King’s attitude towards slavery Essay

Reconciliation struck King as divinely just, and he recommended the same practice for the United States. He suggested that this was the only moral and practical way to bring the Negro’s stand-ups to a realistic level. Reconciliation in the form of compensation was such a good idea in King’s mind because the practice would support the freedom of the human personality and lead to a just society. He also believed that it would make freedom real and substantial for the black people. He never believed that the mere absence of desegregated public accommodations would fully free the human personality and establish a just society. Although many whites were against him, he began to emphasize his belief that real and substantial freedom as well as the mandates of the just society, require not desegregated public facilities but also the economic goods that would allow blacks to use such facilities. King equated freeing the blacks and leaving them just like that to giving a pair of shoes to a man who has not learned to walk. His point was that freedom from desegregation requires the material goods to enjoy freedom from integration. King’s own response to the Johnson administration was to post for state atonement for the Disadvantaged. In King’s view, just as the state properly compensated World War II veterans for the time they spent away from their home, jobs, so too should it compensate blacks for their years of enslavement. He argued that only a few people considered the fact that in addition to being enslaved for two centuries, the Negro was during all those years, robbed of wages of his toil. He believed that no amount of gold could provide adequate compensation for the psychological turmoil caused by slavery, but that a price could be placed upon unpaid wages. King’s extra marital affairs It is clear that King did a lot of good deeds, most of which were based on pure ethical standards. However, there are some ethical challenges that were hard for him, and the most common is the sexual relationships with many women. Two years after King married his wife Coretta, he began his work in the civil rights movement. He left his young wife and baby to pursue endeavors that would take him far from home, putting aside his wife, and while he was home, he spent a lot of time on the phone. His friends who were worried of what these extramarital affairs would do to his reputation cautioned him about the importance of avoiding the appearance of wrongdoing. They also cautioned him that due to his prominence, he would become the target of those seeking to discredit him. He was also warmed that women could become his downfall if he failed to resist this temptation. King failed to take these warnings. By the time he won the Nobel Peace Price of 1964, his relations with women outside his marriage were far from secret. Wiley Branton, a close associate of King approached him about the subject when he was unable to ignore the rumors. He told king that colleagues had expressed concern over his behavior and were worried that he was going to get hurt, but King was unresponsive. The topic again came up with another friend, and this time King responded that because he was away from home the majority of each month, sex served as a way to reduce his anxiety. King’s attitude towards money While king had a hard time resisting sexual temptation, the temptation to profit from his fame was by no means a temptation for him. He had never bee influenced by the prospect of making money. In fact, while in college he had developed an opposition to his father’s concern with money. His lack of desire for material possessions increased after he visited India. Even his wife sensed a change in him. She said that this growing selflessness had led to his increasingly dismissive attitude toward his clothing and appearance, which up until then he had taken pride in. Since his college years at the Morehouse, King had enjoyed nice clothing. His selflessness also affected the financial status of SCLC. When he won the Nobel Peace Prize, he donated the price money to the group, despite the objection of his wife. She wanted to put some of the money aside for college for their children, but King insisted that the money go in full to the SCLC. Later, when two board members suggested that he accept a salary from the organization, King declined the offer. He explained that his income from Ebenezer Baptist church and the sum that he kept from speaking and writing was enough to support his family. Conclusion Due to King’s legacy as a man of good man, his shadow persisted even after his assassination. The poor people’s campaign initially was identified with the martyred prophet, not with his successor. The goals King established, especially for the campaign of equality among the whites and the blacks were probably unreachable, but King-the-symbol remained untarnished by failure. In addition to the charisma of his leadership, King had clear strategies for achieving goals. He believed that besides the use of legal tactics, the federal government was a necessary ally. King believed that because of man’s sinfulness, a restraining force was needed. According to him, it was the government that could counteract collective evil. His ultimate goal in many of his campaigns was to force the federal government to act. Time after time, his strategy worked. From the term paper, it is clear that his leadership was two fold. He was able to mobilize blacks, while at the same time appealing to the consciousness of the whites. King’s influence was as a result of several factors. To African Americans, his background was rooted in the black community, he was a Baptist preacher, and his academic training combined with religious faith provided the leadership skills he needed. To white Americans, he was an African American with the extraordinary ability to convince them of the evil of segregation. His words carried a powerful punch that, while what he was saying about segregation was not new, he stirred a moral awakening. Cementing his position was his leadership through nonviolent resistance, which appealed to decency and the commonality of humanity that, until then, had been ignored. Reference 1) Long M. G. (2002). Against us, but for us: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the state. California; Mercer University Press