AMERICA‘s “first public park” is now one of its ugliest parks (which is saying a lot):

A new monument honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his wife, Coretta Scott King, was unveiled in Boston Friday, ahead of Monday’s national holiday honoring the civil rights icon.

The 22-foot tall sculpture, named ‘The Embrace,’ represents the hug between Dr. King and Coretta after he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.

The $10 million bronze statue, designed by Hank Willis Thomas and MASS Design Group, now stands in the Freedom Plaza of the Boston Common, America’s first public park.

Source

A renowned philanderer and liar who died in the company of prostitutes — and the civil rights movement in general — have been given an appropriate tribute.

— Comments —

David writes:

It’s a repulsive statue for sure, but maybe there’s a “bright” side… at least you don’t have to look at his face.

Jan. 21, 202

Caryl Johnston writes:

Agreed that statue seemed monstrous–but aren’t ugly monuments the rule of the day? I was a little surprised by the tenor of your remarks. Granted, Dr. King was a very flawed man. But I always did believe in the sincerity of his Christian convictions. Well, maybe this was not as true as I had thought. Still, I continue to think (and wrote of this in my book) that Dr. King was the man chosen to announce the arrival of the black people into history through formal language. Dr. King was a gifted speaker, no doubt about that. It is through the medium of formal language that important historical steps are taken.

I guess history ends when people stop telling the truth. It’s happening to us–just look at those so-called “leaders” in Washington!

Laura writes:

Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate your insights.

I wish I had had the time to write further to justify what I said and then it wouldn’t seem perhaps as just flinging an insult.

Yes, there is much ugly public art. I believe this one’s a whopper and stands out among many atrocities.

Even if one accepts this notion of a messianic age for blacks, I do not think Michael King (aka Martin Luther King) was a good prophet or hero due to his immorality, his association with Communist organizations, his religious beliefs and his failure to admit of problems among blacks themselves. Perhaps we would know all this even more if the FBI opened its files on him, but in any event we have plenty of information as it is.

If blacks do experience a golden age, it will not, in my opinion, be through an atmosphere of grievance and blame. I prefer the wisdom of men like Booker T. Washington, who said blacks would only rise through their own effort, and Marcus Garvey, who believed blacks could never build healthy societies of their own in predominantly white countries. A true patriot calls for strength from his people.

As a Catholic, I also see deep problems with King’s Christianity, which was part of the wild, do-what-thou-wilt free-for-all of Protestantism. I’ve had some experience of black preachers and they are certainly talented orators but they are often demagogues representing no higher authority in religious matters than themselves or their particular sect founded on free and loose interpretation of the Bible.

Neil writes:

I never heard this before but someone said if the life of blacks in the South was so bad then why not get on a bus and move to Detroit.  Of course many did but maybe small town life in the South had its appeal for blacks.

And as this person pointed out, Blacks in the South were probably net consumers of tax revenues.

King also said the Vietnam war was racist.  Preventing one group of Asians from taking over another groups of Asians was racist?

Please follow and like us: