Nor should Dr. King be used as a synecdoche for the entire civil rights movement, as he increasingly is.

Ditto Rosa Parks, who we like to remember as a kindly old lady with sore feet, but who in actuality was an complete badass anti-rape activist.  This book gives the other side of her story; it’s one of the best books I’ve read in a long time.

They put him next to Malcolm X and say - hey lookie: “moderate!” This ignores the fact of Malcolm X being kicked out of the US black Muslim faith and his mellowing attitude toward whites just before his death.

But still…MLK wasn’t really ‘pragmatic’ in the way that Obama (I guess BHO is actually not even a pragmatic leftists but simply a politician, and like every politician he is a born opportunist) is - he might have toed the line on Vietnam because LBJ busted a lot of heads to get Civil Rights Acts through.

And in telling the story of MLK and other leftists, I wish we could get a little more info on what a monster J Edgar Hoover was - that could tap into some civil liberty sympathies (perhaps) among right wingers and we could at least point out that concerns over government spying and prying concern every race.

King was a big, big, big time labor rights and union activist, a fact which makes conservatives, who put Disney King on a pedestal in order to pretend they aren’t racist, so uncomfortable that they just suppress it.

Basically, Disney King was never seen or heard from between August 28, 1963 and April 4, 1968. He certainly was not active in political or social justice issues.

Certainly the first Black president’s pitiful civil rights record in stark relief.

It’s sad that we need this reminder. The real King, the radical- a far greater man than the Disney plaster saint, and one of the greatest this country has produced- is still waiting for us on the road, far ahead of where the country is now.

King really was a radical.

Among his more extreme notions was convincing his followers to peaceful protest. Think about what that meant: to surrender the right to protect yourself, your family, as you protest the unequal treatment, including the violence, visited on you, on your lived ones.

We take for this for granted; it’s important to give it some deep thought and honor.

Via Erik Loomis
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/01/labor-notes-9#comments

A King quote that ought to slapped upside the head of every conservative who mouths platitudes about the man.

In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right-to-work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works.’ Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining… We demand this fraud be stopped.

Great post! Just out of curiosity though, what are the three quotes that get represented as his entire political philosophy? I’m always surprised if I ever hear mainstream media/politicians ever mention anything other than the “content of one’s character” line. What are the other two quotes?

I think King was a pragmatist. His activism led to concrete legislative accomplishments and changes in public opinion. It’s just that “pragmatist” and “radical” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, although these days pragmatists are more likely to be moderates and radicals are less likely to be interested in pragmatism.

The complexity is the “Disney King” did exist. He was the character created by the leftist King to make simple moral case against desegregation and to make arguments that would appeal to moderate and conservative Americans. And it worked, and created a critical mass of white support that helped the country end de jure segregation.

And the irony is it is the very success of the Disney King that now perpetuates the myth.

MLK is in my top five most important Americans of the 20th century. I’m tempted to put him at #1 but FDR and LBJ also vie for that spot.

Yes, LBJ. Johnson was the perfect president for the Civil Rights movement. Could JFK have talked down Wallace? JFK would either have caved or used too much force. LBJ walked the knife edge.

I still say we need to give more attention to southern whites who supported the civil rights movement and make them part of the historical narrative. I do not mean to take away anything from the black folks who fought so hard. I just think the story of Bob Dundas, CEO of Foley’s and president of the Downtown Business Association, who led the “Strange Demise of Jim Crow” in Houston needs to be told.

Eyes on the Prize does a good job showing how Nashville mayor Ben West came round.

Southern whites need to identify with West and Dundas, instead of seeing the civil rights movement as an imposition of white folks.

Gotta point out that I was brought up as a loyal Foley’s customer out of respect for Dundas. I also was taught to honor Dan Rather because he was a major advocate for the media blackout that made the Strange Demise go so smoothly.

It’s hard for me to describe how appalled I am by (a) the fact that the GOP thought it would be OK to hold a debate on MLK day; and (b) that Gingrich got a standing ovation for saying that our black president put more black people on food stamps.

It only gets uglier from her on in, folks.

Yeah, “Disney King” was in fact a useful construct, because any message will automatically become less threatening to Americans when it comes from a kindly Baptist minister.

I still say we need to give more attention to southern whites who supported the civil rights movement and make them part of the historical narrative.

I don’t know, it sure seems like Hollywood can’t make a movie about blacks (or any other racial minority) triumphing over racism without making it actually about some white person who was there. See: The Help, Glory, Dances With Wolves.

curious cliche (# 10)—One is probably “I have a dream” and the other is probably “let justice roll down”.

