Is there a point to celebrating Martin Luther King Day?

Technically his birthday was on Thursday, but come this Monday the United States will once again celebrate Martin Luther King Day. Often remembered as an integral - perhaps the integral - part of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, Dr. King is a revered figure, often hailed by people as one of the greatest Americans to have lived. Recently, we've just had a film released called Selma, which chronicles the events of King's attempts to get the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed. Personally, I find King to be a great man but the more I hear people talk about him the more I wonder why exactly we're celebrating his birthday when a good chunk of this country - particularly those on the Right, but by no means exclusive to it - hates almost everything he actually stood for.

I've yet to see Selma, but one of my favorite portrayals of Dr. King in the media occurs in the Adult Swim cartoon The Boodocks, "Return of the King": a fantasy episode exploring what would happen if, instead of being killed, MLK fell into a coma and woke up again in the 21st century. And in the episode, King's nonviolent stance in the wake of September 11, 2001 earns him the scorn of the country. The whole thing is worth checking out (as is the actual show in general, at least until Season 4), but the reason I bring it up here is that The Boondocks actually reminds its audience that Dr. King was a radical. And his treatment in the show, from the Bush administration to average people on the street, recalls how a majority of the country actually saw King in his final year. The episode obviously isn't real, but should King really exist today I can't see people's reactions being any different. They weren't any different when he was actually alive.

Far from his modern portrayal as a peaceful, nonthreatening man, the MLK of reality only became a notorious figure in society because he disturbed the peace, frightened the power structure of the Jim Crow-era South, and only became more radical as time went on. This was a man who spoke out against the American military-industrial complex, the Vietnam War, and called the United States government the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. This was a man who was staunchly anti-capitalist and stated that America needed to move towards a "democratic socialism". Moreover, this was a man who believed that capitalism stood in the way of true democracy, supported a greater distribution of wealth amongst the people. This was a man who refused to condemn riots and demonstrations. Martin Luther King Jr. scared people because of his views, and many hated him for them. The book Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, written by historian David Garrow, did a lot to open my eyes on who MLK truly was and the world he lived in. Conservatives and liberals (I especially love King's denouncement of the latter in the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail") alike hated and feared this man greatly.

The fact that Americans disliked Dr. King when he was alive wouldn't bother me so much if so many Americans nowadays weren't so opposed to the things he stood for back then, and still continue to glorify him anyway. Many of the same people who applaud him for his contributions to the Civil Rights Movement would label him a racist or a race-baiter when if he were around to condemn things like the demonstrations in Ferguson or New York City following the police killings there (and let's not kid ourselves, he wouldn't speak out against them), or if he were to make statements like the one in my signature. Given the hate that conservatives have given President Obama for the Affordable Care Act, how would they realistically respond to his support for wealth distribution, socialism, unions, and worker's rights? With all the pro-military, "Support Our Troops" propaganda that Americans buy into, would people really like a man who denounced their actions abroad. Realistically, in a nation that prides patriotism like this one, why would Americans like a man who thinks the U.S.A. is the "greatest purveyor of violence" in the world?

The simple answer here, IMHO, is that the only reason we pretend to love Martin Luther King, Jr. is because he's dead, because we would (and did, in fact) hate him if he were alive and saying the same things he did historically. In his death, Americans have created a false impression of King so as to avoid facing up to who he really was. That's what Martin Luther King Day means to me, and I don't see a point in celebrating that. At least, not as a nation.

But what do you guys think? Does this holiday really have a point to it?

Death often brings popularity and curiosity. Martin Luther King was a man living in the 1960s during racially-motivated times and trying to bring together the country when most people were against this. The radical element comes in here and if he were alive today, I don't believe he would be considered a radical because times have changed. But I do believe the holiday is the result of a lot of consideration made towards him since his death as people have realized he was not the communist that Hoover made him out to be.

