would be four more years, ultimately more than a decade after King’s death, before Mrs. King testified before congress on behalf of the holiday. It took 15 years after his death for congress to approve the federal holiday; 2000, 32 years after his death, became the first year all 50 states recognized King’s birthday as a holiday (Stack).

Despite a shift from the country in agreement with King and his views, the lack of momentum outside of the core coalition failed to push the bill any farther. Mrs. King finally had the opportunity to persuade congress in 1979; however, the bill failed in

41 congress 252-133, needing a two-thirds majority vote, count despite support from

President Carter and public campaigns from prominent congressman (Romero).

Only until Stevie Wonder released “Happy Birthday” to promote King and the holiday did the public pressure influence President Reagan and the rest of congress. of public support for the bill because of Stevie Wonder’s popular song, the bill for the holiday passed in the house 338 to 90. However, the senate proved a tougher battle for the holiday as many southern Republican senators opposed the bill for various reasons.

John Helms and John P. East, both Republican Senators from North Carolina, filibustered the bill. They cited reasons ranging from the civil rights work had been completed so no need to further honor king, to not placing him on the same level as the forefathers of the country, to the FBI investigation revealing his extra marital affairs, to his opposition to the Vietnam War proving him a communist implying only capitalists and proponents of democracy deserved to be honored by The United States Federal government (Romero).

Before passing the federal bill making the King holiday a federal holiday, Reagan passed many policies antithetical to King’s view of economic inequality as a symbol of racial inequality. Dismantling many of the housing and equal pay rights that King and others helped to pass. However, Reagan wisely used King’s beautiful rhetoric to persuade

Americans that progress had nearly finished. He quoted and praised King before passing the Holiday bill in 1983 often times arguing he served both blacks and whites while relegating him to an ethnic hero. “There's no way that we could afford all of the holidays that we would have with people who are also revered figures in the history of many of the groups that make up our population here in America.” (Bostdorff & Goldzwig, 664).

42 Reagan reluctantly passed the bill as congress and Wonder’s song proved too much for him to avoid it after years of praising King and denouncing the need for a holiday. Reagan’s disdain for federal involvement in recognizing King largely had to do with his potential communist ties and the belief additional Civil Rights legislation impeded economic freedom, citing the fact that more progress fell on the shoulders of individual awareness and responsibility. Reagan appeared tone deaf to the undertones of

King’s message. In 1986 he offered advice for high school students to move up saying,

“Well, you get a good education. . . . An education is like a spaceship; it can take you anywhere.” (Gershon). Not realizing King prompted the government that equal opportunities failed to exist for blacks despite passing several laws, Reagan took the first step in using King’s rhetoric to gain support, a case that prompted future misrepresentation of King for political purposes.

This marked the beginning of misusing King in order for political means but the holiday still failed to get recognition until 2000. Although the bill passed in 1983, a survey indicated around 17% of businesses still did not offer paid time off for the holiday. Additionally many states recognized the holiday as “Great Americans Day,” combining celebration of King and Confederate leaders like Jackson and Lee on the same day. In 1990, Arizona still did not recognize the holiday as a state holiday. State legislator and future Presidential Candidate John McCain originally opposed the state mandated holiday. However, boycotts from entertainers and the NFL refusing to play the Super

Bowl in Phoenix reversed Arizona lawmakers’ minds and they voted to make MLK Day a state holiday in line with most of the country. Until 2000, South Carolina still flew the

43 Confederate flag on MLK day and did not require employers to offer a paid day off for the federal holiday (Romero). v. MLK Conclusion

The formula for misusing a martyr for political power reasons still continues today for King. After some of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations former Arkansas

Governor Mike Huckabee spoke to CNN to convey to Americans that Dr. King would be disappointed with the activism and the terror incited (Bradner). It’s not that dissimilar to

President Reagan’s use of King to curtail racial progress.

King claims the ultimate cultural and political martyrdom spot over Lincoln, JFK, and others. For reasons similar to Jesus he gave a group hope and served as a rallying symbol for them. Once years passed after death meant less of a rebellious point for

Americans in power so the progress inched towards using him as a talking point for dismantling subsequent movements. His prose and rhetoric provided many out of context quotes that abusers who would not side with him during his lifetime could use to further their agenda and views. Lincoln freed the slaves but did not quite garner the movements

King created during his lifetime nor the memorable rhetoric like the Gospels or King’s speeches. JFK similarly fails to reach King’s status. Even though his speeches remain pillars of American presidential history and he invigorated the youth, his symbol could not quite be used as a tool for the powerful to suppress uprising like King could.

For Americans, King is the ultimate cultural and political deified martyr. His philosophy was not unique; he copied Ghandi’s style in India and read about the practice during his youth (King Institute Encyclopedia – Stanford). Americans’ celebration and use of King does revolve around non-violence but not for King as a pioneer in this field.