“the man was, both by the standards of his day and of the present day, a leftist.”

Except that he was also a Republican. 

He is probably the favorite Republican of leftists.

-Jut

Except that he was also a Republican.

Ah ha ha. Nice try.

Public stance on political parties

As the leader of the SCLC, King maintained a policy of not publicly endorsing a U.S. political party or candidate: “I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either.”[30]

In a 1958 interview, he expressed his view that neither party was perfect, saying, “I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.”[31]

King critiqued both parties’ performance on promoting racial equality:

  Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights.[32]

Personal political advocacy

Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for the Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower, but that “In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket.”[33]

In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: “I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one.” King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy in 1964, saying “Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964.”[34]

I know, Triplanetary, the left can’t comprehend the concept of a black Republican, so they have created, what did you call it, “Disney King.”

Yes, back in the day, most black people were Republican. 

Suppress that, if you like.

-Jut

I don’t know, Jut, I just provided documented evidence that King was not Republican, and you’re not providing any that he was, so I don’t think I’m the one here who’s suppressing something.

Plus, the concept of a black Republican isn’t actually difficult to comprehend. The existence of Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, and Thomas Sowell don’t cause me any confusion or cognitive dissonance. But those three people would never have been Martin Luther Kings, in any time or place.

There was a time when lots of black people were Republicans. 

Historically, Republicans in some cases favored causes that would be considered “leftish” today.  But that was before the Reagan/right wing putsch of the late ‘70s. 

I could bring up the Log Cabin Republicans as people who cling to a splinter of the Republican platform and try desperately to ignore the boards that despise tem.  But I won’t.

“them.”  In the last line.  Brain droop.

The Disney King, as characterized by Matt Spalding at the Heritage Foundation blog:

An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides, takes us away from King’s vision.

The Real King:

If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas.

King was using that not in the sense of quotas but as an indicator that equality clearly was not reached (either in keeping people from gaining the necessary skills or in hiring).  I believe that is the contect of the quote you used anyway.

There was a time when nearly all black people who declared a party were Republican, back when it was the party of Lincoln.

King’s predecessor faces the same issue. Indians honor Gandhi because he did to Colonialism what King did to Jim Crow. Then things get funky.

Every now and then, Gandhi’s philosophical heirs scold Indians with fingers wagging in all directions. Gandhism is not just anti-colonialism. It’s a radical philosophy. Etc, etc. Indians act duly chastised and then get up the next morning and completely ignore the bulk of Gandhi’s teachings.

What to do? Gandhi and King plucked ideas they liked and left those they didn’t. We’re just plucking them back.

What idea(s) did MLK,  jr, leave behind because he didn’t like it(them), Manju?

Well, he plucked from Gandhi non-violence but left much of the rest…like vegetarianism and Gandhi’s vision of a decentralized small government with a simple, rural, agrarian, labor-intensive (read de-industrialized) economic system.

like vegetarianism and Gandhi’s vision of a decentralized small government with a simple, rural, agrarian, labor-intensive (read de-industrialized) economic system.

Well, there is nothing in the Southern Baptist theology for any of the things you mention, and Ghandi’s first attempts at civil disobedience which King later emulated were influenced in part by Thoreau, so I really don’t see your point in the first place.

Well, there is nothing in the Southern Baptist theology for any of the things you mention,

OK. What’s your point? This appears to back up the notion that King did not embrace some Gandhian ideals.

and Ghandi’s first attempts at civil disobedience which King later emulated were influenced in part by Thoreau,

Right. I said Gandhi also plucked ideas. Not sure what your point is.

so I really don’t see your point in the first place.

Didn’t you just ask me to name some ideas (presumably ideas related to social justice and emanating from thinkers who influenced King) that King left behind? I provided them.

The point is, when you embrace a hero, you should not be required to embrace the hero’s whole philosophy. You can honor King (for civil rights) while simultaneously embracing Obama’s foreign policy, for example.

This appears to back up the notion that King did not embrace some Gandhian ideals.

No kidding. 

Didn’t you just ask me to name some ideas (presumably ideas related to social justice and emanating from thinkers who influenced King) that King left behind? I provided them.

A basic tenet of political organizing is that one cannot take a movement from another place and time and superimpose it on another political landscape.

I’m curious as to why you think that with a different political landscape and a people with a much different history than inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent would’ve been organized successfully with all of Ghandis’ ideals into play. 

If you want to make the point that MLK, Jr., has some of his ideals remembered and others forgotten as has happened to Ghandi in India, that’s a point I would agree with.

