6 ms·

A great man whose life ended far too early. I only wish the dignity MLK showed would be alive in political movements today. EDIT: to those in the comments sudd

A great man whose life ended far too early. I only wish the dignity MLK showed would be alive in political movements today. EDIT: to those in the comments suddenly bringing up BLM - I didn't mention a single particular political movement. I think both sides could benefit from a huge dose of dignity tbh.

bigbillheck 5y ago
It's worth reading up on how the protests of the 60s were perceived by whites at the time, and thinking about how that compares to the 2020 protests.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Read 'Letter From a Birmingham Jail'. It could have been written today.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ttfkam 5y ago
What do you think BLM is? Would it surprise you to learn that the vast majority of the BLM protests in 2020 were completely nonviolent? Or that more than a couple of marches led by MLK were marred by violence? MLK was hated by many at the time. To see why, just look at the comments opposing BLM today. They are conspicuously similar in tone and content.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Precisely. Look at the anti-MLK editorial comic pictured in https://www.cbr.com/martin-luther-king-jr-cartoons-depictions-1960s-media/ https://www.cbr.com/martin-luther-king-jr-cartoons-depiction.... Identical messaging you see used against BLM today; titled "I plan to lead another non-violent march tomorrow" with MLK pictured front of a burning hellscape.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Kenosha certainly was a site that just happened to be on fire as peaceful BLM protesters passed by. It is only the evil media character assassination campaign that forever tarred this otherwise splendid organization. You present a good argument, but it falls flat before simple facts. MLK left images of crossing the bridge dressed as an accountant. BLM left images of a riot. Anti-BLM propaganda does not even have to work hard. All it needs is amplification.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Finding one scene of violence (and I have no idea what happened there) is meaningless. We can find scenes of violence after sporting events. There were violent protests during the civil rights era too, and the enemies of civil rights exploited it in the same way with the same language. The question of violence is how often it occurs on a broader scale. I live where there were many, many protests and little violence (and often the violent ones were outsider instigators and criminals looking to create it, not civil rights protesters).
- _xnmw 5y ago
  MLK was very different from BLM. I say that as a black person myself. MLK spoke about American greatness and American dignity and accorded the highest respect to the Founding Fathers, whereas BLM-aligned folks tend to trash these topics and want to tear down statues.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    Black people were protesting these statues in the 60s too. A more realistic viewpoint is that it took nearly 60 years to gain enough power to do something about them. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/black-protestors-have-been-rallying-against-confederate-statues-generations-180977484/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/black-protestors-have... If you want to continue trashing BLM, maybe look into how MLK was received in the 60s. There are a lot of people trying to amp up myths to intentionally use MLK to disparage BLM. Make sure you're not unintentionally getting caught up in that.
- xwdv 5y ago
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  If you look at some polls MLK was seemingly hated more universally in his time than BLM is today. Many of the attacks are the same, but today there's an odd rhetoric that attacks what BLM does with an imaginary myth that protests during MLK's time were wholly peaceful (they weren't, and were also derided due to violence at the time).
- froggertoaster 5y ago
  I already know that most of the BLM protests were non-violent. Notice that in my comment I didn't mention BLM or any other particular movement - your assumptions are appreciated though.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jrm4 5y ago
You almost certainly are misunderstanding how all of this works; because the dignity of MLK then mostly isn't applicable to today. Let me explain. The entire point of non-violence was not "if we dress up and act nicely, then they will change their minds and respect us." It was "if we dress up and act nicely, but continue to protest, they will still definitely commit violence to us, but it will expose their hypocrisy, making our moral point stronger."
avgcorrection 5y ago
Civil rights movement while it is happening: Oh shucks, this is very impolite and rude! Can’t they get their message across in a less impolite and disturbing manner? Civil rights fifty years after the fact: Oh what heroes those people were. Of course they only wanted commonsensical things and surely I would have supported them if I were around back then.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  There are a lot of protest, the vast majority of which are peaceful. That said, I do not think that MLK would condone the burning of churches, ransacking of businesses, and destruction of police stations as a means of protest. There have always been a destructive minority associated with the civil rights movements. This does not delegitimize the movement, but neither does it legitimize the destruction. As MLK often points out, these actions are counterproductive and polarizing.
  - akomtu 5y ago
    I'm afraid it does delegitimize the movement. If someone commits crimes on behalf of BLM, it's BLM's job to publicly denounce those individuals and recite the main BLM values (what are they, btw?). Not doing that gives an impression that BLM is either a disorganized mob or, worse, that it quietly supports those criminals.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      I largely agree but wouldn't be so definitive, given the diffuse nature of the civil rights movement. I think condoning or making excuses for lawlessness deligitimzes the speaker, and anyone who stands behind the statements. That said there are many within these movements that do not condone lawlessness
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    There is no need to speculate: > King told reporters that the Watts riots were “the beginning of a stirring of those people in our society who have been by passed by the progress of the past decade” (King, 20 August 1965). Struggles in the North, King believed, were really about “dignity and work,” rather than rights, which had been the main goal of black activism in the South (King, 20 August 1965). During his discussions with local people, King met black residents who argued for armed insurrection, and others who claimed that “the only way we can ever get anybody to listen to us is to start a riot” (King, 19 August 1965). https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/watts-rebellion-los-angeles https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/watts-rebell...

