News MLK plagiarized his dissertation and cheated on his wife.

  • Thread starter Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dissertation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the controversial legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., particularly regarding allegations of plagiarism in his academic work and infidelity in his personal life. Participants question why King, unlike other PhD holders, has not faced repercussions for significant instances of plagiarism found in his dissertation and speeches, suggesting that societal reverence for his civil rights contributions may shield him from typical academic scrutiny. The conversation also touches on King's character, with some arguing that his personal failings do not diminish his monumental role in advancing civil rights, while others assert that his status as a minister holds him to a higher moral standard. Comparisons are drawn to other historical figures, highlighting the complexity of separating personal flaws from public achievements. Ultimately, the thread reflects a broader debate on the nature of heroism, accountability, and the legacy of influential figures in American history.
  • #51
turbo-1 said:
You slammed him repeatedly for not adhering to standards of conduct to which many modern political leaders cannot attain.


But many modern political leaders are not REVERENDS. If you are a lay person you are going to be held to the highest moral standards possible, even to a higher standard than politicians. Why is this hard to understand?


I'm sorry, but I don't like hypocrites.


That's OK, but let's separate the ad-hom attacks on a fantastic political strategist from the work that he was able to accomplish. If you refuse to acknowledge his importance in the civil rights movement, then OK, but I feel that you are either are way too young too have lived through it, or you are willfully ignorant of the truth and choose to embrace a revisionist interpretation of King's contributions that minimalizes his work. I mean no offense, but I have a very hard time parsing your posts without seeing a strong bias against MLK.

What I am questioning is why is it that whenever the phrase "civil rights in America" comes up, the first thing that pops into anyone's head is MLK. Did MLK really do that much or are we just brainwashed into believing he did?

How come other things like

-Brown vs. the Board of Education
-the establishment of the UNIA/conference attended by 20,000 in MSG set up by UNIA/ and the Declaration of the Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World
-Kansas Exodus
-other black ministers like Bernard Lee and Shuttlesworth
-Booker T. Washington's work
-DuBois and Trotter's call for suffrage and end to segragation

all are completely forgotten by the majority of Americans? IMO way too much emphasis is placed on King's work and on the person who he was. The massive amounts of media attention to King belittle the work of many others who struggled and even died before him.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
gravenewworld said:
Did MLK really do that much or are we just brainwashed into believing he did?

It depends on how old you are.
Really old people remember a lot of things. (Death due to color)
Not so old people remember a few things. (Violence due to color)
Younger people don't remember any of what you are saying.(What on Earth are you talking about?)

Hence my; "The world will not be a decent place to live until the last child of the last bigot is dead"
 
  • #53
gravenewworld said:
Did MLK really do that much or are we just brainwashed into believing he did?
Let me counter with a similar question. Recently, there is a trend to vilify beloved characters in the past (both real and fictional); did MLKJ really do as little as you imply, or are you just riding this bandwagon?
 
  • #54
Hurkyl said:
Let me counter with a similar question. Recently, there is a trend to vilify beloved characters in the past (both real and fictional); did MLKJ really do as little as you imply, or are you just riding this bandwagon?

Answering a question with a question are we now?

But I will oblige to the game. Personally I feel the work of MLK is exaggerated (not saying he didn't contribute). He was just the right man at the right time. He was able to take advantage of the enormous work of the civil rights activists that came 20, 30, 40 years before him. And what is this bandwagon you speak of? How is it wrong to question tradition or revered figures?
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Questioning revered figures is fine, as long as you have some evidence for your claim. You are essentially smearing the guy by pointing out his faults that are unrelated to what he is revered for. If you had said he was secretly employed by the KKK or something that completely went against what he did and had evidence, then you could say something.

But as it stands, you're only pointing out that he had faults. Big whoop.

Yes, pretty much all "great" people in history were there at the right place and the right time, but they also had to be willing to sacrifice a lot for their goals. Can you honestly say you'd go through what MLK went through? I don't think I'd have the fortitude. Even if it fell in my lap.
 
  • #56
Poop-Loops said:
Questioning revered figures is fine, as long as you have some evidence for your claim. You are essentially smearing the guy by pointing out his faults that are unrelated to what he is revered for. If you had said he was secretly employed by the KKK or something that completely went against what he did and had evidence, then you could say something.

But as it stands, you're only pointing out that he had faults. Big whoop.

Yes, pretty much all "great" people in history were there at the right place and the right time, but they also had to be willing to sacrifice a lot for their goals. Can you honestly say you'd go through what MLK went through? I don't think I'd have the fortitude. Even if it fell in my lap.

Smearing? What for brining back MLK down to Earth from the elevated infallible pedestal he has been put on by the media? MLK was definitely a good speaker, but he spoke of ideas and words that weren't even his which he plagiarized from other people. Sorry, but I don't weigh benefiting from fortuitous circumstances set up by the hard work of other people before you very much. You want to talk about sacrifice? What about the sacrifices of someone like Shuttlesworth who had two assassination attempts against him, the first when his house bombed with dynamite the second when he was attacked by a mob with weapons? You never hear of his sacrifices.

MLK played a role in the civil rights movement, he gets far too much credit though.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
gravenewworld said:
MLK played a role in the civil rights movement, he gets far too much credit though.
If that is really what you mean to assert, it makes one wonder why you would open the thread with claims that are entirely unrelated.
 
  • #58
I don't understand why anyone would be surprised that MLK was not a perfect man. It is part of human nature to have "faults", but you have to ask yourself, does it really hurt me that he may have cheated on his dissertation, or committed adultery. The short answer is no. But his fight for individual rights that includes poor whites, Jews, Native Americans, Asians and other minority groups besides blacks (myself), has done more for me than all of his vices could have done to harm me.

It is pointless and a waste of energy to place the cross on MLK.

But if one wants to get religious then take it from the original barrier of the Cross "Let he who committed no sin, cast the first stone".
 
  • #59
t-money said:
But if one wants to get religious then take it from the original barrier of the Cross "Let he who committed no sin, cast the first stone".

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. I'd expect any preacher to know that. Despite what the media tells you and what pop cultural says, according to the Christian tradition, adultery is not something casual but is very sacrilegious. I'm sorry but anyone who is going to preach morals will be held to a higher standard than everyone else.
 
  • #60
gravenewworld said:
What for brining back MLK down to Earth from the elevated infallible pedestal he has been put on by the media?
No one is putting MLK on a pedestal. It's certainly true that the media simplifies and sensationalizes, but that's what the majority of viewing public wants. The problem seems to be one of separating the person from the accomplishments. It would seem the problem arises with the personification of deeds, as in the deeds are the person or the person is the deeds.

I think the majority understand that MLK accomplished what he did despite being just as fallible as the rest of us.
 
  • #61
Of course MLK should not have committed adultery; it is a serious sin. However, I've known many very kind loving people who, because of human weaknesses, have committed serious sins, such as adultery, gossip, coveting, etc. etc. On the other hand, I've known people who have carefully obeyed each of the 10 commandments but who have been unkind, hateful, etc. There are also people who, while they have obeyed all the Commandments and not done anything destructive, have not done anything constructive either.

In reading the Bible, it seems that God has often chosen weak and sinful people to do His will. Instead of remembering MLK for his sins, let us remember him for his accomplishments. Had it not been for him, I suspect that advancing civil rights for blacks would have been delayed for at least 10 years.
 
  • #62
This thread has been beaten to death.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top