MLK jr day is on the 19th in 2026

[richardmurray]

Do you know the date's range is from the 15th to the 21st of january? What are your thoughts on MLK jr's advocacy for Black Empowerment in the USA coexisting nonvilently alongside the empowerment of non blacks? In hindsight where did MLK jr , make mistakes?

 

[Pioneer1]

I think MLK is one of the greatest leaders AfroAmericans and this nation period has produced.
He was and is a brilliant and brave man.

If I had to name 2 things where I thought he went wrong.................

1. He focused too much on integration instead of empowered separation.
He should have fought for the laws to be changed at every level to make sure we had equal access and opportunity at every level in the United States and fight to make sure those laws were enforce.  Outside of that, the focus should have been on progressing our ethnicity and culture as AfroAmericans.

2. Him and the rest of the Civil Rights leaders at that time should have focused more on fighting STRICTLY for the rights of FBA/AfroAmericans and not other minority groups.
They should have been very specific about the Civil Rights bill making it for us alone.
Not that other groups shouldn't have rights in this nation, but that they should have been the ones to fight for it themselves....not rely on us to do the fighting.

The second one, it's really hard to blame on him because it's not something he could have really forseen.
He was taken from us in 1968 and we didn't get a mass influx of immigrants into this nation until the 70s and later, so he didn't realize....as most of the Civil Rights leaders didn't....that so many of these non-White immigrants who BENEFITED from the Civil Rights struggle would actually come here and side with White Americans.

[harry brown]

Does. It. Matter.   What.  Day.  It. Is.  ..Amazed.  That. The.  Idiot.  In. The.  White.  House.   Has. Not. Tried.  To.  Get. Rid. Of.  The.  Holiday.  ..Is. Terror.   Planned.  .For.   Dr.  King.  Holiday.  ?  ..WILL.., ,,TRASH.   TRUMP...  ICE.  TERRORIST.   Attack.   Black.  People.  On.     Dr.  King.  .Holiday.  ???.

[ProfD]

I have nothing but the deepest respect, admiration and appreciation for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (Dr. MLK Jr.).

 

I dare not criticize Dr. MLK Jr.s non-violent approach to the Civil Rights struggle. That  was his chosen tactic.  I'd imagine his religious beliefs played a part in it too.

 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at 39 years old accomplished more in his short lifetime than people who live twice as long. 

 

FBA/AfroAmericans and ALL Black people on the planet  owe a huge debt of gratitude to him. 

 

Thanks for everything Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

[richardmurray]

hmmm

@Pioneer1

first thank you for stating where you think he went wrong. of the three comments your the only one which means 33% I ponder how many black people are unwilling to question the likes of mlk jr in 2026 ? I have no way of getting a statistic but by this simple post the potential is frightening. 

I know I haven't spoken on your judgment but it's funny in this community we can bicker with each other so easily and then some of us in here can't speak a judgement against dead leaders. It is a revealing balance. 

Now you said you loved MLK jr so your critiques are not condemnations. Just assessments all should have in the future to any past. 

 

now to your critiques, 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

He focused too much on integration instead of empowered separation.
He should have fought for the laws to be changed at every level to make sure we had equal access and opportunity at every level in the United States and fight to make sure those laws were enforce.  Outside of that, the focus should have been on progressing our ethnicity and culture as AfroAmericans.

Well what leaders talked before mlkjr talked about empowered separation? they were the exodusters[based on collective land ownership to make base black towns first, not black people owning land in white towns]+ the garveyites[based on business ownership initially, then geographic distance{far east asia is the farthest from western europe so the garveyites had a point about distance}]+booker t washington[black colleges which were extensions of the black education movement immediately started at the end of the war between the states]

MLK jr was born in 1929. By 1929 all the strongest empowered separation movements in the black populace had lost much of their momentum. None died, arguably none are dead, but their momentum wasn't what it was in the late 1800s. 

