Really? I was young, but not thoughtless. Although I didn't care about the differences in political ideology, I saw his message as reaching out for equality, unlike Sharpton, Jackson, Waters, Lee, et al. Blacks WERE actually oppressed back then and it was not right. Hell, they still had hangings in the South on occasion. Not saying they're owed anything now.
As for "unrest" (civil at the time), yes it pissed off a lot of white racists. Still, I have no sympathy for the EBT card holders, gangsters, deadbeat fathers, and the majority in our penal systems. They had their chance as said above and still make their bad decisions, mostly due to the race-baiters.
I only wish our wannabe totalitarians nowadays had half the character he had, politics and philandering aside. Many people bad mouth John Kennedy because we was a Democrat. However, he was more conservative than most of our current RINOS. Don't care if he played with Monroe.
Also, don't care if Clinton would have a fling. Sex is an over-powering hormone trait to many. Clinton's sin was that he was abusive in his affairs ("put some ice on it") and took advantage of a naive young intern, soiled the Oval Office, and then LIED to the world. At least Nixon had the integrity to resign.
So yes, in contrast, I think MLK's message was solid, the same as Rosa Parks' stand. Think what you will about me...I agreed then and still do about "the content of character".
And King's son, Martin (that is his real name) Luther King III had this to say in his defense of the murderous thug who nearly took the life of George Zimmerman:
Sadly, the tears of Trayvon Martins mother and father remind us that far too frequently the color of ones skin remains a license to profile, arrest, and to even murder with no regard to the content of ones character. Regressive stand your ground laws must be repealed.
MLK's son stood shoulder to shoulder with the despicable Al Sharpton just as the father brazenly stood with Jessie Jackson, his confidant and protege: