Thanks for everyone’s response. Sounds like there is a mix of people that want to wait and see confirmation of these allegations, and people that believe the allegations are credible enough to believe now.
There was one comment that questioned how the FBI could sit next door without intervening in the rape. Good question. Maybe because they believed MLK had ties to communism, there was a greater goal. I don’t know.
Somewhat contrary to that, one could argue that since the FBI threatened to reveal the tapes to the public, yet we never heard MLK accuse the FBI of wrongdoing, that the tapes actually exist and validate the allegations.
Are the FBI summaries sourced as legitimate? That’s what the author is relying on for his story…so it’s only as accurate as those summaries. TBH I’m not surprised by anything done by men in power…why would MLK be any different? Because he cared about civil rights? Being a morally corrupt human being and caring about civil rights aren’t mutually exclusive.
@jazzymomof7 and @vpa2019 , the evidence was found by an author that won a Pulitzer Prize for a previously-released biography of MLK. This isn’t the National Enquirer.
Also, these are FBI notes from tape recordings they made. To me, the notes are the evidence. What value will the tapes add?
@OhiBro I’m not disputing the summaries exist, the article is sort of vague about how the author obtained them. He “unearthed” them…from where? Are the notes legitimate? Why aren’t they sealed in the vault with the tapes they allegedly summarize? I would like a bit more info on the summaries than the Daily Mail article provides before taking what they say at face value that’s all. As I said before, I won’t have trouble believing what is contained in the notes if they’re the real deal. Men in power are capable of all sorts of great and terrible things.
I’m not interested in these stories without the evidence. A bit odd, the FBI kept such damning evidence under wraps when the reason for the spying was to to damage King.
The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues.
The interesting thing - do we negate someone’s role in history over other heinous behaviors? I fear most people in history were not all good or all evil. We also can’t view history through the lense of today - though I agree this is particularly troubling. But I will not judge yet with no real tangible sources or corroborating evidence.
That would certainly put an end to the MeToo movement and would certainly support exoneration of people like Harvey Weinstein.
When more credible info becomes available it will be an interesting ‘show’ to watch - as some try with all their might to make this okay…because…well… .BECAUSE!!!
The Daily Mail column linked in the original post is just a preview of what will be released tomorrow by the monthly political magazine Standpoint, a British publication. From their Twitter feed:
“Read David Garrow’s full investigation in June’s Standpoint - out on Thursday”
Skimming through Garrow’s previous writings, he has spoken very favorably about MLK, so he doesn’t seem to be on a nefarious mission here.
Will probably hear a lot more about this once the full investigation is published tomorrow.
Wish post 27 was true, hope it will become true. Though from post 30’s example shows, all people don’t agree. Another example would be tearing down Civil War era Democrat statues. Those people weren’t all good or all evil either.
Some of today’s politicians want to erase founding father’s names from events and such. Looks like MLK and JFK may join the crowd of those being judged through today’s lens.
Boss/employee, teacher/student, I agree are thin ice for dating, an imbalance of power. But celebrity/average person? I don’t see that so much. If I were single, I’d be happy to date Scarlett Johansson, and would not cry that I was misled by her fame and money.
OP, I don’t see anyone but you claiming these unsubstantiated accusations are “credible.” (Only in the sense that we know people are capable of terrible things.) Nothing is proven about MLK. It’s the lowest level of acceptance to say, “But so and so asserts…” Just because you read it somewhere doesn’t make it true. Or suggest you need to spread the word about unproven statements.
And do you not know about FBI “issues,” during the Hoover era? My hat’s off to those here who brought that up.
Lol at the fact that anyone uses the DailyMail as a source for anything other than entertainment.
I have a really, REALLY hard time believing that the FBI kept this information under wraps considering how they purposely surveilled him to get dirt and discredit him. A black man involved in any way with a rape in the 50s/60s and not being charged? You’ll excuse me if I have suspicions.
MLK was a complicated man and far from a saint. In my 60s class, I do teach multiple sides of MLK’s life and story as an example of how history has a selective memory.
Standpoint is characterized as “centre right,” “right biased” and having “mixed factuality.”
Why wouldn’t you want to learn more before judging?
Btw, the 60s era labeling so many female contacts “girlfriends” riles me.
Let’s get more facts before getting a bee in our bonnets. Actual resources, not some FBI notes, from an era when nearly everyone was a possible target.
@romanigypsyeyes and @lookingforward , the source is not the Daily Mail. Is is recently-declassified US government documents, examined by a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer that has written glowing things about MLK. See post #32.
I don’t really know. I do think they are more accurate with the new editor. I still laugh about one of their stories that stated Nicki and Paris Hilton were twins.