What's /his/ opinion on this man?

>>2709553
A good man, but a man none the less

A negro who favored (((their agenda)))

>>2709558
He was a (((cultural marxist))).

>>2709553
Troublemaker.

>>2709659
>guys look at me I can spout /pol memes
Wow anon we really want another of you in this world rather than someone with a legitimate ideology
>>2709715
But for the right reasons

>>2709553
Plagiarist. Anyone on an academic board should hate his fucking guts, but /his/ is just a bunch of larping pseuds so it evens out.

>>2709726
No. His death meant more desu.

>>2709730
Yes, because clearly his reputation hinges on his academic integrity. If he hadn't had that PhD, man, nobody would even care about him.

>>2709730
Yes he plagiarised his PhD, doesn't mean his later achievements should be denied

>>2709771
You're half right. If he didn't have his PhD, he likely wouldn't have gotten anywhere near where he did.

>>2709777
>a person of poor ethical integrity should be lauded for his ethics
Yeah, nah. You're a cunt.

>>2709553
Rather than motivate his race to advance instead he wanted them to live among whites.

>>2709783
Who gives a shit? The PhD may or may not have been a necessary steppingstone but his academic accomplishments aren't what he's remembered and respected for. He's remembered for being an excellent public speaker, a strong leader and organizer, and a moderating influence on the extremist elements of the movement that were threatening to discredit it. Also for being extremely physically courageous - it is not like his assassination is particularly shocking in retrospect.

He also cheated on his wife a whole bunch. There's a reason nobody gives a shit about that either.

>>2709777
What achievements?

>>2709799
>It's okay to turn a blind eye to things that contradict the touted character of a man because um... well... I don't actually have a good reason but you just should okay
t. (((You)))

>>2709810
Because Nixon was a douchebag but that didn't really come into play or have an effect until his scandal which he committed even if he won the damn election so hard making his efforts pointless.

>>2709783
>a person of poor ethical integrity should be lauded for his ethics

It's obviously circumstantial - If you're expecting any historical figure to be perfect in regards to their ethics you're going to be disappointed. His ethical shortcomings aren't particularly relevant to the areas that people praise him for. Nobody looks to MLK as an example of how to treat their wife.

File: image.jpg (123KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1024x768px

>>2709810
How is it a contradiction? How is his fight for the human right movements in the '60s related to his conjugal life and his academic honesty?
He cheated on his wife, this proves poor control when it comes to sex. He plagiarized his PhD thesis, this proves that he didn't really care about the academic discourse. He gave his life for a cause, this proves that there was literally nothing he valued more than that. Considering how inherently that cause and his methods were, I'd say that he has been more ethical than unethical.
And, by the way, even if his unethical deeds still deserve criticism, we should still examine their scope. How bad is cheating on your wife and plagiarizing a PhD thesis? Are these acts morally corrupt enough to make the statement "Martin Luther King was a bad person" reasonable?

I don't think so: they're certainly moral failings, but are still forgivable ones, especially when you consider that these are just marginal events of his life.

tl;dr: those actions may be unethical, but not unethical enough to discard everything else he did.

>>2709571
>>2709659
>>2709810
>le (((meme)))
Epic XDD!!! So le (((funny))) and le (((original))) because it's (((le))) (((meme))) (((hahahahaha))) XDDDD(((!)))!!!!!

Unethical Christian version of Malcolm X.

>>2709783
>who cares if he helped end the KKK he beat his wife like the klan beat negroes

>>2709967
>unethical
Yeah should have declared a jihad against the white man than being passive aggressive shit heads that actually got situation on the ground to chan

>>2709967
Depending on your stance on protest methods, Malcolm X may be considered more unethical than MLK, while still being not unethical enough to warrant harsh criticism. They were both great man anyway, so these sort of comparisons are not that meaningful after all.

>>2709984
What protest methods are you referring to?

>>2709981
Advocating for self-defense and self-reliance is jihad now?

>>2709553
Only nigger with a brain

File: image.jpg (46KB, 308x345px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 308x345px

>>2709994
Protest method is not the correct word, maybe.

I'm talking about the sectarianism and esclusivism of his first, less mature period in the NOI. This behaviour stunted in part the growth of the movement, and crystallized a certain anti-white sentiment in certain communities, which, I think, is less effective (and effectiveness is everything in this case: it's a cause, not a game).
Still, it is just a minor inconvenience after all, nothing relevant enough to justify an actual attack on his character, especially considering that he maturely considered, contemplated and ultimately expressed regret for these mistakes. Still, MLK never had such problem, and his campaign was after all more effective on the virtue of his inclusivity.

By the way I'm not considering Malcolm X's call for self-defence by guns from the part of the black community. Actually, to this day, I still find hard to believe that this was and is a actual controversy.

>>2710025
But how effective was MLK really? He didn't address the economic issues in his community at all like X did, didn't inspire much really but reverence for him as an individual. Additionally, his constant preaching of nonviolence has done nothing but make the general American populace easier to manage by those in charge. I don't consider him more ethical just because he preached non violence. Fight to the death.

He had a dream, not a plan.

