Many great men (and women) did not lead exemplary personal lives. MLK’s has been largely known for decades. I don’t know why OP seems determined to sully MLK’s legacy, but he won’t succeed with me. And I hardly believe “evidence” whose source are people who have been proven to fabricate it. MLK is, and will remain, a man who pushed for needed change, somewhat succeeded, likely prevented an all out civil war - and paid for his activism with his life. In other words, a great American.
This article highlights each of our own prejudices. What we are willing to accept and overlook based on who did what to whom. 2027 isn’t all that far in the future. I predict MLK will remain a hero - no matter what is or isn’t eventually proven. It’s also clear that this type of pass is not issued equally to other men as evidenced by the rush to judgement on numerous recent front page events. Some will be categorized as non-exemplary, complicated, multifaceted - where the good outweighs any right to discuss the possibility of the not so good.
Some things simply must not be said.
@katliamom wrote:
You have missed the point of the thread, and haven’t read all of my posts throughout.
Lots of great opinions expressed, but this thread has run its course. Would close if I could.
Thinking about memorials… IF the allegations are proven true, it seems to me a comparison to Thomas Jefferson is more valid than to confederate heroes. Just what I’ve been thinking since someone mentioned Calhoun.
I thought about Thomas Jefferson in the context of memorialized Great Americans as well. I respect him as one of the most important founding figures of our Democracy, but recognize him also as an individual who was, in some respects, terribly morally flawed. And I’m not bothered in the least by his image on our currency. Andrew Jackson, on the other hand…
I see what you mean, dietz- the assumption of innocence has really fluctuated in recent news events and famous people, perhaps the last 5 yrs or so…
There’s no one for whom “the good outweighs any right to discuss the possibility of the not so good.” People talk about King’s personal morality all the time – his womanizing, his plagiarism. It’s not swept under some rug. The new thing here is an accusation that goes several steps beyond having consensual sex with any number of very willing women or hiring prostitutes, even though there was an element of abuse of power in those activities. The claim here is that he stood by and cheered while an associate forced an unwilling, objecting woman to have sex with him.
If true, that’s upsetting and worth discussing, but the problem is that the source is so discredited and the situation described so improbable that it’s very hard to believe it’s true. It’s not consistent with any accusation anyone has ever made based on first-hand experience. Everyone known to have been in the room has been dead for a long time. The person making the accusation didn’t have first-hand knowledge; his claim is purportedly based on a sound recording that still exists and may or may not support the claim. This isn’t a case of believing women – the woman in question has never complained, and has never even been identified.
To some extent, there’s a good analogy here to the Steele memo. Something tells me that OhioBro probably discounts the veracity of the Steele memo, and I doubt he’s clamoring for anyone to remove anyone from office based solely on those accusations. And guess what? I agree with that. I wouldn’t take politically sponsored accusations of outrageous personal conduct at face value without looking hard at the evidence on which they were based, even if I lack any respect for the person accused (as I do). And, at some level, while I do think personal sexual morality is important and reveals character, I am not comfortable making it the sole basis on which anyone is judged.
Nor assuming that because there can be ‘assumption of innocence’ in some cases, and presumption of guilt in others, that the former is what’s what’s going on here, when we ask for more info.
I’m slightly offended that posters calling for more info before judging, are being dismissed as playing favorites. Of course, it can happen. But don’t assume it just because our view is different than yours and we call for more info.
It always baffles me when people are willing to wipe the slate clean of all the good a person has done when a disproportionately small amount of suspected bad is presented. If you placed the impact of MLK’s “good” on one side of the scale and “bad” on the other, the scale doesn’t budge when you place the impact weight of the bad.
nm
I have to agree, asking for more evidence is a good thing. Sometimes people confuse evidence with proof.
Enough evidence may add up to proof, but one claim without verification is evidence not proof. This is true imo with MLK, celebrities, political figures, etc. All too often without sound reason, people jump on the bad(sometimes the good) a person is alleged to have done, and close their eyes to a more thorough exam. We have seen this lately with some in the music industry and some in political arena. Innocent until proven guilty should apply to all celebs, living or dead, sports stars, musicians, and all sides of the political aisle.
“…blatantly begin a smear thread with little to no verified information”
This is what I find problematic here. The title of the thread is itself inflammatory. Regardless of the content, veracity, or tone of the conversation that’s ensued the title still stands. This does damage all by itself.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
It should come as no surprise since it is outlined in ToS, with which all users agree when registering. I find editing/deleting problem posts far preferable to the the last resort alternative - closing threads. And my 4 prior posts on this thread should be a clear indication that this is a moderated site. Since the balance of the post also violates ToS, I have deleted the entire post.
As garland wrote, his legacy is civil rights. Is there any revelation about the character of early civil rights leaders that would lead us to question the value of the civil rights movement? I’m going to assume not. So, in my mind, his legacy isn’t impacted, no matter what.
I get it ALH, you feel his legacy would not be impacted if it came to light he had participated in a rape years ago. Ohters however disagree with you with modern day musicians if his legacy is music, and those in a political arena if their legacy is law or politics. For some, the allegation is enough, even without proof!
@younghoss Sorry for the late reply, but I just now saw that you had referenced me. Don’t compare the movement to take down Confederate memorials with anything else. Whether a statue of Jefferson Davis stays or goes has nothing to do with his personal character when he was alive, and everything to do with present-day politics.
As a secondary point, this idea of “fairness” is especially misguided. There never has been any such thing in human affairs. History is written by the victors, etc., etc.
His reputation would be negatively impacted, as Jefferson’s has been.
There are many, still popular works of music, art, literature from earlier centuries whose creators we no longer celebrate. The work, however, seems to stand the test of time.
I don’t really think changing the world (civil rights, founding the USA) is exactly comparable to artistic achievement, but that whole line of thought is way beyond this thread. imho
Because of course some artists do change the world
And this is why I am firmly against publicly celebrating any given individual (by naming a holiday after him, erecting statues, etc.) no matter how great their achievements were. A Civil Rights Day would celebrate not just MLK but the cause.
I suspect many still see things in inflexible ways, all or nothing, good or bad, statue remains or is taken down, etc.
BB: Some argue children need heroes to emulate. I’m on the fence about it, myself.