I think that MLK was a lot closer to a different era of politics around Israel (and colonialism in general) than what we have today, and there needs to be some analysis of that. Israel was and is a settler colonial project, but the dynamics of that were completely different at the time. I doubt he saw Israel as the western MIC blacksite it became, and more saw it akin to something like Liberia, which he also supported. Which, yes, Liberia is also a colonial project. Like he was still a deeply religious man; I guarantee you he saw Jews as a racial diaspora as opposed to just a religious minority. Dude would have said with his full chest that Palestine was their “ancestral home.” Does that make him a hypocrite? Idk maybe. It does show himself as a bigot, ignorant of race and racism outside of the US yet willing to comment on it. But, idk. I think this deserves discussion at least, that the Israel of yesterday, while wrong on almost every level, was still completely different than the Israel of today, and that the ways supporters were wrong then don’t necessarily map onto the ways supporters are wrong now.
Perceptions of Zionism in the 20th century weren’t as different as you might believe. Anti-colonial literature has been around since before the middle of the 20th century, and had accurately delineated what colonialism is and what it’s not; see in this regard the works of Aimé Césaire and Franz Fanon, both prominent black authors. Malcolm X also correctly linked Zionism to European colonialism. Hell, even the Zionists saw themselves as colonialists.
I doubt he saw Israel as the western MIC blacksite it became, and more saw it akin to something like Liberia, which he also supported. Which, yes, Liberia is also a colonial project.
Hence, proving further my point.
Does that make him a hypocrite?
More so incoherent, ignorant. I am not dismissing MLK as a prominent figure of the civil rights movement in the US, but to defend his views on Israel is deeply unserious given that other black figures and intellectuals, his contemporaries, were aware of what zionism stood for.
I think that MLK was a lot closer to a different era of politics around Israel (and colonialism in general) than what we have today, and there needs to be some analysis of that. Israel was and is a settler colonial project, but the dynamics of that were completely different at the time. I doubt he saw Israel as the western MIC blacksite it became, and more saw it akin to something like Liberia, which he also supported. Which, yes, Liberia is also a colonial project. Like he was still a deeply religious man; I guarantee you he saw Jews as a racial diaspora as opposed to just a religious minority. Dude would have said with his full chest that Palestine was their “ancestral home.” Does that make him a hypocrite? Idk maybe. It does show himself as a bigot, ignorant of race and racism outside of the US yet willing to comment on it. But, idk. I think this deserves discussion at least, that the Israel of yesterday, while wrong on almost every level, was still completely different than the Israel of today, and that the ways supporters were wrong then don’t necessarily map onto the ways supporters are wrong now.
Perceptions of Zionism in the 20th century weren’t as different as you might believe. Anti-colonial literature has been around since before the middle of the 20th century, and had accurately delineated what colonialism is and what it’s not; see in this regard the works of Aimé Césaire and Franz Fanon, both prominent black authors. Malcolm X also correctly linked Zionism to European colonialism. Hell, even the Zionists saw themselves as colonialists.
Hence, proving further my point.
More so incoherent, ignorant. I am not dismissing MLK as a prominent figure of the civil rights movement in the US, but to defend his views on Israel is deeply unserious given that other black figures and intellectuals, his contemporaries, were aware of what zionism stood for.
No they weren’t.