Replies

King was of the “stopped clock is right twice a day” ilk. Who could argue with content of character outweighing color of skin, and nonviolent protest as a means to the end? And his willingness to face the possibilty of death for his cause was admirable.

His personal life and belief in socialist systems are another matter. Overall, I rate him more positive than negative. (and you all know how much they pay for MY ratings!)

Segregation and discrimination needed to be dismantled. They were, thanks to King's strategy of non-violence and appealing to the moral values of whites. Jim Crow was abolished at the cost of very few lives, compared to the 600,000-plus who died in the war that ended slavery. The violence came later in the urban riots, which mostly happened after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had been signed into law.

King's popularity had dropped before his death because he was being attacked by more militant types. I think the King vs. Malcolm X contrast is sometimes cast as a replay of the Booker T. Washington vs. W.E.B. DuBois opposition of an earlier generation (although King was far removed from BTW's views).

One good thing that came out of the King holiday is that it saved lives in 1994--the Northridge earthquake happened on the holiday, so traffic on the LA freeways was much lighter than normal. If it had been a normal work day, more people would have been killed when a portion of the freeway collapsed.