Conservatives Hated MLK Back Then -- And Would Hate Him Today

[Biff_Poindexter]

He was a socialist afterall.

Except he really wasn’t.

His idea of “radical political redistribution” was literally just putting black people on the Supreme Court, electing them to the highest office in the land and having them confirm or reject bills and nominees in the Congress.

Because those things were considered radical departures from the norm at the time.

You guys want to completely suppress white people.

Pathetic strawman statements are still pathetic...

 

[blastoff]

I often hear so-called conservatives go on and on about how much they admire and respect MLK and how much they agree with his message -- but they only seem to talk about his "I Have A Dream Speech"-- and moreover they only really talk about the "content of his character, not the color of his skin" part -- basically trying to reduce King's whole purpose down to one excerpt from one speech. This tells me that these folks have no idea what King stood for, they have no idea why King was so hated, and they have no idea that if King was alive today, they would hate him too.

While so-called conservatives opine about how corrupt the FBI and DOJ is because of how they are being mean to Trump -- I remember how King had to deal with an ACTUALLY racist and corrupt FBI -- there is no COINTELPRO program against Trump, but there was definitely one against King -- the FBI never sent this letter to Trump, but they sent it to King -- in hopes that he would kill himself:

But you conservatives knew what King stood for? If you do, this should be an interesting exercise. I will post two excerpts from the King speeches that they don't tell you about -- you tell me if you agree with his assessment or disagree

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance (the Negro makes) -- the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

Was King being racist or overly radical in his assessment? Because I know if Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas had said this today, he would definitely be denounced as being a racist and a traitor to the conservative cause for saying it.

"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power-- First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Do you agree with King's assessment of the white liberal or moderate? Do you feel radical redistribution of political and economic power is radical socialist talk or an inevitable solution? Can you imagine if Senator Tim Scott or Candace Owens have said this today, they would be ran out of the conservative movement for speaking off-code.

How about dimocrats who hated Dr. King back then, would they hate him today too? I’m talking solid hardcore dims like Richard Russell of GA who fought LBJs civil rights initiatives at every turn because he wanted to keep those southern blacks in their place. He eventually lost out but put up such a good anti-black fight his fellow dims named a Senate office building after him. Anyway, my guess is old Dick and lots of other southern racist dimocrats still wouldn’t cotton to King today.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I often hear so-called conservatives go on and on about how much they admire and respect MLK and how much they agree with his message -- but they only seem to talk about his "I Have A Dream Speech"-- and moreover they only really talk about the "content of his character, not the color of his skin" part -- basically trying to reduce King's whole purpose down to one excerpt from one speech. This tells me that these folks have no idea what King stood for, they have no idea why King was so hated, and they have no idea that if King was alive today, they would hate him too.

While so-called conservatives opine about how corrupt the FBI and DOJ is because of how they are being mean to Trump -- I remember how King had to deal with an ACTUALLY racist and corrupt FBI -- there is no COINTELPRO program against Trump, but there was definitely one against King -- the FBI never sent this letter to Trump, but they sent it to King -- in hopes that he would kill himself:

But you conservatives knew what King stood for? If you do, this should be an interesting exercise. I will post two excerpts from the King speeches that they don't tell you about -- you tell me if you agree with his assessment or disagree

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance (the Negro makes) -- the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

Was King being racist or overly radical in his assessment? Because I know if Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas had said this today, he would definitely be denounced as being a racist and a traitor to the conservative cause for saying it.

"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power-- First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Do you agree with King's assessment of the white liberal or moderate? Do you feel radical redistribution of political and economic power is radical socialist talk or an inevitable solution? Can you imagine if Senator Tim Scott or Candace Owens have said this today, they would be ran out of the conservative movement for speaking off-code.

How about dimocrats who hated Dr. King back then, would they hate him today too? I’m talking solid hardcore dims like Richard Russell of GA who fought LBJs civil rights initiatives at every turn because he wanted to keep those southern blacks in their place. He eventually lost out but put up such a good anti-black fight his fellow dims named a Senate office building after him. Anyway, my guess is old Dick and lots of other southern racist dimocrats still wouldn’t cotton to King today.

