A neutral, independent community in which members debate issues related to social justice.
Martin Luther King, His Legacy, and His Dream
While his 88th birthday was yesterday, today is the day usually designated to celebrate the life and achievements of Martin Luther King. As this is a community focused on social and societal issues, it is only fitting that there would be a post dedicated to him.
As an Atlanta native, MLK is crucial to the city's history - he grew up in Atlanta, and while his activism work has been mostly in Alabama, he is seen as one of ours to cherish. Indeed, there is a museum called the Center for Civil and Human Rights, which I had the privilege of visiting this past summer, in downtown Atlanta which is dedicated to his works and the work of modern activists around the world.
While he is almost universally lauded as a civil rights icon, there is a sharp divide over what his significance is today in light of current events, with each side praising different aspects of him. Much like the Bible, people cherry-pick what they like to hear from his speeches.
Take, for example, the interpretation of one of his most famous lines: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
To some, this quotation implies that King envisioned an America that will move beyond racial identity. The election of Barack Obama in 2008 seemed to portend that America is moving towards that direction, and some had even argued that his dream had already become reality. For others, this line was more indicative of a distant dream that is not even close to passing yet, and in the meanwhile, the focus on race must be maintained.
There is also disagreement over whether moving towards a post-racial, "colorblind" America was even a goal of his. While this quote seems to support that claim, people who support race-based affirmative action programs tend to use the quote "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" (Where Do We Go From Here?) in support.
There is also a profound disagreement over King's stance on violence, riots, and hatred towards whites, and this was especially salient after the Ferguson and Baltimore incidents.
While some had argued that because King's activism was about peaceful demonstrations and the equality of whites with everyone else, and therefore he would strongly disapprove of violence and hatred towards whites, others have a different view.
In support, people have used the lines "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate..." from Letter from a Birmingham Jail and "Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn..." to argue that King harbored resentment against whites AND that such resentment is completely justified even in the modern day. On the subject of riots, I'm sure you've seen on social media in the last couple of years, there are the quotes "A riot is the language of the unheard" and "[Riots] are born of the greater crimes of the white society.", which runs in complete contrast to even people like Obama, who described Ferguson/Baltimore rioters as "criminals and thugs".
I think his legacy is actually quite complicated and at times contradictory - anyone can take what they want from his words and use them to justify their own views. I think King himself often changed his mind, making it impossible to have a simple, unified view of his legacy.
I personally think that a post-racial colorblind society should be our goal (feel free to disagree with me on that) and that our laws should be completely neutral, but we are clearly not there yet in terms of enforcement of laws and how people are treated (I have always said "The problem with colorblindness is not that people are colorblind but rather that too many people are not, even if they say they are"). Thus, we must work with people who have biases and assumptions based on skin color/complexion. I also think that regardless of what MLK may have said at one point or another, violence and resentment against those with a different skin color, even if they are societally dominant, is unjustified because it is unfair to make generalizations about everyone based on the actions of a few.
What do you think his legacy was, and what he stood for? What conditions have improved, beyond the obvious end of segregation, from when he was alive to today? What conditions have not, or have gotten worse? Would he be considered a radical today? Are there any parts of his legacy that you don't necessarily agree with?




To argue that King harbored categorical resentment against whites because of that quote is really taking things out of context. King accepted many White activists into his movement and spoke highly of them in Letter from Birmingham Jail.
King was not a Black nationalist. He thought that Black nationalism would lead to a "frightening racial nightmare". His whole philosophy was that positive change could only happen if White people were also on board. That quote is essentially expressing disappointment that most White people were not yet on board.
You might say that he could have changed his mind by the time he wrote Where Do We Go From Here?, but King's last action before his assassination was helping to organize the Poor People's Campaign, which involved poor people of all races, including poor whites.