So MLK jr didn't have a reference growing up of empowered separation. The only reference he had was integration in various forms. From atlanta, to morehouse, to the greater georgia integration was the system about him. 

Could he had focused on empowered separation ? 100% yes. Would it been a bad choice? no idea, but it could had succeeded. Was an example around to compel him? no. He needed a successful example. MLK jr like most leaders is thoughtful. The reason something isn't present isn't because it can't work but because it will take more time or more effort to do.  

 

The usa government has a very big problem in terms of federal application, in equal access and opportunity. The power of states rights. It is the year 2026 and Schrumpt is the first president after circa two hundred and fifty years to try and actually impose the federal government on the states with the resources to actually do something.  Not merely cause of federal power but states in the usa are lower than they are ever been, all are welfare recipients. the original idea was states would never need the federal government. Andrew jackson, Abraham Lincoln, even FDR for all of their fervor, didn't have the means to actually make a federal imposition on the states like Schrumpft today. What does this mean? states got away with a lot of federal crimes within themselves, because the constitution clearly gives states freedom to be themselves and forces citizens to take a state to court for changes.  This is why white people burned black people out of the south, because by deleting our voting power, it meant we couldn't use the vote to change the states, we could only use the legal system which is very slow compared to a state wide elections. The constitution is clear, states are not to be ruled by the federal government, which means what. If you are black in mississippi, and white people have raped your wife, burned your children, put your elders in jail without due process or with laws that are uneven in design. If all the actions are finalized within the legal designs of the state of mississippi, you can only take missisppi to court over each action toward the supreme court. That is the only nonviolent solution in the usa for any person from a populace with a minority in a state. The black populace in misssisippi doesn't have the numbers to push people into government and get laws to support it by MLK jr's time. MLK jr was a pastor, third generation, of a black church. No black christian congregation in the 1900s would accept preaching about collective violence. Protecting oneself? 100% but being in a violent mob? no. 

So what your suggesting was doable by him, but he would had to stop being a preacher to do that. Because nonviolence in the usa means taking whomever your suing to the supreme court,a very lengthy process , one that is not guaranteed to get to the surpreme court, and one most importantly, that doesn't necessarily stop the person/entity being sued from continuing their actions. While the said black man in mississippi is suing, white people are harassing or worse constantly. 

Your top down is doable, but It isn't impossible. The NAACP was full of lawyers for that reason; their strategy was take every federal crime at the state levels to the supreme court. But so many crimes at the state level occurred. The volume was i argue insurmountable. 

 

MLK jr didn't spend enough time on the heritage/what is carried + culture/what is grown of DOSers. He clearly comprehended the importance, ala his plea to Nichelle Nichols. 

As an aside , I ponder your thoughts on the larger black church? from circa 1865 to 1965 arguably, the black churches in the usa, all denominations combined, are the center of black life. What hindered the churches from focusing on heritage+ culture? Chruches financed lawyers, got food together, helped make shelter, churches did many things, communally, but when it came to emboldening DOS heritage + culture they didn't do much. They didn't even make a book of negro spirituals standard in every black christians pocket. Cause, the negro spirituals is the earliest and purest black DOS christian liturgy or public work. Before black descended of enslaved christians had the bible they had negro spirituals.  Great point here. 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

. Him and the rest of the Civil Rights leaders at that time should have focused more on fighting STRICTLY for the rights of FBA/AfroAmericans and not other minority groups.
They should have been very specific about the Civil Rights bill making it for us alone.
Not that other groups shouldn't have rights in this nation, but that they should have been the ones to fight for it themselves....not rely on us to do the fighting.

Your second part slightly answers the last segment of the first. I argue that MLK jr and others , many others, wanted the culturee of the black descended of enslaved populace to be as shepards to a better usa for all peoples, this goes back to frederick douglass and the 1800s black church. they knew the heritage was of a people who survived white terror but I think their culture was as a people who made the integrated future nonviolently. and thus by 2026 would become the heritage. Which arguably it has. IF you look at media, most non blacks in the usa view black people as the integrators in the usa. More than anyone else. 

