Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Dr. King was alive today spreading a non-violent message to uplift blacks and bring about positive social change globally (i.e. vietnam speech), how do you think he would be received by today's public (of various backgrounds)?
Dr. King had already reached and passed his maximum effectivess point at the time of his murder. Black power was replacing "We shall overcome", African American leadership was shifting from a focus on equal rights to a focus on pride of identity. I doubt that there were very many Americans outside of Memphis who were aware that Dr. King was there, and why he was there, at the time he was assassinated.
Had he not been murdered, had he not had a martyr's status imposed upon him, his legacy would be less than it is. Had he lived he would have been pushed more and more into the background, seen as a relic of earlier times whose relevancy had come and gone.
I think Grandstander has it pretty much on the money, with one exception. I think that King would hold a status similar to Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu, not the leader of mass movements but one of a constant moral voice. I also think, ironically, that had King lived Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have never risen to the level of notoriety/fame/infamy/influence that they have today. I also can't not believe that after many of the voice of the black power movement, Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown had gradually faded away, as they did, he would remained a constant and increasingly important voice for African American's, the poor, and the those who suffer from injustice across the globe.
Actually it is "they're" the contraction of "they are".
I'm the first to admit to operator error when it comes to running off at the keyboard, but if one is intent on being pedantic, you better be damned sure that your pedantry is on the money.
What don't want me to destroy the illusion you have of him?
I believe that would require something more than the dismal polemic which you present, it is an excellent example of making something out of a vacuum. For example, under the heading "Numerous reasons to doubt the official story" with no added explanation as to what the meaning is supposed to be, we are informed that :
Quote:
9. Martin Luther King's brother, an excellent swimmer, was found drowned in his pool following Martin Luther King's assassination
Dr. King's brother's death was an apparent accident and it happened 16 months after the assassination. Alfred Daniel King was also a minister and very quietly helped his brother in the Civil Rights movement, but did not wish to be in the spotlight and declined requests to take a larger and more visible role after his brother's death. If there is some relationship between that event and anything which discredits Dr. King, then it should be presented and explained. Would you care to provide us with that explanation, Patriot? Why should we be doubting "the official story:"...whatever that means...on the basis of Alfred King's drowning? What evidence do you have which in any manner links that death to any of the assertions being made in the article which you presented?
I think Grandstander has it pretty much on the money, with one exception. I think that King would hold a status similar to Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu, not the leader of mass movements but one of a constant moral voice. I also think, ironically, that had King lived Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have never risen to the level of notoriety/fame/infamy/influence that they have today. I also can't not believe that after many of the voice of the black power movement, Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown had gradually faded away, as they did, he would remained a constant and increasingly important voice for African American's, the poor, and the those who suffer from injustice across the globe.
"Constant moral voice" would be my guess, too. Maybe something on the order of Dr. Billy Graham, who had access to 'high places', yet never seemed to 'take sides', was respected by most, never a controversial figure....just a 'moral voice' for everyone...yes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