The point is, when you embrace a hero, you should not be required to embrace the hero’s whole philosophy. You can honor King (for civil rights) while simultaneously embracing Obama’s foreign policy, for example.

That depends, if you think the right of the President to order someone killed would apply to American citizens or not, doesn’t it?

A basic tenet of political organizing is that one cannot take a movement from another place and time and superimpose it on another political landscape.

Are we talking about superimposing an entire movement?

Folks may argue that MLK’s lefty economics should inform us today.  I suppose a legit counter could be that they are outdated, given all we know about socialisms failures today. But it strikes me as strawmannish to counter that those folks are trying to superimpose an entire movement onto a different time. 

I’m curious as to why you think that with a different political landscape and a people with a much different history than inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent would’ve been organized successfully with all of Ghandis’ ideals into play.

I was speaking of ideals that either King or Gandhi believed were universal. So its not about my beliefs.

The Republican MLK is Sr. RWingers, most notably Alveda King, confuse the two in an attempt to appropriate Jr.

And even then, Sr was not partisan or ideologically aligned with Repubs. He endorsed Nixon in ’60 but switched after JFK’s famous call to Coretta. But he was very close to the Rockefellers and thought Nixon an ally.

Strom Thurmond’s monumental ’64 switch has drowned out another important narrative in the Southern realignment. Most of the early (late 60’s, early 70’s) Republican gains in the South knocked out Segregationists who were still being supported by Democrats.

Winthrop Rockefeller replacing Orville Faubus as Governor of AR in ’67 was massive civil rights victory. He became the only governor of one the 11 former confederate states to publicly mourn the death of Senior’s son. The rest were Democrats.

Folks may argue that MLK’s lefty economics should inform us today.  I suppose a legit counter could be that they are outdated, given all we know about socialisms failures today.

Like the failure of socialized medicine around the world, compared to our private-enterprise system that must be the best in the world because rich people from all over the world come here to use it.

I submit to you that capitalism over the last 44 years hasn’t made the things that MLK, jr. talked about out of date or irrelevant, unless you think that poverty isn’t a problem for America these days.

You forget Jesse Helms’ win in 1972, which went against the tide that year, and I find it hard to believe that in the general election he knocked out a Segregationist who would’ve been more to the right on the issue of race than Helms was.  From the Wiki on Jesse Helms:

Helms announced his candidacy for a seat in the United States Senate in 1972. His Republican primary campaign was managed by Thomas F. Ellis, who would later be instrumental in Ronald Reagan’s 1976 campaign and also become the chair of the National Congressional Club. Helms took the Republican primary, winning 92,496 votes, or 60.1%, in a three-candidate field.[20] Meanwhile, Democrats retired the ailing Senator B. Everett Jordan, who lost his primary to Congressman Nick Galifianakis, who represented the “new politics” of the young, the African-Americans, and the anti-establishment, based around the urban Research Triangle and Piedmont Triad. Although Galifianakis was a “liberal” by North Carolina standards, he opposed busing.[21]

Polls put Galifianakis well ahead until late in the campaign, but Helms, facing all but certain defeat, hired a professional campaign manager, F. Clifton White, giving him dictatorial control over campaign strategy. While Galifianakis avoided mention of his party’s presidential candidate, the liberal George McGovern,[22] Helms employed the slogans “McGovernGalifianakis – one and the same”, “Vote for Jesse. Nixon Needs Him” and “Jesse: He’s One of Us”, an implicit play on his opponent’s Greek heritage. [22] Helms won the support of a large number of Democrats, especially in the conservative eastern part of the state. Galifianakis, for his part, attempted to woo Republicans by pointing to Helms’s earlier criticism of Nixon as being too left-wing.[22][23]

In a taste of things to come, money poured into the race. Helms spent a record $654,000,[24] much of it going toward carefully crafted television commercials portraying the candidate as a soft-spoken mainstream conservative. In the final six weeks of the campaign Helms outspent Galifianakis three-to-one.[22] Though the year was marked by Democratic gains in the Senate,[23] Helms won 54 percent of the vote to Galifianakis’s 46 percent and became the first Republican senator from the state since 1903: before senators were directly elected.[1] Helms was helped by Richard Nixon’s gigantic landslide victory in that year’s presidential election;[25] Nixon carried North Carolina by 40 points.

What Nietzsche said:

He who thinks a great deal is not suited to be a party man: he thinks his way through the party and out the other side too soon.

