Yes, I happen to have on hand the opinion polls of all 300m Americans. Or I could sample an opinion poll from the heated political context from the 1960's. (sarcasm)
Historical hindsight is what I have. If MLK was universally hated, his murder wouldn't have made such an impact on the consciousness of the enitre country. The fact it did shows that people were listening to him. What you appear to be suggesting is that white American have and always have been against MLk's message and i'd really like to see your sources for that becausde history has shown that has not been the case.
You ask "show me a poll that says white people supported MLK"; none were ever concluded on a national scale.
No, it shouldn't. Change should happen as a result of acceptance of reasonable arguments, not violent actions, but history has also shown that those with the most reasonable arguments are considered the most 'dangerous' but their opponents.But there's a difference in this position, isn't there?
Dr King was a prominent Black man and his death held the same shock value as (for want of a better phrase) the dead Kennedys.
Remembering where you were when 'xxxx' happened is different to actually thinking the man was 'great' or civil rights would have been meted out much sooner than it was.
Should it take the murder of a peaceful person to enact change...?
Tbh mate it's more the manner in which he was shoving his view down my throat and calling me an idiot I had issue with - happy to play that game all day. He'd do better to adopt your own approach of patient reasoning with those you disagree with which is to be admired. 'March peacefully' has health benefits as part of an exercise program but perhaps limits in its ability to effect social change! You have to cause some inconvenience and disruption to get a protest noticed, but it's a fine line between that and going so far that the sympathy you seek/need gets destroyed - see blm or environment protests. I won't pretend to be the judge of that fine line, and unfortunately those in the heat of protest are probably not in the best place to do so either.
As for a solution / pathway to peace I think the perhaps unwelcome answer is time. We are on a continuum somewhere well along the line from slavery towards race not mattering. There were places in England 100 years ago where the sectarian divide between catholics and protestants was like Belfast in the 70's. It just got ground down by time, intermarriage, and irrelevance as we became more secular. I think racism is similar. Gradually more mixed relationships, mixed race kids, mixing in communities will make race less and less relevant - war, comets from space, pandemics might in one strike make race irrelevant.
I choose the end goal of race not mattering over equality as that is where I feel we should be heading - to the point where someones skin colour becomes as unimportant as their hair colour and to celebrate heritage on the basis of any race becomes an anachronism. The bad news is that human nature being as it is, unless we get an alien invasion that we can all hate instead, my particular version of Luthers dream may take a while yet. Easy for me to accept as a white bloke obviously, but if we look at the trajectory in places like the US and South Africa over the last 50 years there is hope.
I get the frustration and that as a white bloke it's easy for me to be philosophical about the need for water to go under the bridge and time to elapse. I fear the truth is that although protest / activism can nudge humanity along that trajectory a little bit quicker, we frankly just need some people / generations to die and be replaced by less prejudiced humans. I accept this is not much use to those on the receiving end today.Again, sentiments I can agree with, but time is a commodity we may not have. Most of society's ills can be waived with an act of a pen. So 'why isn't it?' should be the question.
Tracey Chapman once sung "If not now, then when?" and this is the absolute truth of these matters.
And I would say because wealth and power are extracted from such situations.
But, overall, I think we're getting somewhere!!
Who da thunk it...?!!
Of course he was; he saw an uphill battle, the minds of the people he needed to win over and the years of indoctrinated racism he had to reverse. It must have been exceptionally frustrating for him, knowing all the institutions he had to fight against, the toes he would have to step on to get the progress that was required for a nation he genuinely loved.
He held a message of social progress, one that would ultimately benefit everyone, but the entrenched views of bigots hindered that progress and was often perceived as confrontational, purely because it was a reality that middle America had to admit to, but refused.
MLK tried every attempt to address that message peacefully, whilst also having to atone for the actions of those who he sided with whose frustrations and patience had run out, but knew was borne from those same frustrations. It's why he's so revered; he could easily have gone with the message of "burn it all down!", but knew that it was harder to rebuild a house from ashes.
It is generally anecdotal, I will freely admit to that, but it's not one borne from personal assumption but from historical observation. History showed that across the country in the years following his murder, all American peoples were genuinely so shocked about his murder that collectively there was a societal discussion to bring about change, one supported across all backgrounds (except the usual bigoted aspects).
Its one that has been continuing for decades, although has slowed to some extent in recent years. MLK's message has not been forgotten, which so easily could have been if not supported on a national basis.
I'm still a knob, but i'm a knob who is trying to understand, to relate from no frame of reference other than my own life experiences.I find this to be the best response you've given. It is much more insightful than how you started.
Perhaps your earlier messaging leaned towards that he demanded peace no matter what, which was untrue, especially towards his end. The fact that he 'understood' other voices marked a huge positional change in his thinking, if not voiced out directly. All nuance where people hear what they want to hear and why that 'change' is largely drowned out.
But, just to recap, both positions are true of the hate spewed towards Dr King before and the love given after his passing.
No, it shouldn't. Change should happen as a result of acceptance of reasonable arguments, not violent actions, but history has also shown that those with the most reasonable arguments are considered the most 'dangerous' but their opponents.
That shows the strength and measure of MLK. He was changing opinions and those who opposed him, feared him, because of it.
All I can do is imagine how i'd feel if I was continously persecuted in the same manner, and in that stance I do find that the reaction is justifable, BUT at the same time I also question the consequences of it or how it affectively brings about the change that is desired wiothout appearing to be a perperator.Would you, then, understand the byproduct of violence when the good people are forcibly taken away, continually?
And that's not to say that accepting the violence we see today is a good thing, but it must be understandable when people see no justice ever meted out when PoC/ the poor are punished unjustly.
This is more extension of the past where nothing of note ever changes, but are continually told it will take time.
No, it doesn't have to! This is why people want change now!
With that said, I think there are dishonest actors that have played a part in the violence that happened across the US and to some degree, here.
There have been racist opportunists that have put out messages or started the looting and middle class to poor opportunists that have carried on the stealing.
There people are separate from the true activists that want change.
I'm still a knob, but i'm a knob who is trying to understand, to relate from no frame of reference other than my own life experiences.
I'm just not onboard with the "burn it all down" narrative that i've seen from a minority, granted it does appear to be mostly spoused by those from my own demographic, who I consider to be mere opportunists, but that's another debate.
My views on Dr King, given all we've seen following his death, the legacy, how people revere him, I cannot see how in America that his message wasn't widely received and that the initial hostility was of a vocal minority that later became silenced by a moderate majority (by which I mean your average common American citizen)
Tackling the institutional racism that exists in the judicial and authoritative aspects of American society, and in some cases in the UK, is still one to be addressed. I'm merely one who is wholly supportive and advocate of the "you attract more bees with honey than vinegar" types, irrespective of the debate on it's effectiveness in achieving the intended goal of the incentive.