#mlk day of service | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sharingstories · 3 months

Text

Martin Luther King Jr. and National Service Day: A Legacy of Unity and Empowerment

Introduction:

Martin Luther King Jr., a towering figure in the American civil rights movement, left an indelible mark on history through his advocacy for justice, equality, and unity. In honor of his enduring legacy, National Service Day was established to commemorate his contributions and inspire individuals to engage in acts of service. In this blog, we will explore the life and impact of Martin Luther King Jr., delve into the significance of National Service Day, and highlight the ways in which collective service continues to echo his message of empowerment and unity.

Martin Luther King Jr.: Champion of Equality and Justice

Martin Luther King Jr., born on January 15, 1929, emerged as a prominent leader in the struggle for civil rights in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s. Driven by a vision of a nation free from racial discrimination, he advocated for nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience. His most famous speech, "I Have a Dream," delivered during the March on Washington in 1963, articulated a powerful vision of racial harmony and equality.

Key Aspects of Martin Luther King Jr.'s Legacy:

1. Nonviolent Resistance: King's commitment to nonviolent protest became a cornerstone of the civil rights movement, emphasizing the transformative power of love and peaceful resistance in the face of adversity.

2. Advocacy for Equality: King tirelessly campaigned against racial segregation and discrimination, advocating for the rights of African Americans to be fully integrated into all aspects of American society.

3. Legacy of Empowerment: Beyond racial equality, King's message extended to economic justice, advocating for the empowerment of marginalized communities through education, employment, and political participation. Don’t miss the Martin Luther King Jr. Day- Significance and Facts

National Service Day: Commemorating a Visionary Leader

In recognition of Martin Luther King Jr.'s commitment to service, National Service Day was established as a day of reflection, volunteerism, and community engagement. Observed annually on the third Monday of January, near King's birthday, National Service Day encourages individuals across the United States to dedicate their time to service projects that address community needs.

The Significance of National Service Day:

1. Honoring Dr. King's Vision: National Service Day serves as a tribute to Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of a united and just society. By engaging in acts of service, individuals actively contribute to the realization of his dream.

2. Community Empowerment: The day encourages people to come together, transcending racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic barriers, to work towards the betterment of their communities. It fosters a sense of shared responsibility for collective well-being.

3. Educational Initiatives: National Service Day often includes educational programs that highlight King's teachings and the broader history of the civil rights movement. It provides an opportunity for reflection on the progress made and the challenges that persist.

The Impact of Collective Service: Echoes of Dr. King's Message

Engaging in acts of service on National Service Day extends the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. by fostering a spirit of unity, empowerment, and social responsibility. The impact of collective service resonates across various spheres:

1. Building Bridges of Understanding:

- Service projects bring together individuals from diverse backgrounds, fostering understanding and collaboration. By working side by side on common goals, people break down stereotypes and build bridges of empathy.

2. Addressing Community Needs:

- Whether through clean-up initiatives, food drives, or educational programs, service projects directly address the needs of local communities. This hands-on approach contributes to tangible improvements in the quality of life for many.

3. Inspiring Future Generations:

- National Service Day provides an opportunity to instill the values of empathy and social responsibility in the younger generation. Educational programs and service activities cultivate a sense of duty towards creating a more just and equitable society.

4. Fostering Long-Term Change:

- Collective service is not limited to a single day; it sparks a commitment to ongoing community engagement. Many individuals who participate in National Service Day projects continue to contribute their time and skills to address social challenges throughout the year.

Conclusion: A Continuing Call to Action

Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of a harmonious and just society remains a beacon that guides individuals toward the path of service and unity. National Service Day stands as a poignant reminder of the power of collective action to effect positive change. As we honor the legacy of Dr. King, let us embrace the call to service, recognizing that each act of kindness and empowerment contributes to the ongoing journey towards a more equitable and compassionate world.

In the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., National Service Day invites us to be architects of change, to bridge divides, and to build a society where justice and equality prevail. As we engage in acts of service, we echo the timeless message that collective efforts, no matter how small, have the power to transform hearts, communities, and the world.

