Your opinion on MLK?

[Hamel]

The following freeper rant reminded me that there are some who don't think highly of the man.

To: Drew68

Open up a KFC or a Kool-Aid factory, keep them happy. Let's be honest, most the blacks in the inner-cities aren't home reading Martin Luther King's speeches today, they're running the streets, or driving around in their cars with 22-inch rims on them, or being played as pawns to the DNC.

It's sad to see that MLK has his own holiday, and Alan Keyes doesn't. If blacks would listen to Alan Keyes, they would be 100 times better off. Ever since the days of MLK, the blacks have gotten even poorer, more secluded, and begging for more handouts. MLK was one of the worst things ever for the black community, it's fun to watch the lib media paint him as a Saint, he was about as intelligent as his protege Jesse Jackson or brotha Al Sharpton.

3 posted on 01/17/2005 1:11:27 PM PST by Alex_Neocon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Ignoring the blatant and typical freeper racism with the KFC jab, many criticisms are based on his supposed affair(s), plaugerization of a speech, and what some perceive to be communist tendencies. MLK was mentioned with nothing other than praise when I was young and before Jacob Burdinski was exposed to politics.

What I want to know is~ how much of this is bullshit? And whether the allegations are true or not, does this dampen his legacy? Should the man be revered as he has been for decades? Does a batshit insane nutbag like Keyes deserve more respect from the black community?

[Illuminatus Primus]

It would be nice if they pointed out specific instances in MLK's speeches and positions and advocacies that led to difficulties with black America integrated and catching up with the rest. Personally, I'd say his black nationalist rivals were far more harmful and relevent to current social problems.

[Stormbringer]

Ignoring the blatant and typical freeper racism with the KFC jab, many criticisms are based on his supposed affair(s), plaugerization of a speech, and what some perceive to be communist tendencies. MLK was mentioned with nothing other than praise when I was young and before Jacob Burdinski was exposed to politics.

His jabs contain a fair amount of truth. THe black community would not appear to give a shit about Martin Luther King Jr or his legacy. It's gone beneath miles of racist bullshit, from the supposed black leaders. Mean spirited though that guys comments were there's a fair amount of truth (yes, even the chicken bit).

What I want to know is~ how much of this is bullshit? And whether the allegations are true or not, does this dampen his legacy? Should the man be revered as he has been for decades? Does a batshit insane nutbag like Keyes deserve more respect from the black community?

If by bullshit you mean the utter failing of the black community to look to real progress and instead turning the civil rights movement into the slop trough movement then yes it's true.

If by that you mean his alleged affairs, plagarizing speechs, or communist leanings, then it really doesn't matter.

The bottom line is Dr King did a hell of a lot to bring about racial equality. That's his crowning achievement and regardless of his personal issues his leadership of that movement is a great thing and should be remembered. He might not be a great man, few are as great as they're remembered as, but what he did was a great thing. If nothing else we ought to remember that part it.

[Chmee]

There's a lot of things I probably wouldn't have agreed with Dr. King on, but he never said anything half as loopy as 90% of what comes out of Keyes' mouth.

My favorite is his claim that he knows Christ wouldn't have voted for Barack Obama ......

[Hamel]

I'm not talking about the failings of the black community. It's about whether MLK -himself- deserves all the praise he has received.

[Stormbringer]

I'm not talking about the failings of the black community. It's about whether MLK -himself- deserves all the praise he has received.

No. He didn't single handedly create and drive through the civil rights movement. That sort of praise just doesn't stand up to reality. For all that he did do and the accomplishments he did make, Dr King just doesn't deserve the virtual deification he recieves.

I agree that he deserve recognition but so do a lot of others from Thurogood Marshall to the Freedom Riders to LBJ.

[Chmee]

I'm not talking about the failings of the black community. It's about whether MLK -himself- deserves all the praise he has received.

No. He didn't single handedly create and drive through the civil rights movement. That sort of praise just doesn't stand up to reality. For all that he did do and the accomplishments he did make, Dr King just doesn't deserve the virtual deification he recieves.

I agree that he deserve recognition but so do a lot of others from Thurogood Marshall to the Freedom Riders to LBJ.

I'd tend to agree with that, but that's how it always is with public figures who become symbols of a movement. They're not the movement, but they're a public face, and this has only become more & more true in the media age.

