He's Bernie Sanders, not Ibram X. Kendi.
If Martin Luther King, Jr. was anything, he was consistent, both in his messaging about world peace and his unwillingness to see how others have been working toward the same goal. While this particular book of his speeches and written statements were collected to showcase his belief that social justice could not be truly achieved anywhere if it wasn't achieved everywhere, this "go global or bust" belief reminds me of the college buddies I used to converse with back when we thought we had it all figured out.
It's an immature view on human nature, and it's why I was so disappointed to learn it was held by an icon like MLK. They say never meet your heroes, right? Well, I'd rather know the truth than not, but it still stings a little every time I find out just how wrong a role model can be. BUT, it's also a good thing because it teaches us to be vigilant and not just accept what we're told because of the source.
I want to be clear on this part: it's not just having a difference of opinion about how to achieve peace on Earth; each one of us has an idea or two about that. It's the assumption that those who disagree on how to attain this global harmony must, therefore, want death and destruction. As one would expect when someone speaks in grand terms about obvious things, King never brought up a situation where a specific solution using his peace practice could have been executed, though he said plenty on the horrors of war... as if we didn't already know.
The tribute to Ghandi was cool, as was the detailing of their shared nonviolent philosophy (though it never really got THAT detailed). The celebration of Ghana's independence was pleasant. The ideas that all major world religions share a core of love for others, even our enemies, yup, right on. His speeches on the Vietnam War, though, were maybe the worst things I've ever read (or heard) from the man.
In maybe eighty pages on the topic, not once did King mention why the U.S. was in Vietnam. He dismissed the threat of Communism as overblown and the violence done within the country as natural for a struggling democracy. Yet anything America did was, in his mind, clearly about reconquering the country, committing violence because we just love violence, dividing people and keeping them poor because... I guess because the West is just evil? I see where a lot of the current antagonism towards Western Civilization comes from: bullshit like this in the 60's.
King even began contradicting himself in a couple of ways, which was actually a little scary. After repeatedly claiming there was never an instance where force and violence should be used, as per his nonviolent philosophy, he did say that a world government... perhaps sprouting from the structure of the United Nations... should have a police force to keep the peace. Yeah, where have I heard that before?
And in trying to excuse the violence of some riots in the U.S., he pulled a "well, it could have been a lot MORE violent, so the fact that it wasn't meant that the nonviolent principle was followed." He even threw in the claim that "hundreds" of people who looted stores brought the items back after, a claim I have yet been able to verify.
At least King stuck by a few of the principles we have long known him for, like colorblindess, free speech and open debate, and the general idea that Communism might be a bad idea. He is very much opposed to capitalism as a way to improve society, though, and he really likes to link racism, imperialism, and capitalism as virtually the same thing, so he definitely would have a place on the internet in today's reactionaty times. Along the way, his predictions of WW3, American colonies in Peru and Laos and many others, and that poverty could never be reduced using capitalism, have all made him appear silly 60 years later.
I just did not expect Dr. King to be this inadequate in his knowledge of history, nor completely absent any understanding of economics. The beautiful language he uses from time to time to try and get his points across became, at least to me as I read his repeated denounciations, increasingly similar to how a husband would bring home a lovely bouquet of flowers whenever he cheated on his wife.
I'm not mad, just disappointed.