I WANT YOU TO TALK TO ME ABOUT JUST THE, THE FEELING THAT THERE WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS TERRIBLY FUNDAMENTAL TO LEAVE THOSE LOCAL LEADERS THERE, AS OPPOSED TO SCLC'S PERSPECTIVE, WHICH WAS TO COME IN WITH YOUR LEADER AND SORT OF TAKE YOUR MOVEMENT OUT. AND UM, I NEED FOR YOU TO TELL ME, REALLY, WHY YOU FELT THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT.
Well, for a movement… we were trying to promote a movement. We were not trying to do a project. We were developing something we felt that would last, even when we left, cause we had planned to move from one place to another. So if we did not go with the leadership that was there, and help to develop it, from the bottom to the top, then our feeling was that we would not have changed anything. The strength uh, that we had was in people. People could move mountains, we'd always say, you know. People were the main uh, ingredient for the success of any of our campaigns. Leadership comes in, in in different ways. A minister is a leader, parishioners are leaders. Young people are leaders. To keep a movement going, sometime pits one level of leadership against another level of leadership. That's, that's just uh, in the nature of things. Children against their elders, uh, teachers against those who employ them, other professionals against professionals. There's always conflict. I guess I'm trying, I'm trying to say that for a sustained movement, for strength, for the unity that we sought, in an attempt to unleash all the emotions and steer, steer this movement in some particular way, there was no single way of doing it. I don't know whether I've uh, made [unintelligible] or not.