Martin Luther King Jr.

[thebishopp]

Wow -- now THAT's an interesting simile.

Lol, yeah, I guess it would depend on which side of the Thanksgiving table you sat... I'm pretty sure there are some "native americans" out there wishing that maybe they had just let the darn "pilgrims" starve (or maybe taken a more active role in their demise).

 

[jsgolfman]

It's all semantics. Socialist, communist, marxist, statist, a combo of all of them. Doesn't matter what you call him. Advocating a more intrusive state by anyone else on this forum would be cause for teeth-gnashing and wailing, but MLK is the sacred cow. I'm not saying though, that there weren't some positives from his activity, but you can't legislate morality.

 

[thebishopp]

All whites are racists; all coloreds are racists; the South MAY rise again; today is NOT Rodney King Day nor James Earl Ray Day. MLKJr would just be a fine spokesman and leader of the majority of the Colored community if he had not been shot. We would not have a "Holiday" for that. The special day was sprung on us in order to keep Colored Revolution off of the streets. Why don't we have a JFK Day to keep Catholics from running mad in the streets? There are just as many Race-crazy folks of any color as any other color. It behooves us all on this forum to keep a calm that only wisdom of experience can teach. To live, act, and speak otherwise just means that YOU will be highest on the Zombies target-list. Shut up, and learn your enemies, above and below you. Buy silver bullets. EBG

I believe I understand what you are saying, and if so I agree.

Edit:

What I believe you are saying (just fyi) is that within each of us is a "racists", either through the conscience or sub conscience preference towards those of like or similar color/racial background or through the animosities or fears taught to us about "others" who are different than us (and not just be the color of our skin but also through the "class" system).

Yes it is possible that things like slavery can come again, especially when there are a great many who believe that all it takes to strip us of our inalienable rights is an amendment to the constitution. IMO one of the reasons some of our founding fathers warned us about "democracy" - where 51% strip away the rights of the other 49%.

Speaking out is making yourself a target, a very real chance of becoming a martyr should your actions offend the ruling party. By remaining silent you can learn who your enemies are before they realize that you are not their friend... the danger of course being if you do not take action at the correct time or not at all.

 

[RockofStrength]

IMO he was, like any other human being, a man who had a number of good ideas and ideals, in addition to ones that were reprehensible and vile. He contributed to American society in positive and negative ways to a degree worthy of historical recognition and analysis in a textbook, to be certain.

I do take issue with the hero worship and the memorials in his honor that our nation has instituted. As others have said, he has been put up on a "do-not-touch" pedestal that essentially forbids balanced analysis of what he accomplished and how he accomplished it. Celebrating a day for the man has never made sense to me, particularly as a federal holiday.

 

[88GT]

He set a standard that we are all one and that was different than what was going on at the time and even now points out hypocrisy of some of his own followers. Why? Because it is and will be a lasting standard that you now may just take for granted.

Correction: he tried to set a standard. Unfortunately, by utilizing victimization as a tactic for improving the black man's lot in life, he created a state of perpetual victimization because that became the methodology for advancement. Not hard work, sacrifice, and responsibility. There is a certain irony in pointing out the color of a man's skin as a means of trying to convince others to ignore it.

 

[Que]

“restructuring the whole of American society."
“pegged to the median income of society"
"automatically increase as the total social income grows."


These phrases, to me at least, sound more like equalization of results than equalization of opportunity.

Can you see what I see in those?

Again, MLK brought attention to significant issues. But, that does not mean he was not a socialist.

It would be a failed attempt at reasonable discourse or debate without the context to which he was speaking. If one understands the context, it's puzzling for me to understand how any rational person would not see his point. Must you agree? No, I don't believe so. However, these are not Marxist statements in and of themselves, or when placed in the context of racial and social injustice that was so pervasive at that time.

 

[Que]

From the Horse's Mouth:

"I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income."
-MLK in his book "Where do we go From Here: Chaos or Community?"

I've read the book and Dr. King was not talking about people lining up for a check they didn't work for or deserve. Poor people of all colors, were being abused in factories all around this country. Dr. King proffered a message of equal work for equal pay, regardless of color or gender.

 

[88GT]

Racial and social injustice is a byproduct of the government, not individuals.

 

[Que]

Correction: he tried to set a standard. Unfortunately, by utilizing victimization as a tactic for improving the black man's lot in life, he created a state of perpetual victimization because that became the methodology for advancement. Not hard work, sacrifice, and responsibility. There is a certain irony in pointing out the color of a man's skin as a means of trying to convince others to ignore it.

Victimization? This sounds like the general boiler plate message. The media really does a great job at teaching the sheeple as has been posted on here.

 

[Que]

Racial and social injustice is a byproduct of the government, not individuals.

The government is a byproduct of individuals. Besides, I didn't mention anything about individuals being the reason for what was going on at the time.

 

[J_Wales]

I've read the book and Dr. King was not talking about people lining up for a check they didn't work for or deserve. Poor people of all colors, were being abused in factories all around this country. Dr. King proffered a message of equal work for equal pay, regardless of color or gender.

It has been a long time since I read it, but that is different than the understanding I took away from it.

Would you view MLK as an advocate for a small, limited government?

 

[Que]

It has been a long time since I read it, but that is different than the understanding I took away from it.

Agreed. I'm not saying I'm absolutely right, by any means. I don't agree with socialist ideals and if that were his intent, I would certainly disagree with him.

I don't know what his view would have been about having a small, limited government. I guess he would agree, just as long as that government didn't have one set of laws for one group of people and another set of unconstitutional laws for others.

 

[rambone]

King was a [..] statist.

And yet he was leading a movement against statism. Lets hear some condemnation for the Police State being gladly enforced by blind followers of the state. What was going on in America was truly disgusting. He put his life and his liberty on the line to fight it, and did so peacefully and admirably.

I don't have to agree with his economics. He wasn't writing laws and passing budgets; nor was he running for office. I like him because he stood against the Establishment, tyranny, and oppression. A anti-Establishment socialist would be preferable to many of the pro-Establishment "conservatives" we have witnessed, past and present.

 

[armedindy]

yes rambone, thank you

 

[thebishopp]

Racial and social injustice is a byproduct of the government, not individuals.

I would agree with Que that government is byproduct of individuals. Now it may not be what you meant, but it would seem that this stance removes or seeks to mitigate the responsibility of the individual.

The government may pass "laws" demanding racial equality, but just as in gun laws, only the "law abiding" will follow them. In addition if it takes a "law" for someone to treat someone else as an equal there is already a problem that has nothing to do with the government, specifically with the individual or individuals in question.

If you are saying that it it is a byproduct of the government because the government has the responsibility or duty to bring "justice" to everyone regardless of race or social status then that is another matter (not saying I agree with it that opinion either, just trying to figure out what exactly your thought is).

 

[J_Wales]

I guess he would agree, just as long as that government didn't have one set of laws for one group of people and another set of unconstitutional laws for others.

Yet another problem with having too much power in a cenralized government.

MLK did well to illustrate that a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves... but at the same time, in my opinion, he ceded a larger role for the wolves.

 

[Kagnew]

No, we don't. We get a day off to lionize a man who made good speeches. A bunch of laws and regulations don't change bigotry in the U.S. In fact, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the unintended consequences of such have made more than a few people more bigoted than they would otherwise have been.

 

[Kagnew]

i knew this was coming

Then why did you post it?

 

[armedindy]

Then why did you post it?

its interesting and informative..im not insulted or upset. i also like to start threads and see how many responses i can get..this one is progressing nicely

 

[dom1104]

I think Rambone won this thread.