No, you're reading off your preconceptions about me and/or my point of view rather than paying attention to what I've said. If you just read what I say, rather than read things into what I say, you will understand me. I am careful to phrase things as I mean them--I do make mistakes of course, but I also pay special attention to saying as precisely what I mean as is practical. Therefore, if you read into what I say more than I say, you will very likely be misled.

Never have I said that what black people experienced in the United States, historically or contemporarily, should be ignored, minimized, misportrayed, or any such thing. When it is relevant--and it's such a central feature of the history of the United States, it's almost always relevant--it should be given appropriate coverage, and it rarely has been.

What did I say, then?

Firstly, I never responded to your article itself, only your response to a commenter.

You claimed, in that response, that there wouldn't be as much objection to describing Dr. King as an adulterer--but I did object, and honestly. I stated why by giving the general rule for why one would object to such things: "I don't think it's beneficial or virtuous or even particularly honest to pump up the flaws beyond what is necessary."

And I gave my reasoning for why and how flaws could be exaggerated.

And I reiterated your original point, consistent with my caveat: "Accept [flaws are] there, of course; talk about them when relevant, absolutely."

But rather than engage with my caveat, you acted as though I hadn't understood your point at all (despite restating it twice!): "The object is to tell BOTH SIDES, as should be done with ALL historical figures. If you can admit that they can be great and flawed, why then the issue with discussing it?"

And I replied to try to correct you, and explain, as simply as possible, why merely "telling both sides" is inadequate. You overstated your case ("There is just telling the whole truth."), so I pointed out why you were wrong ("You're never going to be able to tell the whole truth. There's simply too much. What you include, and what you leave out, is a choice. It can inform, or it can mislead.").

You don't seem to have an accurate idea of why I argue (not fight) to honestly portray (not regulate) history, despite me saying so repeatedly. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can be any more clear, and in any event, I can't stop you from ignoring what I say and reading out your preconceptions instead.

I'll try one more time: history is too big to convey all of it. The whole truth is inaccessible. Which parts of the truth are worth telling depend on the context. It is very easy to decide that since "all nice stuff" is inaccurate, that "equal nice and nasty" or "best of the best and worst of the worst" is correct, but it's not. It depends on the context. The information should be relevant for the purposes of the discussion.

So, if we're talking about Dr. King's faith and how well he modeled Christian values, then yeah, we're going to have to deal with the adultery thing. If we're talking about his vision of the moral arc of history, we don't. If we're talking about Franklin's speech calling the Constitution "near to perfection", his history of owning slaves (he had by then desisted) is possibly relevant; if we're talking about his invention of bifocals or the lightning rod, it's not. If we're talking about principles of liberty, we can take the Declaration of Independence at face value and don't need to mention whether its authors owned slaves; if we're talking about the pragmatics of liberty, or pretty much anything to do with the actual governance of the United States, or about bafflingly enormous cognitive dissonance, then it is relevant.

You say: both good and bad. I say: yes, and each when relevant and as much as is relevant. And the reason is that when we are misled, we make bad decisions and form bad models in our mind that lead us to make bad decisions in the future.