At least the existence of an MLK day precludes the possibility that we'll ever have an Al Sharpton day.

[salm]

who exactly is "the black community"?

is that all black people in the usa or does "balck community" refer to more than just skin color. some social attitude perhaps?

[Stormbringer]

who exactly is "the black community"?

is that all black people in the usa or does "balck community" refer to more than just skin color. some social attitude perhaps?

Depends on the particular reference but pretty much used to refer to those that advocate some form of black seperatism, whether it be expressed by 'culture,' money spent, or celebrities, or politics. Which sadly boils down to most of the black population in America.

[Perinquus]

Yes and no. Many of MLK's ideals were noble. His "I have a dream" speech was both eloquent and inspiring, because not was Dr. King a charismatic, master speaker, the speech itself encapsulates ideals that no one but a true racist could reject. Any enlightened man should agree with it's words. People should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners should be able to sit down today at the table of brotherhood.

Unfortunately, the movement of which Dr. King was a part has taken on a life of its own, and I do not think it has been going in an entirely constructive direction. I think we can take it as a given that it needed a large political movement to overcome the terrible legally sanctioned racism that existed in pre-Civil Rights America, especially the south. But an unfortunate by product of that movement was the lesson that it taught many in the black community - basically, that if you want something, you don't need to work for it, but rather to agitate for it. Since MLK's death, a number of "black leaders" have helped to steer this movement, and although a great many of the goals of the Civil Rights movement have been achieved, they are still agitating. Many of them, I don't doubt, are sincere idealists, but men like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan are nothing but slimy race hustlers, who I am convinced are doing more harm than good to the black community. These men stay in their positions of influence by maintaining a sense of grievance and victimhood among blacks. The unfortunate thing is that this undermines, rather than embraces the ideals of Dr. King's great "I have a dream" speech. Although the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners should sit down together at the table of brotherhood, they never will sit there so long as black "leaders" keep the sons of former slaves bitter by constantly reminding them that they are and always have been victims of the white man, and keep the sons of former slaveowners resentful by favoring racially preferential hiring practices, and keeping them wary and defensive by reminding them that they were oppressors, and that they owe monetary reparations to blacks for offenses they themselves never committed, and the actual victims of which are generations dead. Moreover, the separate black institutions like Kwanzaa, like specifically black clothing styles, entertainment, dialects, etc. etc. are a kind of self segregation that is ultimately harmful to blacks. Long ago "separate but equal" was rejected as unsound and untrue. Now blacks are making themselves separate, and it too is making them unequal. Segregation will have that effect, whether it is self imposed, or imposed from outside. Having overthrown the one, it is tragically ironic that blacks have so embraced the other.

MLK was in some ways a great man. Like most great men, he had feet of clay, so in that perspective, whatever womanizing and other offenses he may have committed do not tarnish the nobility of his ideals or his courage in standing up for them. Perhaps he is, like JFK, canonized to a far greater degree that he objectively deserves, and would have been had he not been assassinated, but I think he is rightly a hero not just to blacks, but to people of all colors and creeds. We shouldn't be completely uncritical of him or what he achieved, but we should recognize his great qualities.

[Elfdart]

Unfortunately, the movement of which Dr. King was a part has taken on a life of its own, and I do not think it has been going in an entirely constructive direction. I think we can take it as a given that it needed a large political movement to overcome the terrible legally sanctioned racism that existed in pre-Civil Rights America, especially the south. But an unfortunate by product of that movement was the lesson that it taught many in the black community - basically, that if you want something, you don't need to work for it, but rather to agitate for it.

Do you know why it's called the Civil RIGHTS Movement? Because rights were being illegally witheld from blacks and other minorities. I've got news for you: RIGHTS are not earned or granted in exchange for good behavior and/ or hard work. They are inherently held by everyone. So no, blacks (and others) shouldn't need to work for the right to vote, buy or sell whatever they can afford, speak and/ or assemble freely and so on...

Since MLK's death, a number of "black leaders" have helped to steer this movement, and although a great many of the goals of the Civil Rights movement have been achieved, they are still agitating. Many of them, I don't doubt, are sincere idealists, but men like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan are nothing but slimy race hustlers, who I am convinced are doing more harm than good to the black community. These men stay in their positions of influence by maintaining a sense of grievance and victimhood among blacks. The unfortunate thing is that this undermines, rather than embraces the ideals of Dr. King's great "I have a dream" speech.

