I was there and I have a response to this assertion based on the following,
The whitewashing of who King actually was and what actually happened…Popular opinion in White media of the time sounded at best as heavy handed criticism of BLM today. Effective protest is not homogenous nor #alwaysnonviolent MLK fairytales told today.
I suggest for any who doubt that to do the research before presenting a rebuttal. This is all vetted, front page of a google search findable.
While you about it, search Muhammad Ali, the same process of pacifying, sanitizing and co opting Black revolutionary figures of the past is well documented there as well.
Either they get demonized, Black Panthers and Huey style. Written out ( ) ( google the forgotten heroes of the Black history and why this American history isn’t widely taught?) or they get sanitized.
History is necessarily fiction by form, but touted as non fiction and inclusive, which until recently was quite impossible to record. Hell, its hard to observe all the recorded events we have now!
Another avenue of proof of this built in feature regarding Black in Western History in the USA, is explorable by querying Moors in Europe. (Peek at the answer, it was waaay more than Othello.)
MLK non violence promotes violence, by the other side! They know blocking roads, stores and such will call repressive violence from the state, that’s the whole freaking point. The more violent elements that are rebelling in their own fashion are always condemned soundly.
(*See debates and conflicts between MLK and SNIK.)
The power structure and supporters always try to paint the entire protest as a violent aggression by scary (paid protesters, outsiders, and in this cycle the ever popular minions of Soros), they know it’s a war of hearts and minds of the greater public too.
This is all as stylized and repeated in our shared history as a ancient Kabuki play, WWE wrestling or General Hospital. Don’t take this a hostile criticism, but more of a proof of why I say,
MLK doesn’t equal non violence.