Myths of Martin Luther King

www.lewrockwell.com ^ | January 18, 2003 | Marcus Epstein

[Tailgunner Joe]

There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.

This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.

Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy. Jim Powell’s otherwise excellent The Triumph of Liberty rates King next to Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock as a libertarian hero. Attend any IHS seminar, and you’ll read "A letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a great piece of anti-statist wisdom. The Heritage Foundation regularly has lectures and symposiums honoring his legacy. There are nearly a half dozen neocon and left-libertarian think tanks and legal foundations with names such as "The Center for Equal Opportunity" and the "American Civil Rights Institute" which claim to model themselves after King.

Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero? The answer partly lies in the fact that the mainstream Right has gradually moved to the left since King’s death. The influx of many neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom were involved in the civil rights movement, into the conservative movement also contributes to the King phenomenon. This does not fully explain the picture, because on many issues King was far to the left of even the neoconservatives, and many King admirers even claim to adhere to principles like freedom of association and federalism. The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech.

In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism. He believes this made King even more admirable. He also deals frankly with King’s philandering and plagiarism, though he excuses them. If you don’t mind reading his long discussions about gangsta rap and the like, I strongly recommend this book.

Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.

This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled "Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind," where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision."

The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.

King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote,

No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.

Predicting that critics would note that many whites were equally disadvantaged, King claimed that his program, which he called the "Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged" would help poor whites as well. This is because once the blacks received reparations, the poor whites would realize that their real enemy was rich whites.

Myth # 2: King was an American patriot, who tried to get Americans to live up to their founding ideals.

In National Review, Roger Clegg wrote that "There may have been a brief moment when there existed something of a national consensus – a shared vision eloquently articulated in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, with deep roots in the American Creed, distilled in our national motto, E pluribus unum. Most Americans still share it, but by no means all." Many other conservatives have embraced this idea of an American Creed that built upon Jefferson and Lincoln, and was then fulfilled by King and libertarians like Clint Bolick and neocons like Bill Bennett.

Despite his constant invocations of the Declaration of Independence, King did not have much pride in America’s founding. He believed "our nation was born in genocide," and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners.

Myth # 3: King was a Christian activist whose struggle for civil rights is similar to the battles fought by the Christian Right today.

Ralph Reed claims that King’s "indispensable genius" provided "the vision and leadership that renewed and made crystal clear the vital connection between religion and politics." He proudly admitted that the Christian Coalition "adopted many elements of King’s style and tactics." The pro-life group, Operation Rescue, often compared their struggle against abortion to King’s struggle against segregation. In a speech entitled The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King, Bill Bennet described King, as "not primarily a social activist, he was primarily a minister of the Christian faith, whose faith informed and directed his political beliefs."

Both King’s public stands and personal behavior makes the comparison between King and the Religious Right questionable.

FBI surveillance showed that King had dozens of extramarital affairs. Although many of the pertinent records are sealed, several agents who watched observed him engage in many questionable acts including buying prostitutes with SCLC money. Ralph Abernathy, who King called "the best friend I have in the world," substantiated many of these charges in his autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. It is true that a man’s private life is mostly his business. However, most conservatives vehemently condemned Jesse Jackson when news of his illegitimate son came out, and claimed he was unfit to be a minister.

King also took stands that most in the Christian Right would disagree with. When asked about the Supreme Court’s decision to ban school prayer, King responded,

I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in god. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right.

While King died before the Roe vs. Wade decision, and, to the best of my knowledge, made no comments on abortion, he was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood. He even won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and had his wife give a speech entitled Family Planning – A Special and Urgent Concern which he wrote. In the speech, he did not compare the civil rights movement to the struggle of Christian Conservatives, but he did say "there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts."

Myth # 4: King was an anti-communist.

In another article about Martin Luther King, Roger Clegg of National Review applauds King for speaking out against the "oppression of communism!" To gain the support of many liberal whites, in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965 Playboy that there "are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida." This was a bald-faced lie. Though King was never a Communist and was always critical of the Soviet Union, he had knowingly surrounded himself with Communists. His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed.

