Want to know what could undo all the good you did getting arrested in a suit? By being taped by J Edgar Hoover, in the throes of sex with a white woman who isn't your wife, yelling "I'm not a Negro tonight!"
On Jan. 6, 1964, FBI men installed microphones in King's Washington, D.C., hotel room and turned on the tape recorder. According to officials who heard the tapes, King that night betrayed his wife, Coretta--not for the first or the last time--shouting, amid his most private activities, "I'm fucking for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" Later that year, agents anonymously shipped King "a 'highlight' recording of bugged sex groans and party jokes" along with a letter warning him: "You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." They called it the "suicide package."I think, on the scale of things you can do to potentially doom a movement, this beats walking down a street and telling the world, "I'm proud of who I am." Negroes need to get serious.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Without excusing MLK's notorious penchant for infidelity, you can't really blame him for the "being taped by Hoover" part.The FBI was beasting on the surveillance front whether folks knew it or not, least of all during Hoover's watch.
Well you know you have enemies. You know that (even without the tape) if word gets out that the religious leader of a movement so based on the moral high-ground is engaged it this kind of business, it won't help.
All of that said, I want to be clear that I'm not throwing daggers. Pinging off the last thread, I'm just saying this idea that he was model of organizational caution is overdone. He was a man who did great, great things. The former is as important as the latter.
And Bayard Rustin had already gotten into trouble for being arrested for being gay. It's not like the Movement wasn't aware that violating society's sexual mores could mess the Movement up.
I guess my question is why would you expect anything less? If we are to look at King as a man and not as some Christ-like figure, this sort of human slip-up is to be expected. The 1960s is littered with individuals who turned to drink, drugs and adultery as a coping mechanism when the weight of the U.S. Government was used against them.
Most reasonable people would expect an individual to self-medicate in this situation---movement or not.
I think the point is that people talk about MLK as a Christ-like figure. You cannot dare to say a negative word about him (although I don't give a crap if he was sleeping around or not-- he is still a hero to me).
if we treat our heroes like gods instead of like people, we set ourselves up for disappointment when we find out that they're people.
Two points you seem to be eliding:
1) Sure, MLK's cheating was wrong and not terribly smart, but he did think he was doing it on the QT. Marchers know what they are doing is being done in full view.
2) Historically, there has been an element of transgression among a significant subset of the gay community. No, this doesn't apply to all gays, or even to all gays campaigning for gay marriage and such (remember the sober-looking, suit-wearing gay activists Clinton invited to the White House?), but gay pride parades have often attracted transgressives. The writer you quoted before may or may not have issues with gays and may or may not be a troll, but he does make a good point: when you are trying to elicit the sympathies of mainstream society, the best way to do that is to appear, to some extent, to conform with its values.
Appearing to conform with values is a little tricky when it comes to homosexuality, because some opponents characterize their opposition in terms of values, but it's not impossible, and it's been done before, by gays who point out that their civil unions/marriages -- aside from the same sex aspect -- support the same traditional values traditional marriage advocates claim to support.
Civil Rights leaders were of course sensitive to mainstream values as well. That's the reason why Rosa Parks was chosen to personify bus segregation, rather than other women who had similarly been arrested for not moving to the back of the bus, including one who, I recall reading, had a child out of wedlock (this was less common back then, of course).
Right, but that's not the argument. We're talking about intelligent models of protest. King had no real choice about being on the DL--he was cheating on his wife and willing to risk being caught.
Second, once again, a Gay Right Parade is exactly what it says it is. Not a protest. A parade. It isn't the same.
Are you sure about that? Go back to the other thread and check the link to the origins of the Gay Pride March/Parade or whatever you want to call it.
Checked and responded. I await word from you.
I can't actually respond over there because of some quirk that doesn't allow replies after a certain number or responses so I will respond here.
You point out over there that but for the Iraq War there wouldn't have been War Protest marches. Same thing with Vietnam. And for this reason you draw a distinction between that and a Gay Pride Parade.
For one I don't see how that is analagous unless your contention is that the oppression LGBT folks suffered from in 1969 is now gone. People usually march until their grievances are addressed in full or its apparent that they won't be.
