Current Events > Martin Luther King Jr: "A riot is the language of the unheard"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nations summers of riots are caused by our nations winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention

Remember this quote when others try and quote him to condemn the riots.

---

The santaclausification of MLK Jr is a very well-established trend (I did not make up that term). Dude was a radical and would've been completely loathed by the far right today.

---

He doesn't advocate for riots. He basically says it's an inevitability when people feel unheard.
---

K181 posted...

The santaclausification of MLK Jr is a very well-established trend (I did not make up that term). Dude was a radical and would've been completely loathed by the far right today.

Yup, and they hated him back then too. Thanks for the new word btw.

---

It's meant to emphasize understanding instead of condemnation.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0BWXjJv5s

---

Both sides trying to use MLKs words to their benefit.

ohiostate124 posted...

Both sides trying to use MLKs words to their benefit.

B O T H S I D E S
O
T
H
S
I
D
E
S

---

K181 posted...

The santaclausification of MLK Jr is a very well-established trend (I did not make up that term). Dude was a radical and would've been completely loathed by the far right today.

And the far left would hate Malcom X today.

Vivec posted...

B O T H S I D E S
O
T
H
S
I
D
E
S

Am I wrong?

K181 posted...

(I did not make up that term).

It's still a dumb term

---

ohiostate124 posted...

Both sides trying to use MLKs words to their benefit.

Yeah but he was very clearly on one side

---

ohiostate124 posted...

Both sides trying to use MLKs words to their benefit.

Only one side is accurate however because MLK was not a modern right winger. He was a left wing radical arguing for racial and economic emancipation. The exact things that made him hated them and would make him hated now, because the people who argue for it now are hated.

---

ZMythos posted...

Remember this quote when others try and quote him to condemn the riots.

But that's the tail end of a speech where MLK was condemning riots!

---

Funny how the first part of that speech is getting left out a lot today...

"Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating."

MLK understood why riots took place, but he damn sure never advocated for them.

---

BeyondWalls posted...

Funny how the first part of that speech is getting left out a lot today...

MLK understood why riots took place, but he damn sure never advocated for them.

Leaving out important parts of quotes is what the left does best.

lilORANG posted...

He doesn't advocate for riots. He basically says it's an inevitability when people feel unheard.

Bingo. He is not condoning them, he is empathizing with them, and I am not a smidgen surprised that the usual suspects have no understanding of that word.

BeyondWalls posted...

Funny how the first part of that speech is getting left out a lot today...

MLK understood why riots took place, but he damn sure never advocated for them.

Ding ding ding

---

DuranOfForcena posted...

are you under the impression that he's advocating for rioting or something? because even without the part you left out, it's clear he's not. what is your deal?

Because those who are condemning the rioting more often than not don't care about the underlying issues that lead to them in the first place. They just see destruction of property and not the pain and suffering that led to such an uprising.


---

ohiostate124 posted...

And the far left would hate Malcom X today.

Explain

alimajor posted...

Explain

Based on some of his quotes, hed be considered mgtow today.

ZMythos posted...

Because those who are condemning the rioting more often than not don't care about the underlying issues that lead to them in the first place.

Citation fucking needed.

---

BeyondWalls posted...

Citation fucking needed.

The proof is in all these people out stealing TVs

BeyondWalls posted...

Funny how the first part of that speech is getting left out a lot today...

MLK understood why riots took place, but he damn sure never advocated for them.

Nobody argued that MLK advocated for riots.

People are invoking MLK to shame the communities that are rioting. That's the problem. MLK wouldn't shame people rioting. He shamed the people that did nothing leading to the conditions in which a riot manifests in a community.


---

BeyondWalls posted...

Citation fucking needed.

Hey btw... this is EXACTLY what MLK was talking about when he talked about riots. That people were condemning the riots more than the conditions that led to the riots. He wasn't condemning the people rioting, he condemned the people who did nothing up until the point that riots broke out.

---

ohiostate124 posted...