My guess is old dick wouldn't be a democrat anymore, just like old Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and the rest of the "CONSERVATIVE" Dixiecrats...

I clearly said "CONSERVATIVE" in my thread title -- that transcends political parties.

 

[bodecea]

Did you know that LBJ actually cut MLK off when King campaigned against the Democrat war in Vietnam?

Did you know that in Chicago when Reverend King campaigned for open housing in 1966 that he was confronted with white mobs that he described as more hateful than in Mississippi or Alabama?

North of the Mason Dixon line he was met with a wall of hate by liberal Yankee whites who didn't want to share their neighborhoods or their jobs with blacks?

Just curious.

Yes...I know that...I was alive back then. Feel free to show anyone's claim that the North was any better than the South in this regard, Don Quixote.

 

[tinydancer]

Which Progressive Hero was the bigger racist: LBJ or FDR?

As James Baldwin said (another brilliant mind that conservatives don't like to talk about) --- he isn't concerned about if a politician loves him -- he is only concerned about what policies that politician puts in place..

So if LBJ did in fact hated blacks, called them N-words 12 times a day --- the Voting Rights and Civil Rights act were still hugely beneficial pieces of legislation that the "racist" guy signed into law.

And it was Republicans who were instrumental in assisting LBJ in getting the law passed so he could sign it. FACTS MATTER.

"The Civil Rights Act -- which is best known for barring discrimination in public accommodations -- passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964 by a margin of 290-130. When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays)."

Steele says GOP fought hard for civil rights bills in 1960s

 

[tinydancer]

I often hear so-called conservatives go on and on about how much they admire and respect MLK and how much they agree with his message -- but they only seem to talk about his "I Have A Dream Speech"-- and moreover they only really talk about the "content of his character, not the color of his skin" part -- basically trying to reduce King's whole purpose down to one excerpt from one speech. This tells me that these folks have no idea what King stood for, they have no idea why King was so hated, and they have no idea that if King was alive today, they would hate him too.

While so-called conservatives opine about how corrupt the FBI and DOJ is because of how they are being mean to Trump -- I remember how King had to deal with an ACTUALLY racist and corrupt FBI -- there is no COINTELPRO program against Trump, but there was definitely one against King -- the FBI never sent this letter to Trump, but they sent it to King -- in hopes that he would kill himself:

But you conservatives knew what King stood for? If you do, this should be an interesting exercise. I will post two excerpts from the King speeches that they don't tell you about -- you tell me if you agree with his assessment or disagree

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance (the Negro makes) -- the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

Was King being racist or overly radical in his assessment? Because I know if Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas had said this today, he would definitely be denounced as being a racist and a traitor to the conservative cause for saying it.

"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power-- First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Do you agree with King's assessment of the white liberal or moderate? Do you feel radical redistribution of political and economic power is radical socialist talk or an inevitable solution? Can you imagine if Senator Tim Scott or Candace Owens have said this today, they would be ran out of the conservative movement for speaking off-code.

How about dimocrats who hated Dr. King back then, would they hate him today too? I’m talking solid hardcore dims like Richard Russell of GA who fought LBJs civil rights initiatives at every turn because he wanted to keep those southern blacks in their place. He eventually lost out but put up such a good anti-black fight his fellow dims named a Senate office building after him. Anyway, my guess is old Dick and lots of other southern racist dimocrats still wouldn’t cotton to King today.

My guess is old dick wouldn't be a democrat anymore, just like old Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and the rest of the "CONSERVATIVE" Dixiecrats...

I clearly said "CONSERVATIVE" in my thread title -- that transcends political parties.

Only a couple of Dixiecrats became Republican. The rest stayed Democrat. History and facts are your friends.

Dixiecrats were Democrats. Note they weren't called the Dixiecans.

