I don't disagree with a word you wrote. Jones was a good, decent, fair man.
My only point was that during an important historical moment in Jones's hometown, some wealthy, powerful members of the white establishment took some risks they didn't need to take. In an ideal world, I would have hoped that Jones - an influencial man of real intelligence - would have lent them his support.
I don't disagree with a word you wrote, either.
But to be perfectly frank, I don't think wealthy, powerful, WHITE, establishment members made any long-term contributions to civil rights.
I recognize that many whites made important contributions, particularly in the passage of legislation requiring equality. But legislation is just "paper" equality. It can require equal treatment. When necessary, it permits enforcing equal treatment.
But genuine equality only evolves from "performance" equality. People will respect you as an equal when you can perform as well in the same theater, whether that's in commerce, the classroom, in medicine, in law, whatever. I think it's also why so much of the groundbreaking in racial equality began in sports. It was one of the most accessible arenas for minorities to measure themselves with whites.
For white Southerners, MLK's message resonated because, as you listened to him, you perceived him as an equal. His rhetoric was not groundbreaking. The message had been communicated before; however, it was now being delivered by this handsome, intelligent, Southern, articulate, BLACK man. His poise and charisma required respect and admiration. He shattered stereotypes.
Legislation eventually dictated that MLK could sit down and be served at the same lunch counter. That's paper equality. MLK's eloquence made you want to sit next to him. That's performance equality.
And fundamentally, that's why Jones' stance to require all American golfers to meet the same qualifications was so important (though unpopular), and its why Lee Elder's accomplishment was so grand. It was much more important for Lee Elder to earn an invitation than it was for Jones to extend him one. It's doubtless that Jones would have endured less grief had he capitulated. But that's what makes his principled stand all the more admirable--and for minorities, more rewarding.