SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. speaking before a crowd of 25,000 Selma To Montgomery, Alabama civil rights marchers, in front of the Alabama state capital building on March 25, 1965. (Photo: Stephen F. Somerstein/Getty Images)
Martin Luther King's Radicalism Would Not Be Celebrated Today
To honor King we should uphold his critiques of militarism, capitalism, and racism and remember him for what he was: a radical.
Jan 17, 2022
As we mourn Martin Luther King Jr. and celebrate his life, we must remember that he was violently assassinated. His ideas were seen as radical and dangerous. He critiqued liberals and moderates and did not have the approval of most Americans. So what if we instead celebrate King as a leader who gave his life to a movement focused on Black people, on poor people, on labor activism and anti-war sentiments. What if we celebrate King as he was: a radical?
By celebrating a sanitized image of King, filled with out-of-context quotes and vague ideas about peace, we disrespect his legacy and all that he worked for.
King was a critic of the Vietnam War and a supporter of workers' rights. He was a formerly incarcerated gun-owner, stalked by the FBI, accused of communist leanings though he loudly critiqued the Communist Party, and was staunchly opposed to wealth inequality and poverty. If he lived today, he would not be celebrated for these beliefs, at least not in the mainstream. By celebrating a sanitized image of King, filled with out-of-context quotes and vague ideas about peace, we disrespect his legacy and all that he worked for. Yes, King believed in nonviolent resistance. But like all people, his ideologies and beliefs changed over time. His ideas about what constituted resistance were complex, disruptive, and often ended in violence by the opposition.
King's method of nonviolent resistance was a political tactic, designed to showcase the violence of white opposition throughout America's South. Nonviolent did not mean nondisruptive --from the march to Montgomery on the Edmund Pettus Bridge to King's support of the sanitation workers' strike in Memphis, King's ideology relied on the disruption of capitalism, of transportation and of everyday life. As conservatives co-opt King's lineage and ask 'What would King think?' after every protest of police violence, they further the myth that what King did was easy, was accepted, and did not disrupt or inconvenience the lives of white people. This couldn't be further from the truth.
Not only did King fight for civil rights, but he also argued for a Universal Basic Income and the creation of a 'nonviolent army of the poor' through his poor people's campaign, continued by his wife after his assassination. The platform of King's Poor People's Campaign involved a demand for a $30bn dollar investment in a 'real war on poverty' --a direct critique of democratic president Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs. He also wanted a guaranteed annual wage for all Americans and the building of quality low-cost housing across the United States. To contend with King's legacy and beliefs, we have to acknowledge that many of them centered around poverty.
Ironically, some of the best evidence of King's radical ideas comes from the FBI's counterintelligence program (COINTELPRO), led by J. Edgar Hoover, which followed King for years and suspected him of communism. In a 1966 Gallup Poll, King's approval rating was at 33%. This dismantles the idea that King had universal support at the time of his activism.
By co-opting King's public image, conservatives (and liberals, too) can align themselves with historical civil rights battles while ignoring ongoing issues of labor rights, police violence, and the housing crisis in most major cities across the US. They can volunteer at 'non-political' events on Martin Luther King Day, when disruption, protest and mutual aid were central to King's ideology. Not charity. Not peace. As was the protest of unjust laws. King wrote: "there are two types of laws: just and unjust... one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." This commitment to disobedience above all, and to equitable access to housing, living wages, and justice for Black Americans in particular, is what we should celebrate when focusing on King's legacy.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
Holly Genovese
Holly Genovese is a writer, activist and PhD student in American Studies at UT Austin. Her work focuses on African American aesthetic resistance to incarceration in the American South. Her academic work has been published in Quaker Studies, Fabric, and Invisible No More: The African American Experience at the University of South Carolina. Her essays and criticism have been published in Teen Vogue, Jacobin, The Washington Post, Literary Hub, Electric Literature, Public Seminar, and The Chronicle of Higher Ed.
As we mourn Martin Luther King Jr. and celebrate his life, we must remember that he was violently assassinated. His ideas were seen as radical and dangerous. He critiqued liberals and moderates and did not have the approval of most Americans. So what if we instead celebrate King as a leader who gave his life to a movement focused on Black people, on poor people, on labor activism and anti-war sentiments. What if we celebrate King as he was: a radical?
By celebrating a sanitized image of King, filled with out-of-context quotes and vague ideas about peace, we disrespect his legacy and all that he worked for.
King was a critic of the Vietnam War and a supporter of workers' rights. He was a formerly incarcerated gun-owner, stalked by the FBI, accused of communist leanings though he loudly critiqued the Communist Party, and was staunchly opposed to wealth inequality and poverty. If he lived today, he would not be celebrated for these beliefs, at least not in the mainstream. By celebrating a sanitized image of King, filled with out-of-context quotes and vague ideas about peace, we disrespect his legacy and all that he worked for. Yes, King believed in nonviolent resistance. But like all people, his ideologies and beliefs changed over time. His ideas about what constituted resistance were complex, disruptive, and often ended in violence by the opposition.