For two not only was it born out of political and policy objectives, it has now been repeated across the world to affect political and policy objectives around the globe. There are gay pride marches now in places where people used to get arrested for being gay. So its really hard for me to see how its just a day for fun in the sun.
I know you and keith both made the point about their being gay pride marches after gay marriage passes but hell there are marches/parades all through out the country during black history month so I don't see what actual point you are making with that.
What it comes down to is this as I pointed out before, whether you think it is political or not, at least for the opposition, it will be. So even if you were to whole heartedly believe that Gay Pride Parades and marches are just about having fun, does that mean that they should allow themselves to be used for propaganda purposes?
Remember just last year people were using caracitures of outlandishly dressed people made up to look gay in political attack ads against Democrats.
Now I guess that its supposed to be some kind of badge of honor to say that everyone should just do them and everything will work itself out. But we all know that's not the way the world works. It just isn't. Regardless of MLK Jr's failure as a man and a husband he was still exactly right in his approach to getting Civil Rights legislation passed. So maybe just maybe unless we are having Bible study we can look past what he did behind closed doors and focus on what he accomplished out in the open and how he accomplished it. And it decidely wasn't by just telling everybody to "be themselves."
Here's the thing about homosexuality (at least according to my gay best friend): society has already informed you that your entire being is transgressive. Once you make that first move--once you have some sort of sexual contact with someone of the same sex as yourself--you've pretty much knocked down all the walls.
Which is one of the (many) problems with this statement: "Historically, there has been an element of transgression among a significant subset of the gay community."
You could say that the entire gay community is transgressive.
But you could also say, What the hell are you talking about? "A significant subset of the gay community"? Where are you getting your statistics? What percentage of the total American gay community is represented by the thong-wearing denizens of the average Gay Pride Day parade? And what constitutes "an element of transgression": getting your cock pierced? Parading in a thong once a year? Wearing clothing more appropriate to a gender other than the one you were born with? Daily transgression? Weekly? Monthly? Annual?
So, if someone dresses in a thong in public once a year, that's it? They don't have the right to be taken seriously the other 364 days? I can't even wrap my head around what it takes to believe that.
Again, I think you have to be conscious of the differences between...well, different kinds of difference. Sexual orientation just doesn't work the same way as race. Setting aside for the moment the issue of whether or not anyone chooses to be gay, it's obvious that whether or not to be openly gay is a choice. With a very few exceptions, that's just wasn't true for blacks in the Civil Rights era.
Secondly, there's hardly unanimity among gay & lesbians over how, when, or even whether the same-sex marriage battle should be fought. In other words, the drag queen in the thong at the gay pride parade may really not "support the same traditional values traditional marriage advocates claim to support." Hell, I'm more or less straight and I don't even think I support those values.
"Ending the Iraq War" is a specific policy goal. "Ending the Vietnam War" is a specific policy goal. "Desegregating the University of Mississippi" is a very specific policy goal. "Ending Oppresion" is not. Moreover, The Gay Pride Parade's mission isn't to "End Oppression."
It's really hard for me to believe that you don't think there's a distinguishable difference between the anti-War marches and a Gay Pride Parade--especially given all the gay posters we have here making the point.
I'm reaching the point of repeating the same thing over and over. I'm all for debating. But if we're just going to play "Crossfire," I think this would be a good time for me to bow out.
"When you are trying to elicit the sympathies of mainstream society, the best way to do that is to appear, to some extent, to conform with its values."
I think the biggest change in terms of mainstream acceptance of gays has been the number out of the closet who are profoundly boring. "Gay people, like Wendell and James down the street." Your fellow PTO parents account managers, and historical house remodelers.
Dan Savage had an interesting point on the whole concept of Gay Pride in his Seven Deadly Sins book, that being gay was just what he was and a weird thing to take pride in. (As opposed to one's writing, or tennis serve.) And in fact that when first coming out he could have used less "you're one of us!" pride and more "watch out for older men who like 17 year olds" like the Pride-free straight girls were hearing.
eh, happens to the best of us
kidding, just in case that isn't clear
Sarcasm is generally tough to pull off in text, without non verbal cues. Just a friendly tip.
Yeah, and seriously, screw emoticons
TNC, I agree that folks need a bit of perspective when it comes to MLK, but King getting illegally taped by J. Edgar Hoover isn't really something that furthers your argument. It probably gave King and JFK something to shoot the shit about. What black man hasn't said, "I'm Fucking for God" when shtupping a white women?
