MLK’s Pink Giraffes

People are going certifiably loopy over the MLK revelations:

Via Clarissa, MLK gets #metoo’d. Somehow it’s news he was an adulterer and had unsavoury proclivities. The author of the original article (here) had been writing about this since the eighties, if memory serves. It only becomes a hot issue now because it can be used to virtue signal. I remember about ten years ago CBC radio broadcast many MLK speeches praising the man. How times change.

One can keep saying “rape, rape, rape”, and people will clap their eyes and repeat “but what’s the big deal with adultery?” ad infinitum. I’m finding it impossible to meet a person who wouldn’t use the word “adultery” in this context. Adultery is as relevant to the issue as pink giraffes but you can’t use giraffes to deflect. Otherwise, people would keep mentioning it all the time.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “MLK’s Pink Giraffes”

  1. I haven’t had the time nor the inclination to look at these stories in detail, but is it clear whether the rape allegations are based on transcripts themselves or summaries of transcripts by the FBI? Summaries may or may not be interpreted differently than transcripts or recordings…. if transcripts would be second hand information a summary of a transcript is more like third hand information.

    I’m just having a hard time imagining people in relatively normal conditions (that is not during war or occupation or prison or something similarly extreme) watching a rape and laughing and/or verbally encouraging it…. it doesn’t fit the rest of the information… I’m almost getting a Rolling Stone vibe from the story. The affairs and general sexual excesses are all too mundane and fit the narrative of a high profile high status man all too well, but this piece doesn’t fit… that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily wrong but the discrepancy needs to be accounted for.

    More information is needed about exactly what this charge is based on.

    Like

    1. ” if transcripts would be second hand information a summary of a transcript is more like third hand information”

      and a handwritten note (added by who?) to a summary is no more than fourth hand information.

      the alleged rape is still a concern, but not one that merits massive amounts of attention until more information is available…

      Like

  2. I just clicked to the document in question and the source are handwritten notes added to a typed summary.

    That is not very convincing. I’m going to reserve judgement until something more definitive appears.

    Who added the info? Why?

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32989551.pdf#page=18

    quote: “When one of the women protested that she did not approve of this, the Baptist minister immediately and forcibly raped her”

    This sounds more like some kind of porn video than something that would happen in the real world…. ‘immediately’? the mechanics…. don’t work.

    Like

    1. The tapes will only be available in 10 years. Garrow, though, is an unhinged progressive and an Obama hagiographer. He has no reason to want this to be true. If he’s writing about it, he must be very sure.

      In his world, you become a pariah for this kind of thing.

      Like

      1. ” Garrow, though, is an unhinged progressive and an Obama hagiographer”

        So? Lots of unhinged progressives didn’t/don’t like King for not being radical enough… (I’ve heard him referred to as a Tom and worse…)

        I’d like to see more evidence than a handwritten note on a typed summary, evidence that passes the smell test.

        And the handwritten part doesn’t even completely make sense… what is the ‘have’ above Baptist Minister?

        Like

        1. I’ll be waiting for the evidence but in the meantime I’ll withdraw myself from the “Why I want to be like MLK” high school essay contest because it feels weird.

          Like

          1. ” I’ll withdraw myself”

            Oh yes, that’s weary (no matter who the object of worship is).
            In a sense it’s part of what some sociologists call the American Civil Religion where national documents (constitution) national symbols (flag, eagle, liberty belle) and selected leaders (Lincoln, Washington etc) are imbued with a kind of sacred reverence that’s missing from European nationalism.

            Despite never holding office King was clearly being given the equivalent of sainthood in the American Civil Religion (along with FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt among the more recently anointed) but that happened far too soon, several decades before it would make sense. Long dead figures who are no longer part of living memory (like Sojourner Truth or Harriet Tubman or Nat Turner) make more sense…

            Like

  3. I’m at the point where I’ll no longer say “Oh, there’s no way that guy would ever…” I can believe anything of anyone.

    But I need a better source than summaries written by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. That organization was hardly known for its fair treatment of MLK…

    If I hear a tape or if a person who was present for the events comes forward, I’ll believe it. Until then I have to reserve judgment.

    Like

  4. I’m still waiting for all the belated revelations surrounding The Beatles to come out.
    And, to date, still no-one’s ever “batted an eyelash” over all the outrageous escapades of Mick Jagger and his illustrious bandmates over the years.
    “Heroes” and “gurus” ….

    Like

Leave a 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.