bigbillheck 5y ago

It's worth reading up on how the protests of the 60s were perceived by whites at the time, and thinking about how that compares to the 2020 protests.

wolverine876 5y ago
Read 'Letter From a Birmingham Jail'. It could have been written today.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ttfkam 5y ago

What do you think BLM is? Would it surprise you to learn that the vast majority of the BLM protests in 2020 were completely nonviolent? Or that more than a couple of marches led by MLK were marred by violence? MLK was hated by many at the time. To see why, just look at the comments opposing BLM today. They are conspicuously similar in tone and content.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Precisely. Look at the anti-MLK editorial comic pictured in https://www.cbr.com/martin-luther-king-jr-cartoons-depictions-1960s-media/ https://www.cbr.com/martin-luther-king-jr-cartoons-depiction.... Identical messaging you see used against BLM today; titled "I plan to lead another non-violent march tomorrow" with MLK pictured front of a burning hellscape.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Kenosha certainly was a site that just happened to be on fire as peaceful BLM protesters passed by. It is only the evil media character assassination campaign that forever tarred this otherwise splendid organization. You present a good argument, but it falls flat before simple facts. MLK left images of crossing the bridge dressed as an accountant. BLM left images of a riot. Anti-BLM propaganda does not even have to work hard. All it needs is amplification.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Finding one scene of violence (and I have no idea what happened there) is meaningless. We can find scenes of violence after sporting events. There were violent protests during the civil rights era too, and the enemies of civil rights exploited it in the same way with the same language. The question of violence is how often it occurs on a broader scale. I live where there were many, many protests and little violence (and often the violent ones were outsider instigators and criminals looking to create it, not civil rights protesters).
_xnmw 5y ago
MLK was very different from BLM. I say that as a black person myself. MLK spoke about American greatness and American dignity and accorded the highest respect to the Founding Fathers, whereas BLM-aligned folks tend to trash these topics and want to tear down statues.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  Black people were protesting these statues in the 60s too. A more realistic viewpoint is that it took nearly 60 years to gain enough power to do something about them. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/black-protestors-have-been-rallying-against-confederate-statues-generations-180977484/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/black-protestors-have... If you want to continue trashing BLM, maybe look into how MLK was received in the 60s. There are a lot of people trying to amp up myths to intentionally use MLK to disparage BLM. Make sure you're not unintentionally getting caught up in that.
xwdv 5y ago
micromacrofoot 5y ago
If you look at some polls MLK was seemingly hated more universally in his time than BLM is today. Many of the attacks are the same, but today there's an odd rhetoric that attacks what BLM does with an imaginary myth that protests during MLK's time were wholly peaceful (they weren't, and were also derided due to violence at the time).
froggertoaster 5y ago
I already know that most of the BLM protests were non-violent. Notice that in my comment I didn't mention BLM or any other particular movement - your assumptions are appreciated though.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jrm4 5y ago

You almost certainly are misunderstanding how all of this works; because the dignity of MLK then mostly isn't applicable to today. Let me explain. The entire point of non-violence was not "if we dress up and act nicely, then they will change their minds and respect us." It was "if we dress up and act nicely, but continue to protest, they will still definitely commit violence to us, but it will expose their hypocrisy, making our moral point stronger."

avgcorrection 5y ago

Civil rights movement while it is happening: Oh shucks, this is very impolite and rude! Can’t they get their message across in a less impolite and disturbing manner? Civil rights fifty years after the fact: Oh what heroes those people were. Of course they only wanted commonsensical things and surely I would have supported them if I were around back then.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
There are a lot of protest, the vast majority of which are peaceful. That said, I do not think that MLK would condone the burning of churches, ransacking of businesses, and destruction of police stations as a means of protest. There have always been a destructive minority associated with the civil rights movements. This does not delegitimize the movement, but neither does it legitimize the destruction. As MLK often points out, these actions are counterproductive and polarizing.
- akomtu 5y ago
  I'm afraid it does delegitimize the movement. If someone commits crimes on behalf of BLM, it's BLM's job to publicly denounce those individuals and recite the main BLM values (what are they, btw?). Not doing that gives an impression that BLM is either a disorganized mob or, worse, that it quietly supports those criminals.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I largely agree but wouldn't be so definitive, given the diffuse nature of the civil rights movement. I think condoning or making excuses for lawlessness deligitimzes the speaker, and anyone who stands behind the statements. That said there are many within these movements that do not condone lawlessness
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  There is no need to speculate: > King told reporters that the Watts riots were “the beginning of a stirring of those people in our society who have been by passed by the progress of the past decade” (King, 20 August 1965). Struggles in the North, King believed, were really about “dignity and work,” rather than rights, which had been the main goal of black activism in the South (King, 20 August 1965). During his discussions with local people, King met black residents who argued for armed insurrection, and others who claimed that “the only way we can ever get anybody to listen to us is to start a riot” (King, 19 August 1965). https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/watts-rebellion-los-angeles https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/watts-rebell...