King’s sympathy for communism may have contributed to his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he characterized as a racist, imperialistic, and unjust war. King claimed that America "had committed more war crimes than any nation in the world." While he acknowledged the NLF "may not be paragons of virtue," he never criticized them. However, he was rather harsh on Diem and the South. He denied that the NLF was communist, and believed that Ho Chi Minh should have been the legitimate ruler of Vietnam. As a committed globalist, he believed that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective."

Many of King’s conservative admirers have no problem calling anyone who questions American foreign policy a "fifth columnist." While I personally agree with King on some of his stands on Vietnam, it is hypocritical for those who are still trying to get Jane Fonda tried for sedition to applaud King.

Myth # 5: King supported the free market.

OK, you don’t hear this too often, but it happens. For example, Father Robert A. Sirico delivered a paper to the Acton Institute entitled Civil Rights and Social Cooperation. In it, he wrote,

A freer economy would take us closer to the ideals of the pioneers in this country's civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized this when he wrote: "With the growth of industry the folkways of white supremacy will gradually pass away," and he predicted that such growth would "Increase the purchasing power of the Negro [which in turn] will result in improved medical care, greater educational opportunities, and more adequate housing. Each of these developments will result in a further weakening of segregation."

King of course was a great opponent of the free economy. In a speech in front of his staff in 1966 he said,

You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism.

King called for "totally restructuring the system" in a way that was not capitalist or "the antithesis of communist." For more information on King’s economic views, see Lew Rockwell’s The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Myth # 6: King was a conservative.

As all the previous myths show, King’s views were hardly conservative. If this was not enough, it is worth noting what King said about the two most prominent postwar American conservative politicians, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

King accused Barry Goldwater of "Hitlerism." He believed that Goldwater advocated a "narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude." On domestic issues he felt that "Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century." King said that Goldwater’s positions on civil rights were "morally indefensible and socially suicidal."

King said of Reagan, "When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events."

Despite King’s harsh criticisms of those men, both supported the King holiday. Goldwater even fought to keep King’s FBI files, which contained information about his adulterous sex life and Communist connections, sealed.

Myth # 7: King wasn’t a plagiarist.

OK, even most of the neocons won’t deny this, but it is still worth bringing up, because they all ignore it. King started plagiarizing as an undergraduate. When Boston University founded a commission to look into it, they found that that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation was stolen, but they insisted that "no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree." In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as "I Have a Dream," were plagiarized, as were many of his books and writings. For more information on King’s plagiarism, The Martin Luther King Plagiarism Page and Theodore Pappas’ Plagiarism and the Culture War are excellent resources.

When faced with these facts, most of King’s conservative and libertarian fans either say they weren’t part of his main philosophy, or usually they simply ignore them. Slightly before the King Holiday was signed into law, Governor Meldrim Thompson of New Hampshire wrote a letter to Ronald Reagan expressing concerns about King’s morality and Communist connections. Ronald Reagan responded, "I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed, to them the perception is reality."

Far too many on the Right are worshipping that perception. Rather than face the truth about King’s views, they create a man based upon a few lines about judging men "by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin" – something we are not supposed to do in his case, of course – while ignoring everything else he said and did. If King is truly an admirable figure, they are doing his legacy a disservice by using his name to promote an agenda he clearly would not have supported.

[Centurion2000]

It's kind of funny in hindsight but one place that I worked at actually had a James Earl Ray Appreciation Day in place of MLK day.

[rdb3]

That pretty much sums it up. Some may think that my remarks are "baiting." That isn't my goal.

The truth about the entire King legacy is that if America had lived up to her own ideals, there would have been no need for King.

It's really that simple. Yet we have more than a few who lament the accomplishments of this man, no matter how flawed (which of us are not?), and at the same time simply refuse to acknowledge the environment that created him. Let these types talk, everything was sweetness and light (no pun intended) during that time.

