Thoughts on MLK thus far

I'm a few chapters into the MLK book. I don't have many specific points to highlight (aside from one, below), but I will note that his thought was far more complex than that one line from that one speech that everyone quotes as an argument for color-blindness.  There's no denying that he wanted to work toward color-blindness, or work alongside people of all races in the present. At the same time, he never acted as though history could just be hand-waved away. He was quite adamant about the burden that history had imposed specifically upon African Americans, and how it made their advancement much harder than the advancement of Irish, Italian, Polish, or even Jewish Americans in the face of discrimination.

But he was also not an apologist for pathologies of crime, broken families, etc. in African American communities. He would argue adamantly that these things were rooted in history, argue adamantly that the government must remedy this, but also argue adamantly that while pushing for the government to remedy this the African American community must also work on it themselves.  In short, he went easy on nobody. A liberal could point to where he argued for white people to recognize their responsibilities and the role of history. A conservative could point to where he argued for African Americans to do everything possible for themselves. A relativist could point to where he recognized unique historical circumstances. An absolutist could note his firm adherence to Christian morality and personal responsibility. It was a far more complex take than anybody looking for a simple partisan box to slot him into. What else would you expect from one of the sharpest minds and best Christian teachers of the 20th century?

One specific point that I found interesting was where he noted that the challenges of automation pointed to the need for workers of all races to cooperate politically. It is a point that has been salient for centuries (water and wind power were automating tasks long before "machine learning" became a buzzword) but has certainly not become less salient. I don't claim to know what he and Andrew Yang would say to each other if they met, but I would love to overhear that conversation.  I suspect that there would be many areas of distinction and differences of emphasis, but both of them would recognize the significance of some key questions.

Also, he repeatedly condemns the Vietnam war, and the way that the government spends far more money producing a Vietnamese corpse than it spends uplifting a poor American. A Christian indeed.