Im a little slow but...this is sarcasm right?
Yes, I was trying to make a funny.
First of all MLK is not Dr. Tim Whatley DDS, I`m not sure he`d say shtupping. Second of all, as a white woman I`d be thinking "what the hell is up with MLK yelling out all this crazy stuff? Should have gone with Malcolm X..."
Respect your taste, LCrawfty; but c'mon, humor in bed is awesome!
Any tapes of Hoover out there and was he wearing a dress while taped?
Very often "great men" are deeply flawed.
Look at some of our modern Presidents and their flaws.
The pressure on Dr King must have been immense. That doesn't absolve him of any "wrong", but might help explain it.
I certainly don't want any aspects of my sex life made public. People might not quite understand why last Fall I made my favorite hooker wear a Sarah Palin mask.
It's a freaky world we live in.
lol.
IP, you are too much.
IP, I am beginning to suspect you are either my dad or my uncle here in disguise. And apparently you like to play dress up, so ...
Ok,
I admit it.
I was wearing a Bill Clinton mask with the "Sarah" hooker.
Should have made her wear a "Scream" mask. Eastbound and Down for life!
While I knew about his frequent infidelities, I am somewhat shocked by his comments -- "I'm not a Negro tonight!" Shocking and disappointing. However, MLK was just a human being, who inspite of his flaws, accomplished significant strides for minorities and women in this country. I can accept that.
As the daughter of a minister, I have to say, I laughed so hard when I read this. I mean, yes, of course it's horrible, but what minister does not, at some point, end up shouting "I'm sinning for God" about something he should know better than to do?
That's practically how the job works.
Aunt B,
Does your father know you comment here?
You may need to beg TNC to delete that!
Hey, if my dad didn't want me to realize that preachers were deeply flawed people with a great propensity for rationalizing their misbehavior, he shouldn't have had so many of them as friends.
I joke, but, really, when I read that quote, it kind of made me love MLK in a real person way, like, yeah, this is the kind of guy who would be laughing in my living room growing up. This is how ministers screw up.
In my experience, ministers have it bad in two ways 1. They are deeply-flawed human beings (like everyone), who feel called to do something in service to a god they deeply love, even if they're, from the outside, completely unqualified for the job and just making it up as they go along (not that MLK was unqualified, but when you read about him, you can see that he was figuring the whole "civil rights leader" job out at he went). And 2. There are very few people they can admit their lack of qualifications or flaws to and so, when they come out, whew, boy do they come out!
I don't know. Like I said, I read those quotes and I just knew I was hearing from a minister like the ones I know.
Thanks, Aunt B! That was very interesting and insightful.
I actually felt the same way. It didn't make me mad at him. It didn't make me think any less of him. He gets to be human, too.
I think he can be worshiped and be human at the same time. I never heard this quote before and it just made me laugh, not think less of him. No one should be held accountable for what they say in bed.
For some reason, reading your comment brought back this article:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29788
I agree the the deification of King has gone too far, likely much farther than King or anyone one in the movement would have preferred I'd hazard to guess.
On a practical note the problem this poses is in allowing the man to overshadow the ideas.
I think actually the popular worship of King has allowed American society respite from the dissonance his cause inspired in their hearts.
By supporting King one can, ironically, disavow what King stood for.
We see this in the bad faith of the arguments about King and a "color-blind society' most clearly.
It's funny, this makes me think about all sorts of theological and ethical questions.
Most importantly I think it highlight the practical importance of humility.
That's one of the key tactics that the Creationist movement uses against evolutionary theory - find some thing that Darwin wrote, some thing that he believed, and make that into your counter-argument. "Darwin said X is true, but it's not, so how can you believe in evolution?" I guess that sort of behavior is true of any group that's arguing some untenable position.
But in the end, how much does it matter? King's moral failings haven't done any major lasting damage to the civil rights movement. Creationism continues to not be taught in schools, and creationist ideas receive mostly public ridicule. And if someone stepped forward to lead the gay rights crusade, and he or she was dragging their own dirty laundry behind him, would the gains made by a solidified movement under their leadership really be harmed in any meaningful way by the airing of that laundry? If you're fighting from a position where you hold the moral or logical high ground, personal failings just don't matter that much in the long run.