King's method of nonviolent resistance was a political tactic, designed to showcase the violence of white opposition throughout America's South. Nonviolent did not mean nondisruptive --from the march to Montgomery on the Edmund Pettus Bridge to King's support of the sanitation workers' strike in Memphis, King's ideology relied on the disruption of capitalism, of transportation and of everyday life. As conservatives co-opt King's lineage and ask 'What would King think?' after every protest of police violence, they further the myth that what King did was easy, was accepted, and did not disrupt or inconvenience the lives of white people. This couldn't be further from the truth.
Not only did King fight for civil rights, but he also argued for a Universal Basic Income and the creation of a 'nonviolent army of the poor' through his poor people's campaign, continued by his wife after his assassination. The platform of King's Poor People's Campaign involved a demand for a $30bn dollar investment in a 'real war on poverty' --a direct critique of democratic president Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs. He also wanted a guaranteed annual wage for all Americans and the building of quality low-cost housing across the United States. To contend with King's legacy and beliefs, we have to acknowledge that many of them centered around poverty.
Ironically, some of the best evidence of King's radical ideas comes from the FBI's counterintelligence program (COINTELPRO), led by J. Edgar Hoover, which followed King for years and suspected him of communism. In a 1966 Gallup Poll, King's approval rating was at 33%. This dismantles the idea that King had universal support at the time of his activism.
By co-opting King's public image, conservatives (and liberals, too) can align themselves with historical civil rights battles while ignoring ongoing issues of labor rights, police violence, and the housing crisis in most major cities across the US. They can volunteer at 'non-political' events on Martin Luther King Day, when disruption, protest and mutual aid were central to King's ideology. Not charity. Not peace. As was the protest of unjust laws. King wrote: "there are two types of laws: just and unjust... one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." This commitment to disobedience above all, and to equitable access to housing, living wages, and justice for Black Americans in particular, is what we should celebrate when focusing on King's legacy.
Holly Genovese
Holly Genovese is a writer, activist and PhD student in American Studies at UT Austin. Her work focuses on African American aesthetic resistance to incarceration in the American South. Her academic work has been published in Quaker Studies, Fabric, and Invisible No More: The African American Experience at the University of South Carolina. Her essays and criticism have been published in Teen Vogue, Jacobin, The Washington Post, Literary Hub, Electric Literature, Public Seminar, and The Chronicle of Higher Ed.
As we mourn Martin Luther King Jr. and celebrate his life, we must remember that he was violently assassinated. His ideas were seen as radical and dangerous. He critiqued liberals and moderates and did not have the approval of most Americans. So what if we instead celebrate King as a leader who gave his life to a movement focused on Black people, on poor people, on labor activism and anti-war sentiments. What if we celebrate King as he was: a radical?
By celebrating a sanitized image of King, filled with out-of-context quotes and vague ideas about peace, we disrespect his legacy and all that he worked for.
King was a critic of the Vietnam War and a supporter of workers' rights. He was a formerly incarcerated gun-owner, stalked by the FBI, accused of communist leanings though he loudly critiqued the Communist Party, and was staunchly opposed to wealth inequality and poverty. If he lived today, he would not be celebrated for these beliefs, at least not in the mainstream. By celebrating a sanitized image of King, filled with out-of-context quotes and vague ideas about peace, we disrespect his legacy and all that he worked for. Yes, King believed in nonviolent resistance. But like all people, his ideologies and beliefs changed over time. His ideas about what constituted resistance were complex, disruptive, and often ended in violence by the opposition.
King's method of nonviolent resistance was a political tactic, designed to showcase the violence of white opposition throughout America's South. Nonviolent did not mean nondisruptive --from the march to Montgomery on the Edmund Pettus Bridge to King's support of the sanitation workers' strike in Memphis, King's ideology relied on the disruption of capitalism, of transportation and of everyday life. As conservatives co-opt King's lineage and ask 'What would King think?' after every protest of police violence, they further the myth that what King did was easy, was accepted, and did not disrupt or inconvenience the lives of white people. This couldn't be further from the truth.
Not only did King fight for civil rights, but he also argued for a Universal Basic Income and the creation of a 'nonviolent army of the poor' through his poor people's campaign, continued by his wife after his assassination. The platform of King's Poor People's Campaign involved a demand for a $30bn dollar investment in a 'real war on poverty' --a direct critique of democratic president Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs. He also wanted a guaranteed annual wage for all Americans and the building of quality low-cost housing across the United States. To contend with King's legacy and beliefs, we have to acknowledge that many of them centered around poverty.
Ironically, some of the best evidence of King's radical ideas comes from the FBI's counterintelligence program (COINTELPRO), led by J. Edgar Hoover, which followed King for years and suspected him of communism. In a 1966 Gallup Poll, King's approval rating was at 33%. This dismantles the idea that King had universal support at the time of his activism.
By co-opting King's public image, conservatives (and liberals, too) can align themselves with historical civil rights battles while ignoring ongoing issues of labor rights, police violence, and the housing crisis in most major cities across the US. They can volunteer at 'non-political' events on Martin Luther King Day, when disruption, protest and mutual aid were central to King's ideology. Not charity. Not peace. As was the protest of unjust laws. King wrote: "there are two types of laws: just and unjust... one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." This commitment to disobedience above all, and to equitable access to housing, living wages, and justice for Black Americans in particular, is what we should celebrate when focusing on King's legacy.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy