MLK Day, 2005

It's back. The most important day of the year. More important than the deposed Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays, respectively. More important than Columbus Day. More important than Thanksgiving. More important than Christmas.

I know what you're saying. How can MLK Day be more important than Christmas? Easy. MLK was the most important person ever to live. Anywhere. Just ask his widow and children.

Let's look at the man's accomplishments. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was in competition with Jack Kennedy and Wilt Chamberlain for the title of world's greatest womanizer. His favorite male company consisted largely of communists. He began his last day on Earth by beating the hell out of his mistress of the moment. He was a compulsive plagiarist who not only got his doctorate through fraud, but stole other men's words, and then copyrighted and re-sold the purloined pearls. And as the pre-eminent leader of the civil rights movement, he supported racial quotas, reparations, and racist law. What's not to like?

(As Theodore Pappas showed, in Plagiarism and the Culture War: The Writings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Other Prominent Americans, one-third of King's Boston University doctoral dissertation consisted of copying directly without attribution from the dissertation of his classmate, Jack Stewart Boozer, in addition to thefts from famous theologians.

And even if King hadn't gotten his doctorate through massive plagiarism, I wouldn't call him "Dr." What is it about the same black folks who show contempt towards whites with legitimate titles, that has them obsessively refer to "Dr. King"? Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the greatest social scientists of all time, and he had a real doctorate, but no one today refers to him as "Dr. Weber." Unless you're Austrian or something, it's not normal to refer to dead people as "Dr." Heck, while teaching college, I stopped referring to the living as "Dr." or "Professor," unless the person in question was my boss or a medical doctor. If you're my colleague, I'm not referring to you by any title, Pal. And nowadays, outside of the real sciences, most of the doctorates being issued aren't worth the paper they're written on.)

Lest I forget, one is nowadays compelled to note that King displayed great physical courage on behalf of his convictions. But having the courage of one's convictions is a dependent variable -- the independent variable is the righteousness of one's convictions. Over 100,000 men and women currently in uniform in Iraq also display great physical courage every day, and the vast majority of them seek to defend, not to destroy America. And yet, to my knowledge, none of them has had a national holy day enacted by Congress in his honor.

About 16 years ago, when I watched the PBS documentary series Eyes on the Prize for the first time, I loved the first half - the Martin years. But following King's assassination, the second half celebrated the Black Power movement as a seamless continuation of the civil rights movement whose dominant figure the martyred King was. "How dare you sully King's name!" I shouted at the TV screen, or words to that effect.

Eyes on the Prize celebrated black supremacists such as the "community control" activists (Rhody McCoy, Milton Galamison, the Rev. C. Herbert Oliver, et al.) who terrorized white teachers in the experimental, Ford Foundation-funded Brooklyn school district called "Ocean Hill-Brownsville." (Ocean Hill and Brownsville were and are two adjacent, poor, black-dominated parts of Brooklyn.)

For many years, I considered MLK one of America's greatest heroes. I once even published an encomium to him. Then I started to study the man. Big mistake.

For several years now, neoconservatives have presented King as a ... neoconservative, on race, at least. (And race is all they talk about, regarding King.) That means that he opposed affirmative action. They cite his "content of character" line:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!"

That line is from King's most famous speech, "I Have a Dream," which he gave on August 28, 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial. That's the only time he used such language. (Variations on the phrase "I have a dream" were then common in the American vernacular. In the 1959 Jules Styne-Stephen Sondheim musical, Gypsy, for instance, Mama Rose sings, "I had a dream ...")

"I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!"

"I Have a Dream" is the speech, whose high points ("Let freedom ring!") King stole from a speech the Rev. Archibald Carey gave, of all places, at the 1952 Republican National Convention. King then copyrighted the stolen words as his own. Since his assassination, his family has compounded the plagiarism by shaking down individuals (including scholars, which no one had ever done before) and organizations for millions of dollars for the privilege of quoting a mishmash of Archibald Carey's stolen words and King's own words. That the copyright is fraudulent is, thanks to my old editor Ted Pappas and a few other writers by now well-known, but no one has so far had the gumption to take on the sanctimonious, self-righteous bunco artists who comprise the King family.

MLK didn't believe in any hooey about "the content of one's character." He was a race man! And taking his fine talk about black and white children playing together and holding hands seriously, requires a belief in race mixing that he also did not have. As journalist George S. Schuyler (1895-1977) understood, integration means, above all, blacks and whites making babies together.

Meanwhile, on MLK Day every year, black leftists insist on King's radicalism. That's the man they want celebrated. And they are right. King was a radical. The neoconservatives notwithstandsing, King supported affirmative action and reparations, and he got both. When the programs of the War on Poverty were initiated, it was understood that they were racial reparations programs. Thirty-odd years and a few trillion dollars later, contemporary civil rights hustlers developed amnesia, and demanded new reparations to blacks, but this time to the tune of as much as $1 million per black (an additional app. $37 trillion).

