Marc Lamont Hill is a popular apologist for Palestinian terror and has made antisemitic statements. So of course he is in the forefront of justifying violent riots in the US.
He justifies riots by calling them “rebellions” – with lots of video showing things burning. things like shops and other buildings owned by people who have nothing to do with any racism, or who are often people of color themselves. You know – what he would call “collective punishment.”
Then, however, he quotes Martin Luther King Jr. to justify rioting. He accurately quotes him as saying “the riot is the language of the unheard.” But King wasn’t justifying and praising rioting like Hill is. He said:
Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.
King is very much against riots, although he is explaining why they occur – in the context of continuing inequality. Hill, however, is not advocating non-violence. He is not warning of the negative consequences of violence, or of the danger of them spiraling out of control. Hill explicitly says that “we” must get the message across by “damaging their property and making them feel as unsafe as we feel every single day.”
Of course, then he says the shouldn’t just burn stuff down. Right after saying they must damage “their” property. He then calls destroying and looting a Target “shutting down a Target” as if they simply picketed the store. He threatens that “we” will continue to burn down cities until white people give blacks respect.
This is as far from Martin Luther King as you can get. How dare Hill quote King.
Why should anyone be surprised that an apologist for Palestinian terror is also an apologist for antifa-style terror?