Here is a link from Cecil which mentions some unflattering facts about Martin Luther King, Jr. Almost every discussion about the United States’ founding fathers will not hesitate to mention that they were wealthy and owned slaves. Should discussions of MLK always be prefaced by his love of prostitutes?
What’s your opinion? Surely you’ve got one.
I don’t feel that anyone deifies MLK, even figuratively. And like many another American hero, he had his faults and foibles. But, over and above his towering leadership of the American civil rights movement, which is important enough in itself, he’s one of the twentieth century’s two or three leading exemplars and leaders in nonviolent civil disobedience (satyagraha, the Indian name for it, from Mohandas Gandhi who was the foremost exemplar). I would venture to guess, from a parochial American standpoint, that he’s probably as well-known worldwide for being the classic satyagraha leader, after Gandhi, as, say, Nelson Mandela, arguably the third man in that trinity (and also a deeply flawed man who transcended his flaws to show great leadership).
King ranks with Ben Franklin, Hamilton, Lee, Henry Clay, and two or three other select Americans who were never President but who left an indelible mark on America.
That to me is reason enough.
That Jefferson and other founding fathers owned slaves is notable because of the hypocrisy associated with advocating liberty for all but then actively keeping people in bondage.
That kind of hypocrisy is absent with MLK and prostitution, so it’s rather irrelevant. Yeah, he was a reverend, but he didn’t become famous for being a moralist. He became famous for fighting for civil rights.
In addtion to Mr. King’s accomplishment, honoring him is a way of sticking my thumbs in the eyes of the racist murdering bastard who shot him. Every respectful thought about Mr. King is a little bit of pee on the grave of his murderer. It’s one of the finest forms of revenge.
What’s wrong with banging prostitutes? I don’t see marital infidelity as being anywhere near the same ballpark as owning slaves. I also don’t see it as having anything to do with his accomplishments.
People do not achieve greatness because they have no character flaws. They become great when they can make the world better in spite of having character flaws.
I guess I have a lot more in common with Martin Luther King than I do with the founding fathers. How 'bout that! 
That’s an extreme exaggeration. It’s true that King’s failures are not nearly as well-known; I hadn’t heard about any of them before I read Cecil’s column in 2003.
No, but as others have said, his failings had a lot less to do with his historical impact. Of course, we’ve had just one or two threads around here documenting the hypocrisy of preachers who liked to drink, gamble, bang prostitutes, or even do meth with male prostitutes.
Alright, I’ve spent probably half an hour debating whether or not to post this, because I think it’ll get me killed, but…
I think that some of the people who know about King’s indiscretions don’t talk about them for fear of being called racist. (Racists, of course, love to talk about them and exaggerate them.) Granted, it’s not a topic that comes up in conversation anyway, but it may be a factor in the lack of knowledge about what King did. It’s also true that MLK’s image has been protected by the people around him in a way that the Founders weren’t - which is understandable, given the differences in the times they lived in.
It’s true that what King did on the side (even if it’s not in keeping with his status as a minister) is not relevant to what he did as a human being, and his legacy is incredible. We don’t have to weigh every single aspects of a person’s life in discussing their impact on history. I know Jefferson was wrong to own slaves, but I think we can still praise his positive accomplishments. Stalin may have cheated when he played cards, or he may have helped little old ladies across the street whenever he got the chance. It doesn’t change the big picture.
HAW!
Seriously, who deifies MLK? He was a human being. Which means he probably used bad language at times, had morning breath… and perhaps even some real issues about marital fidelity. But as others have said, he isn’t known and revered because of his marital fidelity. He didn’t make his mark in academia. (In fact, I know a classmate of his from Morehouse College. He wasn’t a brilliant student. He even earned a “C” in oratory class.)
Still, there is a legitimate point to be made about MLK’s indiscretions. I think a lot of it was hidden because his widow was still alive. It doesn’t, in my opinion, make him any less of a giant in civil rights.
The main problem with MLK is precisely that he is made a far less interesting and complex figure: and as a whole, the civil rights movement is made less complex and interesting as well. For instance, in all their retrospectives of MLK, the media pretty much does paint him as a saint without any depth or controversy. Forget his private indiscretions: the media convieniently leaves out the fact that it raked him over the coals and called him all sorts of nasty things over his anti-war and ait-poverty stances later in his career. The way they tell it, it’s like he gave the i have a dream speech and then was assinated the next day.
However, I think the OP is in general pushing a conservative fanwank position that only rich white men ever have any of their flaws pointed out. The reality is that you find shallow caricatures of everybody nearly everywhere, in history class too.
Look no further than the recent John Lennon celebrations for another example.
A slight nitpick which does not detract from your criticism as a whole: Cecil’s column does not substantiate the prostitution claim. Under the circumstances though, whether or not they were profession women is hardly relevant.
Dr. King influenced the direction of this country in extraordinary ways. And all of us benefitted from his leadership beyond anything that I had ever imagined during my lifetime. But I’ve never known anyone to deify him. He is honored and celebrated which is fitting.
As more and more of his personal flaws are revealed, we acknowledge that he had feet of clay. We never thought that he was perfect. None of us are. Few of us would want our private lives recorded and made public by the FBI.
Our judgment should be based on what he accomplished.
Personally, I find the charges of plagiarism mentioned in the linked article to be of greater significance than Dr. King’s reported sexual habits. Nevertheless, he apparently got away with behavior that would have made front-page news today. This behavior, however, took place at a time when the press was far less willing to publish sexual innuendo concerning public figures, no matter , and what information may have leaked came mainly from sources that clearly had a serious axe to grind where King was concerned.
As for Dr. King being “deified”, I haven’t seen any evidence of that and apparently several other posters are baffled by this claim as well. Although the OP is not entirely clear on what he wants to argue, it seems that he is using “deified” in the sense that there is a conspiracy of silence (of the press? of liberals?) to avoid talking about Dr. King’s presumed sexual improprieties. This doesn’t actually seem to be the case, since, obviously, there is enough information around to have generated a Straight Dope column, and i’ve certainly heard this information elsewhere. If it is not hammered on much at the moment, it could be because he is, well, dead (murdered by a racist, actually) and because it had only the most tengential relationship with what Dr. King was trying to do: gain equal rights for his people.
Human nature being what it is, however, as Dr. King’s legacy fades further and further into history, a lot of what people not directly affected by it remember about him will be the sexual stuff after all.
Sorry, third sentence should have read “…no matter of what political stripe they might have been…”
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to remember people mostly for the positive things they do. That idea should probably be applied to all people, but that is probably too much to ask.
Because he had a dream, and when it comes to the future of the human race, let’s face it, most of us have nightmares.
I think Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has become deified into the secular American religion and stands within a pantheon that includes Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and maybe Tom Landry. I don’t think it was the result of any right or left wing conspiracy. People like to have heroes.
Marc
Wow. You’ve got streets named after you?
I’ll bet Old Stoneface went home after the games and kicked his dog.
Here in Tampa FL, we respectfully acknowledge all aspects of Dr. King’s legacy. Indeed, the boulevard named in his honor is locally famous for its numerous prostitutes.