What most interests me about this article is how folks in the comments who want to critique it…
Michelle Hite
1

“Any person who uses MLK to defend claims castigating black civil rights participation while extolling white superiority are perversions of history.”

Nobody is making that claim. Strawmen are so tiresome. Nobody is extolling white supremacy and nobody is castigating the black civil rights activists. The general consensus on the thread seems to be that BLM do not have the right to claim the legacy of either King or the black civil rights activists who worked with him. They have nothing in common other than skin colour. All that is being claimed is that the author is completely wrong to suggest that King was coming around to endorsing racist violence against white people; and that BLM is a racist and divisive neo-Marxist organisation which endorses violence and racism and therefore has no right to claim to be bearing the mantle of King’s generation of black activists.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

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