#mlk day #mlk jr #Service Day #National Service Day #Martin Luther King Jr

0 notes

virtualcoach-blog · 1 year

Text

Do Your Own Dream MLK Day 2023

Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase.- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Photo by Gotta Be Worth It on Pexels.com A Day Remembering Dr. King and His Legacy Today will be one of those days filled with drippings of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. It will set the tone for peace and harmony. It will allow us to set aside differing views and ideologies for a moment of reflective…

View On WordPress

#action #change #dreams #faith #help #inspiration #ministry #MLK #MLK Day #service #work

0 notes

transcriptionhub1 · 1 year

Text

May we honor this magnificent day by following Martin Luther King Jr.’s excellent principles.

#mlk day 2023 #martin luther king Jr. day #leadership #unitedstatesofafrica #knowledgeispower #transcription services #transcription #transcriptionhub

1 note · View note

thelaurenshippen · 6 months

Text

finally taking the time to read through the SAG agreement summary and oof, I hope they have an AI town hall soon because...well, there are things to discuss!

so, in case folks are curious, here are my immediate takeaways from the deal as a SAG actor, a SAG producer, and person who is not any kind of expert but spends a lot of time being skeptical of contracts I sign. this is a summation/commentary, not a holistic breakdown of every point, nor even an in-depth discussion of the points I do talk about. and it is, of course, in no way legal advice or voting advice.

this post is already maybe the longest post I've ever written on tumblr (lol) and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. to be clear, nothing I'm saying here represents how I'm going to vote, how I think other actors should vote, or my be-all-end-all stance on a particular issue. this is me reading through, flagging what concerns me, and asking myself questions. and I'm here to take your questions too! though of course my expertise is limited.

(what?? something I wrote got annoying long?? in my tumblr? it's more likely, etc. huge write-up after the cut)

the good

self-tape stuff: this is one of the more niche/the thing that the general public will find least interesting, but they've put in a lot of provisions to make sure self-tape auditions have limits (# of pages, no stunts, no nudity, doesn't have to be professionally shot, etc.) which is amazing because these types of auditions have gotten out of control since the pandemic. this feels like a great gain

data transparency: in no world did I think the streamers were ever going to agree to any data sharing with either the wga or sag so even though the data is limited, this still feels huge to me.

folks who sing and dance will be paid for both of those things now, which is great

they've added MLK day and Juneteenth as holidays (about time)

a performer cannot be required to translate their own lines

principal performers are required to be given hair and makeup consultation or reimbursed for obtaining their own services - this seems like a small thing, but it's being put in here pretty much entirely because HMU services have generally been appalling when it comes to textured hair/a variety of skin tones. there's also stuff in here about working to hire more diverse HMU artists

it looks like it's going to be easier/provide a path for folks getting IMDb credits even if they're not credited on screen

miscellany: there's a bunch of gains in wage increases, P&H increases, relocation fees, franchise language etc. that all seem good to me, though my limited knowledge on those subjects prevents me from going in depth on them.

this is not important, but it tickled me, there's a term to replace all instances of "telegraph" in the contract with "email & text" which like...why has it taken us thirty years to do that lol.

the "...hm..."

intimacy coordinators: oof. when I watched the press conference SAG gave, I was fucking thrilled when they said that the new agreement required folks to hire intimacy coordinators for nudity and simulated sex scenes. that was almost reason enough for me to vote for it tbh - not requiring it is the exact reason I voted no on our last contract. however, reading the contract summary now, the exact language is: "Producer must use best efforts to engage an Intimacy Coordinator for scenes involving nudity or simulated sex and will consider in good faith any request by a performer to engage an Intimacy Coordinator for other scenes. Producer shall not retaliate against a performer for requesting an Intimacy Coordinator." this....sucks. "best efforts" and "good faith" are not the same as "required". IMO, an intimacy coordinator is the same thing as having a stunt coordinator or, like, any number of health and safety requirements. OSHA doesn't say you must "in good faith" put your "best effort" to providing fire exits. it's great that performers can request coordinators for any kind of scene, and this is still the strongest language we've ever had in a contract but....c'mon guys.

