Posts tagged ‘Segregation’

Luis Rodriguez–Always Running Accounts Of His Youth


Advertisements

Does O’Brien Know The Facts About Critical Race Theory


Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update: A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update: A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Martin Luther King Jr. His Time And Story


 


Martin Luther King, Jr., (January 15, 1929-April 4, 1968) was born Michael Luther King, Jr., but later had his name changed to Martin. His grandfather began the family’s long tenure as pastors of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, serving from 1914 to 1931; his father has served from then until the present, and from 1960 until his death Martin Luther acted as co-pastor. Martin Luther attended segregated public schools in Georgia, graduating from high school at the age of fifteen; he received the B. A. degree in 1948 from Morehouse College, a distinguished Negro institution of Atlanta from which both his father and grandfather had graduated. After three years of theological study at Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania where he was elected president of a predominantly white senior class, he was awarded the B.D. in 1951. With a fellowship won at Crozer, he enrolled in graduate studies at Boston University, completing his residence for the doctorate in 1953 and receiving the degree in 1955. In Boston he met and married Coretta Scott, a young woman of uncommon intellectual and artistic attainments. Two sons and two daughters were born into the family.

In 1954, Martin Luther King became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. Always a strong worker for civil rights for members of his race, King was, by this time, a member of the executive committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the leading organization of its kind in the nation. He was ready, then, early in December, 1955, to accept the leadership of the first great Negro nonviolent demonstration of contemporary times in the United States, the bus boycott described by Gunnar Jahn in his presentation speech in honor of the laureate. The boycott lasted 382 days. On December 21, 1956, after the Supreme Court of the United States had declared unconstitutional the laws requiring segregation on buses, Negroes and whites rode the buses as equals. During these days of boycott, King was arrested, his home was bombed, he was subjected to personal abuse, but at the same time he emerged as a Negro leader of the first rank.

In 1957 he was elected president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization formed to provide new leadership for the now burgeoning civil rights movement. The ideals for this organization he took from Christianity; its operational techniques from Gandhi. In the eleven-year period between 1957 and 1968, King traveled over six million miles and spoke over twenty-five hundred times, appearing wherever there was injustice, protest, and action; and meanwhile he wrote five books as well as numerous articles. In these years, he led a massive protest in Birmingham, Alabama, that caught the attention of the entire world, providing what he called a coalition of conscience. and inspiring his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, a manifesto of the Negro revolution; he planned the drives in Alabama for the registration of Negroes as voters; he directed the peaceful march on Washington, D.C., of 250,000 people to whom he delivered his address, “l Have a Dream”, he conferred with President John F. Kennedy and campaigned for President Lyndon B. Johnson; he was arrested upwards of twenty times and assaulted at least four times; he was awarded five honorary degrees; was named Man of the Year by Time magazine in 1963; and became not only the symbolic leader of American blacks but also a world figure.

At the age of thirty-five, Martin Luther King, Jr., was the youngest man to have received the Nobel Peace Prize. When notified of his selection, he announced that he would turn over the prize money of $54,123 to the furtherance of the civil rights movement.

On the evening of April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of his motel room in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was to lead a protest march in sympathy with striking garbage workers of that city, he was assassinated.

 
 

Selected Bibliography

Adams, Russell, Great Negroes Past and Present, pp. 106-107. Chicago, Afro-Am Publishing Co., 1963.

Bennett, Lerone, Jr., What Manner of Man: A Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. Chicago, Johnson, 1964.

I Have a Dream: The Story of Martin Luther King in Text and Pictures. New York, Time Life Books, 1968.

King, Martin Luther, Jr., The Measure of a Man. Philadelphia. The Christian Education Press, 1959. Two devotional addresses.

King, Martin Luther, Jr., Strength to Love. New York, Harper & Row, 1963. Sixteen sermons and one essay entitled “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence.”

King, Martin Luther, Jr., Stride toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. New York, Harper, 1958.

King, Martin Luther, Jr., The Trumpet of Conscience. New York, Harper & Row, 1968.

King, Martin Luther, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? New York, Harper & Row, 1967.

King, Martin Luther, Jr., Why We Can’t Wait. New York, Harper & Row, 1963.

“Man of the Year”, Time, 83 (January 3, 1964) 13-16; 25-27.

“Martin Luther King, Jr.”, in Current Biography Yearbook 1965, ed. by Charles Moritz, pp. 220-223. New York, H.W. Wilson.

Reddick, Lawrence D., Crusader without Violence: A Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York, Harper, 1959.

From Nobel Lectures, Peace 1951-1970, Editor Frederick W. Haberman, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1972

This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and first published in the book series Les Prix Nobel. It was later edited and republished in Nobel Lectures. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above.

 
 

* Editor’s note: This biography uses the word “Negro”. Even though this word today is considered inappropriate, we have chosen not to change the original text to adhere to the copyright owner’s wish to keep the original version as a historical document.

 
 

Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1964

TO CITE THIS PAGE:
MLA style: “Martin Luther King – Biography”. Nobelprize.org. 17 Jan 2012 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html

EDUCATIONAL


NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Democracies in the World

How many countries in the world are democracies?


 

FACTS AND LISTS


NOBEL PRIZES

Who Are the 2011 Nobel Laureates?

See a list of the thirteen Nobel Laureates of 2011


 

VIDEO


2011 NOBEL PRIZES

Meet the 2011 Nobel Laureates

Watch the the inspiring stories of the men and women awarded the 2011 Nobel Prizes


 

FOLLOW US

Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Nobelprize.org Monthly
RSS

 

 

 

Watch the Viedo:


 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b80Bsw0UG-U