Am I wrong?

Not at all. Protestors want his vote of confidence. Bigots want to make him out to be all "burn white society" so that they can justify their hatred for him.

---

He PREFERRED peaceful protests and advocated for them, but he wasn't a dumbass and understood that should his approach not work, it could lead to riots and unrest, and he was willing to make that sacrifice if it meant being heard. Anyone who says "he'd be rolling in his grave!" is an idiot.

---

Shadow Don posted...

Nobody argued that MLK advocated for riots.

People are invoking MLK to shame the communities that are rioting. That's the problem. MLK wouldn't shame people rioting. He shamed the people that did nothing leading to the conditions in which a riot manifests in a community.

A lot of these conditions are media sensationalism, trying to make national headlines out of a single local story. Not that the problems don't exist, but that they're being magnified 1,000% due to over exposure and hype.

K181 posted...

would've been completely loathed by the far right today.

anyone seeking justice and real change is loathed by any republican/conservative

its pathetic

Annihilated posted...

A lot of these conditions are media sensationalism, trying to make national headlines out of a single local story. Not that the problems don't exist, but that they're being magnified 1,000% due to over exposure and hype.

Awful take.

1) The media was instrumental to MLK and getting his message out. He dominated the media by the time he was at his peak.

2) It is necessary for the media to be at the rioting/looting. Argue however you wish about the current state of news media in the US but one of the primary functions of the media being on the ground in situations like this is to prevent state violence and/or to document it. That's why its often so important for the media to be on the ground in literal war zones. It's a lot harder for states to commit genocide with all eyes on them.

When people say shit like... "hurrr the media shouldn't cover stuff like this! They should only cover 'positive' stories!" one should immediately realize this is what actual fascists say.

---

Shadow Don posted...

Awful take.

1) The media was instrumental to MLK and getting his message out. He dominated the media by the time he was at his peak.

2) It is necessary for the media to be at the rioting/looting. Argue however you wish about the current state of news media in the US but one of the primary functions of the media being on the ground in situations like this is to prevent state violence and/or to document it. That's why its often so important for the media to be on the ground in literal war zones. It's a lot harder for states to commit genocide with all eyes on them.

When people say shit like... "hurrr the media shouldn't cover stuff like this! They should only cover 'positive' stories!" one should immediately realize this is what actual fascists say.

I'm talking about the original story, not the rioting. No need to degrade yourself to insults.

Only when it's convenient does MLK get quoted.

Shadow Don posted...

Nobody argued that MLK advocated for riots.

A number of white bigots have taken Dr. King's quotes about white liberals out of context to make it sound like he claimed there was no such thing as a good white person.

---

Annihilated posted...

I'm talking about the original story, not the rioting. No need to degrade yourself to insults.

Soooo... it's the media's fault for making a national mountain out of a local molehill? Is that what you're suggesting?

Annihilated posted...

I'm talking about the original story, not the rioting. No need to degrade yourself to insults.

Even that is a pretty bizarre take.

Do you think the media should have reported on Emmett Till or was that just another isolated incident as well?

---

What is going on now is completely different. Just listen to him speak. And look what is going on. There are still bigots out there. They come in all shapes and sizes now. I really don't think MLK's message is as relevant today either as they think it is. He's still revered but as far as the actual message people are sending they aren't striving for those same goals. They are out for themselves. People will follow that. Whether they are actually unheard that isn't the case. They are by some people.

treewojima posted...

Soooo... it's the media's fault for making a national mountain out of a local molehill? Is that what you're suggesting?

That basically is what I'm suggesting, but it's not just one instance, it's hundreds. The media tells you that cops are massacring people left and right, yet the statistics tell a different story.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

It's usually only about 1,000 people a year who are killed by police. And given the number of crimes, the number of cops, and the number of perps in the country, this is a very low number.

