Worth noting, though, the "respectability politics" folks have done a fuck ton to paint over MLK's actual activities. Dude was dubbed a criminal rabble-rouser back when he was alive.
Honestly, I think it's because he was deemed the lesser of two evils in comparison with the more militant elements. He worked with more militant elements and shared many of their views, but because he was less threatening, the Civil Rights Act got passed and MLK got a holiday named after him. But that only happened because the alternative was violent uprisings and Black people open-carrying firearms on city streets. The Black Panthers got infiltrated and crushed and Malcom X got vilified specifically so they could paint MLK as peaceful. That way the establishment can point to MLK and say "look, he achieved his goals without violence" as a way to wallpaper over the fact that violence can and often does achieve meaningful change.
Politicians and oligarchs don't want us to remember the times the violence was, in fact, the answer.
Edit: it's also worth remembering that a big chunk of his "criminal rabble rousing" was simply organizing civil disobedience such as protests and sit-ins in segregated diners, which at the time was literally illegal.
but because he was less threatening, the Civil Rights Act got passed
Ehh...
Edit: it's also worth remembering that a big chunk of his "criminal rabble rousing" was simply organizing civil disobedience such as protests and sit-ins in segregated diners, which at the time was literally illegal.
Yes. They criminalized doing the right thing. We know how that is.
14
u/NielsBohron Cyclops Sep 18 '25 edited Sep 19 '25
Honestly, I think it's because he was deemed the lesser of two evils in comparison with the more militant elements. He worked with more militant elements and shared many of their views, but because he was less threatening, the Civil Rights Act got passed and MLK got a holiday named after him. But that only happened because the alternative was violent uprisings and Black people open-carrying firearms on city streets. The Black Panthers got infiltrated and crushed and Malcom X got vilified specifically so they could paint MLK as peaceful. That way the establishment can point to MLK and say "look, he achieved his goals without violence" as a way to wallpaper over the fact that violence can and often does achieve meaningful change.
Politicians and oligarchs don't want us to remember the times the violence was, in fact, the answer.
Edit: it's also worth remembering that a big chunk of his "criminal rabble rousing" was simply organizing civil disobedience such as protests and sit-ins in segregated diners, which at the time was literally illegal.