No offense but MLK did not agree with you, would not agree with you, and taking some words that are easy to white-wash out of the context of his true political philosophy is insulting.
The spirit of MLK's teachings is that we should look beyond color, not remedy discrimination of the past by tilting the scales in favor of colored people.
> The spirit of MLK's teachings is that we should look beyond color, not remedy discrimination of the past by tilting the scales in favor of colored people.
Actually, tilting the scales in favor of previously-discriminated-against groups (including, but not limited to, "colored people") until such time as the resulting disadvantage from that discrimination was remedied is exactly and concretely what King advocated, for example, when calling, in Why We Can't Wait, for a "Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged" parallel to the "GI Bill" (then known as the "GI Bill of Rights") for veterans.
The right wing has taken to presenting, on the basis of a single line in the "I have a dream" speech, an utter fabrication about King's philosophy that conflicts with what King himself wrote and said on the specific issues for which they deployy the fabrication as an argument.
Curious: after the responding comment proved you unequivocally wrong (as did my link, if you cared to read it), was there any sort of catharsis? Or will you go on continuing to abuse and misrepresent King's words to work against movements trying to encourage the same kind of justice he wanted? Genuinely curious.
The grandparent poster suggested that your comment indicates a degree of political bias. You tried to pivot to a definitional argument about whether something was offensive or not.
If your mode of argument depends on putting words in other people's mouths, you're not a very effective debater.
So is it offensive to subscribe to MLK's general idea of judging people not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character?