residuals: look, I can't speak to these new terms in any concrete way. there are increases, there are bonuses for streaming success, there's a whole thing about a fund regarding those successes that I need explained to me more in depth, but overall, it looks like we made some in-roads here. as someone who employs actors under digital distribution contracts that has no residuals (podcasts), I know how genuinely cumbersome the unholy trifecta of "views-success-profit" can be (as in views do not equal success, success does not equal profit, etc.). I also have no sympathy when the majority of companies dealing with that cumbersome trifecta are massive media conglomerates. anyway, long story short, idk if this is good enough, I'm hoping to attend the next info meeting sag has.

the bad

the new hair/makeup provisions are explicitly for principal actors. while I hope it leads to better, more inclusive HMU services all around I haaaate that this implies supporting or background actors (who oftentimes also have to sit in HMU) don't deserve the consideration. (then again, background actors are usually required to do their own HMU/bring their own costumes, but for productions where that's not the case, the same HMU provisions should apply IMO)

as with every contract, there's language that could be stronger, clarity that needs to exist, and important things missing - but this isn't the final contract and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm gonna leave that stuff to the experts.

but, "lauren", you say, "what about all the AI stuff? where does that go?" well, reader, I was planning on including that in the above but it's the hot-button issue right now and I think it's wickedly complicated, so I wanted to break it down separately, after I had a chance to point out all the good-bad-in-between stuff that's not getting talked about.

a note: in my career, I've learned there's two big things to keep in mind when reading a contract you might sign:

what is the worst case interpretation of this language (thank you to my lawyer, prince among men, for teaching me how to do this in practice (that said, anything I say here is not legal advice, he'd also want me to say that lol))

what are you willing to lose/compromise on/what are the limits of your pragmatism? contracts are not about a company giving you everything you want out of the goodness of their heart - it is always a compromise. pragmatism has to be a part of the equation.

so, with that said, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here, and a) try to find the good/the pragmatic and b) catastrophize the worst case scenario. but first, it might be handy to look at this SAG infographic for some basic definitions. let's go.

the AI good

a ton of stuff here requires consent. that is not a small thing, and the consent continues even after your death (whether it was a yes or no; though this can be complicated by your estate/your union)

the language does establish that the consent must be a separate signing from the employment contract, even if its in the contract, which is great (but more on that below - timing matters)

actors often do get paid for use of their digital replicas, though it's different based on the use/type of replica.

the actor must be provided with a "reasonably specific description of the intended use". this language is vaguer than I would like, because it allows producers to decide what "reasonably specific" and "intended" means - there's always going to be some vagueness when it comes to this specific thing, but a good start would be for producers to require not blanket consent, but conditional consent for each significant use of digital replicas.

if the replicas are being used in other mediums, that must also be consented to, thank god.

replicas cannot be used in place of background actor counts on a given day - if I'm understanding this correctly, this means a production can't just have a bunch of fake background actors by themselves, they have to engage real people up to a certain number first (which in this new contract is 25 for TV and 85 for movies). we're already filling in background with digital people or copy-pasting of the same crowd over and over and have been doing so since at least the late 90s, so it's good we're continuing to put up boundaries around that.

the AI "...hm..."

it's unclear (to me) when an actor can be asked to consent. IMO, everything is meaningless if the consent is happening as part of regular contract negotiations. these things have to happen when - and only when - the actor has already been engaged in a role and feels empowered to say no

