Americans Divided on Whether King’s Dream Has Been Realized

Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup, August 26, 2011

Americans are about equally divided on whether Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of U.S. racial equality has been realized, with 51% saying it has and 49% saying it has not. Blacks (54%) are slightly more optimistic than whites (49%) that the dream has been realized.

{snip}

{snip} The poll included an oversample of black respondents.

{snip}

The poll finds Americans have very positive views of King. Ninety-four percent rate him positively on a scale ranging from +5 (very favorable) to -5 (very unfavorable), including 69% giving him a +4 or +5 rating.

Gallup asked the same question several times in the 1960s, and the current numbers represent a dramatic shift in the way Americans view King now compared with the past. His prior ratings were at best slightly more positive than negative, and in a 1966 measurement, Americans were nearly twice as likely to have a negative (63%) as positive (33%) opinion of him. That negative evaluation was likely the result of his public opposition to the Vietnam War at a time when Americans still favored it as well as the opposition of some to the continued push for expanded civil rights and economic legislation to assist blacks.

In the current poll, 65% of whites and 95% of blacks give King a +4 or +5 favorable rating.

{snip}

Given the high regard Americans currently have for Dr. King, it is not surprising that 91% approve of having a national memorial to him. {snip}

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Blaak Obongo

    I don’t suppose that 45 years of relentless, nonstop propaganda from every source could have anything to do with that White “favorable” rating for Michael King, could it, Jeffrey M. Jones?

    Come to think of it, if nearly half a century of media brainwashing can only manage to squeeze a 65% “favorable” rating from Whites, I’d be more inclined to believe that White resistance to Michael King’s canonization is a lot stronger than Jeffrey M. Jones would like us to believe.

    “Dream of racial equality,” my eye. Michael King’s only “dream” was of black supremacy and a White female punching bag in every bed. But with Whites waking up in unprecedented numbers, that “dream” is beginning to slip through the elites’ fingers, and they know it.

    “That negative evaluation was likely the result of his public opposition to the Vietnam War at a time when Americans still favored it as well as the opposition of some to the continued push for expanded civil rights and economic legislation to assist blacks.”

    “Likely,” is it? And how do you know that, Jeff? Were any of those polled White people actually asked? Or is that just your own wishful spin?

    Since my personal opinion is at least as good as yours, I think it’s far more likely that White Americans in 1966 were simply far less conditioned to idolize Africans and their Living God, Michael King.

    Mark Twain was right: lies, damned lies and statistics.

  • Toby

    No Need To Take My Word For It:

    King fulfilled his dreams every night he spent in an out of state motel, check him out on a reliable news source if there is such a thing other than AmRen and see for yourself.

    King made Clinton and The Kennedy’s look like Altar Boys?

  • Question Diversity

    Gallup asked the same question several times in the 1960s, and the current numbers represent a dramatic shift in the way Americans view King now compared with the past. His prior ratings were at best slightly more positive than negative, and in a 1966 measurement, Americans were nearly twice as likely to have a negative (63%) as positive (33%) opinion of him. That negative evaluation was likely the result of his public opposition to the Vietnam War at a time when Americans still favored it as well as the opposition of some to the continued push for expanded civil rights and economic legislation to assist blacks.

    Except the Vietnam War wasn’t that popular among most people. The reason whites opposed MLK while MLK was actually living because they saw the way he was stirring up blacks. Everywhere MLK went, blacks got really anxious and given to revelry, some instances almost in a state of riot. Black-on-white crimes increased in earnest, and whites joined right-wing organizations in reaction. Now that the 1950s and 1960s are over, and the real history can be stuffed down the memory hole, and more and more people weren’t alive and cognizant during MLK’s career, they’re easily victimized by the propaganda about him.

    Too, a lot of white people are going to tell pollsters they like MLK and approve of his memorial, because that’s what they think they’re supposed to say, or telling the pollsters their true feelings might be “too embarrassing.”

  • John Engelman

    The fact that Martin Luther King has become an iconic figure tells me that a political movement dedicated to restoring Jim Crow legislation cannot succeed. This does not mean that one should not mention racial differences in average performance and behavior.