Whatever the failings of Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan, they have constituencies because so many of the goals of the Civil Rights Movement were only achieved on paper. One inalienable right is the right to live. When racist policemen shoot, beat, strangle, frame, jail and sodomize black people, what are black leaders supposed to do? Write a letter to the very politicians who support this kind of thing? Or try other methods?

By the way, there's no "sense of grievance". The denial of equal rights under law and in practice is very real. The whole notion that blacks wouldn't resent the policemen who pumped 19 rounds into Amadou Diallo (who had committed no crime), who shoved a plunger handle up Abner Louima's asshole, who used Rodney King's head for a pinata and other atrocities were it not for the Al Sharptons of the world is insulting, stupid and reeks of racism.

Although the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners should sit down together at the table of brotherhood, they never will sit there so long as black "leaders" keep the sons of former slaves bitter by constantly reminding them that they are and always have been victims of the white man,

How many black people do you think need to be reminded that their ancestors were beaten, raped, tortured, murdered and treated like livestock? While you're at it, how many Jews do you think need to be reminded about Auschwitz?

and keep the sons of former slaveowners resentful by favoring racially preferential hiring practices,

But only those preferential hiring practices that benefit the darkies. Legacy admissions and such that mostly benefit whites are OK.

and keeping them wary and defensive by reminding them that they were oppressors, and that they owe monetary reparations to blacks for offenses they themselves never committed, and the actual victims of which are generations dead. Moreover, the separate black institutions like Kwanzaa,

Since when is a holiday regarded by most blacks as a joke an "institution?

like specifically black clothing styles, entertainment, dialects, etc. etc. are a kind of self segregation that is ultimately harmful to blacks.

Only because of the bigotry of others. Funny how only blacks are singled out for this. There are distinct styles of clothing, entertainment, dialects etc. etc. here in Texas. Yet Texans aren't hampered by it, are they? Quite the opposite. One son of a Connecticut blueblood got himself elected President recently by doing an imitation of a cowboy. Of course, there isn't the kind of hatred of Texans as there is of blacks.

Long ago "separate but equal" was rejected as unsound and untrue. Now blacks are making themselves separate, and it too is making them unequal. Segregation will have that effect, whether it is self imposed, or imposed from outside. Having overthrown the one, it is tragically ironic that blacks have so embraced the other.

First of all, to the extent that blacks self-segregate, it's usually not their first choice (for example, giving up on moving into a white community and buying a home in an all-black neighborhood instead after being redlined), or a reaction against the constant rejection they get from others.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between segregation enforced through force and that which is self-imposed is a moral retard who probably can't tell the difference between consensual sex and rape, either.

MLK was in some ways a great man. Like most great men, he had feet of clay, so in that perspective, whatever womanizing and other offenses he may have committed do not tarnish the nobility of his ideals or his courage in standing up for them. Perhaps he is, like JFK, canonized to a far greater degree that he objectively deserves, and would have been had he not been assassinated, but I think he is rightly a hero not just to blacks, but to people of all colors and creeds. We shouldn't be completely uncritical of him or what he achieved, but we should recognize his great qualities.

King's feet of clay were a good deal sturdier than the feet of most others who are beatified in this country -especially among the Founders. Unlike Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King screwed women who at least had the option of saying "No." Unlike George Washington, King paid the people who worked for him and didn't buy or sell them. This country is much better off because of Martin Luther King. He was the most important member of the Civil Rights movement because of his charisma, his leadership and the example he set for others. That's why he was vilified in his lifetime and assassinated.

[Coyote]

I honestly don't know much about the guy, but it seems that his good ideas were hijacked by followers and hangers-on that tried to ride his coattails to personal glory for themselves.

What would MLK think of Bill Cosby's latest rants, or... who was it that said at a big rally a few years ago... that blacks live in a house on fire, and they have to put it out and not play the politics of blame...?

[Master of Ossus]

King, like many leaders and (dare I say) people had his foibles in life. He seems to have had marital problems and infidelity, but to me things like that only make the accomplishments of the man greater. It's unfortunate that someone who was able to galvanize huge fractions of the population has been so largely forgotten by the people he championed--on all sides of the color lines. It saddens me that the movement he founded has--at least to some extent--been hijacked by extremists.