The proper meaning of "civil rights" is the rights due to citizens. In changing "civil rights" from something due all Americans to something due to some, based on the color of their skin, and not others, King committed the most egregious act of linguistic legerdemain since FDR turned the term "liberal" upside down, from the belief that government should interfere as little as possible in a citizen's life, to the notion that the government may meddle in all of a citizen's formerly private affairs without limit.

Martin Luther King Jr. was the greatest orator I have ever heard. But that too is a cautionary tale: Beware of silver-tongued serpents.

The real meaning of MLK Day is "Black Day." It is a federal holy day celebrating blackness. But if we are going to eliminate all holy days celebrating white men and instead have a holiday celebrating a black, why not at least celebrate someone worthy? Pre-civil rights America had many black heroes worthy of celebration. Off the top of my head, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and my choice, Booker T. Washington, come to mind. Even A. Philip Randolph, the founder of the first successful black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, would be preferable to King, in spite of Randolph's socialism. Those five were real giants, rather than the products of propaganda.

As always, when discussing King, I leave the last word to George S. Schuyler, who, had he had the tuition money, could have buried King's fraudulent Ph.D. dissertation in a pile of real dissertations.

In 1964, when King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Schuyler wrote "King: No Help to Peace":

"Neither directly nor indirectly has Dr. King made any contribution to world (or even domestic) peace. Methinks the Lenin Prize would have been more appropriate, since it is no mean feat for one so young to acquire 60 communist front citations.... Dr. King's principle contribution to world peace has been to roam the country like some sable Typhoid Mary, infecting the mentally disturbed with perversions of Christian doctrine, and grabbing fat lecture fees from the shallow-pated."

Young? I suppose. I'm 47.

Bitter I am not. What I am is put upon.

Neither of you, BTW cyborg you didn't answer the questions, seem to be able to accept the facts concerning MLK nor the fact that the facts do not support the hero status that he has been given.

I will never see him for anything other than what he was.
Can either of you can tell me how blacks are any less than slaves now than they were before 1865, for those blacks who are followers of the SCLC and NAACP?
This grand movement called civil rights has wrought more pain on black people than the womens movement has on women and families.
I contend it has done more to prolong racist attitudes and distrust than it could have ever hoped to accomplish. I take each man for what he is. I don't prejudge anyone based on race. If I find I do not like someone and wouldn't normally associate with or employ, then putting me in jail or fining me because that person is black will not help the next black man that comes looking for a job.

MLK came from a middle class family in a middle class neighborhood which was made up of middle class people. He availed himself of a college education which was possible because his father had the means to provide for it.
He took the movement and turned into a multimillion dollar fortune which his family builds on today, by poor mouthing and race baiting.
He was never poor, he was never deprived of his liberties to better himself and he certainly never wore the shackles of slavery. Now why was he different? Was Atlanta not in the deep south? Didn't all southern cities collude to keep the black man down?

Look, there has always been people who hate other races.
There will always be. But just because a white guy doesn't buy into the wonderful world of race based social equality doesn't make him a racist. You are what you make of yourself and nothing more. And if you do make something of yourself it doesn't automatically mean you owe anyone anything or that you got it by keeping someone else down. And it certainly doesn't make you a racist if you happen to be another race besides black.
One other thought. Do you guys really think that the NAACP, which was founded by a bunch of white people, doesn't despise the ground you walk on, if you are white or a black conservative?

Were blacks unjustly discriminated against, first through slavery, then through "Jim Crow" laws and other forms of segregation,including denial of the right to vote, and efforts to intimidate them/prevent them from voting even after they had been granted the right...? Undoubtedly all that, and in many cases, worse.

Were all the above sinful, wrong, and morally reprehensible? Absolutely yes! Did it need to change for the greater good of our nation? Again, absolutely yes!

Was ML King a plagiarist, a philanderer, a spouse abuser, paramour abuser, and illegitimately accredited "scholar" who (proveably) willingly and knowingly consorted with Leftist, Socialist, and Communist elements? Ummm - yes absolutely!

That he repeatedly engaged in those behaviours is a foregone conclusion by all but the poorest and most willfully ignorant among scholars. Insistence to the contrary (based upon anything other than emotion) is simply overwhelmed by evidence supporting those contentions.

Have black Americans earned the right in their country to have a prominent black American honored by a holiday? Yes, without question (many among us observe Columbus Day in honor of Cristobal Colon, a Spaniard, St Patrick, an Irish Catholic...)

