I think the exact opposite. I think if you’re cherry picking pieces of thought from a figure and ignoring the bits you don’t like then you’re just using them as a prop.
There is of course some complexity when someone changes over the lifetime and renounces early beliefs. But that isn’t the case here, we’re talking about people ignoring a large chunk of a celebrated man’s work because it makes them uncomfortable. I don’t think you can actually do that, and I think it does him and his legacy a great disservice to even try.
> We don't talk about King's socialism as much … and many people don't find socialism to be compelling (myself included).
Thank you for proving my point.
> Hence, remembering ideas.
What, so the rest of what he said wasn’t ideas? Or that the rest of them have less value because someone said so? If so, who decides which ideas are the real ones to be remembered? You? Me? Our political chattering classes?
Here’s the thing, powerful people and instituons have long had a use for editing and celebrating dead radicals as a way to reinforce their legitimacy while also signaling that Those Times are Now Gone. You see the exact same behavior out of the July Monarchy in their rewriting the history of the three glorious days (see Mike Duncan for more). For King it is extremely convenient to make his story the story of official segregation and legal discrimination and nothing more. That neat narrative of “first segregation, then MLK made it all better, end story” only works if you ignore the rest of his work on war and poverty. Because if that is brought into the light then his work looks only half done, rather than done and finished.