They made that choice. And it even has precedent. Remember, the first three black tribes when the usa was founded were: the enslaved black folks who are chained while whites in the usa are gaining freedom circa 85%,the black freemen who are trying to stop the usa, with the promise of freedom, which oddly enough, most of them get even though england lost circa 10%, and then the black separatist, fighting alongside whites who publicly supported black enslavement to whites, who would circa 90% be reenslaved at the end of the war. The black separatist were circa 5% of the percent of black folk. 

So the black folk who fought for the usa to be born circa july 4th is the historical precedent for the pan human rights fighting of the 1960s. Arguably, the black freemen have always existed, whether called black loyalist who also fought in the war of 1812 or black legions fighting in french colors in the commonly called world war one,  but during after the commonly called world war 2, that for black alone became very small as a movement in the usa. 

 

 

[aka Contrarian]

MLK didn't ask to be the leader of the Civil Rights movement. It was a responsibility thrust upon him because he was so good at articulating grievances. It was like, he woke up one morning during the Montgomery bus boycott and all of sudden he was its leader!

He did not have time to map out a precise strategy or a long range grand plan, he and his cobbleled-together posse just kinda made it up as they went along, with Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent philosophy as their inspiration. The idea of making a lot of long-range, multi-faceted demands was out of the question at that time. The movement just focused mainly on equal opportunities, and King endeavored to appeal to the conscience of his oppressors.

Integration was a counter to the separate but equal policy that was nothing more than subtle Jim Crowism. Integration represented fellowship and harmony where little black boys and girls would join hands with their white counterparts and partake of equality through tolerance. It was a dream; hence King's "I have a dream" speech. 

In hindsight, it's easy to criticize him for not embracing the militancy of those like Malcom X and the Black Panthers. But MLK was a man of his times and he was just beginning to re-think his goals when he was assassinated.

Many think his taking a stance against the Vietnam war was a mistake but his doing so was in keeping with his pacifism.    

A cigarette-smoking, scotch- drinking, womanizing King was not perfect, but he fought the good fight, and paved the way for those who eventually came to criticize him for not having more foresight. 

I lived through King's era, and to me and my contemporaries, he was a real live hero who died a martyr.   

[richardmurray]

@aka Contrarian

MLK jr was a leader, not the leader of the civil rights movement. First the movement against Jim Crow started before MLK jr was born, and ended after MLK jr died so MLK jr was a leader, as much of a leader as Fannie Lou Hamer, or Frederick Douglass or Fred Hampton. Fred Hampton made the framework the entire donkey party mimicked.  Madame CJ Walker and her daughter I argue were the two biggest civil rights leaders , with only the black hotel owner who financed MLK jr as their peer financially, cause those three people positively influenced alot of black people in ways very few other black people had or will, take out marcus garvey and the garveyite movement, because they had money. 

My question is why do black people say MLK jr was THE leader of the movement against Jim Crow when all black people should know he wasn't. 

 

14 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

MLK didn't ask to be the leader of the Civil Rights movement.

No he didn't ask to be THE leader, but he wanted to be AN advocate for Black people and he was ... What your talking about is the difference between one's media role and one's true role. 

MLK jr was like MAlcolm like Stokely like Angela Davis, A leader. None of them were THE leader. 

Now in Media , which I Argue is the problem, MLK jr was posited in white owned media as THE Leader. And the Black Church at that time, who again, needs to be called out, pushed MLK jr in their aisles because he wasn't an areligious student: stokely, he didn't hold a gun : panthers, he wasn't a non christian: malcolm, he wasn't a non college educated woman: fanni lou hamer. So Balck churches did emphasize MLK jr to their forever dishonor for their own media agenda of attracting black people to the black christian church. 

15 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

It was a responsibility thrust upon him because he was so good at articulating grievances. It was like, he woke up one morning during the Montgomery bus boycott and all of sudden he was its leader!

no whites did that. Whites in media did that. The black church did that. They both whites + the black church saw in MLKjr everything they wanted in black leadership. 

