If life is fair, and if people are not hypocrites, then yes, sorghum.
Before we start removing statues and cancelling national holidays, let’s be clear about what we know (or sort of know):
The FBI, at J. Edgar Hoover’s personal insistence, maintained extensive surveillance of King for years, including wiretapping many of his hotel rooms. Ostensibly, the purpose of this was to investigate his ties to the Communist Party (of which it quickly turned out there were none), but increasingly on Hoover’s end the purpose seems to have been creating a record of King’s sexual conduct in order to blackmail him. Hoover seems to have had something of an obsession with King’s taste for “unnatural” sex acts – I think this means oral sex – and with King’s taste for white women.
We have known for decades – thanks in part to the FBI’s efforts – that King was regularly unfaithful to his wife, that he liked to have sex with white women, that he hired prostitutes, including white prostitutes, and that he engaged in sex acts of which Hoover disapproved, including sex with supporters, in groups. There’s lots to criticize there from the standpoint of personal morality, but it hasn’t been news to anyone paying attention since the 1970s.
The document in question is a substantial fragment of a long memo. The author of the memo is not clear, although based on past characterizations it was probably written originally by a high-ranking FBI official at Hoover’s personal request. The memo seems to be a greatest-hits compilation of negative information the FBI had on King. The fragment under discussion is focused on sex, and also on King’s relationship with one former Communist. It has headings like “Money For Sex,” “Willard Hotel Episode,” " Nobel Peace Prize Junket"; also discussed are women King saw on a regular basis. It is also not clear what evidence supports the events recounted in the memo, although it seems to be understood that the portion in question – from the Willard Hotel Episode – is based entirely on tapes and transcriptions of tapes stored elsewhere, and possibly earlier memos about the tapes as well. It’s not clear that the author actually listened to the tapes himself, as opposed to reading the transcripts (or having subordinates read the transcript or listen to the tapes). The memo says nothing about what was on the tapes that did not involve sex or talk about sex.
As far as I can figure out, this specific memo fragment was never made public before this winter, although it has been reviewed, referred to and summarized by other documents over the years in connection with various investigations of the FBI’s surveillance of King.
The memo is typed, and has extensive pencil and pen edits – maybe by the official author, maybe by someone else. The edits seem to have been made at different times, and possible by different people. I don’t think it’s clear.
The memo and the edits are both highly conclusory, and are not at a fine level of detail. To modern sensibilities, they are euphemistic and judgmental to a hilarious extent – always talking about “depravity,” “degeneracy,” and “natural and unnatural sex acts,” and obsessively noting the race of women (generally on the basis of comments made by people on the tapes, because the FBI did not visually observe anything). People other than King are not identified by name. With very few exceptions – including one prostitute – the FBI does not seem to have interviewed any of the people whose voices are on the tapes.
The typed portion of the memo indicates that a Baptist minister from Baltimore visiting King with an entourage “immediately and forcibly raped” one of his female parishioners who was accompanying him, after she objected to something – the typed portion implies it was the language he was using to talk about her and other women, the editor seems to think that she was objecting to “unnatural sex acts.” There is no additional detail in the typed memo, other than a reference which seems to be to the index # of a tape, and nothing to indicate how the author concluded what was going on from the tapes or their transcripts. The original typed memo does not mention King in connection with this incident, and it’s not clear the “rape” occurs in King’s hotel room, vs the minister’s room. However, one of the people editing the memo penciled in that King laughed and offered commentary during the “rape.”
The story in the edited memo is not really credible sitting on its own, certainly not without listening to the tapes to understand exactly how the author determined there was a “forcible rape” going on, or how the editor determined that King was present and offering suggestions. It doesn’t describe any real-life situation of which I have ever heard, and it seems to connect with venerable racist stereotypes about Black people’s sexuality.
Garrow, for whatever reasons, seems to have been looking for a big splash, and maybe a big payday, for “revealing” this material. All of the mainstream news media he approached declined to publish the story because the FBI memo was effectively self-impeaching, and the tapes and comprehensive transcripts were not available to confirm the memo.
I agree with that. I don’t think we know on the basis of this material that King was present during, or laughed at, an actual forcible rape, or indeed anything that was not consensual. Someone – the FBI editor – is accusing him of that, but whoever that is he is not credible without reviewing his sources.
Come on. You know things aren’t that simple.
I’m not sure why this story is getting the airtime it is. Whatever the reason, I’m grateful to have a fuller description of the context and what is both known and unknown. Thank you @JHS
I don’t think so. (And also I hope not.) MLK worked at great personal risk, earned the enmity of J. Edgar Hoover and was ultimately assassinated. The combination of personal heroism and timeless message more than justifies the numerous streets, statues, buildings and national holiday in his honor.
I see what you mean, (post 62)
If we are in agreement with previous things a person did, then we can let some alleged evil pass. If we don’t agree with the person then an alleged evil should crush him.
Maybe that seems true in sports, business, politics.
Its too bad, imo.
@younghoss MLK’s importance was never as a religious figure, although he did pull from the Christian tradition as much as possible. As is well-known, or at least commonly believed, his main inspiration was Gandhi in India. There are many negative examples in the world now such as the Middle East of what can happen when a unity message is not embraced. This is the MLK legacy, and it’s as relevant now as it ever was. No one except Hoover ever cared about the man’s sex life. (Hoover himself had a colorful private life, but that’s another story.)
I for one didn’t know King was such a pervert.
@Leigh22 Then you may not have known that Gandhi was as well: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html
I found it interesting that RFK signed off on the original surveillance so he obviously felt there were legitimate reasons to monitor King.
One of King’s lawyer/speech writer ended up making significant contributions to the Communist Party (CPUSA), so I don’t think it is accurate to say that King had no affiliations to the Communist Party.
@Leigh22, what makes you think he was a pervert? That he liked oral sex or white women?
@CottonTales I want to acknowledge your reply, but none of the options seem right. We need a “Touché” button.
Please, race has nothing to do with it. It’s the combination of cheating, prostitution, orgies, voyeurism etc. To me this shows the character of a man who lacked respect for women, regardless of race.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
None of which is new news; this has been talked about forever. Not to mention the supposed love child. Regardless, I don’t think that these salacious details are what the OP was referring to when questioning the impact David Garrow’s writing will have on MLK’s legacy,so let’s not get derailed.
^^^. It is indicative of a pattern of behavior and a sense of entitlement when it comes to women. Patterns matter.
I’ll remind you(post 66) that these last few posts of mine and of some others are answering question posed in post 59.
If its shown to be true, will we remove statues and names of buildings, etc?
We certainly have been doing so lately, and other names/stautes are proposed too, given today’s lens seeing people in history.
“I for one didn’t know King was such a pervert.”
And you still don’t truly know. Just that FBI notes from a troubled era in the FBI’s past, claim so.
This may be true. But imo, we dont know yet. Maybe some here are too young to remember the devious ways Hoover acted and directed his team to. It was near scandal when revelations started coming out. So some doubt about the veracity of this report is not a blind eye.
^^ And yet, J Edgar Hoover’s name is is still on the building housing the FBI headquarters, in spite of his being a very shady character himself. I’ll take this alleged report with a boulder of salt until credible evidence emerges.
MLK whatever the new “story” is (and like others, I’ll wait for evidence) materially changed the USA for the better. His legacy IS civil rights. While the C statues, whatever you personally feel, represent treason and the preservation of slavery.
So whatever the veracity of this story is, the two legacies themselves are 180 degrees different.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
And yet you went ahead and did. Post edited to eliminate the sideline conversation.