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm not talking about the failings of the black community. It's about whether MLK -himself- deserves all the praise he has received.

His pursuit of equality for all cost him his life, what more is there that one can give? He deserves it all.

[Col. Crackpot]

Here's something to think about. It's interesting to me that MLK is reknown for his devotion to nonviolence. Of all the protests during the civil rights movement, the ones that drew the attention of the national media were the violent ones. King knew this, and he chose his marches accordingly. He went were the violence, and subsequentlythe cameras would be. It really was a brilliant strategy. He knew that the overwhelming majority of the country would be utterly disgusted by brutality and abuse of power perpetrated by southern law enforcement and polititians. He orchestrated violent bloody confrontations to achive a noble end. Therefore you really can't call him an icon of nonviolence, can you?

[RedImperator]

King was the man who made white America listen. He led his movement to the point that it simply couldn't be ignored anymore, and he made compelling arguments so eloquently that no honest man could dismiss them. I don't care if he had a mistress, or Communist sympathies, or that those who came after him turned into professional beggars. The country is better off because of what he did, and would have been even better off if that peckerwood hadn't shot him.

[Col. Crackpot]

King was the man who made white America listen. He led his movement to the point that it simply couldn't be ignored anymore, and he made compelling arguments so eloquently that no honest man could dismiss them. I don't care if he had a mistress, or Communist sympathies, or that those who came after him turned into professional beggars. The country is better off because of what he did, and would have been even better off if that peckerwood hadn't shot him.

oh i agree, wholeheartedly. I just think it's interesting that he is remembered as a pacifist when he really did use violence, when needed ,to achive a noble end.

[Coyote]

...Of all the protests during the civil rights movement, the ones that drew the attention of the national media were the violent ones. King knew this, and he chose his marches accordingly. He went were the violence, and subsequentlythe cameras would be. ... Therefore you really can't call him an icon of nonviolence, can you?

He used the images of violence to make his point: that it was not the way to go. Violence can be ignored as long as it happens to "those people, over there". When it is pushed in your face on TV it becomes a good example of bad behavior.

His goal was to make violence unpalatable, so yeah, he inherets the title. Others were using injustice as an excuse to incite violence, thus perpatrating the racists' image that blacks were wild, uncontrollable, uncivilized animals.

[Col. Crackpot]

but Coyote, sure, those who marched with him didn;t offer resistance, butHe needed the marches to get violent to make his point. without the marchers being brutalized, live on the evening news, there would have been no outcry. How is that pacifism?

[Coyote]

but Coyote, sure, those who marched with him didn;t offer resistance, butHe needed the marches to get violent to make his point. without the marchers being brutalized, live on the evening news, there would have been no outcry. How is that pacifism?

So, basically counting on brutality to help him "sell his message"... I guess we'd have to ask how many of his public events that were peaceful are considered as successful, and contrast that with his events that turned nasty that are considered successful.

Is it King's actions (publicisizing brutality) or his philosophy that are important? I'd be tempted to say his philosophy, since that would live on after his demise... huh, a good question to think about, really.

[Xenophobe3691]

but Coyote, sure, those who marched with him didn;t offer resistance, butHe needed the marches to get violent to make his point. without the marchers being brutalized, live on the evening news, there would have been no outcry. How is that pacifism?

That's not exactly what he did. What MLK did was to peacefully disobey a racist law, such as organizing a sit in at a Woolworth's, Boycott buses in Alabama, or just march quietly through a major city. When the police force was used to break up the protest (usually with guns and fire houses), the images were shown around the nation. It's like saying the one taunt that'll piss a guy off enough to punch you, and then everyone seeing only the punch.

Quite brilliant, pity it failed in Albany, I believe?

[Rogue 9]

Unfortunately, the movement of which Dr. King was a part has taken on a life of its own, and I do not think it has been going in an entirely constructive direction. I think we can take it as a given that it needed a large political movement to overcome the terrible legally sanctioned racism that existed in pre-Civil Rights America, especially the south. But an unfortunate by product of that movement was the lesson that it taught many in the black community - basically, that if you want something, you don't need to work for it, but rather to agitate for it.

