Do Liberals Care About MLK's Dark Side?

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 23, 2012
6,462
3,604
1,085
Virginia
Like many people, Martin Luther King had a public side and a private side. His public side was commendable. His civil rights efforts were noble and needed. However, his private actions included assaulting one of his mistresses the night before he was shot, frequently cheating on his wife, swearing profusely (uncommon conduct for a clergyman), and cheating in college. If King had been white and had been conservative on even just a few major issues, I doubt that liberals would be willing to overlook his private actions.

Liberals were outraged in 1989 when MLK's close friend and fellow civil rights leader, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, published his book And the Walls Came Tumbling Down (New York: Harper Perennial, 1989). Most of the book said very positive things about King and his efforts, but it also contained some shocking revelations about King's private life. When Rev. Abernathy appeared on NBC's Today show following the release of the book, host Bryant Gumbel found it hard to contain his anger toward Abernathy for revealing King's dark side.

Abernathy detailed a particularly disturbing event that occurred the night before King was shot, an event that Abernathy witnessed with his own eyes because he was in the hotel room with King when it happened (pp. 434-436). One of King's mistresses came to confront him about something. An argument ensued. As the argument heated up, King "knocked her across the bed." Abernathy qualified that slightly by saying that "it was more of a shove than a real blow" (p. 436). However, Abernathy did not try to soften what came next:

She leapt up to fight back, and for a moment they were engaged in a full-blown fight, with Martin clearly winning. (p. 436)​

Now, can you imagine what liberals would be saying if one of Roy Moore's closest and long-time friends revealed that Moore had done the same thing--knocked/pushed a woman across a bed and then had a full-blown fight with her? Gloria Allred would be holding daily press conferences. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, etc., would be calling for whatever legal action could be taken against Moore. Or, just imagine if one of Donald Trump's closest friends revealed that Trump had engaged in such conduct.

In reading Abernathy's account of the incident, one gets the impression that this was not the first time King had used violence against a woman. The fact that King would knock/shove the woman and then physically fight with her in front of another person suggests that this was not the first time he had behaved in this manner. Significantly, Abernathy's account says nothing about King expressing remorse for what he had just done.

What if it were determined that Roy Moore had engaged in plagiarism when he wrote his dissertation in college? (Boston U. Panel Finds Plagiarism by Dr. King). Would his university still decline not to revoke his degree, as Boston University did in King's case? Would liberals say that was "fair under the circumstances"?

What if it were discovered that Roy Moore, while publicly professing to be a born-again Christian, used the vilest profanity on a regular basis in private? Would liberals ignore such hypocrisy?

What if one of Roy Moore's best friends revealed that Moore routinely cheated on his wife, as Abernathy revealed about MLK? Of course, most liberals could not care less about adultery or any other sexual sin, but when a conservative is found to have engaged in such conduct, they are quick to attack him or her.

As I said, I think Martin Luther King did a great service to the country with his civil rights efforts, but the seriously disturbing aspects of his private life make it hard to view him positively overall. I think Booker T. Washington was and is more deserving of a federal holiday than MLK.
 
Last edited:
MLK jr. was fighting for a worthy cause and he became a martyr doing it. Since its frowned upon to speak ill of the dead, becoming a martyr in MLK jr. ‘s case resulted in a promotion from flawed human to saint.
 
I don't give a care about MLK one whey or the other....He did his job and paid the price for his actions with his life, more than I would do....
 
MLK jr. was fighting for a worthy cause and he became a martyr doing it. Since its frowned upon to speak ill of the dead, becoming a martyr in MLK jr. ‘s case resulted in a promotion from flawed human to saint.

When the MLK holiday was being debated, liberals shouted down anyone who tried to discuss the dark aspects of King's private life. One can excuse one or two minor cases of private misconduct, but it's a different matter when we're talking about abusing women and long-term routine cheating, especially when the person is supposed to be a clergyman.

Booker T. Washington would have been a much better black leader after whom to name a holiday. I will always commend King for what he did to advance civil rights, but I think the dark aspects of his private life are too serious to overlook.
 
I don't give a care about MLK one whey or the other....He did his job and paid the price for his actions with his life, more than I would do....
Getting shot and killed was not part of his plan. Its not like he woke up one day and decieded to go out and get shot because that would be good for promoting civil rights and result in lots of stuff being named after him.
 