I see no point in celebrating a lot of holidays. I'm not even going to go into the money pit holidays as they're not worth my time, but George Washington's birthday is another great example of the massive levels of conformity going on in the United States. Why are we celebrating the birthday of some dead Federalist aristocrat with wooden teeth who basically played Army with the British and Julius Caesar'd a monarchy in the US? There is a stupid sense of notoriety in the United States over being part of the proletariat, which is basically nothing more than fuel for pretentiousness and more empty egoes. It goes hand-in-hand with American anti-intellectualism in the fact that people feel automatically righteous or "better" for being poor, or being in what they think is middle class, or whatever. (The few have always run things because the many cannot be trusted to have the intellect to even think in their own interests, and unless we evolve I don't see that changing anytime soon.) This ties into these sorts of nonsensical holidays in the big pot of feel-good bullshit that Americans yum up every day. It's just another ingredient. Carlin calls it the Official National Bullshit Story. But anyway, yeah. MLK. George Washington. A bunch of dead people we have a bunch of baseless fairytales on and no account of reality for. Also, who cares about their birthday? The abstract birthdate of some dude no one could possibly know anymore is such a crazy triviality to not be being questioned more.

I know my place in relevance to the discussion, so I'll be brief.

The holiday should continue to exist, no question. But what the holiday stands for needs to be reevaluated and debated publicly. Incessantly, in my opinion. In my understanding, Martin Luther King Day serves as a way to lessen his legacy by reinforcing only the 'acceptable' aspects of MLK. Basically, it's another method of reducing the thought of him to a 'I Have a Dream' puppet that cancels out his historical record of radical activism, as beautifully pointed out in the original post. Perhaps another discussion that needs to happen is why the aforementioned puppet is carted around as the perfect civil rights leader as opposed to Malcolm X, who modern society remembers as the 'angry violent black man'. The same discussion would question why there is not a federal-level holiday for a man who ultimately fought the same fight as MLK.

Back to the holiday, though. I absolutely believe the holiday needs to continue, but perhaps the date needs to be changed to an event/period of time that reflects the true identity and legacy of Martin Luther King.

That really was a fantastic Boondocks episode, by the way. Definitely the first one that comes to mind in terms of provoking thoughtful discussion.

The Amazing Justin said:

The radical element comes in here and if he were alive today, I don't believe he would be considered a radical because times have changed.

Click to expand...

A man denouncing capitalism and calling for "democratic socialism", supporting public race demonstrations (like the ones that've come in the wake of Eric Gardner's death), and criticizing the U.S. military would be considered very radical today, and all of those are very much a part of who Dr. King was and what he believed in. Make no mistake, Americans would consider Martin Luther King to be just as radical now as they did in the 1960s. As Harley Quinn says, he was far more than just the guy who gave an "I Have A Dream" speech, and until Americans realize and accept that, Martin Luther King Day has no real meaning.

To use this example again: if King were alive today, how would you realistically expect people to react to a man who denounced the American military, amidst all the jingoistic "Support Our Troops" nonsense? Not only would King still be called a communist, people would be calling him a terrorist out to destroy the country and trying to link him to extremist Islam, very much like they currently do to Barack Obama (who's more conservative than MLK ever was). Times haven't changed that much.

Lizardo said:

A man denouncing capitalism and calling for "democratic socialism", supporting public race demonstrations (like the ones that've come in the wake of Eric Gardner's death), and criticizing the U.S. military would be considered very radical today, and all of those are very much a part of who Dr. King was and what he believed in. Make no mistake, Americans would consider Martin Luther King to be just as radical now as they did in the 1960s. As Harley Quinn says, he was far more than just the guy who gave an "I Have A Dream" speech, and until Americans realize and accept that, Martin Luther King Day has no real meaning.

To use this example again: if King were alive today, how would you realistically expect people to react to a man who denounced the American military, amidst all the jingoistic "Support Our Troops" nonsense? Not only would King still be called a communist, people would be calling him a terrorist out to destroy the country and trying to link him to extremist Islam, very much like they currently do to Barack Obama (who's more conservative than MLK ever was). Times haven't changed that much.

Click to expand...

