Woody:

I remember a deep fear of Malcom X, an opposing black leader, who converted to Islam, referred to whites as devils, called for black separatism and black power, and advocated war against the whites--thus, rejecting non-violence as preached by Dr. King. Imagine that...an Islamic leader calling for war against Americans in the 1960's.

Woody, when Malcolm X went on the Hadj to Mecca, he writes in his autobiography, he realized that many Muslims were whiter then the "white devils" he was used to and retracted much/most of the harsh rhetoric that he had espoused under the prior leadership of Elija Muhammad, the founder of the Black Muslims. His book Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm X and the similar "as told to alex haley" are both fascinating reading. I listened to a speech by Malcolm X before he was assasinated and then read the books. Changed my mind about the man. Never bought the Muslim thing, but he certainly was a changed man.

Posted by GM at January 15, 2007 04:08 PM

G.M., today I understand that Malcolm X was changing, but, at the time, I was just a kid worried about race wars, and I was too young to realize that he might be moderating his positions. It takes more than an autobiography to undo the verbal damage and impressions that he gave.

Posted by Woody at January 15, 2007 04:29 PM

Rather than ask what MLK would say if he were alive today, imagine the influence he could have had if he had lived. It would be a different world... Different in what way, I can't exactly say but there's no doubt his assassination changed it forever.

Posted by e. nonee moose at January 15, 2007 05:10 PM

Judging from some of the reactionary takes on King, you'd think that the late Civil Rights leader was always celebrated as a fine fellow, a decent American, and if the Heritage Foundation is to be believed, a conservative who would, had he lived, doubtless stump for the likes of Bush/Cheney. This is a collective effort of ideological ass-covering. The National Review at the time not only was hostile to King, it editorially supported state's rights in the South when Civil Rights workers were being beaten and murdered. To much of the American right of the 1950s-60s, King was a commie race-mixing agitator who sought to undermine if not destroy the American system. And when King began speaking out against the Vietnam War and the capitalist assault on the poor, the Liberal Media, which patted King's head after Selma, turned decidedly against him. Also, on "Meet the Press" in 1967, just after Israel launched its successful military land grab of the West Bank and Gaza, King spoke of the Palestinians and wondered what might be their fate under Israeli-occupation. So ahead of the curve was King on this issue that the panel of journalists let the comment go. I doubt they knew what he was talking about. But imagine King alive today saying any of the above, in addition to his other radical statements. Think David Horowitz and the lightweights on National Review's Corner would be singing King's hosannas? He'd be branded a traitor and soft on Islamofascism. Horowitz would probably run a graphic at his wretched site suggesting that King be executed for criticizing the Iraq war, a war King would probably denounce, given his political and theological position (imagine the slime Hitchens would fling at King and his pacifism). Of course, we'll never know, and this allows American reactionaries to pretend that they were with King all along, or worse, that he was one of Them. I seriously doubt that King would ever link arms with such squalid figures, but then, he believed in forgiveness and eliminating hatred through peaceful positive action. That such powerful transcendent emotions would be largely wasted on those committed to endless war and political repression is beside the point -- no, it is the point. Of all the examples Martin Luther King left us, loving your enemy was, and is, the hardest lesson to learn and put into practice.

King gave his life in pursuit of this lofty goal. What are we doing

Posted by Ahmed at January 15, 2007 09:28 PM

Well done post. Instead of going down the path most went you shared your rememberance of him. I unfortunately was born after his life was ended so I can only make educated guesses as to WWMLKD (What would MLK do). From what I've learned about the man, I think he would have things to say on what occurs on both sides of the aisle. I will say that one cannot read, hear, or watch the speeches of MLK without being affected.

The real challenge is to try and make his "dream" come true, much like the dream of Christ, Mohammed, Budha, and Abraham. It is common for current day people to hijack iconic people for their pet causes. The reality is that we can only take what they said and if we feel so moved act upon those words in a way that improves the general conditions of man.

Posted by psyberwolfe at January 15, 2007 09:32 PM

Ahmed:

Judging from some of the reactionary takes on King, you'd think that the late Civil Rights leader was always celebrated as a fine fellow, a decent American, and if the Heritage Foundation is to be believed, a conservative who would, had he lived, doubtless stump for the likes of Bush/Cheney. This is a collective effort of ideological ass-covering."

For one, this conservative (moi, in case you have trouble following my argument) was a strong supporter of the Civil Rights movement from my earliest experiences in a little "hick-town" north east of Little Rock in 1957 when I cheered Ike's bringing in the 101st to 1962 when I helped register black voters in Northern Virginia (having moved to Northern Va in case you were wondering) to standing near the reflecting pool and listening live to Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech. I was crushed when he was assasinated and believed then, as now, that a shining light was removed. That does not detract from later revelations about his infidelity to his marriage vows, his 1967 questions about what would happen to the Palistinians nor does it make me wonder what he would have said about the use of suicide bombers attacking school busses, restaurants and shopping centers killing civilians, the obvious joy on some Pali faces as they danced and uulated when the twin towers came down. He would doubtlessly have condemned all of that. But that is in hindsight and is based on my own biases as your comment is based on your biases.

King was a multifacited personality, with many pros and cons about his rhetoric and sometimes lofty ideas and sometimes nefarious behaviors. So? Your point is? As to Horowitz, he was doubtlessly cheering King during the 60's because he was as lefty as they come. Your argument with Horowitz is not what he was saying then, but what he is saying now because he has obviously turned his back on much of what you currently believe in. Again, so what?

