Talk:Martin Luther King

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>


who's the idiot who wrote that incoherent crap anyway?????????????? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Averting edit wars[edit]

We really don't need this page to contain apologia for slavery, needless red-baiting, and whitewashing the conduct of the government toward King. So let's talk about things here.TallMan (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Simmer down, there, @TallMan! It is a fact that people have been enslaving each other for pretty much all of human history; and it wasn't just Africans who got enslaved. MLK's proposal of reparation for Blacks is therefore insensible. We don't need more discriminatory treatments. So why don't we all just learn from the past and move on? People today are not responsible for the mistakes of their ancestors. Red-baiting? MLK himself admitted his socialist tendencies. Whitewashing government conduct towards him? I left that section largely intact. (Yes, many Founding Fathers were slave owners, but they clearly did not invent slavery. They inherited it. It makes no sense to judge people from way back when using moral standards of today. The fact that we no longer do some of the things they do is a sign of progress. Don't you think? I'm not sure why that bit is relevant, so I removed it.)
Thanks for reaching out. I hope we can resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. Nerd (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
First, I'm not too happy about the attempt to preemptively cast me as emotional here by telling me to simmer down. That's a cheap rhetorical trick, and I'll thank you to stop being a dickhead by using those sorts of gambits. On to the content: the fact that people have been enslaving each other for most of human history is irrelevant. MLK was concerned with slavery in the American context, and most notably in the American South. Hereditary chattel slavery, as practiced in the South, overwhelmingly involved people of African descent. In addition, the aftereffects of slavery (again, especially in the South) fell disproportionately on blacks. In light of these facts, and on MLK's goals, it makes perfect sense for MLK to focus on the treatment of blacks. Your request that we "learn from the past and move on" overlooks the ways in which the effects of hundreds of years of chattel slavery and systemic racism linger into the present day. You can't simply "move on" until this has been dealt with. It's like trying to "move on" from a broken leg before setting the bone and letting it heal.
On red-baiting: acknowledging that MLK was socialist is fine. But that's not what you did - your edits included things like adding parenthetical commie-bashing remarks to the quote from "I have a dream" and defending the US's involvement in Vietnam, which are irrelevant at best. It's needless anti-communist propaganda and it does nothing to improve people's understanding of MLK or relevant issues.
When it comes to discussing King's treatment by the US gov't, you've made some edits that completely obliterate the existence of the gov't campaign against King. Here's your version of the first sentence of the relevant section:
"For all his remarkable achievements for civil rights in the United States, Martin Luther King was, unfortunately, a Communist sympathizer who opposed American involvement in Vietnam at a fateful time. His image is further tarnished by his personal conduct."
And here's the existing version:
In an attempt to detract from his achievements, the United States government conducted a prolonged campaign intended to undermine King's power and reputation; they tried to label him as a communist sympathizer, and to discredit him by revealing him to be "amoral" in his personal relationships.
You'll notice that your version doesn't mention that the gov't engaged in a campaign to discredit King. That's pretty much a textbook example of whitewashing the US's conduct.
Oh, and when it comes to judging historical figures by today's moral standards: of course it makes sense for us to do that. We do it all the time. You did it when you said that our conduct being different than theirs is a sign of progress. Not only can we do it, we ought to do it. We ought to acknowledge that Jefferson and Washington were slaveowning shitheads who helped build a country and a society that was good in some ways and deeply profoundly evil in others.TallMan (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


You concerned they're trying to subvert your monopoly on what MLK was, said and meant? "I had a nightmare: That idiots would get7 my message ass-backwards and little black kids start telling little hiwt7e kids to check their privilege" P.S.: Captcha with roads to trigegr libertarians, lol. -- (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


"King understood that Goldwater and later Richard Nixon were preparing their Southern strategy, wherein, after generations of voting Democrat, Dixie would flip overnight and become the strongest supporter of Lincoln's party."

Is there any evidence that the Dixiecrats switched parties overnight? There is no citation. (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt they flipped overnight. The phrase can be metaphorical: "rapidly" or "over one election season" (most precise one), which makes it problematic. If it's literally overnight, it should have "literally" included and be backed with a good source. If it's metaphorical, it should be more precise, such as the aforementioned "over one season". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


  • "Was close associates with a communist.Wikipedia's W.svg"
  • "The FBI bugged his home, his office, and hotel rooms in the cities he traveled to. The taps were part of an attempt to frame Stanley Levison, a lawyer King had ties to, as a communist. King adamantly denied that he or anyone in the freedom movement were communists."

CowHouse (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)