I'm very much aware of Martin Luther King's life apart from the "I Have A Dream" speech but again, I still do not believe he would be regarded in the same way that he was at that time. Though racial relations still bug me, I don't believe he would face opposition from most politicians and Americans that wanted the same laws as him which could be equivalents to the laws he helped to pass at that time.

People are always going to be easily fooled and whether we want to admit it or not, the main people calling Martin Luther King a communist and muslim, things he wasn't just as Barack Obama isn't, are probably racists looking for a way to discredit him just as J. Edgar Hoover did. That is why I brought him up earlier. I believe he would still have people trying to say things about him which were outlandish, but I still believe the majority of Americans would realize he was not what they had been set out to believe as they did in the years following his death.

Lizardo said:

A man denouncing capitalism and calling for "democratic socialism", supporting public race demonstrations (like the ones that've come in the wake of Eric Gardner's death), and criticizing the U.S. military would be considered very radical today, and all of those are very much a part of who Dr. King was and what he believed in.

Click to expand...

Personally, that's the only thing I'd fault him for.

Everything else about the guy is a-okay. I only disagree with him on an economic basis.

The Amazing Justin said:

I'm very much aware of Martin Luther King's life apart from the "I Have A Dream" speech but again, I still do not believe he would be regarded in the same way that he was at that time. Though racial relations still bug me, I don't believe he would face opposition from most politicians and Americans that wanted the same laws as him which could be equivalents to the laws he helped to pass at that time.

Click to expand...

The point I'm making here is that American society has not gotten to the point where King's most controversial views are less radical now than they were in the 1950s and 1960s. So I'm not sure why Martin Luther King himself would be considered less of a radical now than he was back then, either.

Wealth distribution, regulation of business by the federal government, support for unions, anti-militarism and nonviolence as a foreign policy, anti-capitalism and socialism... these are all radical , controversial ideas in the United States. Dr. King supported all of them. He was a radical to the end and I couldn't imagine people wouldn't see him as one today. The only reason, IMHO, that he isn't seen as one now (and, to refer back to Harley Quinn's post, regarded the same way as Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party often are) is because he's dead and the majority in this country have no idea who MLK was outside of "I Have A Dream".

And as far as politicians go, I couldn't see the major figures of the modern Republican Party or many conservative Democrats supporting King at all.

CarcharOdin said:

Personally, that's the only thing I'd fault him for.

Everything else about the guy is a-okay. I only disagree with him on an economic basis.

Click to expand...

Well, whatever one thinks of King's support of "democratic socialism" I have to agree with him in that (unregulated) capitalism is a threat to democracy. King linked the issues of capitalism to the issues of racism and poverty, and he was right that assessment.

Of course there's a point, he was a great man and deserves a ~Day~.

You know who doesn't deserve a day(or at least a day in his name)? Christopher Columbus. Celebrating Columbus day is like celebrating the kidnapping, slaughter and rape of America's indigenous people, but HEY! He accidentally discovered America!

I don't think people should be taking the day off work for it, though. My reasoning there is that middle class workers and above get to take the day off to (NOT) remember what MLK did for the country. They just take the day off to take the day off. I can't help but think MLK wouldn't actually want that to be going on, aha.

Lizardo, you've already summarized nicely my thoughts on the situation. The reason why the March on Washington was supported by the government at the time is the same reason why it's still glorified today; it's the same reason MLK is found in textbooks everywhere, whilst Malcolm X receives only a fraction of the attention; and the reason why those textbooks will almost always only focus on MLK's non-violent approach and not his more radical viewpoints that you've talked about.

It's not just because he's dead; it's been carefully put together because they want you to remember him as the 'perfect black citizen', passive, obedient and law-abiding.

Chikara said:

Of course there's a point, he was a great man and deserves a ~Day~.

You know who doesn't deserve a day(or at least a day in his name)? Christopher Columbus. Celebrating Columbus day is like celebrating the kidnapping, slaughter and rape of America's indigenous people, but HEY! He accidentally discovered America!

Click to expand...