And the reason this overexposure is bad is because all these instances are completely isolated from one another. They occur in different cities in different states, managed by different governments, and most of the time it's either a dumb cop making a dumb decision or a justified cop being basically framed by unethical journalists. All of these incidents are being linked together trying to find a pattern or a conspiracy where it doesn't exist. They're a few people who make mistakes or a few bad apples that spoil the bunch.

Shadow Don posted...

Even that is a pretty bizarre take.

Do you think the media should have reported on Emmett Till or was that just another isolated incident as well?

I'll be honest, I don't even know who that is. I don't often pay attention to a lot of news stories, partly due to lack of time and due to the reasons I mentioned earlier. If you want another example of how media glamor causes harm, look at all the mass shootings that have happened since Little Rock, CO in 1999. It happened in only one town, but everyone in the country was watching it for weeks, and future psychopaths with narcissistic tendencies took that as a challenge to beat and as a sick legacy to leave for themselves.

Annihilated posted...

That basically is what I'm suggesting, but it's not just one instance, it's hundreds. The media tells you that cops are massacring people left and right, yet the statistics tell a different story.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

It's usually only about 1,000 people a year who are killed by police. And given the number of crimes, the number of cops, and the number of perps in the country, this is a very low number.

And the reason this overexposure is bad is because all these instances are completely isolated from one another. They occur in different cities in different states, managed by different governments, and most of the time it's either a dumb cop making a dumb decision or a justified cop being basically framed by unethical journalists. All of these incidents are being linked together trying to find a pattern or a conspiracy where it doesn't exist. They're a few people who make mistakes or a few bad apples that spoil the bunch.

I'll be honest, I don't even know who that is. I don't often pay attention to a lot of news stories, partly due to lack of time and due to the reasons I mentioned earlier. If you want another example of how media glamor causes harm, look at all the mass shootings that have happened since Little Rock, CO in 1999. It happened in only one town, but everyone in the country was watching it for weeks, and future psychopaths with narcissistic tendencies took that as a challenge to beat and as a sick legacy to leave for themselves.

Death is not the only outcome people are worried about and unjustified killings are not the way police have set their relationship with the communities they police on fire.

Maybe you shouldn't be talking about what causes dissatisfaction with the police as an institution or the legacy of racism in this country if you don't know who Emmitt Till is? Maybe, you aren't qualified to lay all these problems at the doorstep of the media?

---

legendary_zell posted...

Death is not the only outcome people are worried about and unjustified killings are not the way police have set their relationship with the communities they police on fire.

Maybe you shouldn't be talking about what causes dissatisfaction with the police as an institution or the legacy of racism in this country if you don't know who Emmitt Till is? Maybe, you aren't qualified to lay all these problems at the doorstep of the media?

I already provided another example of why this doesn't just apply to cops and/or racism, but if you want to explain then go ahead.

Annihilated posted...

That basically is what I'm suggesting, but it's not just one instance, it's hundreds. The media tells you that cops are massacring people left and right, yet the statistics tell a different story.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

It's usually only about 1,000 people a year who are killed by police. And given the number of crimes, the number of cops, and the number of perps in the country, this is a very low number.

And the reason this overexposure is bad is because all these instances are completely isolated from one another. They occur in different cities in different states, managed by different governments, and most of the time it's either a dumb cop making a dumb decision or a justified cop being basically framed by unethical journalists. All of these incidents are being linked together trying to find a pattern or a conspiracy where it doesn't exist. They're a few people who make mistakes or a few bad apples that spoil the bunch.

I'll be honest, I don't even know who that is. I don't often pay attention to a lot of news stories, partly due to lack of time and due to the reasons I mentioned earlier. If you want another example of how media glamor causes harm, look at all the mass shootings that have happened since Little Rock, CO in 1999. It happened in only one town, but everyone in the country was watching it for weeks, and future psychopaths with narcissistic tendencies took that as a challenge to beat and as a sick legacy to leave for themselves.

This is straight up stupid take.


---

Its also the language of undercover saboteurs: i.e., undercover cops, antifa black bloc operatives, white supremacist agitators. Enjoy your destruction!

