Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/16/2006 3:16:18 PM EDT
I understand the good that he did, but was there an evil side? Did Louis Fericock have him murdered? Tell me more about MLK's dark side (no pun intended)

Also please no racist/88 remarks, I simply like to know the things history books leave out.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:17:14 PM EDT
total socialist with some communist leanings
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:17:47 PM EDT
Socialist?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:19:04 PM EDT
He cheated on his wife a lot, privately supported income redistribution. Knowledge of these things were obtained by the FBI spying on him.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:19:06 PM EDT
Well he was an adulterer, MLK wasn't his real name, and he plagiarized his dissertation so calling him "Dr." is questionable. I think there's more but it escapes me.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:21:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 3:22:19 PM EDT by Desert_Cowboy]
From what I have heard, he was a bit of a womanizer, wether that is bad or not i dont know, but there were rumors that he was unfaithful to his wife. Do not quote me on this as im not sure they are fact.

ETA: fellas above me beat me to the punch, apparently its true
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:22:52 PM EDT
I'm in LA and they are celebrating RODNEY King day.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:23:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well he was an adulterer, MLK wasn't his real name, and he plagiarized his dissertation so calling him "Dr." is questionable. I think there's more but it escapes me.



Pretty much. Still did great things, just wasn't the most honest man alive. Sort of a Machiavellian.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:24:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 3:25:35 PM EDT by Nimrod1193]
A decent man who fought for true equality, not the "equality of outcomes" preached by the race-pimps of today. A socialist? Perhaps, but I don't plan on taking an economics course from him. Perfect? Certainly not, but who is? I don't waste my time trying to tear down people who are already dead. Rather, I try to follow his ideal of judging people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:24:54 PM EDT
It wasn't rumors that he was unfaithful to his wife, he was. Having said that... I don't think that should diminsh what he did. America needed someone like him sooner.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:26:24 PM EDT
He was a socialist at a time when capitalism wasn't working out too well for his people.
I can't blame him for skewed economic reasoning, under those circumstances.
Because of him, and people like him, our country has moved forward.
Unfortunately, many of those that followed him have stalled that progress.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:27:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 3:28:25 PM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:27:56 PM EDT
Yes he was a womanizer.

He , however, is not that bad. He had a falling out with Jesse Jackson because Jackson was using the Civil Rights movement to further his own name. He also had af eud with Malcolm X because X became too militant and MLK's main goal was peace.

Was he a socialist? Sure. But considering the fact that there was widespread racism that prevented many blacks from succeeding on their own, you can see how he preferred a system different than the one that was failing the black community.

The problem is that those opportunities exist for people of all colors now but many will still use the oppression of the past as an excuse in the future. I believe that MLK achieved more than what alot people will give him credit for. Of course, you'll still see Jackson and Sharpton staging a protest outside any baseball stadium where a black runner is tagged out by a white catcher
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:28:52 PM EDT
At the college I went to, Virginia State University, one of the faculty that knew him early on gave a short Q/A session about him. No one talked about the socialism or womanizing. But it was admitted that he was one hell of a pool player.



Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:30:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
I don't waste my time trying to tear down people who are already dead. Rather, I try to follow his ideal of judging people "by the content of their character."



I am not trying to tear the man down at all, however there must be some reason that Louis Farrakhan was involved in his murder. A completely innocent man is usually not murdered by his peers.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:34:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlackDog714:

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
I don't waste my time trying to tear down people who are already dead. Rather, I try to follow his ideal of judging people "by the content of their character."



I am not trying to tear the man down at all, however there must be some reason that Louis Farrakhan was involved in his murder. A completely innocent man is usually not murdered by his peers.



Louis Farrakhan bring involved in MLK's murder makes MLK guilty of somthing? Trying to rationalize the actions of a man who was taken aboard a spaceship is impossible. Perhaps he wanted to take the helm from MLK
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:39:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LABLOVER:
I'm in LA and they are celebrating RODNEY King day.



you should have been here in the proud Commonwealth of Virginia where we celebrated Lee-Jackson Day on Friday
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:39:28 PM EDT
He was a MF'in racist POLOtition! Like so many others that sucumb to the trappings of power and wealth as he'd never seen before.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:41:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sydney7629:

Originally Posted By BlackDog714:

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
I don't waste my time trying to tear down people who are already dead. Rather, I try to follow his ideal of judging people "by the content of their character."