Eh, happens to the best of us. And me, I'm not kidding: not kidding at all.
He may have been a lousy husband, but that's between him and Coretta. I'm not even sure how unwise it was: after all, they taped him in '64, and sent it to him later that year. That means the man had three-four years left, during which, so far as I can tell, the existence of these tapes made no difference at all, as far as his political activities are concerned.
Whatever King did in bed is many many times outdone by merely the fact that he didn't allow the government to blackmail him. He didn't betray us (what he did benefited blacks and non blacks alike).
And honestly guys, I know that reveling this would be a huge deal at that time, but this is really a sexual pecadillo. I know it was a little bit irresponsible given the responsibility he had on his shoulders but...
Also, the guy was pretty funny, huh?
That's what made King King. The Federalis had all this on him, in that era, and he didn't blink. Never let Hoover back him down. Impressive.
As far as what he said and did in the bedroom, since im not Coretta or his kids, it really is only relevant to me in a relatively tame TMZ kind of way. No harm to the movement, no foul.
And really, there are very few Americans who could pass the somebody's illegally recording everything i say and do in the bedroom so I can never say or do anything controversial test. Just very few.
Whoops. Should have read the link. Sounds like the tapes made a little difference: how much is hard (for me) to say. Obviously not enough to shut him down, though.
Actually, from what I've heard anecdotally, King wasn't even that careful in *public*. My mother, god bless her, has never gotten over seeing the Right Reverend on a cross country flight canoodling with a woman who was quite obviously *not* Mrs. King. So we can't even cover it with the "he didn't really know the risk he was taking, because he couldn't have known the room was bugged" tack.
Am I the only one who remains skeptical about Hoover's "evidence"? I realize that this is the same man who taped Marilyn Monroe performing oral sex in an attempt to entrap the Kennedy's so I definitely believe he bugged King. I'm just saying that considering the fact that no depth was too low for Hoover some of the things King purportedly "said" may not be true. There is little room for doubt that King was caught cheating on his wife (based upon her own admissions) but some of that stuff sounds like it could have been added for maximum "piss of the southern whites" affect.
The have the man on tape. I wish they didn't, but that's pretty damning...
Well, they *say* they have the man on tape. Has anyone outside the FBI actually heard it?
We need idealized heroes just as much as we need casual sex. There's good money to be made denouncing both, but don't think you'll be making any actual progress.
TNC, was this necessary (or relevant)?
You let dudes' terribly flawed logic get under your skin so bad that you felt the need to ride out on MLK?
It ain't like MLK was publically locked arm-n-arm with his white bustdown during the actual protest march/parade. You really think any movement would hold up well under the scrutiny of a nefarious program like COINTELPRO?
Seriously Bruh, that's some weak sauce, IMO. Sounds like some Don Imus, 'I-cant-be-critiqued-because-Snoop-uses-the-N-Word' type of twisted up logic to me.
I don't know, just my rambling thoughts.
How am I riding out on MLK? This is public knowledge--with a hyperlink, no less.
You ain't ask me, but, it's the idea that this makes King a less notable and distinguished figure as far as his work on Civil Rights goes.
The way your post read, the question, then, is what human being *should* be worshipped, since MLK is out of contention now?
Like I said below, no person should be worshipped for any reason. Period.
Did I say this?
Because, IMO, a flawed logic arguement comparing how the gay parades (not marches) don't 'dress for success' like MLK's Civil Rights led efforts doesn't really warrant (again, IMO) a post drudging up King's personal indiscretions.
It's like saying Rick Rubio shouldn't model his game after Jason Kidd because Kidd (allegedly) beats his wife.
Even though it's public knowledge, I simply question the trigger for injecting it in the discussion.
Sounds like an unnecessary rideout to me.
Hope that helps.
No it isn't. It's like saying Kidd shouldn't beat his wife, because the NBA might suspend him.
The point is that King personal behavior endangered his political goals. How is that a "rideout?" It's factually true.
It doesn't make him any less of leader. It doesn't make what he accomplished any less great. It just means he was human.
I think its more like saying "stop looking to Michael Jordan as the model for how a good, upstanding saintly NBA player should market himself; this is the same Michael Jordan who slept with scores of blondes while married, including porn star Kylie Ireland who even turned it into a porno. Instead, worry about your own contribution to the game on its own terms."
