By the end of his life, Martin Luther King realized the validity of violence
Hanif Abdurraqib

I don’t have anything new to add to this discussion, but I feel it’s important to join the other commenters here in calling out this piece for what it is — a direct distortion of the words of one of history’s staunchest proponents of nonviolent resistance, in order to fit the author’s (dangerously inaccurate) argument. Every quote by MLK included in this article DIRECTLY contradicts the writer’s argument. There are so many examples in this article of how MLK’s words have been twisted to fit the argument of the piece, but I’ll give just one: “Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena” is NOT “I, MLK, approve of urban riots and think we need to destroy things to get ahead” (as the author would have us believe). MLK is simply recognizing that urban riots aren’t going away, and then he explains why urban riots are seen by some as a valid tool. He’s not saying that he approves of them (because he never did approve of or see the “validity” of violence). MLK is a hero to so many of all races because he advocated for 1) equality, and 2) peace. It’s very dangerous for anyone to intimate that MLK ever saw violence as a useful tool for bringing the races closer together. I hope the author here takes to heart these comments and stops this line of false reasoning. It’s harmful.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.