In the annals of American history, few threads are as rich and as exploited as the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Revered for his unyielding commitment to nonviolence and racial equality, Dr. King’s image has been appropriated, his words selectively harvested to serve agendas far removed from his revolutionary intent. This intentional misappropriation is a glaring testament to the ongoing struggle against the very injustices he fought to dismantle.
Now heralded as a symbol of peace and racial harmony, Dr. King was, in the context of his time, a figure of immense controversy, a radical whose vision for America challenged the very foundations of its societal structures. Which is why I often find myself enraged by the posthumous celebration of his life and work by those who, had they lived during his era, would likely have been among his fiercest detractors.
To speak even more plainly, many of the people who now praise him and leverage his words, would have been jubilant at the news of his assassination.
A striking example of the hypocrisy surrounding Dr. King is seen in the political journey of John McCain. In 1983, McCain voted against the establishment of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, aligning with a subset of conservatives who viewed the holiday as unnecessary or who harbored deeper, unspoken hatred against King’s legacy. However, after King’s image underwent a posthumous transformation from a radical civil rights leader to a more universally accepted symbol of racial unity and American values, McCain, like others, later shifted his rhetoric. Often invoking King’s name in support of his own political agenda.
This opportunistic evolution — speaks to a broader pattern within many circles. It can not be overstated how many people resisted or outright opposed Dr. King’s agenda, which aimed to upend deeply entrenched racial and economic hierarchies. Yet, in the years following King’s death, as his legacy began to be sanitized and repackaged in more palatable terms, millions of individuals began to align themselves with a version of Dr. King that fit their narratives.
This strategic leveraging of Dr. King’s legacy is not born of ignorance but of a calculated effort to pacify and undermine the movements he inspired. By plucking his calls for peace and nonviolence out of the broader context of his struggle, these actors weaponize Dr. King’s words against those who continue his fight. The radical Dr. King, the man who confronted systemic racism, who challenged the economic and social structures that perpetuate inequality, is conveniently obscured behind a veil of selective memory.
So much so, that his daughter, Bernice King, often takes to social media to correct public figures from purposely misrepresenting her father’s words and legacy.
Dr. King’s philosophy, deeply rooted in the principles of nonviolent resistance, was indeed about love and understanding. However, it was also, and crucially, about the relentless pursuit of justice — a pursuit that was radical, incendiary, and deeply threatening to the status quo. His mission was not merely to dream of a better world but to actively dismantle the oppressive systems that denied that world to so many.
On April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination, Dr. King’s radicalism was on full display as he stood in the pulpit of Riverside Church in New York City and delivered a speech of profound significance and unflinching courage. Titled “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” this speech marked a pivotal moment in Dr. King’s journey as a civil rights leader, revealing the depth of his commitment to global justice and peace.
Dr. King’s Riverside address was not just a speech; it was a bold act of moral confrontation. In it, he extended his critique beyond the bounds of racial injustice in the United States to address the broader issues of war and poverty. He openly denounced the Vietnam War, a stance that was both controversial and risky, especially considering the widespread support for the war effort at the time. This was a radical departure from his earlier focus, a move that broadened the scope of his activism and demonstrated his belief in the interconnectedness of various forms of injustice.
The radicalism of Dr. King’s Riverside speech lay in its unapologetic condemnation of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam. He described the war as “a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit,” linking it to the broader issues of militarism, materialism, and racism. Dr. King’s critique of the war went beyond mere policy disagreement; it was a profound moral indictment of the entire American socio-political system.
He argued that the war in Vietnam was inextricably linked to the struggle for civil rights at home, asserting that the same government that was failing to protect the rights of its Black citizens was also committing atrocities abroad. He made the powerful case that the war was diverting resources and attention from the crucial domestic issues of poverty and inequality.
His stance at Riverside drew intense criticism from many quarters, including some allies in the civil rights movement. His decision to speak out against the war risked alienating supporters, fracturing the civil rights coalition, and diminishing his influence. But Dr. King was undeterred. His commitment to justice and peace compelled him to speak, regardless of the political cost.
This, coupled with his profound critique of white liberals made Dr. King one of America’s greatest threats in the eyes of many.
While he recognized the support of white allies as valuable in the fight for racial justice, Dr. King did not shy away from pointing out the limitations and contradictions inherent in the liberal stance of the time. His views, as articulated in his writings and speeches, reveal a deep understanding of the complexities of racial dynamics in America.