Do you know why it's called the Civil RIGHTS Movement? Because rights were being illegally witheld from blacks and other minorities. I've got news for you: RIGHTS are not earned or granted in exchange for good behavior and/ or hard work. They are inherently held by everyone. So no, blacks (and others) shouldn't need to work for the right to vote, buy or sell whatever they can afford, speak and/ or assemble freely and so on...

You really need to work on that reading comprehension, Elfy Boy. He didn't say that the civil rights movement should have just sat down, shut up, and worked for their rights, retard, he said that the current generation of blacks has unfortunately gleaned the wrong lesson from it, and are now agitating for things they should work for.

Since MLK's death, a number of "black leaders" have helped to steer this movement, and although a great many of the goals of the Civil Rights movement have been achieved, they are still agitating. Many of them, I don't doubt, are sincere idealists, but men like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan are nothing but slimy race hustlers, who I am convinced are doing more harm than good to the black community. These men stay in their positions of influence by maintaining a sense of grievance and victimhood among blacks. The unfortunate thing is that this undermines, rather than embraces the ideals of Dr. King's great "I have a dream" speech.

Whatever the failings of Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan, they have constituencies because so many of the goals of the Civil Rights Movement were only achieved on paper. One inalienable right is the right to live. When racist policemen shoot, beat, strangle, frame, jail and sodomize black people, what are black leaders supposed to do? Write a letter to the very politicians who support this kind of thing? Or try other methods?

By the way, there's no "sense of grievance". The denial of equal rights under law and in practice is very real. The whole notion that blacks wouldn't resent the policemen who pumped 19 rounds into Amadou Diallo (who had committed no crime), who shoved a plunger handle up Abner Louima's asshole, who used Rodney King's head for a pinata and other atrocities were it not for the Al Sharptons of the world is insulting, stupid and reeks of racism.

There are still racists running around. No one denied that. This doesn't mean that I should pay reparations for something done by one side of my family five generations in the past, or that skin color should figure into academic and professional admittance and hiring practices.

Although the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners should sit down together at the table of brotherhood, they never will sit there so long as black "leaders" keep the sons of former slaves bitter by constantly reminding them that they are and always have been victims of the white man,

How many black people do you think need to be reminded that their ancestors were beaten, raped, tortured, murdered and treated like livestock? While you're at it, how many Jews do you think need to be reminded about Auschwitz?

None, I should hope. This doesn't mean that harping on it all the time is the most brilliant of plans. There's a difference between being aware of historical fact and being resentful of it to the point where you let your resentment harm you.

and keep the sons of former slaveowners resentful by favoring racially preferential hiring practices,

But only those preferential hiring practices that benefit the darkies. Legacy admissions and such that mostly benefit whites are OK.

You need help knocking down that strawman?

and keeping them wary and defensive by reminding them that they were oppressors, and that they owe monetary reparations to blacks for offenses they themselves never committed, and the actual victims of which are generations dead. Moreover, the separate black institutions like Kwanzaa,

Since when is a holiday regarded by most blacks as a joke an "institution?

Since it was instituted. Thus the name.

like specifically black clothing styles, entertainment, dialects, etc. etc. are a kind of self segregation that is ultimately harmful to blacks.

Only because of the bigotry of others. Funny how only blacks are singled out for this. There are distinct styles of clothing, entertainment, dialects etc. etc. here in Texas. Yet Texans aren't hampered by it, are they? Quite the opposite. One son of a Connecticut blueblood got himself elected President recently by doing an imitation of a cowboy. Of course, there isn't the kind of hatred of Texans as there is of blacks.

There's a distinct difference between natural regional dialects and a conscious effort to form a separate subculture. And what the hell do you hope to gain by bringing the Bushes into this? It doesn't demonstrate a thing.

Long ago "separate but equal" was rejected as unsound and untrue. Now blacks are making themselves separate, and it too is making them unequal. Segregation will have that effect, whether it is self imposed, or imposed from outside. Having overthrown the one, it is tragically ironic that blacks have so embraced the other.

First of all, to the extent that blacks self-segregate, it's usually not their first choice (for example, giving up on moving into a white community and buying a home in an all-black neighborhood instead after being redlined), or a reaction against the constant rejection they get from others.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between segregation enforced through force and that which is self-imposed is a moral retard who probably can't tell the difference between consensual sex and rape, either.

