Monday, January 16, 2006

Our Nation's Favorite Plagiarist Day

This is the first of two rants of the day. Consider it a 2 for 1 special. Today is MLK, a day in honor of a man whose work was nearly completely fraudulent, whose personal life was an insult to Christian morals, whose political behavior was (to put it mildly) highly shady, and who nonetheless commands a ridiculous degree of near-total adulation. In my role as the unpleasant truth teller (not because I am unpleasant, but because I deal in unpleasant truths), it is my responsibility to, in a small way at least, look at some of the reasons why MLK should not be the celebrated person he is, even for those of us who (like myself) are against the evils of racism in whatever form they appear. After that we will discuss some personal views of mine about MLK and how he has appeared in my own personal literature.

Thou Shalt Not Steal

MLK was a fraud. There is no way to deal with the truth about his flagrant disregard for standards of academic honesty or for his concern about giving credit to the work of others that he so shamefully stole without any credit or attribution being given. It is quite possible that MLK never had any original thought in his entire body of work. At any rate, it is somewhat certain that his doctorate degree is about as worthwhile as Charmin double-ply toilet paper (I think that's an original simile).

But let this not rest as a matter of opinion. The following site (http://www.martinlutherking.org/plagiarism.html) contains much useful information (and some dead links unfortunately) about the serious nature of MLK's plagiarism problem. A substantial portion, perhaps a majority, of the words of MLK's doctoral thesis were lifted from various authors without any attribution. This is theft on a grand scale. His stolen student essays, for example, are used as textbook lessons in plagiarism at some universities (such as the University of British Columbia). Even his most famous speech (the "I Have A Dream" speech) was stolen from a *nearly identical* speech by a man named Archibald Carey to the 1952 Republican National Convention. A side-by-side comparison of the speeches can be found at (http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html). The site is currently down, but I don't know how long that will last.

Stealing the ideas and words of other people is wrong. While some plagiarism is inadvertent, the wholesale thievery from MLK is evidence of someone who did not respect the intellectual property of ideas from other people. By appropriating the thoughts and exact phrases of other people who were much more profound and original thinkers (but, sadly, less famous), MLK has acquired a reputation for eloquence and intelligence he did not deserve. He was the Milli Vanilli of divinity studies, and his doctorate degree was not earned. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter the fame or political importance of the people involved. No one is above the law, or above accountability for their actions.

No Reverend At All

MLK had a problem with sex. He was far from alone in that, of course. Like many religious leaders (without naming names), he utilized his position as a supposed man of God in order to fulfull his many adulterous desires. Supposedly, of the 13 FBI tapes on MLK, 12 of them deal with his sexual escapades. Who knows what his widow thinks of all of that, but it reflects poorly on his character. Some of the tapes apparently involve his party-boy behavior before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Stockholm and involve his pleasure at being able to sleep with a white woman. I will withold comment on that.

What his behavior, which was apparently used by some in attempts to blackmail him for ulterior political motives (itself wrong), tells us is that MLK was not a person to take God and his religious beliefs very seriously. Just as he did not respect God's command not to seal, he did not respect God's concern for the sanctity of marriage. He was careless and arrogant, and thought himself above the standards that he as a minister sought to hold everyone else to. That reeks of the most disgusting hypocrisy. No human beings are perfect, but we should demand that heroic figures at least be good, not dispicable presumptuous sinners. They must at least struggle against their baser natures, rather than revel in them.

Political Machinations

MLK was a political opportunist. His personality is of the type that is valued in our society (which reflects poorly on us), and that is someone of no original or deep thoughts or moral convictions but merely someone who is skilled at marketing and manipulation of emotional sentiment. Think of Bill Clinton, for example. Same situation is there. Our society is sucker for anyone who can play on emotions, and those who can appear to be sympathetic will gain attention and become legends even without character or depth. That this is largely due to the emotionalism and lack of intellectual depth among the Baby Boomer generation is itself a big part of the problem.