Why stop there? Let us also honor the Chinese who were instrumental (as Coulee laborers) in building the transcontinental railroad, yet grievously oppressed and discriminated against in society at large.

What about the Italians (Amerigo Vespucci after all, lent an Anglicised version of his name to our country - "America") who were scorned and disdained as "garlic-eaters" and worse on their arrival to the U.S.; shoved into some of the most crowded and squalid tenaments of New York and other cities, and generally looked down upon for most of a generation.

They repaid this disdain by going to war in droves against the Axis powers of WWII (including Italy); at one point 40% of the enlisted men in the US Army were Italian - a record not matched by any other national/ethnic group in US history since the war of 1812 (we were mostly English then.)

What about the now-reviled French? Their military and economic aid enabled a fledgling group of colonial militias to stand against the military superpower of their age in a struggle to rise out of what amounted to indentured servitude to the crown of King George.

Oh, and what about women in the U.S.? they were neither allowed to vote, nor own property for quite a long time in America. How about choosing a suffragette who was a paragon of womanly virtue for recognition? I mean, we have "Mother's Day", but there is also a counterpart "Father's Day"? The gals deserve their day.

Let us not forget a bit of history from long ago, that Egypt enslaved the Israelites for 400 years...

Is anyone getting the point(s) of my "history lesson with attitude"? Every "group" of people who comprise the America of today can offer up arguments for Lionizing someone from among their number. Not every set of accompanying reasons meets the standard of having a significant effect upon the fabric of life in this nation.

Other nations have holidays dedicated to distinguished Kings, Queens, religious persons or festivals, or political reformers, or revolutionaries of their past. We are not as concerned with their criteria, though they are not inapplicable, because we are among the few nations in world history to have had no king or queen in our history as an independent nation.

ML King pushed himself to the forefront of a civil rights movvement that was growing in popularity, and would have certainly succeeded without him. Whether or not he in fact "hijacked" the de facto leadership of that needed and valuable movement is arguable, but he was not the only educated, eloquent black American who had the ability to lead.

There were others of equal, or greater courage; this is inarguable. Had there not been, the civil rights movement would have stalled, foundered, or even deteriorated in their absence.

I have no personal problems with a day set aside to honor a black American. I have many objections to ML King having ever been chosen as that honoree - reasons based upon the "content of his character".

I would alternatively suggest: Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver just to name a few right off the top of my head. Or - how about this for a novel concept - "Black Americans" day, to honor the many worthy achievers who have contributed not only to the advancement of their own race, but also to the betterment of all their fellow citizens.

Hopefully this makes it clear that:

1) I am not a racist of any sort

2) noting towering flaws in the character of a man who focused the debate and discourse over civil rights on the issue of "content of character" is not tantamount to racism.

Had King not been murdered, but rather died of natural causes, I doubt he would have been accorded such an honor. The rarified air of martyrdom status is most likely what elevated him. Even that is not enough for some to maintain their lofty position.

George Washington was our first President, one of the greatest and most inspirational modern generals in the world, an educated, eloquent, temperate statesman and one of our two most significant founding fathers.

Abraham Lincoln came from the most humble beginnings - the epitome of a Horatio Alger story of determination leading to achievement. Sneered at by the landed, wealthy elitist cognoscenti of his day, outperformed in public debate by the renowned and haughty blueblood, Mr. Douglas, this homely, gangling Illinois (Republican!) President surprised all, including his most severe critics as he lead a nation through a horrific uncivil war.

His steadiness alone held the Union together at times, and that steadiness and respect for the fabric of a nation blessed by God was reflected in his Gettysburg Address. Even as President, Lincoln did not think his words would be "long remembered" that day, and journalists of the time paid equal attention to a speech given by another dignitary.

But English teachers and historians today rightly revere the Address as a towering example of brevity, clarity of language, and eloquent historical perspective. Lincoln was later assassinated, of course, a bit of a martyr in no small way.

But that was not enough. Not enough to keep either great man from having his birthday observation consolidated into the mind-numbingly generic, "President's Day".

There is no justice in that whatsoever, and no measure by which Mr King or his accomplishments sufficiently overshadow even one of those two truly GREAT men in U.S. history.

Holidays tend to evolve. We used to have "Arbor Day", "V.E. Day", and "V.J. Day". Now, Veteran's Day, Labor Day, and Memorial Day take their place. Independence Day is still July 4th, Christmas is still Christmas (unless you choose not to observe it, which is your privilege), and likewise Easter. If the Hispanic population grows much larger, we may come under a Liberal compulsion of political correctness to observe "Cinco de Mayo" as a nation.

But when it comes to observing a holiday set aside for an individual in America - we should be a lot more demanding in our standards. That personage BETTER be significant - and have a great deal of "content" to their "character".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.