I don't give a care about MLK one whey or the other....He did his job and paid the price for his actions with his life, more than I would do....
Getting shot and killed was not part of his plan. Its not like he woke up one day and decieded to go out and get shot because that would be good for promoting civil rights and result in lots of stuff being named after him.
I don't think he didn't rule it out as a possibility considering the dangerous times we were living in during the 1960's...
 
MLK jr. was fighting for a worthy cause and he became a martyr doing it. Since its frowned upon to speak ill of the dead, becoming a martyr in MLK jr. ‘s case resulted in a promotion from flawed human to saint.

When the MLK holiday was being debated, liberals shouted down anyone who tried to discuss the dark aspects of King's private life. One can excuse one or two minor cases of private misconduct, but it's a different matter when we're talking about abusing women and long-term routine cheating, especially when the person is supposed to be a clergyman.

Booker T. Washington would have been a much better black leader after whom to name a holiday. I will always commend King for what he did to advance civil rights, but I think the dark aspects of his private life are too serious to overlook.
Bringing up derogatory facts about MLK jr is racist don’t you know?
 
I don't know how others look at MLK (or any other historical person) but I am not sure what caring has to do with anything. He died before I was born. Even if I had been alive, could I have changed it? Nope.

He was born. He did some phenomenal things. He did some douchbag things. He was assassinated for doing some phenomenal things.

It is what it is. Don't put humans on pedestals and they have a lot less of a fall.
 
MLK jr. was fighting for a worthy cause and he became a martyr doing it. Since its frowned upon to speak ill of the dead, becoming a martyr in MLK jr. ‘s case resulted in a promotion from flawed human to saint.

When the MLK holiday was being debated, liberals shouted down anyone who tried to discuss the dark aspects of King's private life. One can excuse one or two minor cases of private misconduct, but it's a different matter when we're talking about abusing women and long-term routine cheating, especially when the person is supposed to be a clergyman.

Booker T. Washington would have been a much better black leader after whom to name a holiday. I will always commend King for what he did to advance civil rights, but I think the dark aspects of his private life are too serious to overlook.

Seriously? If people can overlook some nitwit that died thinking he reached India and never set foot in the states.......they can damn sure overlook MLK's marital indiscretions.
 
I don't give a care about MLK one whey or the other....He did his job and paid the price for his actions with his life, more than I would do....
Getting shot and killed was not part of his plan. Its not like he woke up one day and decieded to go out and get shot because that would be good for promoting civil rights and result in lots of stuff being named after him.
I don't think he didn't rule it out as a possibility considering the dangerous times we were living in during the 1960's...
Considering the possibility and actually believing it will happen are two very different things, I know I’m risking being killed in a collision every time I travel by automobile; however, I don’t expect my life will end that way.
 
In my opinion, the OP has raised a serious point: Should a famous person's private life overshadow his/her public life?

There have been famous people (of all political affiliations and ethnicities) whose personal lives have been less than exemplary.

We now know, for example, that President Kennedy was not a faithful husband, yet many people feel that he did a good job as President.
We all have our favorite singers, even though many of them certainly have "interesting" personal lives.
And what about many athletes? People cheer them, even though not an insignificant number have committed serious crimes.

I think that most adults are mature (and humble enough) to keep separate a famous person's private and public lives.
 
I don't give a care about MLK one whey or the other....He did his job and paid the price for his actions with his life, more than I would do....
Getting shot and killed was not part of his plan. Its not like he woke up one day and decieded to go out and get shot because that would be good for promoting civil rights and result in lots of stuff being named after him.
I don't think he didn't rule it out as a possibility considering the dangerous times we were living in during the 1960's...
Considering the possibility and actually believing it will happen are two very different things, I know I’m risking being killed in a collision every time I travel by automobile; however, I don’t expect my life will end that way.

We would go mad if we contemplated it every hour...So we block the discussion from our conscience mind...
 
MLK jr. was fighting for a worthy cause and he became a martyr doing it. Since its frowned upon to speak ill of the dead, becoming a martyr in MLK jr. ‘s case resulted in a promotion from flawed human to saint.