44 Yet it is important. For politicians like Huckabee or Reagan using Malcolm X to hinder activists does not get the support from some of the more conservative groups because it doesn’t make sense nor would it make sense to the activists if they mimic Malcolm X’s philosophy.

A critical inquiry might question then my theory about this political deification.

South Carolina, the last state to recognize MLK Day as a holiday, had an African

American population constituting 30% of their total population (US Census). I would respond that in states like South Carolina, there may not be as great of a need for those in power to recognize and use King as a figure to subvert activists. Reagan realized for political gain he could misrepresent King. For South Carolina and some of the other conservative states that held back on recognizing the holiday may not have seen the need for it. This can also explain the delay in Arizona- the 1990 US Census indicated blacks made up roughly 110,000 people out of the 3.7 million people in Arizona (US Census).

There was no need to subvert activists and the apprehensions that held back other national politicians that ultimately receded and voted for the holiday were not local to them; Arizonans felt the same way.

5. Conclusion

King does not near Jesus on the level of reverence globally and not in this country neither but I think my theory does explain the levels of cultural and political deification of these martyrs. As time marches on it becomes easier for those in power to skirt by important details and context of both King and Jesus’ lives, philosophy and message.

They can cherry pick gospels or speeches in order to coerce the population into falling in line with their agenda and people generally are quick to agree because they have a basic

45 understanding of each martyr’s philosophy because of their contemporary opponents views of them as troublemakers. However, people lacking a comprehensive historical view of both King and Jesus are not able to understand the proper application of each character in meaningful ways. They’re then subject to misrepresentation and those in power abuse the martyrs’ powers.

When I began this project I was interested to see if there was any prescriptive power in this or if it merely served as a descriptive account of Jesus’ and King’s lives while nicely fitting around other martyrs who currently are not revered on the same level as these two. I find it hard to make any real conclusions on this in part because of martyr aspect but I do think it provides a perspective on how to predict the future. Barack

Obama comes to mind. Like JFK he was the first of his minority to hold the position of president but it’s foolish to compare the plight of Catholic Americans to African

Americans. Not to compare the importance of the office of the president to baseball, but

Jackie Robinson also gets remembered as the first African American baseball and Obama will never lose that title for president. The more interesting question will be if his place in the future as a symbol will be merely the first African American president or future politicians will use him as a puppet the way they have used King.

I’m inclined to say no. I think the assassination matters in the long view because it leaves the imagination open as if he could have done more and that person died for their cause. Also, Obama held an elected position, similar to JFK. Their jobs were policy makers. Although they contained charismatic elements Jesus and King possessed, elected officials tend to get used more for their policy decisions. King and Jesus are

46 misrepresented on humanist philosophical reasons, which can appeal to more people resulting in political and cultural deification.

Aside from political figures civil disobedience from athletes and artists occurs.

Rapper Tupac Shukar delivered a prophetic message as an African American rapper and his murder cut his career short too. I don’t think he will achieve the same reverence as

King occupies. For one the tension he caused did not mirror King’s effect on America and his actions did not correspond to an ethics that people in power would be so fond of using to subvert minorities. Last year NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick participated in civil disobedience by not standing for the national anthem, holding up the country to be accountable for giving rights to everyone, not just white people; a philosophy not that far off from King’s. I’m not as sure about this because he acted non-violently but, in my opinion, I don’t think he will reach the status of King in America. King challenged the laws of America and called for a change. Kaepernick called for something much more difficult, a change of heart.

Ultimately, I think there are too many variables to definitively say this theory provides more than a descriptive account of political deification for martyrs. Much of what influenced and allowed for King and Jesus to become these symbols occurred after their deaths and how the political/economic and media systems (in terms of getting an idea across like Constantine or Huckabee) functioned. That’s something that’s impossible to predict and I think ultimately prevents being able to accurately predict a martyr’s (or not a martyr) use in the future.

47 6. Works Cited

Bates, Karen Grigsby. "Stokely Carmichael, A Philosopher Behind The Black Power

Movement." NPR. NPR, 10 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

"BBC - Religions - Christianity: Who Killed Jesus?" BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 14 Apr.

2017.

Bostdorff, Denise M., and Steven R. Goldzwig. "History, Collective Memory, and the

Appropriation of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Reagan's Rhetorical Legacy."

Presidential Studies Quarterly 35.4 (2005): 661-90. Web.

Bosworth, E. I. "How Jesus Gathered His First Disciples." The Biblical World 15.2

(1900): 112-18. Web.

Bradner, Eric. "Huckabee: MLK Would Be 'appalled' by Black Lives Matter." CNN.