You forget Jesse Helms’ win in 1972, which went against the tide that year, and I find it hard to believe that in the general election he knocked out a Segregationist who would’ve been more to the right on the issue of race than Helms was

Helms was evil no doubt. I don’t know much about Galifianakis but I do know that he voted against the Fair Housing Act, a major CRA (he was not in congress for the biggie, ‘64).

Wiki leaves this out, so we can dismiss their analysis. The important thing is that Helms, Galifianakis… and of course Jordan as well as the other NC Senator, Earvin…were all Segregationists. Neither party produced a hero here. Earvin continued to win and became a liberal folk hero for his role in taking down Nixon…dispelling the myth of Segregationists being made up mostly of movement conservatives.

In contrast, Winthrop Rockerfeller, like the rest of his family, was a clear civil rights proponent. Howard Baker of TN fit this mode too. He won in ‘67 while being married to Dirksen’s wife! Thats a name populist southerners hate more than Winthrop.

Linwood Holton of VA was a rather extraordinary figure (for a white southerner) as well. He became Gov in 1970 and voluntarily sent his kids to a Af-Am school…during a time when busing was the major contentious issue. The otherwise goofy Spiro Agnew of MD also took the Govenors mansion on a pro-civil rights platform. (MD is a borderline confederate state, like WV).

Thats an important civil rights narrative thats been lost in the popular lefty version of the southern realignment (Segregationists switched parties after 64.! Strom Thurmond!).

He won in ‘67 while being married to Dirksen’s wife!

Errr…that should be Everett Dirksen daughter, not wife!

I mean, these guys weren’t that libertarian.

Helms was evil no doubt. I don’t know much about Galifianakis but I do know that he voted against the Fair Housing Act, a major CRA (he was not in congress for the biggie, ‘64).

Wiki leaves this out, so we can dismiss their analysis.

Nope, you’re saying in effect that Helms wasn’t more of a segregationist than the man he replaced, and that dog just won’t hunt.

Segregationists switched parties after 64.! Strom Thurmond!

Yes, I had to remind you of that fact when you stated that any such switches really didn’t matter much.

You’ll get it right in 20 years or so, Manju.

Nope, you’re saying in effect that Helms wasn’t more of a segregationist than the man he replaced, and that dog just won’t hunt.

You’re mistaken.

I said, “Most of the early (late 60’s, early 70’s) Republican gains in the South knocked out Segregationists who were still being supported by Democrats”. I did not say all.

Yes, I had to remind you of that fact when you stated that any such switches really didn’t matter much

.

I said; “Strom Thurmond’s monumental ’64 switch has drowned out another important narrative in the Southern realignment.”

You read this as “such switches really didn’t matter much”? Don’t be a hack. Not on civil rights.

You read this as “such switches really didn’t matter much”? Don’t be a hack. Not on civil rights.

Nope, Manju, I was referring to an earlier exchange we had when you forgot about Jesse Helms and was hackish enough to refer to the lack of Democrats who changed to Republican after the CRA passage.

Virtually no segregtionsts getting kicked out or leaving the party

Does the name Strom Thurmond ring a bell?

You come back again and again to show off your knowledge of the Civil Rights Era and hoping we’ve forgotten the mistakes you’ve made, and it’s not going to happen.

Here’s you being hackish, BTW. 

Manju, people find you irritating because we all know that Democrats were/are racist. Read felagunds #14 where he talks about the urban blue folks refusing to send their kids to public schools. The problem is that this point isn’t really prescient to the discussion at hand. You seem to imply that because JFK and LBJ and every person in the whole goddamn country has done something racist, our views on racism are somehow irrelevant. I don’t know if that is your real point, because nothing you say is ever germane to the discussion. If we ever have a discussion about whether any Democrats are racism free, please come back with your insights. Until then, stick on topic, or stfu.

Nope, Manju, I was referring to an earlier exchange we had when you forgot about Jesse Helms and was hackish enough to refer to the lack of Democrats who changed to Republican after the CRA passage.

I didn’t forget, as evidenced by the fact that I used the qualifier “virtually”. Virtually refers to the outliers who switched.

That’s a new use of that word, Manju:

Definition of VIRTUALLY
1
: almost entirely : nearly
2

: for all practical purposes <virtually unknown>

That’s a new use of that word, Manju:

I’m using the very definition you listed. Nearly all the segregationists continued to run as democrats post-64. The few exceptions are the reason for the qualifier that means “nearly”. Thats how the term is used:

“As I’ve said before, if there will be virtually no Republicans endorsing this bill, why not keep everything that was originally in the bill?

-Paul Krugman

Yes, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms are nearly nobody, so you’ve made your point manju.

Not.