> He specifically chose not to condemn riots No, he explicitly did. Even in the full context of the famous "language of the unheard" quote it is clear he is cr

> He specifically chose not to condemn riots No, he explicitly did. Even in the full context of the famous "language of the unheard" quote it is clear he is criticizing both riots (as being counterproductive) and the conditions that led to them. Here's a another quote from him: > Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way. https://news.yahoo.com/no-martin-luther-king-not-193204120.html https://news.yahoo.com/no-martin-luther-king-not-193204120.h... The seeming national debate that one either must be pro-riot or pro-status quo/"law and order" is another instance of unnecessary "culture war" divisiveness and one that Dr. King would have disagreed with.