Okay let me explain the title, it can't really be argued that Martin didn't make brilliant strides for civil rights in America. But MLK was a woman beater, a communist (only issue was it's atheism), womanizer, apparently he had a thing for white women lol. Plagiarist, plagiarized many speeches and much of his dissertation, and supposedly watched as a friend and pastor raped a woman (according to an FBI report). Why do I mention this? Not to disparage MLK's work but just to point out that he's human. When you have the Jordan B Petersonite advice of...

"CLEAN YOUR ROOM BEFORE YOU CRITICIZE THE WORLD BUCKO." Ironically Peterson being a man who did and does no such thing. I'm sure his rooms a shithole and he too has mental health problems, which he's shown again and again proving himself to be a hypocrite. He still has plenty of critics of the world, but Peterson is besides my point. My point is that many historical characters that have formed cultural and political movements themselves haven't always been good men or women. Examples - Abraham Lincoln may have ended slavery but didn't really want to just had to, to dissolve the Confederacy. His plan was to repatriate all blacks to Africa. In fact I believe the first African American to be invited into the White House to speak with the sitting president was Fredrick Douglass to discuss repatriation after the war.  I mentioned Churchill in the previous thread. Many many men who themselves might have a dark side and be shady characters have despite that become the figure head of social movements and achieved great things. It stops being about who you are as a person, you become a symbol, you become something more than a person when people rally around you. For instance all John Lennon said about peace he still would beat Yoko Ono.  T.S Elliot, Miles Davis, Charlie Chaplin, Gandhi, Teresa, Henry Ford, Charles Dickens, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Pablo Picasso, Steve Jobs, Bobby Fischer. All these men had personal problems and many figures that had huge and positive impact still may as individuals be unethical characters. So I believe it's unfair to dismiss an individual just because that individual may have done immoral things at some point in their lives.   @Leo Gura The governments file on MLK will not be unsealed until 2027. But he was likely a revolutionary communist, plagiarized his dissertation so it's tough to call him a real doctor. Plagiarized even his "I HAVE A DREAM" speech. On the night of his assassination was actually beating up 3 white prostitutes. Good luck really finding any evidence that Andrew Tate has been kicking the shit out of prostitutes. The CIA who were recording King said that when he would fuck these hookers he'd say shit like "IM FUCKING FOR JESUS, IM FUCKING FOR GOD NOW". Tell me that's not narcissism lol. It also takes a degree of sociopathy to happily kick the shit out of hookers. There's also plenty of accusations that King would use church money to pay hookers and have orgies.  But despite all that the civil rights movement didn't fail. What matters is the movement and what the media choose to shine a light on. I think it's not hard to say that MLK in many respects could be a toxic leader. OKAY FINE, that doesn't mean he's not a great man. Nor does it mean that his achievements for civil rights haven't held up in the long-term. America's come a long way since the 60s has it not?