I am not trying to tear the man down at all, however there must be some reason that Louis Farrakhan was involved in his murder. A completely innocent man is usually not murdered by his peers.



Louis Farrakhan bring involved in MLK's murder makes MLK guilty of somthing? Trying to rationalize the actions of a man who was taken aboard a spaceship is impossible. Perhaps he wanted to take the helm from MLK



Not guilty per se. I just find it odd that there was only guilt by association.

So are the history books right? Was he the great man everyone says he was? Thats what I am asking...
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:45:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlackDog714:

Originally Posted By sydney7629:

Originally Posted By BlackDog714:

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
I don't waste my time trying to tear down people who are already dead. Rather, I try to follow his ideal of judging people "by the content of their character."



I am not trying to tear the man down at all, however there must be some reason that Louis Farrakhan was involved in his murder. A completely innocent man is usually not murdered by his peers.



Louis Farrakhan bring involved in MLK's murder makes MLK guilty of somthing? Trying to rationalize the actions of a man who was taken aboard a spaceship is impossible. Perhaps he wanted to take the helm from MLK



Not guilty per se. I just find it odd that there was only guilt by association.

So are the history books right? Was he the great man everyone says he was? Thats what I am asking...



I think he was. He had shortcomings like anyone else but he had a message that has stood the test of time. He advocated change that would right many wrongs and he did so peacefully.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:48:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:49:28 PM EDT
It is missing a vowel.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:50:56 PM EDT
Since you asked for no racist remarks, and what I just erased could only be construed as racist, I'll say nothing.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 3:51:08 PM EDT
he would be considered an unlce tom by most of todays black leaders if he were here now instead of then.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 4:01:10 PM EDT
Whatever else is said about MLK, he was a man of incredible courage.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 4:14:42 PM EDT
MLK plagarized his doctoral dissertation.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/9172.html

Ralph E. Luker

On Martin Luther King's Plagiarism ...
Fifteen years ago, with Stanford's Clayborne Carson, I was responsible for directing research on Martin Luther King's early life for the Martin Luther King Papers Project. The arrangement was a sort of three legged stool, because most of the original documents on which we were to work were located in Special Collections at Boston University's Mugar Library, the senior editor was at Stanford, and my offices were at the King Center and at Emory University in Atlanta. When I joined the Project in 1986, indeed within his own lifetime (1929-1968), it was already known that there were issues about originality in Dr. King's sermons and speeches.

What became increasingly clear as we worked through the papers from King's early career is that there were serious problems of plagiarism in his academic work. Tim Burke's colleague at Swarthmore, Allison Dorsey, was one of many graduate students at Stanford and Emory who did the fine tooth combing of the secondary sources that King wove into his own compositions. What became clear was that they were a patchwork of his own language and the language of scholars, often without clear attribution. If anything, the pattern seemed to be that the more familiar King was with a subject, the less likely he was to plagiarize. On matters that were fairly alien to his experience, he borrowed heavily from others and often with only the slightest wink of attribution. To take two extreme examples, an autobiographical paper, "Autobiography of Religious Development" has no significant plagiarism in it; his paper on "The Chief Characteristics and Doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism," however, is composed almost exclusively of paragraphs lifted from the best secondary sources available to him. Moreover, the further King went in his academic career, the more deeply ingrained the patterns of borrowing language without clear attribution became. Thus, the plagiarism in his dissertation seemed to be, by then, the product of his long established practice.

When word of our findings leaked to the press, it appeared first in England and only later in the American press. It was, for several days, very big news indeed. Our five minutes of infamy waned and scholarly reflection took over. Boston University convened a panel to assess the situation. It concluded that there were serious problems with King's dissertation, made note of that, and concluded, nonetheless, that his doctorate should not be revoked. There were dissenting voices about that. Garry Wills, for one, argued that there was no statute of limitations on plagiarism. Neither death, nor Nobelity, nor immortality conferred immunity from the consequences of academic theft, he said. Boston should have revoked the doctorate.

