Some moderates/liberals attacked Rev. King for *his* anti-war stance

Note: Quotes were taken from Richard Lentz's "Symbols, the News Magazines, and Martin Luther King," and David Garrow's "Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference."

I'm posting this for two reasons:

1. There are some who are wary of leftists like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore; apparently, "normal" Americans find activists obnoxious/threatening.

2. There are some who think we should reserve our criticism for Bushco. It seems pro-war Democrats, like Clinton and Schumer, are misunderstood strategists. In no way are they complicit in this bloodbath. We need only subscribe to the Democrats=Good/Republicans=Evil equation; once the neocons are out of power, peace and justice will surely return to our great country. And we'll live happily ever after.


Sometimes I wonder how some here would react to the radicalization of Rev. Martin Luther King. As many know, in the last three years of his life, King evolved from civil rights activist, to that of a human rights activist. Eventually, he would denounce capitalism as a system fostered in the three evils: militarism, economic exploitation, and racism (don't worry, he wasn't a fan of communism, either).

Naturally, he wasn't too fond of the Vietnam war.

As one could imagine, King was hated. Immensely. In a 1967 Harris poll, 73 percent of Americans were opposed to King’s stance, and that 48 percent of blacks were against him (Garrow 562).

This vitriol wasn't just spewed by the rightists. Moderates and liberals joined the fray. Many of these people, even those within the SCLC, thought he should have held his tongue, out of fear of offending Great Society liberals. To his enormous credit, King pushed on, denouncing Johnson's madness.

Want to know what Newsweek (middle of the road publication) said about King after his "Beyond Vietnam" speech? "He ought to stick to the unfinished business of the Negro revolt" (Lentz 238).

What of Time magazine? Well, a columnist there thought he "was interfering in the drive for racial equality" (Lentz 242).

You know what congressman Adam Clayton Powell called him? "Martin Loser King." (Lentz 274)

The fact is, a lot of Americans, of disparate persuasions, didn't care much for Rev. King. But in the end, were they right?

Just some food for thought.

What's your problem - that liberals actually allow people who disagree with each other in "the ranks"?

Should he have minded his place? Should he have gone easy on Johnson?

Regarding the trolling inquiry:

In my four years here, I've posted many threads that challenge the consensus: Clinton's role in the Iraqi sanctions; Plan Columbia; and Carter's funding of the Salvadorian death squads (as Reagan did) being three of the more memorable ones.

And in these four years, I believe I've had two threads locked (I recall you asking me the troll question in the second, which was deservedly locked in the Religion/Theology forum).

These are issues of war and peace, melody; my interest is quashing the first as quickly as possible.

>challenge the consensus

Frankly, you seem to be a troll trying to cause a ruckus in the forum, for whatever reason. Funny how it's always "pointing out problems" on the left. A lot of liberals discuss the issues you frame so combatively. Yours aren't unusual "challenges".

I suspect this is why you get so little response.

This is my last response to this. Welcome to my ignore file.

And when I bring them up, I usually get a fair number of responses (these reactions are often split, and that's alright; I can handle criticism, so my Ignore option has gone unused).