The political machinations of MLK can be shown by his shallow flirtation with Communists. After all, despite the ulterior motives of the Communists, they were early defenders of the rights of blacks (as was, we must not forget, the Party of Lincoln, with less ulterior motives). Jewish leftist intellectuals were among the key figures in anticipating and leading the movement against segregation that eventually led to the destruction of Jim Crow laws. So, regardless of his convictions (if he had any), MLK demonstrated at least a shallow interest in their ideology.

Then, in the mid-1960's, when black radicals became more influential, MLK toed a more black nationalistic line. This included demands for reparations for slavery, a craven attempt to despoil the hard earned wealth of white America, and a completely unacceptable demand. The debt of slavery was paid in full by the deaths of the civil war. If anyone should pay reparations, it is those nations and peoples that sold their brethren and neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. Then again, they already have enough debts of their own. At any rate, it appears MLK was not that serious about reparations, but was merely trying to earn his bona fides as a black nationalist. He did not live long enough to demonstrate any true moral or political convictions.

MLK in the literature of Nathan Albright

I live just off of MLK, or SR-574 (or Buffalo Avenue), as I prefer to call it. To the extent possible, I generally prefer not to even mention the name. However, there is one way in which the name of MLK has appeared in my literature, in several of my plays. For my high school plays (which include "A Quiet Springtime Love" and "The Rape of Nicholas"), I renamed my school Martin Luther King High School in order to mock both the school and MLK. The school was not that great of a place (and its real name is not MLKHS, but rather C. Leon King High School), but just like MLK streets are in the worst neighborhoods, MLKHS was not that good of a school in fiction. It all makes sense. I once wrote, before finding out the truth about MLK, a rather nice essay about the Letters from a Birmingham Jail, but I suppose I had better write glowing praise for those who were responsible for the thoughts therein, rather than for the thief who stole the beautiful and weighty words and passed them off as his own. So should you.

3 comments:

Nathan said...

And that is a good thing, that the lynching count is way down (almost to zero). I would like to think that has more to do with our advance as a civilization, but that is something we can quibble about. Still, making the day a day of paens to a wicked man is not a good thing. We should not celebrate wickedness at all. And to think we got rid of President's Day for this?

Richard said...

We still have President's Day. It's the third Monday in February -- or for some Floridians: that holiday right after the Daytona 500.

So let's compare the two you've posted about here. MLK + HWA both seemed to plagiarize material. Both may have had s*x problems. The titles of both (Dr. for one, Apostle for the other) may be open to dismissal or ridicule.

HWA was not openly political -- but Church of God members (by and large) tend to be at opposite poles from Dr. King. Maybe that's why I don't hear messages about Dr. King in UCG, and hardly read any articles about him.

Who did more to improve this world, all in all?

Nathan said...

It's an open question as to who benefitted the world more. MLK is certainly more famous to the general public, but the two are rather more alike than different. Both of them have questionable legacies, neither of them deserved their titles, both of them have such a high regard in certain communities that commenting in the slightest way negatively about them is taken as a mortal insult, both of them made very questionable moves towards the end of their lives (Mr. Armstrong with his dictaorial policies post 1979 in the reign of the Ayatollahs, MLK in his support of bogus reparations for slavery), and both of them stood for noble ideals (even if both were flawed individuals, perhaps even more flawed than average, though perhaps it was merely their power, as public religious figures, that led to the extent of their difficulties). I think both of them could be used to improve the world--HWA notably in the restoration of Christianity to apostolic purity (a task which is still woefully incomplete), and MLK (however he stole the support for his opinion) stood for the removal of civil disabilities for a large segment of America's population. There are certainly good things to say about both men. That said, since so many say only good about them, I (tending to be a person who seeks to go against the common grain in order to provide balance) chose to comment on the more negative aspects of the legacy of both, as a reminder that both of them were mere human beings, and not above the sins and errors that buffet us all. It is highly irritating to me to hear people, any people, spoken of reverently. We should rather respect all as human beings, but not respect anyone else more highly than they deserve, lest we fail to improve in those areas wherein they fell woefully short.