When the MLK holiday was being debated, liberals shouted down anyone who tried to discuss the dark aspects of King's private life. One can excuse one or two minor cases of private misconduct, but it's a different matter when we're talking about abusing women and long-term routine cheating, especially when the person is supposed to be a clergyman.

Booker T. Washington would have been a much better black leader after whom to name a holiday. I will always commend King for what he did to advance civil rights, but I think the dark aspects of his private life are too serious to overlook.

Seriously? If people can overlook some nitwit that died thinking he reached India and never set foot in the states.......they can damn sure overlook MLK's marital indiscretions.

Including the abuse of women?
 
In my opinion, the OP has raised a serious point: Should a famous person's private life overshadow his/her public life?

There have been famous people (of all political affiliations and ethnicities) whose personal lives have been less than exemplary.

We now know, for example, that President Kennedy was not a faithful husband, yet many people feel that he did a good job as President.
We all have our favorite singers, even though many of them certainly have "interesting" personal lives.
And what about many athletes? People cheer them, even though not an insignificant number have committed serious crimes.

I think that most adults are mature (and humble enough) to keep separate a famous person's private and public lives.

JFK is a good case in point. His private life was a train wreck until shortly before he was shot, but he did a very good job as president.

But JFK never claimed to be a clergyman. He did not go around giving sermons and claim to be a reverend. And, as far as we know, JFK never abused women, certainly never got into a full-blown fight with one.

I don't think MLK's private sins cancel out his public deeds, but I think his private sins are serious enough that he should never have had a holiday named after him. Again, Booker T. Washington would have been a much better choice.
 
In my opinion, the OP has raised a serious point: Should a famous person's private life overshadow his/her public life?

There have been famous people (of all political affiliations and ethnicities) whose personal lives have been less than exemplary.

We now know, for example, that President Kennedy was not a faithful husband, yet many people feel that he did a good job as President.
We all have our favorite singers, even though many of them certainly have "interesting" personal lives.
And what about many athletes? People cheer them, even though not an insignificant number have committed serious crimes.

I think that most adults are mature (and humble enough) to keep separate a famous person's private and public lives.
I believe that the symbol of MLK jr has become more important than historical reality. In today’s point in history, it is taboo to do anything to tarnish the image of MLK jr., even reporting things which are historically true.
 
MLK jr. was fighting for a worthy cause and he became a martyr doing it. Since its frowned upon to speak ill of the dead, becoming a martyr in MLK jr. ‘s case resulted in a promotion from flawed human to saint.

When the MLK holiday was being debated, liberals shouted down anyone who tried to discuss the dark aspects of King's private life. One can excuse one or two minor cases of private misconduct, but it's a different matter when we're talking about abusing women and long-term routine cheating, especially when the person is supposed to be a clergyman.

Booker T. Washington would have been a much better black leader after whom to name a holiday. I will always commend King for what he did to advance civil rights, but I think the dark aspects of his private life are too serious to overlook.

Seriously? If people can overlook some nitwit that died thinking he reached India and never set foot in the states.......they can damn sure overlook MLK's marital indiscretions.

Including the abuse of women?

He shoved her across the bed. Then it became mutual combat.
 
In my opinion, the OP has raised a serious point: Should a famous person's private life overshadow his/her public life?

There have been famous people (of all political affiliations and ethnicities) whose personal lives have been less than exemplary.

We now know, for example, that President Kennedy was not a faithful husband, yet many people feel that he did a good job as President.
We all have our favorite singers, even though many of them certainly have "interesting" personal lives.
And what about many athletes? People cheer them, even though not an insignificant number have committed serious crimes.

I think that most adults are mature (and humble enough) to keep separate a famous person's private and public lives.

JFK is a good case in point. His private life was a train wreck until shortly before he was shot, but he did a very good job as president.

But JFK never claimed to be a clergyman. He did not go around giving sermons and claim to be a reverend. And, as far as we know, JFK never abused women, certainly never got into a full-blown fight with one.

I don't think MLK's private sins cancel out his public deeds, but I think his private sins are serious enough that he should never have had a holiday named after him. Again, Booker T. Washington would have been a much better choice.
Like MLK jr., JFK’s reputation benefited by an assignation. Had either man lived to old age, his reputation would have suffered.
 

Forum List

Back
Top