Cable News Network, 18 Aug. 2015. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Case, Shirley Jackson. "The First Christian Community." The Biblical World 33.1

(1909): 54-65. JSTOR. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Coates, James. "Riots Follow Killing of Martin Luther King Jr." Chicagotribune.com.

Chicago Tribune, 02 Sept. 2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Collins, Adela Yarbro. "Finding Meaning in the Death of Jesus." The Journal of Religion

78.2 (1998): 175-96. JSTOR. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Dowd, Sharyn, and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon. "The Significance of Jesus' Death in

Mark: Narrative Context and Authorial Audience." Journal of Biblical Literature

125.2 (2006): 271-97. Web.

Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford: Oxford UP,

1999. Print.

48 Gage, Beverly. "What an Uncensored Letter to M.L.K. Reveals." The New York Times.

The New York Times, 11 Nov. 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Galli, Mark. "The Inconceivable Start of African-American Christianity."

ChristianityToday.com. Christianity Today, 21 Feb. 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Garrow, David J. "The Voting Rights Act in Historical Perspective." The Georgia

Historical Quarterly 74.3 (1990): 377-98. JSTOR. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Gershon, Riva. "RONALD REAGAN AND THE REWRITING OF MARTIN LUTHER

KING’S LEGACY." Jstor. Jstor, 18 Jan. 2016. Web.

Hartnett, Rodney T., and Carol U. Libby. "Agreement with Views of Martin Luther King,

Jr. before and after His Assassination." Phylon (1960-) 33.1 (1972): 79-87. Web.

Hofstetter, C. Richard. "Political Disengagement and the Death of Martin Luther King."

Public Opinion Quarterly 33.2 (1969): 174-79. Web.

James, Frank. "Martin Luther King Jr. in Chicago." Chicagotribune.com. Chicago

Tribune, 29 Aug. 2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Jernegan, Marcus W. "Slavery and Conversion in the American Colonies." The American

Historical Review 21.3 (1916): 504-27. JSTOR. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

King, Martin Luther, and Clayborne Carson. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King.

London: Abacus, 2006. Print.

King, Martin Luther, and James Melvin. Washington. A Testament of Hope: The

Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. San Francisco:

HarperOne, 1991. Print.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. ‘‘Give Us the Ballot,’’ Address Delivered at the Prayer

Pilgrimage for Freedom, 17 May 1957, in Papers4:208–215.

49 King, Martin Luther, Jr. "Kick Up Dust." Atlanta Constitution [Atlanta] 6 Aug. 1946: n.

pag. Print.

King, Martin Luther. Stride toward Freedom the Montgomery Story. San Francisco:

Harper, n.d. Print.

Kohler, K. "The Essenes and the Apocalyptic Literature." The Jewish Quarterly Review

11.2 (1920): 145-68. JSTOR. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Matthews, David. "Kennedy White House Jitters Ahead of 1963 March on Washington -

CNNPolitics.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 28 Aug. 2013. Web. 15 Apr.

2017.

Meyer, Philip. "Aftermath of Martyrdom: Negro Militancy and Martin Luther King."

Public Opinion Quarterly 33.2 (1969): 160-75. Web.

Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956). King Institute Encyclopedia - Stanford, n.d. Web.

15 Apr. 2017.

Newport, Frank. "Martin Luther King Jr.: Revered More After Death Than Before."

Gallup.com. Gallup, Inc, 16 Jan. 2006. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Partner, Peter. God of Battles. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Przybyla, Heidi M., and Fredreka Schouten. "At 2.6 Million Strong, Women's Marches

Crush Expectations." USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, 22 Jan.

2017. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Rayner, A. J. "Christian Society in the Roman Empire." Greece & Rome 11.33 (1942):

113-23. JSTOR. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Romero, Frances. "Martin Luther King Jr. Day." Time. Time Inc., 18 Jan. 2010. Web. 15

Apr. 2017.

50 Serwer, Adam. "Why Don't We Remember Ike as a Civil Rights Hero?" MSNBC.

NBCUniversal News Group, 18 May 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Stack, Liam. "Celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Still Faces Pushback." The New York

Times. The New York Times, 16 Jan. 2017. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Tabor, James, Dr. "The Jewish World of Jesus: An Overview." The Jewish Roman World

of Jesus. UNC Charlotte, 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

U.S. Department of Commerce (1990). General Population Characteristics – Arizona.

U.S. Department of Commerce (2000). General Population Characteristics – South

Carolina

Votaw, Clyde Weber. "Inductive Studies in the Acts. The Primitive Era of Christianity.

III." The Biblical World 9.3 (1897): 204-18. Web.

Whitaker, Morgan. "Back in the Day: What Critics Said about King's Speech in 1963."

MSNBC. NBCUniversal News Group, 02 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

X, Malcolm, and Alex Haley. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Grove Press, 1965. Print.

51

52