Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Since

Since this is MLK week, let's try to flesh this article out a bit? human 07:43, 15 January 2008 (EST) booooooooooooriiiiiiiiiing

some idiot

Some idiot wrote that racists call it James Earl Ray Day, after his assassin, and there's a footnote, and if you click on it, it just says "We're not linking to it." What the fuck? Do I actually have to explain why that's not acceptable? ^{— Unsigned, by: 99.189.133.227 / talk / contribs (signed by bot)} 03:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Adulterer

Is there any reason to believe that he was an adulterer, other than allegations by his enemies? It's not enough that the section says it doesn't detract from his legacy. It needs to be clear that he was merely accused of adultery, assuming the section even needs to exist.--"Shut up, Brx." 08:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Read Abernathy's book. When we're done talking about the adultery, which doesn't matter, we can talk about the more problematic issue of King's plagiarized dissertation. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Abernathy said the "affairs" were emotional rather than physical ([1]), and though parts of King's dissertation were plagiarized, his university has not revoked his doctorate because he still "makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship." Beyond that, the only discussion is to the extent of his plagiarism, and the implications of it. His affairs, while they may have been inappropriate, don't really constitute hypocrisy.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly, he could have plagiarised his entire dissertation and slept around with every woman in town and it wouldn't make a ha'puth of difference. He was a great man who led a generation. Without him the civil rights movement would still have happened but he was very much one of the focal points and the "I have a dream" speech one of the defining moments of the 20th century.

The fact that the CIA, and others, felt they had to attack the man shows how important he was. As the old saying goes, you know when you're making a difference, they start shooting at you. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but there's no point saying that he was an adulterer if he wasn't. It's a lot like JAQing off. The section assumes too much, and I'd like it changed or removed. I've removed it before but it was put back in.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's there because it was part of a two pronged attack on MLK by the powers that be. I've altered the opening para to try and reflect this. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, the article comes across as though it has been sanitized. You get the impression that the author is holding back information, or deliberately putting a positive spin on every aspect of King's life. The article at Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp) is much more compelling and interesting to read than this tepid punch-pulling biography from RationalWiki. Slings and Arrows (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

List of priests that get rational wiki's approval?

Not a legitimate enough article idea being as the list would be rather short; however I'm just wondering if there are any other religious officials than Dr. King that Rationalwiki actually approves of. Not many priests endorse communism, Dr. Kings views appear quite unique for a priest, unfortunately. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Red-smearing King

CoerruptUser wishes to include a claim that MLK associated with a "filthy commie?" Does the community wish to indulge this continuation of the red-smearing of MLK?---Mona- (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never quite understood the abject horror americans have with all things seen as communist änd/or socialist that it becomes a massive slur to have known a 'commie' AMassiveGay (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

He was close friends with Stanley Levison, who was a known communist. Both RFK and JFK tried to get King to disassociate with Levison, which is a big reason WHY there was the massive wiretapping campaign in the first place. It's a pretty big piece of history, and kind a big piece of evidence that King wasn't conservative. It's not meant as a slur. Feel free to rewrite it in a more "pleasing" manner; the edit button is right there, but don't just delete anything you don't like. CorruptUser (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Done.---Mona- (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There, that's better. No need to fight with everyone all the time on everything. CorruptUser (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh-huh.---Mona- (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Conservative or establishment liberal"? You guys are fucking dense. He was a socialist, and for good reason. Liberal moderates won't pay attention at all to your suffering without some militant opposition to their precious status quo. And because the War in Vietnam was an imperialist project. Withoutaname (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what? Did you just look at the section titles and not read the article? The section with that title is all about how he was neither a conservative nor an establishment liberal. The article quotes him as saying he was "socialistic". --Ymir (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but there wasn't any talk of his support for worker control over the means of production or his anti-imperialism or any of the nominally socialist political viewpoints beyond his declaration. Also I'm not fond of liberal whitewashing. Withoutaname (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Why not edit it?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 22:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Page move

Since his name was actually Martin Luther King, Jr. (which many people forget), objections to moving the page to that name? --Ymir (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No point. We don't have an article on MLK Sr. & I doubt we need one. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Who

who's the idiot who wrote that incoherent crap anyway?????????????? ^{— Unsigned, by: 213.9.47.115 / talk / contribs} 09:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Averting edit wars

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)