And the proof he wasn't THE leader is he was never head of the southern black leadership conference. why does that matter? that post would had been better for him. But he was used as the media front man, as a leader.

15 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

He did not have time to map out a precise strategy or a long range grand plan, he and his cobbleled-together posse just kinda made it up as they went along, with Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent philosophy as their inspiration.

But he wasn't alone, the way your describing this history is for me very false. If a black child reads your words, they will think MLK jr was walking around alone doing everything. That is a lie. Others made plans like Ruffin. The truth is Ruffin was always about integration because Ruffin was , like FRederick Douglass before him, viewing black empowerment as part of human empowerment. Ruffin was a faggot who knew very well most black people in the 1950s 1960s wouldn't accept his true self in public, even though they talk of rights, they woudl want to curtail his rights, same thing with frederick douglass who had a white mistress. both of them had lives that denied black in various ways and so they wanted black empowerment but they wanted black empowerment within a greater human allowance in the usa. 

 

15 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

The idea of making a lot of long-range, multi-faceted demands was out of the question at that time. The movement just focused mainly on equal opportunities, and King endeavored to appeal to the conscience of his oppressors.

This is not true. Your forgetting the movement was not in a vaccuum. The movement against Jim Crow which was from 1865 to 1980 , was being fought by black people absent weapons or an allowance of weapons aside whites with all the power. So, black people had to make everything as an arrangement with white desires and multifaceted demands were never going to happen in one whole phase with white people. 

For example, white people knew other whites would terrorize black people in the former confederacy but that terror led to a falsely incarcerated black populace rebuilding the south and kickstarting a financial boom for white people that kept down white on white violence. White people knew other white  people were terrorizing black people in the west, the exodusters, but white people needed that land for new white immigrants to increase the domestic market and didn't trust black people's position toward native americans, whom white immigrants killed in the bulkload. It is known Frederick Douglass  pushed black people on the underground railroad to not go to canada, which was best for those black people. But why? because douglass wanted black people in the usa to be tied to this country, he hated the idea of black people leaving the usa. So black people were definitely multifaceted, but white people only allowed simple wins. 

 

15 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

Integration was a counter to the separate but equal policy that was nothing more than subtle Jim Crowism. Integration represented fellowship and harmony where little black boys and girls would join hands with their white counterparts and partake of equality through tolerance. It was a dream; hence King's "I have a dream" speech. 

In retrospect , cheap , very cheap retrospect, years ago , which I talked about in this very forum, I oppose how people speak of integration in the usa. The people in the USA from 1492 to 2026 has always been integrated, never separated. Jim Crow is a form of integration. Did Black people work for non blacks? yes. Did black people buy from non blacks? yes. did non blacks buy goods from blacks? yes. Did blacks and non blacks have two separate theaters ? no, black people had to go to the theater white people owned. Did blacks and non blacks have two separate bus lines? no, black people had to use the bus line white people owned. Black people use the word segregated when they work for whites, live in a mostly white town, use a white owned bus, buy from white stores who are the only stores in town. Most  Black people in the usa live a totally integrated life with whites from 1865 to modernity, but it is rarely an even life an equal life. The truth is the USA problem was never separate but equal, ask the native american. The USA's problem was equal but uneven. Everybody is human in the usa, from the european colonial phase to 2026, but the opportunities, rights, armed power,  were never even or equal. The USA was never in majority application segregatory. Jim Crow was a form of integration. Enslavement before Jim Crow was a form of integration. The white massa in the house is not segregated from blacks pre 1865. Who cleaned massa's clothes? blacks . whose labor did massa profit off of? blacks. Who did massa fuck without payment? blacks. who cooked massa's meals? blacks. who cleaned massa's house? blacks. who played music and entertained massa or his guest? blacks. Massa say's he segregated from blacks while blacks are apart of every second of massa's life, that is not segregation. That is integration. Inequal, uneven? 100% but it is 100% integration. 

