POLITICAL SMEARS IN U.S. NEVER CHANGE: THE NYT’S 1967 ATTACK ON MLK’S ANTI-WAR SPEECH

[Luminous Animal]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/07/political-rhetoric-us-never-changes-nyts-attack-mlks-anti-war-speeches/

A reader this morning pointed me to one of the most illustrative examples of this dynamic: an April 1967 New York Times editorial harshly chastising Martin Luther King for his anti-war activism. That editorial was published three days after King’s speech on the Vietnam War at the Riverside Church in New York City, which, as I have written about many times, was one of the most powerful (and radical) indictments of American militarism delivered in the 20th century.

Among other things, King denounced the U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” as well as the leading exponent of “the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.” He said “the war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” And he argued that no significant American problem can be cured as long as the country remains an aggressive and violent actor in the world: “if America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over.”

That has every element of the standard Washington attack on contemporary anti-war advocates: condemnation of U.S. militarism is “overly-simplistic,” ignores complexities and nuances, “slanders” our government leaders and military officials, and downplays or “whitewashes” the crimes of America’s enemies. It’s worth remembering that Washington smear merchants never change their script: they haul the same ones out regardless of the issue or who is doing the dissenting.

And now, the NY Times smearing of that pony wanting purist MLK…

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/liberation_curriculum/pdfs/vietnameditorials.pdf




[merrily]

1. How very embarrassing for the NYT.

As we all know, near the end of his all too brief life, MLK, Jr. had begun to address war and income inequality, both still controversial to this day and both still staunchly defended by the right and their shills.

Seeking abolition of Jim Crow and dignity for African Americans was "bad" enough, but at least all but the Jim Crow states could be self righteous about Jim Crow laws. (Of course, we all know abolition of Jim Crow does not end de facto discrimination or *wink wink* practices and they had no reason to suspect then how many anti-discrimination laws would follow.)

When MLK, Jr. crossed over from the vote and an end to Jim Crow to war and income inequality, he ceased being tolerable to supposedly liberal outlets.

As the saying goes, we can't handle the truth.

[Enthusiast]

4. They have no shame. Look at their track record.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. ,

,

[lovemydog]

3. k & r