 

[tinydancer]

I often hear so-called conservatives go on and on about how much they admire and respect MLK and how much they agree with his message -- but they only seem to talk about his "I Have A Dream Speech"-- and moreover they only really talk about the "content of his character, not the color of his skin" part -- basically trying to reduce King's whole purpose down to one excerpt from one speech. This tells me that these folks have no idea what King stood for, they have no idea why King was so hated, and they have no idea that if King was alive today, they would hate him too.

While so-called conservatives opine about how corrupt the FBI and DOJ is because of how they are being mean to Trump -- I remember how King had to deal with an ACTUALLY racist and corrupt FBI -- there is no COINTELPRO program against Trump, but there was definitely one against King -- the FBI never sent this letter to Trump, but they sent it to King -- in hopes that he would kill himself:

But you conservatives knew what King stood for? If you do, this should be an interesting exercise. I will post two excerpts from the King speeches that they don't tell you about -- you tell me if you agree with his assessment or disagree

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance (the Negro makes) -- the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

Was King being racist or overly radical in his assessment? Because I know if Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas had said this today, he would definitely be denounced as being a racist and a traitor to the conservative cause for saying it.

"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power-- First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Do you agree with King's assessment of the white liberal or moderate? Do you feel radical redistribution of political and economic power is radical socialist talk or an inevitable solution? Can you imagine if Senator Tim Scott or Candace Owens have said this today, they would be ran out of the conservative movement for speaking off-code.

So the FBI working with the members of the DOJ seeking to at first block Trump from the Presidency and then seeking to destroy his Presidency doesn't mean jack shit?



Same old playbook that they used against MLK. Communist for King. Russia for Trump. Same old same old.

If you are trying to compare Trump to King, you are far too delusional to understand the point

Oh freaking bite me. I was comparing how the FBI have treated both poorly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Which Progressive Hero was the bigger racist: LBJ or FDR?

As James Baldwin said (another brilliant mind that conservatives don't like to talk about) --- he isn't concerned about if a politician loves him -- he is only concerned about what policies that politician puts in place..

So if LBJ did in fact hated blacks, called them N-words 12 times a day --- the Voting Rights and Civil Rights act were still hugely beneficial pieces of legislation that the "racist" guy signed into law.

You mean Ikes civil rights that that LBJ quashed for 7 years as Senate Majority leader, then passed as his own?

 

[IM2]

You republicans need to shut that shit up about old time dead republicans.Todays republicans have nothing to do with those guys.

 

[K9Buck]

By the same token, modern day Democrats would despise our founding fathers today.

 

[IM2]

By the same token, modern day Democrats would despise our founding fathers today.

Todays republicans don't respect the constitution. And the only thing they admire in the founders is their racism.

 

[K9Buck]

There's no point in arguing with a fool.

 

[harmonica]

blacks hated whites back then
blacks hate whites now

 

[Asclepias]

I often hear so-called conservatives go on and on about how much they admire and respect MLK and how much they agree with his message -- but they only seem to talk about his "I Have A Dream Speech"-- and moreover they only really talk about the "content of his character, not the color of his skin" part -- basically trying to reduce King's whole purpose down to one excerpt from one speech. This tells me that these folks have no idea what King stood for, they have no idea why King was so hated, and they have no idea that if King was alive today, they would hate him too.

While so-called conservatives opine about how corrupt the FBI and DOJ is because of how they are being mean to Trump -- I remember how King had to deal with an ACTUALLY racist and corrupt FBI -- there is no COINTELPRO program against Trump, but there was definitely one against King -- the FBI never sent this letter to Trump, but they sent it to King -- in hopes that he would kill himself:

But you conservatives knew what King stood for? If you do, this should be an interesting exercise. I will post two excerpts from the King speeches that they don't tell you about -- you tell me if you agree with his assessment or disagree

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance (the Negro makes) -- the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

Was King being racist or overly radical in his assessment? Because I know if Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas had said this today, he would definitely be denounced as being a racist and a traitor to the conservative cause for saying it.