Integration isn't a dream. The form of integration MLK jr championed in speeches, or somewhat in appearance in fiction is star trek, is the hardest form of integration to acquire. Because that form of integration requires each individual to relinquish all biases, positive or negative, and that isn't easy. 

 

16 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

In hindsight, it's easy to criticize him for not embracing the militancy of those like Malcom X and the Black Panthers. But MLK was a man of his times and he was just beginning to re-think his goals when he was assassinated.

Many think his taking a stance against the Vietnam war was a mistake but his doing so was in keeping with his pacifism.   

yes, hindsight is always cheap because one in a future can never know what they will do in the past. 

But, hindsight isn't unwarranted. We all make mistakes. It is interesting you suggest a negative judgement from MLKjr for not being militant. Though , again I don't think MAlcolm or the Black PAnthers were ever truly militant. They weren't warlike. MAlcolm + the Panthers were demanding self defense over the court room. That isn't militancy, that is looking at all the black people who have been murdered by whites who flouted the law in the usa or the european colonies that preceded it. The law didn't and doesn't protect black people from white violence. has it? If a group of whites are hunting me, how can I protect myself? quote the constitution or the declaration of independence? how can nonviolence save a black life? Has nonviolence ever saved one black life? did it save emmitt till? sean bell? The brother chocked to death in NYC, I can't breath? the brother int he train a white man chocked to death? Did SOnya MAssey get saved by non violence? Did yusef hawkins get saved by non violence? Did breonna taylor get saved by non violence? Did clifford glover get saved by nonviolence? 

Malcolm + The Black Panthers were not telling black people to have a combined armed revolt. Stokely either. Did fred hampton get saved by non violence? 

Why do some black people think, when another black person says, have a gun for these whites, that infers some sort of plan to kill all the whites? 

Is it some desire by some blacks to deny their own true hatred of whites while condemning other black people for simply being honest about the black condition in the usa? 

As james baldwin said, his father worked for whites his whole life, was a christian man, and hated whites more than anyone. prayed to go to heaven to be free of whites. Heaven don't have to be happy. 

 

The funny thing about MLKjr's stance is nearly all black leaders in his time were against the Vietnam war. Poor Sammy is a complicated thing. 

Malcolm/Martin/Stokely/The Panthers/Muhammed Ali... name me five Black leaders in the usa during MLK jr's time who were for the vietnam war? White people in majority, thank you Ken Burns in PBS for the proof, were in majority for the vietnam war. The vietnam war made billions per year. So MLK jr being against the  Vietnam war was a mistake in that the white people who placed him in an elevated media position in white media, not equal to his functional position in the anti jim crow movement, were publicly for the war or profiting off the war.  

 

16 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

A cigarette-smoking, scotch- drinking, womanizing King was not perfect, but he fought the good fight, and paved the way for those who eventually came to criticize him for not having more foresight. 

I lived through King's era, and to me and my contemporaries, he was a real live hero who died a martyr. 

My parents and a number of my blood relatives who i was able to learn of their experiences during  Kings life, older than king or younger than king, all spoke positively of him. None of them suggested any falsehood, but each was able to admit problems. As well as admit a more honest environment than you suggest. 

And I oppose the notion of MLK jr as a womanizer. Yes, I speak now as a heterosexual male. Yes, MLK jr like all heterosexual men gets a hard on for more than just the woman he loves with his heart. yes.  A man doesn't love a woman less because his dick gets hard for a woman not his wife. Womanizer. MLK jr loved coretta scott king with his heart. And it isn't a knock on coretta scott king that another black woman just might have a sexier ass than hers. 

And as for cigarette smoking or drinking alcohol, this was what nearly all adults did at that time , why is that a negative on MLK jr? 