We all become free when the absolute truth is not only stated, but embraced, no matter how painful. This is the process by which I departed the RAT plantation. Many other conservative blacks traveled the same path(s).

Finally, the insistence upon living in the past (for both blacks and whites) would be funny if it weren't so sad. I'll serve as the perpetual reminder to everyone that times do indeed change, and people change as well.

What's less than human is for a person to refuse to learn, grow, and if need be, change.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Arkinsaw]

Perhaps the time has come to accept that the mythical equality that you all seek is just that: a myth. It isn't ever going to happen. Not through legislation. Not through natural changes in social attitudes. Not through some divine miracle. Not ever. It is time to stop trying.

I see the account has been banned. But I'll respond anyway. Skreepack obviously has chosen not to notice the last 40 years or so. Over in the Balkans and the mideast we have ethnic warfare that has been going on for 500 to 3,000 years without change. Whereas here we have gone from holding people in bondage to having them at the highest levels of our government in charge of all of our security and relations with enemies.

I have seen people who were staunch segregationists 40 years ago who now think nothing now of saying "yes ma'am" and "yes sir" and hold the door open to those they tried to separate from. I personally have walked into a convenience store in demographically black part of Pine Bluff, Arkansas in a Confederate uniform (on the way to a reenactment) and the only comments I received were directed at how I could stand to wear all that wool in July.

When I started first grade I had no idea that it was within a year or two of that school's desegregation. No idea, not a whiff.

When we reburied a Confederate soldier down here several black men from the community came out and paid their respects and everyone there went up and shook their hands and were glad they were there.

Its not all roses, even here on this forum, but your theory that color blind equality is mythical is bull, at least in America. Its laughable really. 40 years is about a generation. ONE generation. If this were the middle east or Bosnia such change would be amazing if it occurred over a period of 500 years. Here its been 40. We Americans are going to do okay and you are sadly mistaken.

[rdb3]

You know it! We're down like four flats on a dumptruck.

To keep you more "current," I'll be sure to ping you early on, okay?

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[fatima]

Bump for later read

[AppyPappy]

King was America's Ghandi. The end of Jim Crow was coming and King helped make it a peaceful coming.

[Arkinsaw]

One of the greatest and most influential Americans of the 20th century.

Regardless of what one thinks of Martin Luther King's politics the fact is that he advocated appealing to our conscience rather than appealing to the gun. If I were made to go into the rear door or refused hotel rooms or couldn't drink out of a certain drinking fountain or had to send my kids to a separate and unequal school I can honestly say that I would think America was out of control and a gun might look pretty good.

There were really two ways to go. The MLK way or the Black Panther way. Things could not stand with or without MLK. Regardless of anything else you think of him, he saved America from a much greater, and much more evil, convulsion than we actually faced.

[rdb3]

King as America's Ghandi? That's an apt analogy.

I say that while disagreeing with King's politics outside of making America live up to her own ideals. This comes from studying this history, of course, since I was born three and a half years after his death.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Restorer]

Very well said.

More blacks than whites insist on living in the past, IMHO.

I think the vast majority of whites are more than willing to accept blacks as equal partners in building America. Far too many blacks seem to insist on hanging onto their ancestral grievances.

If it's whitey's fault, it sure can't be mine!

A highly understandable reaction, but so sad.

[rdb3]

You mention the differences between King and the BPPSD. But don't forget pre-Mecca Malcolm X.

When criticizing King, he said black people should stop singing and start swinging. That would have been rough.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[rdb3]

More blacks than whites insist on living in the past, IMHO.

This is more than just your opinion. This is an absolute fact.

This is what happens when past grievances are used as a path to wealth. This is my largest beef with today's so-called "civil rights establishment" and the Democrat-media complex.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[jwalsh07]

From my perspective the screed above is all about nothing.