---

Annihilated posted...

I already provided another example of why this doesn't just apply to cops and/or racism, but if you want to explain then go ahead.

Sure. Since at least the 1920s, there's been a documented pattern of police harassment towards the poor and minorities. This happens in cities all across America and predates the modern media by decades. Before CNN, Buzzfeed, Kotaku, before any of that, MLK specifically listed an end to police brutality and harassment as a requirment for true peace and equality within our society. It was already a well established phenomenon at that time, he'd already marched about it, and police-community relations were already shattered at that point without the influence of the media. There were numerous riots caused by breakdowns of police-community relations before and shortly after MLK's time. The perception that police are agents of oppression has been a fact of life longer than anyone here has been alive and the media has little to do with it.

It stems from the tactics, attitudes, and practices of the police. The ganglike closing of ranks when an officer abuses someone or does something illegal, the mismatch of races between the police and the policed, the fact of police policing neighborhoods they have no stake in, the infiltration of many police forces by white supremacists, apparent imputinity by police even when they do get caught, practices like stop and frisk, daily harassment, militarization of the police over the years, and countless other factors not related to the media all contribute to the fundamental lack of trust in the police as an institution. To say that a phenomenon that's deep and central to the experience of poor and brown people in this country is actually a false perception imposed on them by the media is straight up false. Others are just being exposed to the ideas and realities that black people in this country have always had.


---

legendary_zell posted...

Sure. Since at least the 1920s, there's been a documented pattern of police harassment towards the poor and minorities. This happens in cities all across America and predates the modern media by decades. Before CNN, Buzzfeed, Kotaku, before any of that, MLK specifically listed an end to police brutality and harassment as a requirment for true peace and equality within our society. It was already a well established phenomenon at that time, he'd already marched about it, and police-community relations were already shattered at that point without the influence of the media. There were numerous riots caused by breakdowns of police-community relations before and shortly after MLK's time. The perception that police are agents of oppression has been a fact of life longer than anyone here has been alive and the media has little to do with it.

It stems from the tactics, attitudes, and practices of the police. The ganglike closing of ranks when an officer abuses someone or does something illegal, the mismatch of races between the police and the policed, the fact of police policing neighborhoods they have no stake in, the infiltration of many police forces by white supremacists, apparent imputinity by police even when they do get caught, practices like stop and frisk, daily harassment, militarization of the police over the years, and countless other factors not related to the media all contribute to the fundamental lack of trust in the police as an institution. To say that a phenomenon that's deep and central to the experience of poor and brown people in this country is actually a false perception imposed on them by the media is straight up false. Others are just being exposed to the ideas and realities that black people in this country have always had.

Actually, my question more specifically was who was Emmett Till and why was he important to the conversation, but I'll try to address what you said.

First, yes I am aware that bad shit goes down in police departments everywhere. I'm not oblivious to that. And some cops, but not all cops, get away with far more than they should. The idea is that if we don't give them leeway to take risks in the spur of the moment, they won't take any risks at all. There is also an economic force that puts black people in situations like this because they more often find themselves in situations where police presence is required. Having lived in black neighborhoods myself I've seen some of these situations first hand, thankfully without much incident. But you mention the militarization of the police, which is done in part because of events like this. All those riots like the ones in L.A. and Ferguson have made being a cop that much more hazardous, so that leads to them justifying bigger toys to play with.

As for the media, you have to remember that back in the 60s and 70s, police brutality and harassment was far, far worse than it is now. That's what MLK was trying to address. And even though mass media wasn't a thing in those days, I fully believe that the modern media is consciously trying to invoke memories of those times and make it seem like things are as bad as ever, if not worse. They're not only undermining the progress we have made over many decades, they're trying to reverse it.

onedarksoul posted...

Its also the language of undercover saboteurs: i.e., undercover cops, antifa black bloc operatives, white supremacist agitators. Enjoy your destruction!

Lol you even know what antifa or black bloc is?

---