"White bustdown" - if that is what I think it is, I have learned a new word today. Thank you, TNC blog.
White bustdown: that is so funny I had to laugh and I am at work. Thanks for making me notice it.
King's accomplishing what he did AND being (deeply?) flawed makes him all the more.......remarkable and, basically, exceptional, in my mind.
It means he was at least as noble as the average person, if not somewhat LESS noble, but still managed to focus enough righteous behavior on a righteous goal to affect/help/improve an entire nation in the span of just a few years.
Should he be worshipped? No. No human should, so this is a superflous example to "prove" that point.
The bigger question would be: WHY was he being taped--especially by a sick f**** like J Edgar, who had a secret penchant for young boys? The story from JFK's inner circle was that because he, too, was taped, and he was poed that Hoover thought he had him by the cajones, JFK had planned to fire Hoover after the New Year of 1964.
How funny is it that Kennedy and King have had streets, schools, museums, airports--you name it, if it was built it was named after them--and Bobby too--but in LA, the only thing we know of Hoover is either the old Hoover vacuum cleaner or Hoover Crips...
Ive thought of the Hoover vaccum / Hoover Crips thing more than once! LOL I thought I was the only person on earth who thought that!
Of course there is Hoover (Herbert) Dam also...
Well, the FBI's headquarters are still named after Hoover.
I refuse to stop the MLK worship, sorry. The man is the single greatest person our country has produced to date, flaws and all, IMHO. When you read his writings in the last 5 years of his life, it becomes very clear that this was a man who KNEW he was going to be killed. It wasn't some mystical prescience on his part; it was that it was very obvious that there were thousands of people who wanted him dead, and one of them was going to get him, or his family, or both, at some point. All of his friends knew it and his family knew it, too. And instead of packing it up and shutting up and moving somewhere safe, like any normal person would do, he kept on speaking and writing and making public appearances, just trying to convince people to do the right thing. The fact that he occasionally did some crazy regrettable shit under those circumstances pales in comparison to the fact that he CHOSE to remain under those circumstances, for wholly unselfish reasons. God only knows what I'd do if I knew there was a good chance someone was going to blow my head off every time I walked out the door in the morning, and I'll never find out, because I'll never be brave enough to get myself into that situation in the first place. He wasn't a saint but he was a hell of a hero.
Lee, I don't think anybody here thinks less of MLK because of this thing. I think that TNC was getting at the idea that you need to be just perfect to be an activist for a cause. If the most consequential leader America gave in the 20th century wasn't perfect then why to ask Tommy the Drag to be?
"F____g is a form of stress relief"
Rev Dr. Martin Luther The King
(as in, "You aint NEVER met no Martin Luther The King!"
-Coming to America
I'm a bigger fan of MLK now than I ever have been.
The thought comes to mind, "what is everything that I dreamed of?"
He swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker and dared them to reel him in because he still occupied the moral high ground no matter how many times he got caught playing in snow. Sounds like bona fide hero material.
Some time ago I read some article (no I don't remember who wrote it - I think it was in my student newspaper, anyway...) the point of which that white people shouldn't laugh at the racially charged humor of the likes of Chris Rock or that one tall, skinny comedian. My basic belief is that if something is funny, then it's funny and if you think there's something wrong about it, don't stop laughing, but try to figure out why you think it's funny.
This is one of those situations. I think the quotes you excerpted there were pretty damn funny and I laughed, but I'm a little worried that it's coming from the wrong place. That's just me though.
I think TNC is wrong here. MLK was down the rabbit hole and through the mirror. Anything and everything could have sunk him, destroyed him, fucked up the movement. If people are shooting up your house or letting churches get blown up then are microphones under the bed really the thing you have to worry the most about?
also,Hoover had this stuff and maybe it really was king making those sounds and yelling those things, but where in 1965 could he have published it? it wasn't going in the papers and it wasn't going on the news and there was no internet and its a million miles beyond what anybody could publish about anybody. So in some weird way, this stuff was no threat to MLK Jr or the movement.
No one knows the deal between a husband and his wife and so the threats to release this stuff destroys some people and makes others laugh. We need look no further than the clintons or the edwards to realize crazy stuff makes some people fight back to back rather than pulling them apart.