 

AKA Contrarian, if you have reached this far, .. MLK jr was a great black leader, who was human and made mistakes, which we in the future should be able to admit to so that we can do better. But, MLKjr  was never the leader of the anti jim crow movement, he was one of many great black people who made intricate plans, but had to deal with white power which limited all results. 

 

@Pioneer1 

just from a labeling perspective, this goes back to my issue with people using the term communism. I said it already, but communism is a form of fiscal capitalism. 

Communism isn't a form of socialism because of one party of governance under a government plus a government having a larger role as a fiscal operator. Communism is merely fiscal capitalism with one party having overwhelming majority and the government taking 80% or more of the fiscal operation. The usa in its very history had one party at one time, the federalist.  Now the usa originally had a very financially impotent federal government who had very little of the fiscal operation , but the federal government of the usa today is without question the biggest fiscal operator in the usa, so barring two parties whose dysfunction makes them one plus the financial role of the federal government of the usa today? is not the usa communist? 

 

It is like I say with Troy

race/class/rank/order/classification/species/clan all have the same basic definition. Some arrangement of things  based on a factor. 

When black people or non blacks say, race doesn't exist? how? do humans being not look different? do human beings not have clan names? do human beings not call themselves by a religious label? race is ever present. Does this mean a consensus exist on race? no. 

No consensus exist on race. Yes, you will never get consensus on race, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When you call yourself human, that is racist? 

And as always , for some reason, many humans hate the term bias. They love talking falsely on race and never like to use the word bias correctly, cause most instances of race is really bias. 

And that goes back to integration in the usa. White negative bias towards blacks mixed with white power means black people lived and most still live integrated while totally unequal or  uneven to whites based on white negative bias. 

 

It is 2026. we have to stop using words falsely. 

Race is real, race will never have a consensus of definition, nor should it, but it is real, and comes in more forms than just phenotype.

Fiscal capitalism has been the system throughout all humanity  , yes in variations with elements of other ideas but always fiscal capitalsm at heart.

The anti jim crow movement, was never led by one black leader because it lasted from 1865 to 1980, the entirety of the jim crow era which came after the era of slavery from 1492 to 1865 and was followed by the era of the rainbow coalition from 1980 to today. But slavery, jim crow, and the rainbow coalition eras are all forms of integration, with the levels of eveness or equality best in the rainbow, worst in slavert.  And, the limitations Black people have in the usa were and always tied to the integration with whites which is not even or equal but more positive in those two ways than ever before. 

[aka Contrarian]

@richardmurrayBe advised that I had no problem with King smoking and drinking and liking women because I'm not a prude.  And I was drinking Scotch and smoking his brand of Salem cigarettes myself. To me, his indulgences made him more human. And he also had a very droll sense of humor which I related to.

 I speak from the zeitgeist of my environment when I comment on his leadership. I lived in the  Midwest, not the Jim Crow South, and from our perspective, as spectators, he seemed to have just sprouted from nowhere, greatly helped by TV and his charisma.  You'd be surprised how much of a spectator many "negroes" were during the civil rights era inasmuch as we were not in the trenches but, instead, simply offering the activists our moral and financial support. To us, the Movement was an idea whose time had come, and we admired and supported both him and Malcolm. 

 

So, you don't have to defend him from me! I didn't judge him. I appreciated him for all that he accomplished. He was a cool guy.  And a great man. 

[richardmurray]

@aka Contrarian

9 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

Be advised that I had no problem with King smoking and drinking and liking women because I'm not a prude.  And I was drinking Scotch and smoking his brand of Salem cigarettes myself.

are you a film noir lover?:) 

 

10 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

To me, his indulgences made him more human. And he also had a very droll sense of humor which I related to.

well said:)

10 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

I speak from the zeitgeist of my environment when I comment on his leadership. I lived in the  Midwest, not the Jim Crow South, and from our perspective, as spectators, he seemed to have just sprouted from nowhere, greatly helped by TV and his charisma.  You'd be surprised how much of a spectator many "negroes" were during the civil rights era inasmuch as we were not in the trenches but, instead, simply offering the activists our moral and financial support. To us, the Movement was an idea whose time had come, and we admired and supported both him and Malcolm. 