the use of independently created replicas (replicas pulled from existing footage, not created by the actor) being allowed without consent under first amendment reasoning - this is obviously concerning a lot of people bc first amendment arguments are so broad. that said, there's a pragmatism part of me that understands this is already happening/has been happening for a while and used in ways I think are perfectly fine - I was just watching the new episode of For All Mankind (one of the best TV shows right now!) and it's an alternate history, which meant that in the opening scenes of this season they had some bonkers good deep fakes of Al Gore saying stuff he never said. I think that's okay to do in a fiction show that imagines a different US history! "but Lauren", you might be saying, "Al Gore isn't a member of SAG!" are you sure? are you positive? because I'm pretty certain he is - he was in several episodes of 30 Rock, way more people are in SAG than you think (every NPR reporter for instance), and the two worst presidents we've had in the last 50 years (yes, those ones), are both definitely members of SAG (even if one is dead). now, the other side of this is that public figures like politicians are under a different social contract than actors, and if they wanted to sue, they could, unlike the average SAG actor who might have their image abused. this is why this is in the "hm" column - deep fakes and parody/satire/commentary use of replicas is already here and there's always going to be a 1st amendment argument to make, so we need to figure out how best to limit those and protect the most vulnerable.

alteration: with this language, a project can digitally alter without consent if the script and performance stays "substantially" the same. again, this language is too mealy-mouthed. I don't know that I have a huge problem with a line of dialogue getting replaced with a digital version of that actors voice if, for instance, a word was mispronounced, or wind garbled the sound or whatever - yes, it would eliminate the need for ADR, but if we put some limit on it like..."if there are more than 5 lines in a given episode/movie that require digital alteration in the service of clarity, the actor must be engaged for an ADR session or paid for the digital replacement" then I could see this being workable. I'm also personally okay with things like costumes being digitally altered but, again, we need limitations on that. digital altering cannot replace the art of costuming but, for instance, if a costume needs to be altered to include a hate symbol or something, I think that's fine (example: I have friends who worked at the VFX house for an alternate history TV show that involved a lot of Nazi costuming and set design - a huge part of that VFX house's job was to put swastikas in places, rather than props making nazi flags. I'm okay with that!) but again, these fringe cases do not a compelling arugment make, and this contract language can be interpreted too broadly for my comfort! like everything else in this "hm" category, I need to see the final contract language to decide.

the AI bad

there's a bunch of circumstances in which actors don't get paid for creating their replica/use of it and those circumstances are too broad for my taste.

synthetic performers - this is just awful. no. no, we should not be allowing AI to generate entire actors. just............no. there's some language about the producers having to talk to the union if the synthetic performer is "used in place of a performer who would have been engaged under this Agreement in a human role" but this doesn't apply to non-human characters so....wouldn't that be all roles?? leaving the producers room to be like "this role has to be synthetic, we never would've cast a human!" is bullshit. also, even if we're having AI create a magical talking unicorn whole cloth (which, like, also no, we have artists for this), that unicorn still needs to be voiced by a human person. this whole section is a disaster.

the exceptions to consent for digital alteration are bad-bad. I talked about the potential ADR replacement above and that has a whole host of issues with it that I didn't even get into, but I can see the argument. the rest are very troubling:

there is an exception under "any circumstance when dubbing or use of a double is permitted under the Codified Basic Agreement or Television Agreement" - okay, so does this mean we can replace dubbing artists and stunt performers entirely? this section is about digital alteration, but who's to say alteration couldn't turn an actor broadly miming a fight into an entirely digital, expertly performed fight that usually a stunt double would have done? with AI translation technology, does this mean we're replacing VO artists for dubs entirely? bad!

similarly, "Adjusting lip and/or other facial or body movement and/or the voice of the performer to a foreign language, or for purposes of changes to dialogue or photography necessary for license or sale to a particular market" - Justine Bateman has a great twitter thread on the terrible puppetry potential of this but I want to draw attention to the particular market bit - we all know that selling to china is such a huge part of studios' strategies that they'll remove entire scenes or lines around queer stuff. to me, this clause makes all of that so much easier. I know the argument here is going to be "we can replace swear words and license it for kids!" which.......sure? fine? but, uh, we already have ways to deal with that? and the potential for abuse here is terrifying to me. with all the digital alteration stuff too, there's just so much icky implication for the beauty/body standard to get so much worse.

