Look at your quotes... MLK promoted free speech, not censorship. He also promoted civil disobedience, not violence. MLK was not embracing violence but rejecting complacency.
As a democracy, we the people, all of us, black and white together have the ability to change the laws... and we have. However, if we allow racial identity to divide us, then African Americans as 13% of the population will lose and that is an important statistic to remember. My interests lie with my future grandchildren's future, five of whom are black.
A segregated world, whether imposed on them by whites or self-imposed is a world where they lose. Integration must be the goal and that starts with respecting each person as an individual (based on their character) and not a member of an identity group (based on their skin color). MLK got it.
MLK is correct, true peace comes when all Americans enjoy the same rights especially those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And since our inception our country has made progress towards that goal, albeit with resistance from those opposed to equal justice.
But equal justice means equal justice, it does not mean equity based on skin color, but equal treatment and opportunity. King was clear, "the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination" are things our society should not tolerate... but the failure to understand that means skin color should never replace character or merit, or you preserve in one form or another racism... even if it being used in an affirmative way.
One thing to keep clear was MLK's audience was not blacks, but Americans. His message resonated with all Americans in contrast with Malcolm X, who message was grounded in identity politics.
Wokeism has reintroduced racism and identity politics as acceptable. No longer is merit and character the defining reasons for selecting one person over another, instead skin color has become a tool used to "share power" between identity groups rather than eliminate identity groups in favor of individual justice.
MLK was not a pacifist, but he likewise did not embrace violence. His message was to America, unlike Malcolm X's message that was largely aimed at blacks. The value of race statistics is to identify if racism exists, not to promote racism.
As an example, the disproportionate representation of blacks in the NBA does not appear due to racism. So, the statistic calls for looking under the hood and if talent is the reason the NBA is disproportionately black, then that is fine.
The over representation of Asians in certain technology fields is a statistic worth noting, but if it reflects merit and talent, it is fine.
On the other hand, if the statistics suggest that blacks routinely get longer sentences for the same crimes as whites, that is not okay. That is not a function of merit or talent, but clearly skin color.
MLK went one step further and for his fans like me, he made an extremely insightful statement to Harry Belafonte.
According to Belafonte, King responded, “I’ve come upon something that disturbs me deeply. We have fought hard and long for integration, as I believe we should have, and I know we will win, but I have come to believe that we are integrating into a burning house. I’m afraid that America has lost the moral vision she may have had, and I’m afraid that even as we integrate, we are walking into a place that does not understand that this nation needs to be deeply concerned with the plight of the poor and disenfranchised. Until we commit ourselves to ensuring that the underclass is given justice and opportunity, we will continue to perpetuate the anger and violence that tears the soul of this nation. I fear I am integrating my people into a burning house.”
Belafonte added, “That statement took me aback. It was the last thing I would have expected to hear, considering the nature of our struggle.”
Belafonte said he asked King, “What should we do?” and King replied that we should, “become the firemen.” King said, “Let us not stand by and let the house burn.”
So, the real question we should all be concerned about are how to eliminate identity politics from our society and focus on individual merit and talent. And just as importantly, how do we equip the poor with the educational tools and societal values, that will help them escape poverty.
Every poor child needs access to a good education, we cannot be ideologically wed to public schools or universal school choice, we need to be wed to providing poor children the education they need to realize their potential.
Access to education should never be the reason a child is condemned to poverty. Concurrent with that they need to know, that they can shape their future and that they are not victims even if the struggle may be harder simply because of the world they grow up in. As Thomas Sewell points out the eldest child will on average enjoy advantages that his or her younger siblings can never replicate, but every child has a chance to succeed. The older child may enjoy the "privilege" of being born first, which is something society cannot change, but every child should have a chance to succeed.