I didn't know you were from the midwest, I see:) No I wouldn't, my elders said very clearly when we were watching malcolm x, , the film, I paraphrase

"that is a lie, black people laughed at malcolm"

My elders were there. this country, the usa , loves near history rewrites doesn't it. From the very beginning, the european colonies made mythos out of themselves. In one generation from the mayflower, white european invaders had created a false heritage of good peaceful folk trying to make their way in the world beset by wild savages who dont't comprehend civilization, said wild savages supposedly all native americans. Hell, most people supported the vietnam war. if you look at films, you will think the vietnam war was hated by most or at least opposed. but that isn't the truth. 

So the usa has a very negative heritage of lying about near history, which tends to become commonly accepted in it. 

Not in AALBC of course:) 

 

[ProfD]

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

yes, hindsight is always cheap because one in a future can never know what they will do in the past. 

But, hindsight isn't unwarranted. We all make mistakes.

Hindsight is only necessary to the extent of avoiding past mistakes & building on success.

 

IMO, any form of criticism by way of hindsight is totally unwarranted & unnecessary. 

 

The question is how many folks today are doing an ounce of what Dr. MLK Jr. did for Black folks over 50 years ago.

 

Regardless of motivation, the fact that Black folks put their lives on the line so that even the most ungrateful of their own people could have a better life...deserves nothing less than total praise, admiration, appreciation & respect.

 

Dr. MLK Jr. had everything...looks, personality, charm, charisma, intelligence, oratory, education, beautiful wife & children.

 

Based on credentials,  Dr. MLK Jr. could have lived an affluent life like modern day pimps in the pulpit. He would have run Saturn rings these clowns as a salesman of the gospel.

 

Dr. MLK Jr. didn't strive to be a perfect man. He deserved every drink he sipped, every cigarette he smoked and every woman he poked.

 

Dr. MLK Jr. played the hand he was dealt by the universe. He pressed towards the mark of a higher calling. Fulfilled his destiny. His place in the annals of  history is solid.

[richardmurray]

@ProfD

4 hours ago, ProfD said:

The question is how many folks today are doing an ounce of what Dr. MLK Jr. did for Black folks over 50 years ago.

Well, first MLK jr alone didn't do anything. The idoltry to him I am 100% certain he would oppose cause  MLK jr wasn't the leader of the anti jim crow movement, he was a leader. HE was part of a group of Black people doing many things, often in concert to help the larger village. So no matter what one black person is doing, if they are not part of a group of people doing similar it will come to nothing.

where are the groups of Black people doing something together? Cause no one was a superman during the 1960s for black people. 

 

I don't think MLK jr would praise his activities or status so greatly. And not from modesty but honesty. How many black children have been killed by whites  since MLK jr died? I count many. How many black peple have been assaulted by whites from no provocation of their own, being nonviolent, since MLK jr died? 

You speak of what MLK jr did and yet what he did wasn't enough to stop the millions of assaults on black people from his death to now in the usa by whites. 

Mae Louise Walls Miller was freed side her blood relatives from enslavement pre jim crow style in 1963. Malcolm was murdered 1965. MLK jr was murdered 1968. So Both men and many other black leaders died less than five years from a known case of black enslavement  to a white in the usa... MLK jr was a great leader but the environment for the greater black people proved failures on the parts of those before him like boooker t washington or web dubois and the environment after mlk jr proved the failures on the part of MLK jr and his peers like malcolm.

 

4 hours ago, ProfD said:

Based on credentials,  Dr. MLK Jr. could have lived an affluent life like modern day pimps in the pulpit. He would have run Saturn rings these clowns as a salesman of the gospel.

well so could MAlcolm, so could medgar evers... the list is long. Your speaking of one man when a large group of black people in the time MLK jr lived warranted as much or more than hime, and  had as much or greater opportunity for personal financial betterment.