if a background actor’s digital replica is used in the role of a principal performer, they'll be paid as if they actually performed the days for that role, which, sure, but uhhhh why are we saying it's okay for a digital replica of a background actor to suddenly be a leading role!?!?! I can't think of anything more demoralizing than going to set to act in background (a job I've done! an important job! a fun job a lot of the time! but creatively limited) and then getting a much bigger role (the dream!) and.....not being able to, you know, act that role or be in scenes with other principal actors or do the thing that you've dedicated your life to doing. nightmare stuff.

woof. there's so much more to say but I'm going to leave it there. these are the concerns I'm going to go into SAG's meetings with, and the concerns I'll be considering as I decide how to vote. I know there are things I didn't address and very possibly things I misinterpreted or misrepresented - if you're an actor, I highly recommend a) reading that Justine Bateman thread and b) attending SAG's meetings to ask questions and express your concerns. and I'd love to hear what y'all think! my ask box is open.

#sag aftra #sag #sag strike #AI #me: I'm just gonna look through the terms #me: I'm just gonna do a quick write up before starting my day #clock: it's been almost two hours #not to keep hammering at the 'this is not me saying that I am correct or that I've made up my mind' bit #but this is the piss on the poor reading comprehension website so #I'M NOT SAYING I'M RIGHT #TAKE ALL THIS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT #i mostly have questions and concerns and am pleasantly surprised at some stuff #knowing that there *is* a degree to which we will have to compromise #and I'm WILDLY concerned about other stuff #would love to hear what other SAG members think

306 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 3 months

Text

A UCLA professor was suspended for not providing special treatment to black students in the light of George Floyd's death. The professor is suing the University of California Los Angeles for more than $19 million over the well-publicized incident that garnered national notoriety.

Gordon Klein – a lecturer of accounting at the Anderson School of Management – made headlines in June 2020 when he refused to give preferential treatment to black students.

As Blaze News previously reported, Klein was asked by a student if black students would be given special accommodations because of George Floyd's death and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests.

"The student requested a no-harm and shortened final exam, and extended deadlines for final assignments and projects in consideration of black students' well-being in light of nationwide protests against police brutality," the Daily Bruin reported.

Klein responded by writing:

Thanks for your suggestion in your email below that I give black students special treatment, given the tragedy in Minnesota. Do you know the names of the classmates that are black? How can I identify them since we've been having online classes only? Are there any students that may be of mixed parentage, such as half black-half Asian? What do you suggest I do with respect to them? A full concession or just half?

Klein asked the student if "a white student" from Minneapolis "might be possibly even more devastated" by the death of George Floyd.

Klein then quoted Martin Luther King Jr., and asked, "Remember that MLK famously said that people should not be evaluated based on the 'color of their skin.' Do you think that your request would run afoul of MLK's admonition?"

A student took a screenshot of the email conversation, and it quickly circulated online.

UCLA students claimed Klein's email was "backhandedly racist" and that it undermined the Black Lives Matter movement.

The same day as Klein wrote the email, a Change.org petition was launched, and it demanded Klein be "terminated for his extremely insensitive, dismissive, and woefully racist response to his students’ request for empathy and compassion during a time of civil unrest."

The petition — with more than 21,000 signatures — read, "His behavior is not reflective of the equity, respect, and justice that UCLA stands for as an institution."

Two days later, Anderson School Dean Antonio Bernardo announced that Klein was suspended and an investigation was initiated into the "troubling conduct."

"Providing a safe, respectful and equitable environment in which students can effectively learn is fundamental to UCLA’s mission," Bernardo declared. "We share common principles across the university of integrity, excellence, accountability, respect, and service. Conduct that demonstrates a disregard for our core principles, including an abuse of power, is not acceptable."

"I deeply regret the increased pain and anger that our community has experienced at this very difficult time," Bernardo added. "We must and will hold each other to higher standards."

Klein was reinstated less than a month after the incident.

However, Klein alleges that the public backlash had caused irreparable damage.

Klein derives significant income from his expert witness practice.

The College Fix reported, "He has testified, for example, in several high-profile court cases, including Michael Jackson’s wrongful death, Apple’s acquisition of Dr. Dre’s Beats headphones, and the valuation of General Motors’ assets in bankruptcy."