Your bias brings to mind a recent article by Megan McArdle here go read it and then come back and tell us again how your hindsight is any better than ours!

Posted by GM Roper at January 16, 2007 07:42 AM

"nor does it make me wonder what he would have said about the use of suicide bombers attacking school busses, restaurants and shopping centers killing civilians, the obvious joy on some Pali faces as they danced and uulated when the twin towers came down."

I condemn these acts as strngly as you. The difference is that I value Palestinian lives as much as I do Israeli. According to the all of mainstream human Israeli human rights groups more than 600 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks since JUne, over 100 of them have been children and most have been unarmed. B'tselem and Amnesty (both pf them give equal documentation to Palestinian attacks) both verify this. Have yoiu looked at their reports? King believed that everyone had a fundemental right to be free, not to live behind illegal walls, checkpoints, disposession and state terror. Its too bad that you failed to grasop of of this.

Posted by Ahmed at January 16, 2007 11:26 AM

"But that is in hindsight and is based on my own biases as your comment is based on your biases"

I agree with this. And I never claimed to know what you thought of King at the time. I was just citing mainstream conservative responses to him. I think its relevant.

Posted by Ahmed at January 16, 2007 11:35 AM

Yes Ahmed, it is relevant. But you make of it what is not there. The National Review, in favor of state's rights on principle, did not endorse violence against those who disagreed with them. You suggest that they did. You let us know what David Horowitz "would probably" do if King were alive, and that the National Review would be calling him a traitor. It would be hard to produce evidence for that other than your feeling that it is so. King wondered what would be the fate of the Palestinians under Israeli control, and perhaps that was a reasonable concern, given what human nature is. It is not the same thing as saying that the Israelis were or are wrong, though. King equated anti-Zionism with anti-semitism, which you conspicuously leave out.

And we now know what happened to the Palestinians: they were given hospitals, fresh water, food, school materials, and frequent attempts at autonomy, all of which they squandered by insisting that they would have it all or they would have nothing. So to even suggest that King would be on their side of issues is to speculate far beyond what anyone knows.

You have succeeded in informing us what your prejudices would hope that Dr. King would be saying now, but not succeeded in making a case for it.

The point of the post was that King's ideas would be considered conservative today. Noting that conservatives did not agree with him about everything at the time is rather a diversion.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at January 16, 2007 05:44 PM

AVI- You speak about the National Review being for "states rights in principle" as if the whole rhetoric of sates rights had nothing to do with the maintenance of white supremacy and Jim Crow. As if it wasnt a thinly coded rheotrical device utilised in order to promote and defend systematic and legal discrimination agianst African Americans. As if the entire structure of racial segregation and inequality, particularly in the South, wasnt itself based on the very real threat and existence of violence, embodied in the state as well as organisations like the KKK. This is simply astounding. As for where Martin Luther King would sit on the political paradigm, we seem to have some fundemental disagreements. My problem with the institutionalisation of KIng is that its mostly served to efface the mans radical critque of American society. People tend to forge that KIng dided while trying to organise sanitation workers. That before his death, he was planning a poor peoples march on Washington. That he belived in personal responsiblilty, upliftment as well as redistribution. That he was a vocal critic of the war in Vietnam, at the time accusing the American government of being "the greatest purveyer of violence in the world". King may be celebrated as a fine fellow and mytholigised as a hero today, but in his lifetime he was hounded by the FBI and hated by J Edgar Hoover. His religiousity was infused with a sense of social justice, he spent time in jail, organised marches and was a defender of those who had the least. He is perhaps the antithesis of fraudulent buffoons like Pat Robertson or Jerrt Fallwll. My point is that its much easier to identify with someone once they've been mythologised (and depoloticsed IMHO) decades later. Eveyone commends Nelson Mandela now, but few remenber that he too was once deemed a terrorist by the US state department. That sleezebags like Cheney voted agaisnt resolutions calliing on Apartheid South Africa to free him, that Falwell visited the Banstutans and praised apartheid South Africa. Now everyone claims Mandela the same way everyone claims King. That's something to think about

Posted by Ahmed at January 16, 2007 06:19 PM

Ahmed - to some people, it wasn't a thinly coded (?) rhetorical device. That many used it as such I do not dispute. But you are making an accusation against a specific magazine's writers. I don't see how you know what their motives were. People do hold to principle even in conflicted situations, you know.

As to King's faith, one might as well say that his sense of social justice was infused with religiosity instead. However much you might dislike Falwell, BTW, the charities he has built and inspired are enormous. I know Romanians who claim they would not have survived with his organization. Be not so quick to judge.

I concur with your assessment that King was radicalizing more than we remember. Unfortunately, that sort of argument shoots itself in the foot. We do not memorialize him for all of his actions and ideas, but his specific ones around civil rights. At least, that's what liberals told us when they pushed to make his birthday a national holiday, over the objections of those who could list his many shortcomings. You can't have that both ways: either we are remembering him primarily for his courage, vision, and articulation of civil rights, or we are taking him whole. If we are taking him whole, then his communism, serial infidelity, and hypocrisy should have been part of the discussion about MLK day.

I am quite content to have a MLK holiday to honor his civil rights work, as that was a great achievement, much as we used to honor Washington and Lincoln on their birthdays because of their achievements, and despite their shortcomings. If you (plural) wanted to expand the King holiday beyond that, why was that not clear a decade ago?

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at January 17, 2007 07:32 PM