WAS IT, I'VE HEARD IT SAID THAT IT WAS, THAT A LOT OF THE CYNICISM AND SO FORTH CAME OUT OF THE FACT THAT FOLKS THOUGHT THAT WHAT IT DID WAS, IT SOLD MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AS A LEADER, AND A PROPHET, AND NOT, AND DIDN'T DO SO MUCH FOR, FOR THE ISSUES THAT WERE INVOLVED.
Well, how do you separate one from the other? There's no question that the march on Washington clearly established Martin Luther King as a major personality in the American, you know, political scene. But what was that this personality symbolized? You know—this personality was about a social struggle, voter registration, civil rights, jobs, so that I can't separate them. I think that probably where the march may sometimes be historically distorted the fight of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party at the ah, ah,‘64 Democratic Party convention was more symbolic of a real political rift and a real political shift in the civil rights movement about the capability of traditional structures to change. The March on Washington was an advocacy program, a public rallying, while other things were an attempt for an institutional change and I think there's a big difference. It's hard to be critical of public advocacies and public rallying; it's the only was the public has to demonstrate even in a hypocritical sense that they're prepared to emotionally support something.