Klein’s attorney – Steve Goldberg – told the College Fix this week, "He was one of the top damages experts in the country who was historically bringing in well over $1 million dollars a year and trending upwards when it happened."

"That practice went to ashes right after he was suspended," said Goldberg, a member of the Markun, Zusman & Compton law firm.

Klein, who continues to teach as a full-time lecturer at UCLA, is suing the university for "well over $19 million in damages."

Klein's lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial on March 4 at the Santa Monica Courthouse.

Klein, who joined the UCLA Anderson School of Management in 1981, first filed a lawsuit against the school in September 2021.

UCLA did not respond to repeated requests for comment by The College Fix.

#nunyas news #notice how the word equality has been dropped #in favour of equity #many such cases

15 notes · View notes

libroseitm · 3 months

Note

Can you guys stop doing this under promotions for black shows and movies, especially queer black focused media

First and foremost: thank you for bringing this up. It needs to be talked about.

Second most important: I am in no way qualified to comment on this, like, at all. I was raised in a racist environment and while I have removed myself as far as possible from that, I still have a lot to learn. Can someone else please weigh-in on this??

Third: What I do feel qualified to comment on is HBO's mlk post, only because I was involved in that. A lot of the comments were either or both:

. From international fans that have never heard of mlk day, and know nothing about it. (speaking as a uk person myself, this is not in any way a thing here)

. From fans who were on autopilot and commenting without even thinking/looking at the post.

Should we be excusing that behavior? No. It was thoughtless and dumb and even international fans should have been able to catch the vibe and message of the post. However, no one should be condemned for making a mistake either, if their comment was indeed a mistake. I personally have tried to get as many fans to take down their comments as possible. This was worded badly, please see the comments.

For future posts on streaming service socials: can someone with more gravitas in the campaign bring this to the wider fanbase's attention? I will tag @renewasacrew but I'm a small blog so a bigger voice or more voices may be more helpful? Is this something that should be said on a more official basis, do we need stricter guidelines from campaign runners on which posts to comment on?

I hope that was answered compassionately, anon, that was my intent. And again, thank you for sending this.

EDIT: I just realised that I did leave a comment on a recent most (netflix) post which may have been inappropriate. I have taken it down. I personally need to reflect more on this, even if it isn't addressed by renew as a crew.

#Our Flag means Death #This kind of thing stresses me out because I feel VERY passionately towards things like this but I'm aware of my many flaws in this area #Renew as a crew #Save ofmd #Ofmd #Racism

9 notes · View notes

the-burgundy-on-my-shirt · 1 year

Text

Nick Bosa for 49ers MLK day of service giving teachers materials for the classroom

#nfl #49ers #nick bosa #football #mlk #mlkday #charity #sports

77 notes · View notes

skadi-gemini · 3 months

Text

MLK was not a Zionist

I've seen Pro-Israel accounts spreading the lie that MLK was a Zionist when this simply isn't factual at all. Zionists continue to appropriate shit that isn't theirs. Below are snippets from a study conducted by Harvard in 2016 disproving this popular theory.

"In the Words of Martin Luther King"

"As the veneration of Martin Luther King, Jr. has deepened in America, he has been recruited posthumously to more causes. This is encouraged by his memorial in Washington. Inscribed on the pedestal of King’s statue, and on the walls of the surrounding enclosure, are quotations attributed to King. Although he spoke all of these words in specific contexts, they are assembled as though they convey eternal verities, much like the biblical passages which King himself quoted." [1]

"Both Israelis and Palestinians (and their supporters) are avid recruiters of King, presuming that something he once said more than half a century ago justifies this claim or that policy today. This appropriation is done piecemeal, perhaps because there is no comprehensive study of King’s views on the Middle East. As a result, not a few errors and omissions of fact mar most efforts to press King’s ghost into service." [2]

He supported Israel's right to exist but not the ongoing war in 1967 occurring. Digging deeper into this document shows that he was mistakenly led to sign a document without fully knowing its contents. Here is the text explaining where it began. [Keep reading]

"Did King support Israel in the 1967 war? The belief that he did rests in part upon his signing a statement by prominent Christian theologians that began to circulate on May 28, 1967, and that eventually appeared as an advertisement in the New York Times on June 4, the day before Israel went to war. At the time the statement was formulated, the Johnson administration seemed to have left Israel to face its enemies alone."