America needed somebody to stand up and say hey, "Read the damn Constitution and the DOI", all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

MLK did that and being an imperfect man who probably would never share my politics, he nevertheless had the balls and the wherewithal did get done what needed doing.

[Alouette]

You left out Myth #8:

Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed that "Anti-Zionism" is the same as "Anti-Semitism"

[Arkinsaw]

I think the vast majority of whites are more than willing to accept blacks as equal partners in building America. Far too many blacks seem to insist on hanging onto their ancestral grievances.

I wouldn't say that this is a black thing since I wear a Confederate uniform from time to time LOL. There is nothing wrong with remembering the past. There is a lot to learn from the manner in which blacks survived through 300 years of slavery. I think the problem comes in when you narrowly focus on the one aspect to the exclusion of all else. For example you don't hear Al Sharpton talk much about the United States Colored Troops or the black men who charged up San Juan Hill. Thats because there isn't as much victim capital involved with them.

Black history and black culture are worthy things to be remembered and honored. Just as long as it is realized that there are a few attempting to focus on only a narrow chapter of it for modern political purposes. (The same goes for those who try to use Confederate memory as a modern political pawn, works both ways).

[mhking]

So am I supposed to be your "crony?" Feh. You know me better'n that.

I've lurked in this thread - I know what was said, but I refused to give the knuckle-dragging elements the time of day.

[mhking]

Some may think that my remarks are "baiting."

You didn't bait a thing. Those that started down this road did the baiting. I've been around long enough to know that damn near anything that comes out of Lewrockwell.com and discusses race will end up being the source of race-baiters' tirades...

[mhking]

So the man was human. He stood up and said that it was wrong for someone to mistreat me simply because I'm black. It took balls to do that, human failings and all.

This entire thread appears to be yet another means for some to break their collective necks and say that I (and others who look like me) do not deserve to be here. Sorry, I'm here to stay.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Yawn. Another King bashing thread from Rockwell. What a suprise?! Of course, just before this he wrote a "forgiving" article about that statist Strom Thurmond. Could Rockwell also "forgive" King for his sins and search out the libertarian aspects of the early King. Forget it! He will give King no quarter but for Thurmond he will overlook any sin! Of course, the King bashers want to ignore the fact that the early King was much more anti-statist than the later King. See the following wonderful attack on Marxism and relativism by King:

"During the Christmas holidays of 1949 I decided to spend my spare time reading Karl Marx to try to understand the appeal of communism for many people. For the first time I carefully scrutinized *Das Kapital* and *The Communist Manifesto.* I also read some interpretive works on the thinking of Marx and Lenin. In reading such Communist writings I drew certain conclusions that have remained with me as convictions to this day. First, I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian, I believe that there is a creative personal power in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality-a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms.

History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter. Second, I strongly disagreed with communism's ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything-force, violence murder, lying-is a justifiable means to the 'millennial' end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me.

Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is pre-existent in the means. Third, I opposed communism's political totalitarianism. In communism, the individual ends up in subjection to the state. True, the Marxists would argue that the state is an 'interim' reality which is to be eliminated when the lassless society emerges; but the state is the end while it lasts, and man is only a means to that end. And if man's so-called rights and liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state.

This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as means to the end of the state; but always as an end within himself."

Martin Luther King Jr., *Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story* (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), 92-93

[AppyPappy]

We talked about MLK in Sunday School (I teach Sr Highs). It was very difficult to explain Jim Crow to 16 year olds. They have no frame of reference. We had to explain it as the power of large groups(white Southerners) to do stupid things perpetually. They want to know who thought of it and why and why black people just didn't ignore it while demanding equality. "Why didn't the black people just ignore the sign and go in anyway? If the white people beat them up, why didn't they call the police?". They could not comprehend that the government supported Jim Crow.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

...the failure of conservatives to articulate a truly color-blind alternative civil rights movement was a major contributor to the development of the self-parodying one we have today.

It is entirely understandable

Mega dittoes and amen.