Still, after all these years, in spite of many very important books and articles about Martin Luther King, there is much yet to be said about his plagiaries. For one thing, King's academic plagiarism deepened as he moved from being a very young college student at Morehouse, to a seminary student at Crozier, and finally a graduate student at Boston. He entered Morehouse at 15, a consequence of aggressive parental promotion and an early admissions program at the college to fill seats vacated by World War II's draft. His record at Morehouse was, altogether, rather mediocre and his teachers noted some carelessness in his papers. When he attended Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, it was King's first experience as a racial minority student in a largely white student body and his grades dramatically improved.

Two things, it seems to me, were going on. First, King was a charming young guy, intent on returning to his professors the kind of work they expected of him. They, in turn, recommended to him sources which they, themselves, most deeply respected. So, the roots of King's plagiary lie in one of our two expectations of students. We expect them to learn what the authorities have to say about a subject. He worked the authorities' words into a seamless construct of his own creation and told his professors almost exactly what they, themselves, believed about a subject. To be candid, aren't we most likely to reward students with good grades when they say what we believe, in our heart of hearts, about a subject? What was lacking in King's academic work was the other thing which we commonly ask of students: originality of thought. To be candid, originality of thought is rare in any student, rare enough, even, in scholarship. We say we value it, but I suspect that originality of thought, if or when it raises an abrupt head, is fairly threatening to us.

The other thing that I think was going on, particularly in King's later academic career, was that he was being patronized by his liberal, white professors. That clearly was not the case when his undergraduate teachers at Morehouse evaluated his work. But when he went to predominately white institutions in the North, King received extra-ordinarily high grades for academic work which was not only often heavily plagiarized, but was otherwise quite unexceptional. There's probably no way to prove that King was being patronized, but I think that, in the context of the time, the temptation to over-reward a charming young African American student who told his liberal white professors in the North almost exactly what he knew they already deeply believed about a subject was simply overwhelming.

The tensions between valuing knowing what the authorities have said about a subject and producing a work of original thought came to a head in King's dissertation. "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman" is a sort of workman-like product, plagued with plagiarism, but passable if you're not paying attention. It is, however, no original contribution to scholarship. Isn't that what we say that we expect a dissertation to be? The reason that Martin Luther King's dissertation is of only historical interest is because it is all so predictable. He sets out, as an advocate of personalism, the theological persuasion of his mentors, to assess Paul Tillich's and Henry Nelson Wieman's doctrines of God. Boston personalism held that ultimate reality was personal. Tillich and Wieman were the most prominent spokesmen of their time for doctrines of God holding that ultimate reality was not personal. King's conclusion, that the doctrines of God in Tillich and Wieman, were flawed because they held that ultimate reality was impersonal was something altogether predictable by the terms of their premises. There was simply nothing new, interesting, or surprising there, at all.

I might conclude that none of this was fatal for King's career as a preacher and powerful public speaker. Had he pursued an academic career, his heavy reliance on the authorities, often without citing them, could have been fatal. But in preaching, perhaps even in most public speech, genuine originality is more often fatal. A congregation, even a public audience, expects to hear and responds to the word once delivered to the fathers [and mothers]. It is the familiar that resonates with us. The original sounds alien and tends to alienate. The familiar, especially the familiar that appeals to the best in us, is what we long to hear. So, "I Have A Dream" was no new vision; it was a recension, quite literally, of his own "An American Dream." And that dream, as we know, already had a long history. King's vision was, perhaps, more inclusive than earlier dreams, but it appealed to us because we already believed it.

Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 at 12:41 AM

**********

Steve




Link Posted: 1/16/2006 4:19:58 PM EDT
He had the same problem all men have, in the end he was only human.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 4:32:13 PM EDT
It is not proper to discuss any negatives that involve any minority regardless of how true it might be.

MLK was the greastest thing since God and that's all anyone needs to know.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 4:37:59 PM EDT
Later in his life he did incorporate some socialist philosophy in his speeches. It's assumed that he did this out of a sense of bitterness and desperation as he couldn't unite other black leaders to move forward in a peaceful and unselfish manner. But a full on commie or socialist, not at all. Unfortunately for his legacy it does appear certain he was a womanizer.

Take his "I Have A Dream" speech, it is one of the greatest speeches of 20th century America. It embodies all the ideals we proclaim as Americans. He calls not for gov't handouts but simply the opportunity for every individual to use his/her God given talents. It's ironic and very sad that hid contemporaries now shill for the unions and line their own pockets. They've really let "their people" down and skewed MLK's message and legacy to fit their own ends.
Top Top