Somehow MLK yelling this stuff seems like a game him and his crew played on the FBI. Do we really believe they didn't know they were being taped? Do we really think they didn't screw with kennedys' head or hoover's?
Yelling that stuff sounds kind of like abbie hoffman painting the word fuck on his forehead during the chicago protests so that msm couldn't use photos of him.
Its interesting that last week you TNC says that he's finally starting to get the Lincoln thing- seeing how this amazing flawed man is so amazing and maybe pivotal and then doing wrong by king here. The flaws are there, the mistakes are there, but the poetry and bounding grace is there too. Gandhi is a screwed up dude too in weird ways but really TNC the pedestal is permanent. telling us these guys are human and that things could have turned on a flawed dime of their frail human natures tells us more about the greatness hidden in us than the weakness in them. Check out that armatrading song (the weakness in me).
Coates -
I'm surprised by how upset your statements seem here. You're right, any worship of any man needs to be grounded in reality - but seriously, something as banal as a man having extramarital sex (even with a white woman) is not something that deserves such a vigorous response.
What "movement" would exposure of MLK's affair(s) have derailed? The black movement toward freedom? We're all born free. Or the movement of Mr. Charlie to release his grasp from our necks? King's strength was his ability to present the amorality of white society in historical and religous context. His nonviolent approach allowed him to appeal to the morality of white citizens, rather than their fear. I don't believe that MLK would necessarily be castrated were his affairs publicized, and if so, I don't believe that he was the only individual or group able to continue the dialogue. Maybe I'm wrong. But if Mr. Charlie defused the nonviolent movement, what would he be left with? The "violent" movement that was much closer to home - in the ghettos of the North.
Also, I don't believe it fair or appropriate to criticize his statements made while engaging in this affair. You know that the FBI was out to lynch MLK and the "movement" he represented. And you also know that those quotes - even within the context of his affair - represent a severely restricted narrative. Even if the public at that time would not have given MLK a break, surely we ought to. I mean, if they have tapes of that, they probably have tapes of MLK masturbating, praying, making love to his WIFE, sharing his deepest fears with his best friends. In short, of an amazing man being, for better or worse, a man. The movement succeeded - to the extent that it has - because of the perfect morality of the message, not any perceived perfection in the morality of the messenger...
Your last sentence - perfect.
Juba,
Two quick points:
That notion that Jordan liked blondes and porn harlots doesn’t mitigate the fact that the ‘Air Jordan’ marketing blueprint, perhaps the most successfully marketed athlete, black or white, in the history of this planet, should be studied by anyone wishing to become a ‘Global Icon’.
I would also argue that injecting the notion that MJ (or MLK) were not ‘models of good, upstanding or saintly’ in a conversation when discussing how one who wants to be a ‘Global Icon’ goes about achieving that goal is equally questionable.
Again, dude's 'dress for success' logic was flawed. But I don't see the need to start quoting embarrassing facts about MLK as a logical defense.
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't really see the responses that triggered the need to 'un-deify' King.
I thought the original argument was against the One Leader For All model of social change? If so, deifying King is certainly germane.
If the point is "dont emulate him, arrive at your own greatness"?
Also germane.
I think the disconnect here is that I was responding to the MLK discussion as it pertained to the 'gay parade' thread.
Considering that the 'No MLK for Gays' thread only has 12 responses, I feel pretty good that the gay parade thread was the trigger for this thread.
"if so deifying King (or not deifying King)"
My daddy always said never trust a preacher with more than two suits (are you listening Rev Wright?) So I do not doubt that Dr. King had extramariatial sex, but until TNC and Taylor Branch can name their FBI sources for these very precise quotes I'll pass on piling this bit of sand on the great man's feet.
A day late, but as someone who was pretty young when it happened, and I mentioned this once before here, I believe that everything that changed in our country came from seeing the march in Birmingham and the dogs attacking the protesters televised. It shocked and shamed our populace in a way that could not be turned aside.
I don't want to idolize Dr. King, but as an old pacifist lefty, I cannot overstate his importance along with that of Ghandi, and I can think of no one in the past forty years who has influenced the world thus or taken up what almost appears to have become a tragically anachronistic mantle.