King’s perspective on white liberals is perhaps most famously encapsulated in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” written in 1963. In this seminal document, he expressed disappointment with the white moderate, whom he saw as more devoted to “order” than to justice. King lamented the fact that these individuals preferred a negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice. He observed that white moderates were all too often more concerned about the potential disruption caused by civil rights activism than the underlying injustice that the activism sought to address.
I’ve thought about this quite often since 2020, as many white liberals seemed more taken aback by corporations such as Target having their store windows broken, than they were by America’s constant breaking of Black and brown bodies. All while quoting Dr. King.
His critique of white liberals extended beyond mere disappointment. He was acutely aware of the tendency among some white supporters to also dictate the terms and pace of the civil rights movement. This paternalistic approach, often cloaked in a veneer of support, in fact, undermined the agency of Black Americans fighting for their rights and freedoms. Dr. King saw this as a subtle but insidious form of control, a way for white liberals to maintain their own sense of comfort and moral superiority without fully committing to the radical changes necessary for true equality.
Moreover, Dr. King recognized the danger of white complacency. He understood that the temporary alliance of some white liberals with the civil rights movement was often contingent on the movement not threatening their own privileged positions in society. He was wary of allies whose commitment to racial justice was superficial and who could easily retreat to the safety of their privileged lives when the fight for equality became too challenging or too threatening to their own status.
Despite these critiques, Dr. King did not dismiss the role of white allies outright. He acknowledged the genuine support of many white liberals and understood the strategic importance of building alliances across racial lines. However, his relationship with these allies was always marked by a sense of realism about the limits of their support and the need for the Black community to lead its own struggle for justice.
These sorts of examinations by Dr. King are still deeply relevant—yet often ignored— today.
At the time of his death in 1968, Dr. King’s approval rating stood at a mere 33%, a statistic that starkly contrasts with his near-universal acclaim today. This figure is telling; it speaks volumes about the climate of public opinion against him. Dr. King was not the widely beloved figure he is retrospectively made out to be. Instead, he was a disruptor, often vilified and considered a threat to the social order by a significant portion of the American populace.
The sanitization and appropriation of his legacy are not just acts of historical forgetfulness; they are acts of deliberate revisionism. By stripping his message of its radical edge, by reframing him as a universally beloved figure, these narratives conveniently ignore the societal divisions and entrenched opposition that he fought against. This revisionism serves to comfort those who, in Dr. King’s time, and now, would find his messages deeply uncomfortable and threatening to their worldview.
In recognizing this paradox, it becomes essential to confront the reality of Dr. King’s legacy. He was a man who inspired both deep admiration and profound animosity. His calls for justice and equality were met with resistance and hostility, not just from overt racists but also from those who professed a more subtle, insidious form of prejudice. And still do. The very individuals and institutions that now honor him are, in many cases, the ideological antagonists of his story.
The deliberate distortion of Dr. King’s message is also a tool for silencing contemporary activism —a form of gaslighting — a way to discredit and delegitimize the very movements that embody Dr. King’s legacy. Those who quote him to condemn the unrest and disruption of today’s activists, writers, and believers, ignore the fact that Dr. King himself was a disruptor, a radical force who recognized that true change often requires more than peaceful protest; it demands a fundamental upheaval of the social order.
To invoke his legacy in a manner that diminishes the validity of modern struggles against racial injustice is not just intellectually dishonest; it is a strategic move to maintain the very inequalities Dr. King sought to eradicate. It is an attempt to pacify, to coerce conformity under the guise of honoring his memory, all the while perpetuating the systemic injustices he dedicated his life to fighting.
The co-opting of Dr. King’s legacy serves as a mirror to society’s ongoing discomfort with the realities of racial injustice. It reveals a collective reluctance to engage with the full complexity of his mission and the uncomfortable truths about our own society that his work lays bare. By sanitizing his message, these actors attempt to erase the urgency and the radicalism that defined his life and work.
In this Hallmark card distortion, the radical Dr. King — the Dr. King who spoke truth to power, who stood firm against the tide of oppression, who demanded not just peace but justice — is lost. To honor his legacy truthfully, we must reject these manipulative narratives. We must embrace the totality of his message, recognizing that his vision was not merely one of harmony, but of radical transformation — a transformation that is still desperately needed today.
Frederick is a two-time New York Times bestselling author of “The Black Friend” (2020) and “Patriarchy Blues” (2022), “Better Than We Found It” (2022) and “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever – The Courage to Dream” (2022). He can be found on Substack.