As for his stance on riots and violence, he did say that they were the result of racial tensions boiling over with no outlet. He viewed his nonviolent action as a way to channel the frustration and anger that might otherwise lead to violence. I'm not sure whether he saw violence as morally wrong or simply counterproductive. Either way, I don't think he would have condoned rioting. But on the other hand, the letter is quite clear that he thinks the only way to avoid the riots is to defuse the tension by moving quickly towards correcting racial injustice.
I think that if you look at his life and words as a whole, MLK's legacy is quite clear. He was not supportive of Black nationalism or violent action, because it would lead society down the wrong path. But at the same time he was very critical of complacency with the status quo, which would leave lingering injustice. Through his actions, you can see that he considered it important to bring White people into the movement and convince them of the necessity of change. He also thought that economic inequality was as much a problem as legal inequality, as evidenced by his organizing the Poor People's Campaign, and believed corrective action was necessary in order to lessen it (both to decrease the gap between rich and poor and the gap between White and Black).
Certainly many groups have distorted his message to justify their own views. But that's par for the course with pretty much every influential historical figure.
It's interesting how much debate there is on his legacy. While pretty much everyone outside of the KKK (who mostly focus on his marital infidelity and his alleged Communist connections) agrees that he was a non-violent activist and is a hero, there are extremists both in the social justice movement and among conservatives to only take certain parts of his message.
I don't think anyone is arguing that King harbored categorical hatred towards whites except maybe the KKK and neo-Nazis, but there is an argument that he thought that resentment against whites, especially the ones who are neutral towards his movement, is perfectly justified. This is usually an argument made by the more extremist activists of today, as a defense if they are criticized for making negative remarks about whites in general. I think King himself struggled at times - while his life's work is predicated on harmony and not resentment and hatred, he may have had moments where he became frustrated and cynical.
As for the rioting, the full quote was "But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard." This sounds a lot more reasonable than "a riot is the language of the unheard" that I saw on social media immediately after the Ferguson and Baltimore incidents. It is a condemnation of riots, but it is also a condemnation of the institutional racism that preceded such riots. Again, this out of context quotation of MLK from extremists in social justice is an attempt to justify their behavior, which Obama rightly condemned while also condemning discriminatory behavior among police officers.
While extremist race activists have used MLK's more fiery quotes to justify their actions and to assert themselves as MLK's heirs, conservatives have been using MLK's dreamy, peaceful quotes to shut down any discussion of potential biases, discriminatory/prejudicial behavior, etc. from those in power. They have the mantra that liberals and Democrats hate white people, and therefore are not "judging people by the content of their character". But of course, it's a ludicrous claim, at least as it refers to run of the mill Democratic politicians and the majority of activists. But I fear that extremists who say stupid things are giving them red meat and justification for continuing to ignore the evidence of discrimination.
Certainly you could pick MLK's quotes out of context to support either "do nothingism" or "Black nationalism" as he put it in Letter from Birmingham Jail. It's indicative of the line MLK walked between the two his entire life.
It's very understandable that a member of an oppressed group would have resentful feelings toward the group that oppressed them. I don't think anyone who's being honest with themselves can say that they wouldn't occasionally have categorically negative thoughts about the dominant group in that situation. King may have had such thoughts at some points. He was only human, after all. That said, such resentment may be understandable, but it is not justified. Categorical antipathy towards a racial group is never justified. Furthermore, it is counterproductive. White people are still the majority in the US and will likely stay the plurality for a very long time. You cannot achieve any political goals if you alienate them and set yourself in opposition to them.
Interestingly enough, the NYT ran an op-ed on the exact topic I was addressing today, in which the author argued against the conservative interpretation of MLK: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/opinion/which-martin-luther-king-are-we-celebrating-today.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=opinion
What do you think? I think he has a point, especially when addressing MLK's economic views vis-a-vis GOP economic views.
Yeah, I meant to criticize the conservative distortion of MLK's legacy as well as the radical distortion. Safe to say that MLK would not see eye to eye with most Republicans were he alive today. He strongly believed that the government should spend less on defense and more on helping the poor.