I don't think I'm making a straw man argument at all. Many, many people deify King in the way I describe—starting with the people on his team who struggled to preserve his image and conceal the truth from others.
My entire point, Paul, is that his character flaws do nothing to tarnish King's reputation—and in fact they emphasize just how …
I don't think I'm making a straw man argument at all. Many, many people deify King in the way I describe—starting with the people on his team who struggled to preserve his image and conceal the truth from others.
My entire point, Paul, is that his character flaws do nothing to tarnish King's reputation—and in fact they emphasize just how great and important the man's actions were. We are in full agreement on all of that.
I also agree that we need a renewed understanding and acceptance of his principles, and I don't think his flaws should (or do) stand in the way of that.
Fair enough. But I would rather be concerned with the many people who vilify him, particularly black people--I don't mean white racists, but the people who have most benefited from his work--rather than those who supposedly "deify" him. Bob Woodson broke with our current crop of BLM style race warriors with their "f*ck MLK" attitude. The Woodson Center is doing far more good than BLM. They've totally abandoned King's principles and profit from the racial strife they help create and their views have become the dominant ones today. George Floyd is their deity. I don't see how a high view of King hurts his legacy even if it's excessive. On the the other hand ... emphasizing personal character flaws that matter very little doesn't really help and only adds weight to those who thoughtlessly reject his principles.
I understand that concern, but in a way what I'm trying to do here is also address those people.
An unreasonably rose-tinted view of King hurts his legacy because his legacy is most powerful in light of his flawed humanity. That's the point.
Emphasizing personal character flaws in the way I've attempted to do in this piece is how we show how little they matter. If people are thoughtlessly rejecting his principles it won't help or convince them to pretend King is some perfect being because, as I wrote in the piece, that's an easy illusion to break through. Acknowledging his faults and showing how they only make his activism more remarkable is the better way forward.
You can't convince people who don't want to be convinced, but that's no reason to abandon reality. As for those who have taken a different tack with their activism, that's where we model people like King in our response to them and let the best method win. I am confident that compassion, courage, love, and unity will beat cynicism and division every time, over time.
I don't think I'm making a straw man argument at all. Many, many people deify King in the way I describe—starting with the people on his team who struggled to preserve his image and conceal the truth from others.
My entire point, Paul, is that his character flaws do nothing to tarnish King's reputation—and in fact they emphasize just how great and important the man's actions were. We are in full agreement on all of that.
I also agree that we need a renewed understanding and acceptance of his principles, and I don't think his flaws should (or do) stand in the way of that.
Fair enough. But I would rather be concerned with the many people who vilify him, particularly black people--I don't mean white racists, but the people who have most benefited from his work--rather than those who supposedly "deify" him. Bob Woodson broke with our current crop of BLM style race warriors with their "f*ck MLK" attitude. The Woodson Center is doing far more good than BLM. They've totally abandoned King's principles and profit from the racial strife they help create and their views have become the dominant ones today. George Floyd is their deity. I don't see how a high view of King hurts his legacy even if it's excessive. On the the other hand ... emphasizing personal character flaws that matter very little doesn't really help and only adds weight to those who thoughtlessly reject his principles.
I understand that concern, but in a way what I'm trying to do here is also address those people.
An unreasonably rose-tinted view of King hurts his legacy because his legacy is most powerful in light of his flawed humanity. That's the point.
Emphasizing personal character flaws in the way I've attempted to do in this piece is how we show how little they matter. If people are thoughtlessly rejecting his principles it won't help or convince them to pretend King is some perfect being because, as I wrote in the piece, that's an easy illusion to break through. Acknowledging his faults and showing how they only make his activism more remarkable is the better way forward.
You can't convince people who don't want to be convinced, but that's no reason to abandon reality. As for those who have taken a different tack with their activism, that's where we model people like King in our response to them and let the best method win. I am confident that compassion, courage, love, and unity will beat cynicism and division every time, over time.
Well said, Angel. Thanks so much for clarifying your intent like this! I apologize for misconstruing the intent of your writing.
No worries at all, Paul. I'm very grateful to you for engaging in good faith. That's what we need!