I should hope a police officer knows the difference between consensual sex and rape. And said rejection goes both ways. The subset of blacks who adopt the so-called "gangsta" subculture have a distinct tendency to reject whites. Furthermore, blacks who do not adhere to the subculture are also frequently rejected. I've read numerous accounts of young blacks being rejected for performing well in school or "knowing too much." If a group not only fails to pursue advancement but actively rejects it, that group is not going to get very far. It's the also true of white hicks who exhibit similar behavior and rejection of learning.

MLK was in some ways a great man. Like most great men, he had feet of clay, so in that perspective, whatever womanizing and other offenses he may have committed do not tarnish the nobility of his ideals or his courage in standing up for them. Perhaps he is, like JFK, canonized to a far greater degree that he objectively deserves, and would have been had he not been assassinated, but I think he is rightly a hero not just to blacks, but to people of all colors and creeds. We shouldn't be completely uncritical of him or what he achieved, but we should recognize his great qualities.

King's feet of clay were a good deal sturdier than the feet of most others who are beatified in this country -especially among the Founders. Unlike Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King screwed women who at least had the option of saying "No." Unlike George Washington, King paid the people who worked for him and didn't buy or sell them. This country is much better off because of Martin Luther King. He was the most important member of the Civil Rights movement because of his charisma, his leadership and the example he set for others. That's why he was vilified in his lifetime and assassinated.

While true, the statement is a red herring. The question isn't whether Thomas Jefferson was a slaver and a hypocrit (he was in more ways than just slaveowning while proclaiming the self-evidence of the equality of all men; he dispatched the Navy to deal with the Barbary Corsairs prior to consulting Congress despite previous objections to Presidential power and so forth), it's whether King is depicted as larger than life today.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Martin Luther King's only objective benefit for the black community was his aid in forcing through the Civil Rights Act, for which he deserves to be lauded, but not treated as a martyr. He certainly did not do nearly as much for the black community as Thurgood Marshall did, yet unfortunately the later's name is nearly all but forgotten whereas MLK has been essentially deified. Thurgood Marshall's legacy was a much more permanent legal one in establishing equal rights, and accomplished by much less shady means.

[Elfdart]

King, like many leaders and (dare I say) people had his foibles in life. He seems to have had marital problems and infidelity, but to me things like that only make the accomplishments of the man greater. It's unfortunate that someone who was able to galvanize huge fractions of the population has been so largely forgotten by the people he championed--on all sides of the color lines. It saddens me that the movement he founded has--at least to some extent--been hijacked by extremists.

Nonsense. King was HATED when he was alive. If he were alive today, you can bet he'd be smeared by the mouth-breathers at Fox News just like Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young and others are today. Don't believe me? Try this:

Give me specific examples of things the modern civil rights movement has pushed for that King didn't. Affirmative action? King was for it. Rights for gays? King absolutely refused to distance himself from James Baldwin, a famous gay poet and supporter. Protesting police brutality? Please. Denouncing black thugs? Not only did King do it, but the NAACP has done it, as have Jesse Jackson and the others. One reason right-wing whites praise King and denounce his successors is because he is dead, while Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson and John Lewis are alive and still promoting his cause. Another reason is that King has been whitewashed. From what you read about King, you'd never know he was vehemently against the Vietnam War long before such a position was acceptable. It's one of the reasons the FBI tried to blackmail him and sent him a letter urging him to kill himself.

[Elfdart]

Martin Luther King's only objective benefit for the black community was his aid in forcing through the Civil Rights Act, for which he deserves to be lauded, but not treated as a martyr. He certainly did not do nearly as much for the black community as Thurgood Marshall did, yet unfortunately the later's name is nearly all but forgotten whereas MLK has been essentially deified. Thurgood Marshall's legacy was a much more permanent legal one in establishing equal rights, and accomplished by much less shady means.

Thurgood Marshall deserves some credit, but it should be kept in mind that he was a snitch for the FBI and smeared civil rights activists for J. Edgar Hoover, Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. The movement would have probably done better were it not for his Judas-like behavior.

What "shady means" did King use? I don't remember him being a stooge for the FBI.