    Speaking only for myself, I appreciate King as a great orator, and and effective leader. He was a flawed Christian clergyman. I was disappointed to learn of his womanizing. Nevertheless, he faced temptations I never have.

    In Romans 3:23 St. Paul wrote, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

  • ice

    If King were somehow projected into this time frame instead of the one he lived in, he would be virtually identical in speech as the other black demagogues on the scene today.

    He preached peaceful resistance, because blacks were totally powerless in the sixties and it was his only option. Things would be much different in what he did and said if he were around in today’s world.

  • Cassiodorus

    King’s “oratory” was trite, prefabricated and plagiarized, he was not the “leader” of anything but was rather a stage-managed figurehead of the “civil rights” (ie “black power”) movement, and the most cursory inquiry will reveal that he was barely a Christian by even the most etoliated measure. If honest academic standards had been applied to King even as a prospective graduate student, the world would never have heard of him. Fortunately for him, his handlers and enablers were not honest, and the brute fact that everything the public was supposed to know about him was a lie was kept safely under wraps until the 1990s.

  • Ann Onymous

    I believe the figures given which show a high approval rate among White Americans. Those here who are old enough to remember the 70s and earlier will remember that there once was a lot of conservative resistance to making MLK’s birthday a holiday.

    Nowadays just watch how most Republicans worship at MLK’s altar and speak praise of him. There has definitely been a change in how many conservatives think of MLK. Political correctness is not just for Democrats.

  • Don’t Spite the White

    Dear Mr. Engleman (Poster #4):

    Please do not quote the Bible out of context to excuse MLK’s fraudulent posture as a Christian minister. He wasn’t a “flawed Christian clergyman.” He was a flagrant and serial adulterer and a hypocrite. This is known to his inner circle (Andrew Young, Jesse Jackson, etc.) and was admitted to in print by Ralph Abernathy, who was his right hand man in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

    The FBI has extensive files (sealed by court order until 2027 at the request of his wife because, in her words, they would “ruin his reputation”) on his hotel room dalliances with black and white prostitutes (paid for with SCLC donation money). The FBI was wiretapping King as a communist sympathizer (and he was that too). As revealed by one former FBI agent, some recorded excerpts from one of his drunken orgies with his church/civil rights associates include, “I’m not a negro tonight!” and “I’m f***ing for God!”

    You’ve quoted from Romans 3:23, but I can volley a few verses back at you that more accurately apply to King. For example, Hebrews 13:4 — “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” Also 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 — “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    On a related note, Malcolm X didn’t cover for the not-so-honorable Elijah Muhammad when he discovered that the Nation of Islam leader had fathered eight different children from six of his teenage “private secretaries.” He saw that E. Muhammad was a phony called him out on it (and eventually died for it). King was a phony too and needs to be called out on it. He used a pseudo-Christian facade and abused his position as a supposed Christian minister. And by the way, Malcolm X, who was on the road just as much as King was, stayed faithful to his wife. So please give up the “temptation” excuse.

    Besides being an adulterer, MLK qualifies on the above list as a thief and an extortioner. He was a thief in that he plagiarized 40% of his doctoral dissertation and much of his speech material (including portions of the “I Have a Dream” speech). He also encouraged and condoned the transfer of wealth from rich to poor (meaning in large part from whites to blacks) in a January 1968 speech: “[W]e are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars — and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power.” Karl Marx would have been proud.

  • Madison Grant

    “King’s reputation has soared since the 60s”

    That’s because school children are taught fairy-tale history. They learn that King was a saintly figure who just wanted everyone to love each other (sniffle).

    The real King was a Marxist demogogue and a racial arsonist who made Maxine Waters look responsible in comparison.

  • john

    I guess I’m just totally out of step. I recall King as a plagiarizing, whoremongering, fraudulent huckster, a black Elmer Gantry. He’s the best the black African race can point to?

    Thankfully, he’s not, though the adulation showered on him and his memory is an insult to every decent, honest, and hardworking black American.