This. This exactly. The guy was a freaking doofus. He wan't even the first to 'discover' North America. Also he brought back slaves and asked permission to enslave more 'savages'. What a fink. He called the people Indians because he thought he was in India. Now a days that's the stupid kid in the class we all point and laugh at for believing the science fiction of several movies

"We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the sun. . ." <- No joke, someone actually told me this and full heartily believed this statement to be true. I have no regrets in laughing him into shame.

MLK deserves a day I suppose. Never had an issue with it, but I think it should fall on his birthday.

The Vikings discovered America first.

They were badasses like that.

CoffeeDrink said:

This. This exactly. The guy was a freaking doofus. He wan't even the first to 'discover' North America. Also he brought back slaves and asked permission to enslave more 'savages'. What a fink. He called the people Indians because he thought he was in India. Now a days that's the stupid kid in the class we all point and laugh at for believing the science fiction of several movies

"We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the sun. . ." <- No joke, someone actually told me this and full heartily believed this statement to be true. I have no regrets in laughing him into shame.

MLK deserves a day I suppose. Never had an issue with it, but I think it should fall on his birthday.

Click to expand...

It's a shame the people who colonized what is now the US weren't any better. Native Americans were nearly extinct and Africans were enslaved.

There's a horror story to be told of every European colony, I'm afraid.

Not anymore. With all this racial bs going on I don't see a point, he didn't ask for this, and it seems like a majority of the African American's don't give a shit with the way they're acting. If MLK was alive today he'd be pissed.

ShinyUmbreon189 said:

Not anymore. With all this racial bs going on I don't see a point, he didn't ask for this, and it seems like a majority of the African American's don't give a shit with the way they're acting. If MLK was alive today he'd be pissed.

Click to expand...

How do you know he didn't ask for "this" (whatever "this" is...)? It's so annoying and disrespectful when [white] people talk about what MLK would have wanted. Like, the man was shot dead for what he did and some people still have the audacity to dilute his message and use it to try and guilt black people into submission.

Also what is "the way they're acting"?

ShinyUmbreon189 said:

Not anymore. With all this racial bs going on I don't see a point, he didn't ask for this, and it seems like a majority of the African American's don't give a shit with the way they're acting. If MLK was alive today he'd be pissed.

Click to expand...

This is precisely the kind of attitude that inspired me to make this thread. People who invoke King to say things like this clearly have no idea who the man actually was and the things that he actually said when he was alive. Moreover, they have no interest in learning about him. Here's a particular MLK quote on riots that is especially relevant given the events in Ferguson:

"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions... And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."

Here's another quote that I had in my signature for a while, when it comes to 'black crime' that white people are so quick to point out:

"It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society."

While he didn't approve of black crime and violence, King also saw the bigger issue at hand. And if King were alive, he'd be angrier at the white society that's in power than the black one that isn't, because he saw that as the bigger problem.

Lizardo said:

This is precisely the kind of attitude that inspired me to make this thread. People who invoke King to say things like this clearly have no idea who the man actually was and the things that he actually said when he was alive. Moreover, they have no interest in learning about him. Here's a particular MLK quote on riots that is especially relevant given the events in Ferguson:

"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions... And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."

Here's another quote that I had in my signature for a while, when it comes to 'black crime' that white people are so quick to point out:

"It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society."

While he didn't approve of black crime and violence, King also saw the bigger issue at hand. And if King were alive, he'd be angrier at the white society that's in power than the black one that isn't, because he saw that as the bigger problem.

Click to expand...

Whatever man... Whites have always been in power, if you're speaking of this "White America". Even tho the whites are in power I don't see the whites as the superior race like a lot of blacks believe we think, and believe me, I've came across a lot of blacks with that mentality. It seems to me you no longer want the whites in power but to have the blacks in power, or maybe I'm missing something?? As much as I respect King for what he did, I still believe he'd be pissed off at how the blacks is handling the situation. I'm seeing alot of racial issues from the blacks going on that wasn't going on even last year, it all started with the Ferguson shit with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and escalated from there. I really don't wanna argue because I see this argument going in circles like they always do. Let's just say, I agree to disagree.