"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power-- First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Do you agree with King's assessment of the white liberal or moderate? Do you feel radical redistribution of political and economic power is radical socialist talk or an inevitable solution? Can you imagine if Senator Tim Scott or Candace Owens have said this today, they would be ran out of the conservative movement for speaking off-code.

You do realize his “content of character” line contradicts his “redistribution” line, right?

Only a moron would think that since those phrases were used in entirely two different contexts.

 

[Asclepias]

I often hear so-called conservatives go on and on about how much they admire and respect MLK and how much they agree with his message -- but they only seem to talk about his "I Have A Dream Speech"-- and moreover they only really talk about the "content of his character, not the color of his skin" part -- basically trying to reduce King's whole purpose down to one excerpt from one speech. This tells me that these folks have no idea what King stood for, they have no idea why King was so hated, and they have no idea that if King was alive today, they would hate him too.

While so-called conservatives opine about how corrupt the FBI and DOJ is because of how they are being mean to Trump -- I remember how King had to deal with an ACTUALLY racist and corrupt FBI -- there is no COINTELPRO program against Trump, but there was definitely one against King -- the FBI never sent this letter to Trump, but they sent it to King -- in hopes that he would kill himself:

But you conservatives knew what King stood for? If you do, this should be an interesting exercise. I will post two excerpts from the King speeches that they don't tell you about -- you tell me if you agree with his assessment or disagree

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance (the Negro makes) -- the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

Was King being racist or overly radical in his assessment? Because I know if Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas had said this today, he would definitely be denounced as being a racist and a traitor to the conservative cause for saying it.

"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power-- First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Do you agree with King's assessment of the white liberal or moderate? Do you feel radical redistribution of political and economic power is radical socialist talk or an inevitable solution? Can you imagine if Senator Tim Scott or Candace Owens have said this today, they would be ran out of the conservative movement for speaking off-code.

How about dimocrats who hated Dr. King back then, would they hate him today too? I’m talking solid hardcore dims like Richard Russell of GA who fought LBJs civil rights initiatives at every turn because he wanted to keep those southern blacks in their place. He eventually lost out but put up such a good anti-black fight his fellow dims named a Senate office building after him. Anyway, my guess is old Dick and lots of other southern racist dimocrats still wouldn’t cotton to King today.

My guess is old dick wouldn't be a democrat anymore, just like old Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and the rest of the "CONSERVATIVE" Dixiecrats...

I clearly said "CONSERVATIVE" in my thread title -- that transcends political parties.

They gotta muddy the waters so you dont bring up the southern strategy.

 

[IM2]

There's no point in arguing with a fool.

And that's why I am not going to argue who you on this matter, fool.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I often hear so-called conservatives go on and on about how much they admire and respect MLK and how much they agree with his message -- but they only seem to talk about his "I Have A Dream Speech"-- and moreover they only really talk about the "content of his character, not the color of his skin" part -- basically trying to reduce King's whole purpose down to one excerpt from one speech. This tells me that these folks have no idea what King stood for, they have no idea why King was so hated, and they have no idea that if King was alive today, they would hate him too.

While so-called conservatives opine about how corrupt the FBI and DOJ is because of how they are being mean to Trump -- I remember how King had to deal with an ACTUALLY racist and corrupt FBI -- there is no COINTELPRO program against Trump, but there was definitely one against King -- the FBI never sent this letter to Trump, but they sent it to King -- in hopes that he would kill himself:

But you conservatives knew what King stood for? If you do, this should be an interesting exercise. I will post two excerpts from the King speeches that they don't tell you about -- you tell me if you agree with his assessment or disagree

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance (the Negro makes) -- the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

Was King being racist or overly radical in his assessment? Because I know if Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas had said this today, he would definitely be denounced as being a racist and a traitor to the conservative cause for saying it.

"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power-- First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Do you agree with King's assessment of the white liberal or moderate? Do you feel radical redistribution of political and economic power is radical socialist talk or an inevitable solution? Can you imagine if Senator Tim Scott or Candace Owens have said this today, they would be ran out of the conservative movement for speaking off-code.