"The statement went on to “call on the United States government steadfastly to honor its commitments to the freedom of international waterways. We call on our fellow Americans of all persuasions and groupings and on the administration to support the independence, integrity, and freedom of Israel. Men of conscience all over the world bear a moral responsibility to support Israel’s right of passage through the Straits of Tiran.” "

The FBI has recorded conversations of MLK and his associates, so we have proof that he was misled. These are his own words. [Read below]

"But did the “Moral Responsibility” statement accurately reflect King’s position? King claimed in private that he never saw the text as published, and would not have signed it if he had. Tis is documented by the FBI wiretaps of Stanley Levison, one of King’s advisers, whose communist past made him a target of government surveillance. The declassified transcripts contain the verbatim record of conference calls conducted among King, Levison, and two other confidants, activist Andrew Young and legal counsel Harry Wachtel. On June 6, 1967, the day after the war began, King said this to his associates:

Did you see the ad in the New York Times Sunday [June 4]? Tis was the ad they got me to sign with [John C.] Bennett, etc. I really hadn’t seen the statement. I felt after seeing it, it was a little unbalanced and it is pro-Israel. It put us in the position almost of setting the turning-hawks on the Middle East while being doves in Vietnam and I wouldn’t have given a statement like that at all.

None of King’s advisers asked him how his name wound up on a statement he “really hadn’t seen,” but they instead looked ahead."

"Two days later, on June 8, King told his advisers he had come under growing pressure to make his own statement on the Middle East.

The statement I signed in the N.Y. Times as you know was agreed with by a lot of people in the Jewish community. But there was those in the negro community [who] have been disappointed. SNCC for one has been very critical. The problem was that the N.Y. Times played it up as a total endorsement of Israel. What they printed up wasn’t the complete text, even the introduction wasn’t the text. I can’t back up on the statement now, my problem is whether I should make another statement, or maybe I could just avoid making a statement. I don’t want to make a statement that backs up on me[;] that wouldn’t be good. Well, what do you think?

King’s confidants went back and forth, suggesting that he say as little as possible, that he urge an end to the fighting and refer to the role of the United Nations. “I don’t think you have to worry too much about losing the support of the Jewish community at this time,” advised Wachtel. “They’re very happy at this point, with their apparent victory. I think you should just stride very lightly and stress the end of violence.” So over the next days, King worked to avoid the subject and keep attention focused on Vietnam."

"It was only on June 18, when King appeared on the ABC Sunday interview program “Issues and Answers,” that he finally answered direct questions on the subject. After giving boilerplate replies about the importance of Israeli security and the need for Arab economic development, one of the interviewers cut to the quick: “Should Israel in your opinion give back the land she has taken in conflict without certain guarantees, such as security?”

King gave this answer: Well, I think these guarantees should all be worked out by the United Nations. I would hope that all of the nations, and particularly the Soviet Union and the United States, and I would say France and Great Britain, these four powers can really determine how that situation is going. I think the Israelis will have to have access to the Gulf of Aqaba. I mean the very survival of Israel may well depend on access to not only the Suez Canal, but the Gulf and the Strait of Tiran. These things are very important. But I think for the ultimate peace and security of the situation it will probably be necessary for Israel to give up this conquered territory because to hold on to it will only exacerbate the tensions and deepen the bitterness of the Arabs."

He eventually goes on to doubt Israel. Ya'll can read it all here in this document I found here. >>

Click this link to read the document

Please do your own research before believing such blatant lies by people appropriating black liberation leaders. It's so gross how they keep doing this. I found this in FIVE SECONDS with a simple Google search!

#free palestine #mlk was not a zionist #palestine #palestinian genocide #ceasefire #gaza #skadi-gemini

10 notes · View notes