File: 46fedebb94e2cabc8b6b2869b6bafc71.png (146KB, 1120x568px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1120x568px

>>2709553
>turbomanlet
HAHA WHEN WILL THEY LEARN

>>2709553
King was definitely an important civil rights leader, but unfortunately he's been romanticized to the point that people tend to become detached from the reality that he was just a man, flaws and all. What that's meant is that his message tends to get distorted almost like religious scripture. People on all sides of the spectrum (bar the unabashedly racist) love to peddle soundbites from him that support their particular point of view, regardless of the context. My personal favorite is the "you're not protesting right" crowd that loves to pull out MLK quotes whenever they're complaining about a recent protest, completely forgetting that MLK's and the Civil Rights Movement as a whole were pretty damn disruptive.

Also, the contrarian in me prefers Medgar Evers over MLK for civil rights leader waifu.

File: transnegro.png (879KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 1280x720px

>>2710348
I'd argue that the Civil Rights Movement needed MLK and Malcom X - without both, it wouldn't have succeeded.

X was the more aggressive, proactive side of things. His adversarial way of thinking helped motivate people on the Civil Rights side that weren't too keen to stick with the nonviolence MLK was peddling, and it served as a warning to those opposing the Civil Rights Movement that the protests could be much, much worse than those organized by the peaceful side.

MLK, on the other hand, offered a more peaceful alternative to X's side that was invaluable to winning the culture war that was the Civil Rights Movement. The peaceful tactics of his side gave legitimacy to the movement as a whole and made it harder for people to write the whole movement off as a violent anti-white movement.

>>2709553
He was good in Shawshank Redemption but I think he has been in too many films recently

>>2710490
I agree that for things to have worked our the way they did both figures had to be present. However, have you ever thought critically about how X, the fierce proponent if self reliance, is demonized, while MLK, the proponent of non violent protest is pushed as a figure all protest movements are supposed to emulate? Whose approach is more friendly to white supremacist and oligarchy?

File: Trayvon_martini.jpg (2MB, 3600x1700px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x1700px

>>2710603
Oh of course. For the record I'm not the anon you've been arguing with. I've always liked bits and pieces from both of them, but you're right - the establishment has really seized upon MLK's way of doing things for good reason (for them, at least). MLK's way of doing things was fairly docile and easy to ignore - at its worst, those giant peaceful protests don't really affect the lives of the people at the top. Sure, blocking a street may piss off a bunch of people, but it's not going to undo the establishment. Hell, even under MLK, the things accomplished tended to be on a national level where those pushing things through weren't really impacted by the laws they were passing. The desegregation of the South, for example, struck down the laws that mandated it and went out of its way to undo the segregation in places like schools, but the North was conveniently ignored. In fact, many schools in the North are just as segregated as they were in the '50s.

But X's methods would have caused a major cultural shift that the establishment isn't willing to handle. His views seem to be the perfect storm of things to make both sides of the spectrum go against it. The Right dislikes him for his NOI involvement, communist/left-leaning viewpoints, and, be it dogwistle or overt racism, because he's an uppity negro. The Left, on the other hand, seems to hate central concepts to X's beliefs like self defense and self-reliance. Plus, supporting more aggressive concepts like X pushed would mean that the Left would have to actually make some active efforts to fix lingering racial issues instead of just offering token support for protest movements like they do today.

Overall, I'd say the pragmatist in me appreciates Malcom X more while the idealist side wishes that MLK's beliefs were really all that was necessary.

Heard he liked hegel

>>2709553
a good man with a good cause, but his movement was ultimately sullied by what actually ended up happening to race relations in America
fuck, I wish black culture was more like what it was in the 60s and 70s
t. black man

>>2710841
>fuck, I wish black culture was more like what it was in the 60s and 70s

Those were very shitty times back then anon considering how the 60's were declining and the 70's being a total mess for all of America.

>>2709956

Funny you should post a picture of old Arthur there.

>The British philosopher and historian Bertrand Russell deemed Schopenhauer an insincere person, because judging by his life:

>"He habitually dined well, at a good restaurant; he had many trivial love-affairs, which were sensual but not passionate; he was exceedingly quarrelsome and unusually avaricious. ... It is hard to find in his life evidences of any virtue except kindness to animals ... In all other respects he was completely selfish. It is difficult to believe that a man who was profoundly convinced of the virtue of asceticism and resignation would never have made any attempt to embody his convictions in his practice."

>>2710763
Malcolm X was equally racist towards white people.
'The Black Revolution' is filled with blind, separatist vitriol and a staggeringly deluded faith in Allah to punish white people and give blacks the entire continent of North America for themselves.

>>2710841

i'm always struck by the subtlety and sophistication of black music from that time, whether its the instrumentation or the lyrics or whatever. maybe it's just rose colored glasses, but contemporary black culture seems so crude and 2 dimensional compared what was going on back then. it's like nowdays they are caricatures who only speak in terms of capital, wheras then there were was a broader range of concerns and expressions.

>>2711369

well he did change his tune before he died, which is why they killed him. he dropped the seperatism (i think?) and preached a more peaceful tone, didn't he?

>>2711309
damn, I'm a bit tired rn
it should be 50s and 60s
basically, back when black people actually had respectable families and were decent people
the 70s was when shit hit the fan,
I'm a bit tired rn, I need to go to bed

>>2711447
He started seeing what was before perceived as a racial struggle as a class struggle, which angered both the more fringe members of his movement and the authorities that didn't want him spreading communism or any such ideology.

>>2709956
>cheating on your wife as a fucking preacher means you are still an ethical person because reasons
No

>>2710443
Literally everyone important ever was 5'7"