I have been reading At Canaan's Edge, the final volume of Taylor Branch's trilogy of America in the King years. An anecdote in the book reminded me of a question that seems suitable for today.
Branch recounts litigation over the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in March of 1965. After the first attempted march, which ended with Alabama troopers clubbing and gassing the marchers into submission, Judge Frank Johnson enjoined further marches until he could hold hearings. Branch notes that, at the hearings, lawyers for Alabama refused to use the Rev. King's proper name, in order to evade the court's order that they refer to him as either "Dr. King" or "Mr. King." (87)
There are many good accounts of the lawyering in support of the civil rights movement. (An excellent one is here.) But I have not read any accounts explaining what the lawyers on the other side were thinking. What went through the mind of lawyers who worked to stop the march (and, more generally, to perpetuate an American form of apartheid), and could not bring themselves even to say "Mr. King?"
History is written by the winners, but it would be instructive to learn how the lawyers on the losing side of these battles saw things. (If anyone knows of such a study, please reference it in comments.) If nothing else, their example might serve as an effective caution against accepting uncritically the prevailing practices and sentiments of one's time and, in that case, class.
Branch also relates, by the way, an ex parte contact between Attorney General Katzenbach and Judge Johnson, in which the judge stated that he would not issue his order until assured that President Johnson (not merely the attorney general) promised to enforce it. An extraordinary step, perhaps, but one suited to the case.
DM