Both saint and sinner: against teaching only half the story | Hugo Schwyzer

WHAT?! I’M LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY BECAUSE THE INCLUSION OF MLK’S “WOMANIZING” IS SO RIDICULOUSLY OUT OF PLACE WITH RAPE AND EUGENICS I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE SOMEBODY WOULD WRITE THAT.

Horrifying Hugo linkage via james-bliss

(via sexartandpolitics)

With the risk of getting my head bit off, I’d choose to say that Jefferson is the odd one out here. He actually committed a horrific crime. It’s certainly not pretty for an equal rights activist to “flirt with” elitist, racist notions of eugenics. It’s also certainly ethically and morally flawed. (I am not at all enlightened about the particulars or degrees in either one of these cases, I’m just judging from what is said in this statement.) But I’d say that it’s not pretty for another equal rights activist to behave notoriously disrespectful to and knowingly hurt the people closest to him. From a christian perspective (I can only presume) it must be considered seriously morally and ethically flawed for a practicing baptist pastor to repeatedly act against his own faith and teachings, as well as the laws of his own god. So my conclusion would be, that Sanger and King both made moral mistakes that in the light of their own times and lives probably are more or less explicable. Jefferson was a fucking rapist swine.

(via eversonpoe)