Unethical Quote of The Month: Martin Luther King III

“The vision preached by my father a half-century ago was that his four little children would no longer live in a nation where they would judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. However, sadly, the tears of Trayvon Martin’s mother and father remind us that, far too frequently, the color of one’s skin remains a license to profile, to arrest and to even murder with no regard for the content of one’s character.”

Martin Luther King III, the son of the martyred civil rights leader and humanist, speaking in front of the Lincoln memorial before thousands gathered on the National Mall  to commemorate the upcoming 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 March on Washington, and his iconic “I have a dream” speech.

The passage was despicable and inexcusable, an insult to his father’s legacy and all of the courageous and sincere Americans, black and white, who have worked hard and effectively this past half-century to make remarkable progress toward the society that Rev. King envisioned.

“The tears of Trayvon Martin’s mother”  have exactly nothing at all to do with racial profiling or a “license to murder.” King’s son, proving once again that greatness of character and mind is seldom passed on to succeeding generations, chose to engage in divisive, misleading and cheap rhetoric that undermine his father’s goal of bring the races together. In this he was certainly consistent with the motivations of the event’s organizers, prominent among them Al Sharpton, whose paycheck and existence on the national scene depends on furthering the illusion of widespread racial discord, prejudice and injustice.

Even allowing for the excesses of oratory, the younger King’s speech deliberately misrepresented the historical, legal and factual record, which is this: a mixed-race citizen was pre-judged to be guilty of racism and murder by the color of his skin, and then demonized in order to provide a rallying point for a race-based political agenda. The civil rights establishment, aided by a complicit media and irresponsible politicians, distorted the facts of a tragic encounter so effectively that most Africans-Americans believe the lies rather than the facts, and bullied a politicized prosecution into bringing a criminal case to trial it could only win by jury intimidation, for it did not have sufficient evidence. Against all odds, a courageous jury embodied the best of the American justice system by properly acquitting an unpopular defendant who could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard that is crucial to maintaining racial justice in the courts. Despite this inspiring display of character, the organizers of today’s event, its supporters, and most of those in attendance, have chosen to judge those jurors as biased, comparing them to the bigoted jurors in the Emmett Till murder trial, based on the color of their skin.

How immensely hypocritical, destructive and sad.

Martin Luther King propelled the cause of racial harmony and justice forward on August 28, 1963.

Today his son made pushed that cause backward to-day in favor of hate, suspicion, and ignorance, 50 years later.

13 thoughts on “Unethical Quote of The Month: Martin Luther King III

      • I have found one on-line report on the event, which, as I expected, belies the claim of the Woolly Mammoth rep who commented here that this was going to be a an open and balanced forum. In fact, the program was run by activists, who, among other things, managed to somehow to make calling for a boycott of the Koch brothers relevant to Trayvon Martin.

        I’m not especially happy with the report, which is from a right wing website and itself seems determined to make the session seem as bad as possible, but she didn’t have to work too hard, it seems. The telling quote:

        “While many on the panel believed Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race, others saw it as a failure of the justice system, faulting the jury’s inability to see past Martin’s black skin and Zimmerman’s white complexion. The six-person jury consisted of five white women and one Hispanic woman. “Emmett Till was a young prince who broke our hearts years ago, but now, I guess what I want to say is I don’t want to blame George Zimmerman,” said Davis, an adjunct professor at Montgomery College. “I want us to look at the system that let him free and not make it personal … It’s the propagation of fear and we have to take our legal system back from fear.”

        So apparently what we had there, and what we have here, is a media/Left/ Race-Victim Activist coalition creating an echo-chamber designed to rewrite the facts of the Zimmerman case and use it to undermine racial progress and make the African-American community progressively more paranoid and angry.In the process, Whistleblowers, meanwhile, will be intimidated and marginalized by denouncing them as racist. I was alerted yesterday that the I am the subject of a long and nasty thread on a DC theater community Facebook page (which, of course, never dared to tag me so I would be aware of it and could respond, if I was foolish enough to do so (and I can be pretty foolish). It even managed to dredge up the denigrating “Jack Marshall” entry in the Urban Dictionary, which was put there by either one of the pot advocates I angered or one of the out-of work lawyers…I don’t recall which. Pointing out the fact that Trayvon Martin was NOT shot because of his race and that the Zimmerman jury was NOT racist, but courageous and correct, is itself racism, you see.
        The echo chamber, repeated lies and appeals to ignorance are bad; the cowardice and cynicism of those who know better and refuse to speak up and protest are worse, in my view.

        • I appreciate your comments, and I am sad both for you and for those who call themselves your enemies that they would so clumsily make you their enemy like they have. “Echo chamber” is the term that I had been hunting for, and somehow could not bring back to mind, about the freeze meeting and the race meeting. I think you have the coalition’s members pegged precisely. Other than that, now WHY did you link to that report??? You just KNEW I would fall in love with Melissa Quinn at 1st sight, didn’t you?

  1. What truly makes it absolutely despicable is that people have a tendency to view offspring as the spiritual torch bearers of their ancestors. Lending 100% credence to MLK3’s words to anyone who doesn’t bother to think or analyze as well as those words may as well have come from MLKjr himself (in their eyes).

    • Yes. I’m in despair over this, between Woolly’s disingenuous “town meeting,” to rationalizations from smart people like Barry, to the unwillingness of people who know better to stand up and say “cut it out!” And now this pious hatefulness, on a day when that should have been the last thing to say.

      • Well, I’m a bit more cynical Jack. We’re on a precipice. The decisive confluence of several social forces favorable to a specific world-view is occurring now. Those who espouse that world view see how close to winning the game they are and don’t care about playing any tactic, pulling out all the stops to finish it. Only, if they win, we aren’t going to have the kind of world the Founders envisioned, we won’t have rule of law, we won’t have free enterprise. we won’t have merit based achievement, we won’t have due process, we won’t have a deliberative legislative process, we won’t have individual initiative and empowerment, we won’t have decentralized government, we won’t have protection from the temporary passions of the mob, we won’t have right to privacy or security of our property and persons, we won’t have social contract.

        nah, MLK3’s transgression just plays to a misinformed and misguided mob being manipulated by people who are in end game mode.

        Signed,
        Cynicus Maximus

        • “CM” (might make it my nickname for you from now on), you said it so much better than I could – everything you said at 11:37 pm above. My only quibble is that the un-founders would have us all suck-up to (and in) a perverse system of merit-based achievement.

          The politics of division are winning – insofar as what they are accomplishing, and what they are intended to accomplish further, can be called winning. There are those who want “revolution,” and if they continue being “successful,” they will most certainly get it – and they, too, will lose everything they might have wanted to win, and more.

  2. There a simple explanation for such an insipid remark on the 50th anniversary of his father’s famous speech: Martin Luther King III is not very bright.. Sticking someone in the spotlight for the simple reason of blood relations is ludicrous.

    • Are all the people who are saying similar things not very bright? Diabolical? Hopelessly confused? Brainwashed? Poisonously biased? It would help to know.

      The sons and daughters of our greatest heroes so often do this kind of thing, and they get away with it, out of misplaced respect. The fact that MLK 3’s father was a brilliant visionary doesn’t mean we should not call out Sonny for being a naive and irresponsible hack.

Leave a Reply to Jj Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.