Thanks for reading, however I see that unfortunately the point of my article has been missed. 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?

Their flaws don't negate who they were as men or what they did. It simply gives a fuller picture to allow ALL children to understand that these were just MEN.

Little Black children and other children of color benefit from the whole truth. Our children are raised in a world of white exceptionalism, whether anyone wants to acknowledge that or not, and in a world where White men are upheld as demigods which is not conducive to the active elevation and fostering of the confidence of young Black children who can never be White men.

My article will speak to those who understand the message, and it will not to those who don't. And as for MLK, a large portion of White people didn't care for or support him until his death when he suddenly became a god among men. I'll pen an article about the hypocrisy of White people uplifting him and using his words now when they wanted him dead when he was among the living.

But he was also a mere mortal who was inherently flawed. Again, there is nothing wrong with that. I would also object to the moniker you suggested for such a great man.

To be clear, that was an example to make a point and not a suggestion for a label. Just as his infidelity doesn't diminish his accomplishments, Lincoln's flaws don't diminish his. However, in the case of a Thomas Jefferson who repeatedly raped and molested a 14-year-old, I beg to differ that a man of that caliber should be upheld as a saint or hero to this country, no matter what he did. Those actions are against everything this country is supposed to stand for, based on his own words. And for me, there is no discussion about that. If there is, it proves the point of the lack of regard and value for Black lives in this country.