ShinyUmbreon189 said:

Whatever man... Whites have always been in power, if you're speaking of this "White America". Even tho the whites are in power I don't see the whites as the superior race like a lot of blacks believe we think, and believe me, I've came across a lot of blacks with that mentality. It seems to me you no longer want the whites in power but to have the blacks in power, or maybe I'm missing something??

Click to expand...

This thread isn't about me, it's about Martin Luther King, Jr. and who he actually was in real life. What King wanted was a fair and equal American society, and he identified that the primary obstacle to that kind of society wasn't the black people who had little to no representation in it but the whites who ran it. White people who ruled the Jim Crow-era South, white police officers who beat and killed young black men, white terrorists who bombed churches and lynched black children, a white military that destroyed other nations (e.g. Vietnam c.1950s-1970s, Iraq c.2003-2011, etc.), white business owners who paid black workers less, if they were even hired, than white workers, white politicians who kept a white supremacist power structure in place, biased white media, and ordinary white people who supported these things.

You can't change a society for the better without recognizing what its problems are. Pointing out that white males in power were, and still are (much more so than the black men who mostly aren't), the biggest obstacle to an equal and just American society is not trying to replace white supremacy with black supremacy. It's simply pointing out a truth about the United States and its race relations. If all you have to say to the words of King himself is "whatever man" then chances are you'd be one of the very people who stood in the way of his dream back then and continue to do so now.

As much as I respect King for what he did, I still believe he'd be pissed off at how the blacks is handling the situation.

Click to expand...

What about the way blacks are handling the situations (it's more than just Ferguson) makes you think King would be angry at them, and them alone? It certainly can't be the peaceful demonstrations and protests, because if so then not only do you not understand anything Martin Luther King did but you also don't understand the point of the wider Civil Rights Movement. Neither King nor the SCLC (or SNCC, CORE, NAACP, Black Panthers, etc.) movement were about being peaceful, but the exact opposite: getting in people's faces and forcing racial issues to the forefront of national American consciousness. And if you're talking about the Ferguson riots, then I point you to the above quotes from Martin Luther King himself. He wouldn't denounce them without also denouncing the bigger issues (i.e. the white power structure).

You say that you respect MLK and what he did, but how can you do that without understanding what he actually stood for? Moreover, how are denouncements against "the blacks" respectful of anything King was actually about?

I'm seeing alot of racial issues from the blacks going on that wasn't going on even last year, it all started with the Ferguson shit with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and escalated from there.

Click to expand...

For starters, that's not true. But even if it was, it'd be irrelevant. Most Americans ignored the inequality and violence of the Jim Crow era for a century after Reconstruction ended. National change only happens when someone takes an issue and forces people to see it. This is what Martin Luther King did. And Americans treated King back then like many conservatives treat Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson today.

I really don't wanna argue because I see this argument going in circles like they always do. Let's just say, I agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to argue it, fine, but this is all fact. And understanding King's actual position on things is necessary if you really want to celebrate him - the real him, not the sanitized version of him that too many white Americans believe in.

You don't seem to understand that none of this will ever change until us as a society stops allowing the media to brainwash the masses and for us as the people to demand change, and push to become together as one. It's not just the whites, it's the fact that the media wants to keep us separated, don't you see that? I agree with what King was trying to accomplish and I look to him as a very powerful man and I think every black person should idolize him. But this issue is out of mine and your control, it's gonna take more for things to change. As I said, us as the people in society needs to demand change instead of getting sucked into the media. The media's the enemy, not the whites.

ShinyUmbreon189 said:

You don't seem to understand that none of this will ever change until us as a society stops allowing the media to brainwash the masses and for us as the people to demand change, and push to become together as one. It's not just the whites, it's the fact that the media wants to keep us separated, don't you see that? I agree with what King was trying to accomplish and I look to him as a very powerful man and I think every black person should idolize him. But this issue is out of mine and your control, it's gonna take more for things to change. As I said, us as the people in society needs to demand change instead of getting sucked into the media. The media's the enemy, not the whites.

Click to expand...

Question: where do you think 'the media' gets its agenda from? The press isn't independent from the rest of society.