What is it about money that brings out the worst in human nature? Since time immemorial, people attempting to amass or control wealth — primarily for the wrong reasons — feel compelled to commit the unethical or outright fraudulent. Nowhere is that unsavory tendency more visible than when it involves family members. The impulse to have material wealth can be a powerful lure that invariably sets brother against brother (or for that matter sister, grandmother mother, aunt, cousin, etc.). Long-simmering blood feuds spill out into the open, all in the name of money.
Which is why watching the heirs of civil rights figures Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. can make for both compelling drama and cringe-inducing spectacle. Both iconic families have seen their familial divisions laid bare in the court of public opinion, with money being at the heart of much of their divisions. Among other things, Malcolm X’s heirs have been embroiled in a battle over the management of their father’s estate, which at an estimated $1.4 million, is a relatively modest sum. Meanwhile, the King offspring spent more than a year in court before finally reaching an agreement on how to divide the spoils of their father’s archives and personal papers, reportedly worth more than $30 million.
Click here to view a slideshow of the 25 most influential African-American leaders of all time
Many of us who learned about both men as world-historical figures can only shake our heads in disbelief at the seemingly endless stream of negative press, and the sight of the Kings and Shabazzes dishonoring the memories of their long-deceased patriarchs. All of which begs a very important question: given the prominence both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. occupy in American history, why does it seem as if their children can’t seem to honor their legacies, or at least keep the distasteful bickering safely ensconced behind closed doors?
Prominent clans are not much different than the average nuclear families. They all have similar struggles, needs and emotional baggage. Yet in the cases of the King and Shabazz, family differences have become magnified by their very recognizable surnames. Their palace intrigue ends up being refracted through a prism of a celebrity-obsessed culture that is a direct result of everyday citizens holding the rich and famous to perhaps impossibly high standards.
By no means can it be argued that intra-family squabbles are solely found among the children of these civil rights titans. Internecine warfare is fairly common among high profile families, and surprisingly bipartisan in nature. The children of President Ronald Reagan have bickered openly for years, and are on record airing sharply divergent political differences. And while most of the Kennedy family shared similar political views, the tragic and sometimes sordid details of the dynasty’s personal lives became frequent tabloid fodder over the years. In the 90s President Bill Clinton’s wayward brother caused a fair share of embarrassment, and Bristol Palin’s recent interminable baby-daddy drama has surely caused plenty of wrenching moments for her mother. The important distinction here, however, is that few of these fights were about money.
Naturally, the circumstances of how both Malcolm X and MLK departed this earth play a pivotal role in how their children have handled their deaths. Both men lost their lives prematurely, and losing a parent to violence often penetrates the psyche in unimaginable ways. Neither Malcolm nor MLK were present to provide guidance for their children, which had to inflict grievous emotional wounds. But in at least one respect, their untimely demise also had a more practical impact: neither man appeared to leave a will. As many high profile families have discovered to their peril, not having a record of one’s final will and testament can evoke the sort of squabbling demonstrated by the King and Shabazz clans.
So as the old song goes, more money, more problems? Wealth is clearly a motivating factor behind the jockeying for legal and financial advantage both families have endured. Yet it’s clear that many of the issues simmering beneath the surface appear more profound than the financial. In the case of the King family, a battle has been joined over the intellectual and moral meaning of the movement their father galvanized. In recent years, King family members have openly sparred about hot-button social issues, and who has the right to assume the mantle of MLK’s legacy.
Family quarrels are complex and emotionally fraught affairs: ones involving money are doubly so. The King and Shabazz families are not above petty fights, but for better or worse, the respective memories and enduring legacies of their fathers make the circumstances different. As the last-remaining survivors of an important historical inheritance, their public actions are held to a higher standard. As a result, they should feel a responsibility to settle their personal and financial grievances with more discretion and a lot more dignity.