  • olewhitelady

    John Engelman #4:

    I agree with everything you wrote in this post. Jim Crow will probably never again be the law, but I believe Americans might eventually be allowed to once again legally discriminate in private enterprise. Probably few would prohibit all blacks, since money is green, but such a law would enable proprietors to exempt ghetto types without being charged with racial discrimination. As it is, there is a lot of de facto segregation that abolition of Jim Crow has been unable to touch.

    MLK did say that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. I wish the race hustlers of today agreed.

  • Rhialto

    I don’t know or care what MLK dreamed. I do know that he did much to further his cause, which was increasing the political power of southern blacks. If southern blacks and their supporters want to honour him, that seems reasonable to me. His personal activities are something for them to be concerned about.

    The wide spread adulation that MLK has received over the decades is a symptom of what America has become. A more ominous symptom is the trashing of the holidays honouring Washington and Lincoln.

  • Al

    Post 4 makes no sense at all. No one is trying to restore Jim Crow laws, which only existed in 11 states.

    What we oppose are the civil wrongs laws of 1964, 1968 and 1991 that mandate whom you can serve, sell to, hire and hire.

    All such ‘public accomodations,”EEOC’ and ‘fair housing’ laws should be abolished.

    The 1965 Voting Rights Act was more legitimate but implemented in a heavy handed manner and should been repealed long ago as there has been no need for it for a long time.

    King was a Marxist Socialist with strong Communist Party USA support in his top staff. His horrible activities politically were much worse than his sexual affairs. He was a banal rabble rouser, far from a great orator. What he lead was a movement towards state socialism and we are supposed to honor his memory ?

  • voter

    Ice wrote: “He preached peaceful resistance, because blacks were totally powerless in the sixties and it was his only option.”

    That is an important point and so very true, though I have rarely if ever seen it stated.

    King was restricted by the circumstances of the time. Instead, he would doubtless have urged Blacks to violent revolution, if that had been a viable possibility. Even so, everywhere he went, there were riots. But he became an apostle of non-violence (supposedly anyway) simply because that was his only reasonable option back in the 60s. Anything else would have been suicidal, and he knew it. Or, to be more accurate, his handlers obviously knew it even if he didn’t.

  • William Hendershot

    Cassordius-Were you mistakenly referring to B.H. Obama?

  • Cassiodorus

    “Cassordius-Were you mistakenly referring to B.H. Obama?”

    No, but there’s little difference between the two.

  • John Engelman

    The success of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. demonstrates the importance of effective leadership during pivotal periods in history. During the civil rights movement segregationists were unable to get their message out to whites who had little contact with blacks. It was difficult to argue that blacks were dangerous when civil rights demonstrators were jeered, beaten, and sometimes killed.

    Despite foibles that have been revealed on American Renaissance, Martin Luther King successfully projected the public image of a humble man of God who was too good of a Christian to hate his enemies. His enemies allowed themselves to be seen a brawling, bar room bullies.

  • Cassiodorus

    “The success of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. demonstrates the importance of effective leadership during pivotal periods in history.”

    “Dr.” King didn’t “lead” anything; he was as thoroughly stage-managed as any figure in history.

    “Despite foibles . . .”

    “Foibles?” Hardly, unless one is willing to apply the same label to the misdeeds of Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker.

    “King successfully projected the public image of a humble man of God. . .”

    The “image” was the product of a compliant media and government complicity, and was as phony as King’s doctorate. Few “humble men of God” incite riots everywhere they go.

  • Anonymous

    18 — Cassiodorus wrote at 9:39 AM on August 28:

    “The success of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. demonstrates the importance of effective leadership during pivotal periods in history.”

    “Dr.” King didn’t “lead” anything; he was as thoroughly stage-managed as any figure in history.

    “Despite foibles …”

    “Foibles?” Hardly, unless one is willing to apply the same label to the misdeeds of Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker.

    “King successfully projected the public image of a humble man of God…”

    The “image” was the product of a compliant media and government complicity, and was as phony as King’s doctorate. Few “humble men of God” incite riots everywhere they go.

    —————————————————-

    ——————

    Thank YOU for replying the way you did to…………. 17 — John Engelman.

    He seems to “defend” these people to no end and makes up things as he goes along.