Common knowledge about the civil rights movement, particularly prominent figures about the civil rights movement, is often based in oversimplifications. Martin Luther King Jr.: peaceful activist; good. Malcolm X: violent terrorist; bad. In my history textbook, only a line or two was devoted to the Black Panther Party, describing it as a group that resorted to violence in the fight for civil rights — so, "bad". But with these oversimplifications, too much is overlooked.
On MLK Day this year, I saw an Instagram post quoting Martin Luther King Jr.: "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Incidentally, the post was by a white individual who implied that in this day and age, we shouldn't "see color" because it divides us; sets us apart. But we live in a society in which choosing not to see color is often synonymous with choosing to ignore the very real marginalization and discrimination people of color face because of their color, while simultaneously inevitably making judgements based on internalized racial stereotypes. In order to challenge the problems people of color face and spur progress in an ongoing anti-racist movement, the reasons for these problems — the roots at the tree of institutional racism — cannot be ignored.
Overall, this post was just an example of how Martin Luther King Jr.'s words are frequently used out of context, which often happens as an alternative to actually engaging with the complex reality of white supremacy in America. It's easy to forget that Martin Luther King Jr. was considered a radical in his time — enough so that FBI agents bugged his hotel room, recorded him cheating on his wife, and then attempted to blackmail him into suicide in 1963 — while also dismissing movements considered "radical", ill-informed, and unnecessary by many in our time, such as the Black Lives Matter movement. It's also easy to forget that he wasn't simply a peaceful activist who preached about love in the face of hate, and love to transform one's enemies into one's friends. This is not to dismiss the power of love and acceptance; it's to point out that over his years of activism, Martin Luther King Jr. brought up ideas and issues that many who use his words today may view as uninformed or worthy of criticism. He wrote about the "moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"; he said that freedom is never voluntarily given but must be demanded by the oppressed, and spoke about the "unspeakable horrors of police brutality". When we learn about Martin Luther King Jr.'s beliefs beyond the quotes that are presented to us in a cookie-cutter, acceptable way, we gain a more textured understanding of him, his beliefs, and the importance of these, as well as their relevance to the world and events around us.
What I'm trying to say is that the widespread differentiation between, say, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Black Panther Party is that one's advocacy fit within lines of acceptability, while another went too far. And when we oversimplify dissenters like this, we are confined to a limited understanding of history, one disregarding that during Fred Hampton's time as the leader of the Black Panther Party, he united street gangs and militant groups across racial lines to fight for justice together in the Rainbow Coalition, when solidarity between groups of different races was almost unheard of, and certainly revolutionary. That both Hampton and the Black Panther Party were invested in building social programs for vulnerable groups across the country, ranging from free breakfasts for children of color to free medical services for people of color (because they recognized ties between race and class — the Rainbow Coalition was united against racism and poverty).
When observing the protests and dissent of marginalized groups, particularly those consisting of people of color, many place these into a binary categorization system of "good" and "bad" — wherein the "good" only consists of what is considered "acceptable", and the "bad" is all that is "radical": controversial, contested, unacceptable, and so on — all by the standards in a white, patriarchal, heterosexist, and cissexist society. By basic modicums of decency, it's not considered acceptable to contest what Martin Luther King Jr. has said about the power of love and acceptance; fewer people mention what he's said about police brutality, the conflation of morality and legality, and so on, because it's simply too extreme. Concisely, people only use the quotes that fit their narrative.
When you take into account the alienation, dehumanization, discrimination, and violence people of marginalized groups face, can a conclusion be drawn about the morality of activism "by any means necessary" — a stance Nina Simone supported?