Worst part is that MLK Jr. was absolutely correct in his incisive skewering of the white moderate of the time. The letter is about white folks stalling progress and doing nothing but pretending to be allies, and condemning nonviolent protest despite supposedly agreeing with the proposed ends, not the idea that anyone who could be characterized as a moderate is, instead, an enemy. Yet instead, it’s often quoted as some kind of proof that no one who isn’t a radical is worth so much as a second glance.
You will always have allies less radical than you. Unfortunately, many terminally online folk prefer to see anyone not as radical as them as an enemy, and then wonder why they’re always fucking outnumbered.
Well why did he not? I ask because I don’t think anyone around here is going to quote mlk any time soon.
If I had to guess I would say it was probably because he was homophobic and didn’t believe in gay rights or at least he didn’t give much of a fuck about them, how close am I?
One of his close advisors was gay. He wasn’t anywhere near modern on the issue, but most folk were not at the time. More than that, though, LGBT issues - even just in something as small as acknowledging an advisor’s homosexuality - were highly controversial and would have detracted from the struggle on racial equality and justice. MLK Jr. was willing to fight one battle at a time (or, at least, limit the number of battles he fought at one time), and fought the battles he thought he could best push forward with his position.
This is an attitude often condemned by terminally online ‘radicals’ who dedicate their lives to making sure nothing is ever achieved.
Fredrick Douglas worked for Lincoln instead of the Abolitionist candidate.
Douglas figured that it was smarter to get a halfway good candidate in then lose with the best one.
Clearly he was insufficiently dedicated to the abolitionist cause. /s
If anyone quotes the ‘Letter From Birmingham Jail’ just ask them why MLK never publicly spoke out about gay rights. The answers are always hilarious.
Worst part is that MLK Jr. was absolutely correct in his incisive skewering of the white moderate of the time. The letter is about white folks stalling progress and doing nothing but pretending to be allies, and condemning nonviolent protest despite supposedly agreeing with the proposed ends, not the idea that anyone who could be characterized as a moderate is, instead, an enemy. Yet instead, it’s often quoted as some kind of proof that no one who isn’t a radical is worth so much as a second glance.
You will always have allies less radical than you. Unfortunately, many terminally online folk prefer to see anyone not as radical as them as an enemy, and then wonder why they’re always fucking outnumbered.
Well why did he not? I ask because I don’t think anyone around here is going to quote mlk any time soon. If I had to guess I would say it was probably because he was homophobic and didn’t believe in gay rights or at least he didn’t give much of a fuck about them, how close am I?
One of his close advisors was gay. He wasn’t anywhere near modern on the issue, but most folk were not at the time. More than that, though, LGBT issues - even just in something as small as acknowledging an advisor’s homosexuality - were highly controversial and would have detracted from the struggle on racial equality and justice. MLK Jr. was willing to fight one battle at a time (or, at least, limit the number of battles he fought at one time), and fought the battles he thought he could best push forward with his position.
This is an attitude often condemned by terminally online ‘radicals’ who dedicate their lives to making sure nothing is ever achieved.