Martin Luther King Jr.

[armedindy]

I think Rambone won this thread.

^that

 

[88GT]

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.

Well, on what argument was the position that blacks deserved to be treated differently premised if not that of being victimized for their skin color? And all modern arguments of "injustice" are based on.....what, exactly?

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.

You are employing a straw man.

The civil rights legislation didn't create equality in the eyes of the law. It went much further than that, requiring the individual to behave according to a moral code with which he may not agree.

 

[Que]

Well, on what argument was the position that blacks deserved to be treated differently premised if not that of being victimized for their skin color? And all modern arguments of "injustice" are based on.....what, exactly?




You are employing a straw man.

The civil rights legislation didn't create equality in the eyes of the law. It went much further than that, requiring the individual to behave according to a moral code with which he may not agree.

Why would you say the argument was to have a group treated differently? The argument was that all men deserve to be treated the same, by the law ans according to the law.

The laws that were birthed from the civil rights movement were not put into place to force the common man to treat everyone fair. Even Bull Connors knew that everyone couldn't be treated exactly alike, however, the government, its agents, and laws that govern us, should.

You would have to point me to the civil rights legislation to which you are referring, but a great majority of laws have been written with a certain sense of moral equity, going back to the founders. Before I can reply to the law(s) you are describing, I first need to know which one it is, specifically.

 

[dom1104]

The civil rights legislation didn't create equality in the eyes of the law. It went much further than that, requiring the individual to behave according to a moral code with which he may not agree.

Hold up... arent all laws based on a moral code to which we may or may not agree?

 

[Don]

Ok, so today is Eric Starvo Galt and Remington 760 Gamemaster in 30-06 day.

 

[thebishopp]

Hold up... arent all laws based on a moral code to which we may or may not agree?

Of course. "morals" are largely, imo, based upon what society finds acceptable at any given time. Most, if not all, our laws are based on some form of them. It was "moral" to own slaves for a long long long long time.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

A thought for consideration: I agree that MLK Jr. and those who worked with him argued for a principle larger than themselves. The premise that all men are created equal and that we deserve to live in a color blind society. I can and do respect that. I fear that many of his associates have done his original message a great disservice, especially in the intervening years long after his death. Whether he would have joined them in that - is really not fair to speculate upon. We have to take his words at face value in order to be fair about it.

Consider two of the people that were his associates, that I believe have tarnished his legacy:

1) Jesse Jackson - took the MLK Jr. message and turned it into a Chicago style extortion racket. The Rainbow-PUSH thing, while started with good intentions - went down the road to hell. Especially in the 80's it was nothing but a corporate shakedown machine. That's unfortunate, and belittles and cheapens the message which could have been much more positive.

2) Morris Dees and the SPLC. They have turned the original intent of King's work from correcting and eliminating INjustice - to one of a bunch of "do-em-gooders" using government to ensure equality of OUTCOMES for all. Further they have taken a slanted view of the world and who in it deserves their self-righteous scorn. I fear that they miss the boat a lot. Rambone, they have gone on record as branding folks that get too libertarian as "terrorist groups".. Guys like you and Prometheus (and much of INGO, I fear) is on their lists... Indeed, they even took a sideways glance at APPLESEED!! On the record, no less. And that's an organization rooted in nothing but noble purpose from all that I can see. While the Southern Poverty Law Center did some noble things and corrected some major league injustices, in much the same manner as the ACLU, they have taken a one sided view of things - and in so doing have become a caricature of themselves and what they could/should have been.

That, to me, is very unfortunate. Taking Dr. King's words at face value (since I was too young to be there...), I have to assume that he would be disappointed at the way that some of these people have taken liberties with his legacy.

 

[irishfan]

My views on MLK has changed a lot over the years. After reading about the likes of Malcom X in college and seeing that there is a large difference in belief and actions between the two men that most associate with black rights movements. In reality, MLK did not want to advance black rights but rather have all people live together equally without hate and anger because of skin color and social class. A lot of people have spun the work the man put in to achieve their own twisted agenda to push black rights and at the same time create social anxiety and anger towards each other. There is a great difference between wanting equality between all people and treating each other as equals regardless of what the eyes see and pushing an individuals group ahead of others for a gain.

In my opinion, MLK was a good man who did great things in a time when people needed something good to hang on to. However, a lot of the more powerful people who supposedly carried on his cause in reality were going against the very message he was trying to get across to people.

 

[88GT]

Why would you say the argument was to have a group treated differently? The argument was that all men deserve to be treated the same, by the law ans according to the law.

Different from the status quo at the time. Not different relative to how other groups were treated.

The laws that were birthed from the civil rights movement were not put into place to force the common man to treat everyone fair. Even Bull Connors knew that everyone couldn't be treated exactly alike, however, the government, its agents, and laws that govern us, should.

And beyond the 14th amendment, what else did we need? Congressional legislation aimed at controlling the behavior of individuals, not creating a single legal standard for all persons. 1964 legislation was a redundancy to the 14th amendment with regard to the franchise and government schooling. The "public accommodations" clause is simply choosing winners and losers. Tell me, why should a man be forced to accept clients or do business with someone he does not want? Is it acceptable in your eyes that creating an artificial equality is achieved through the erosion of one of man's most sovereign rights? Where is the moral superiority of demanding compliance to an ideal based on personal preference whilst removing from that same man one of the fundamentals of his existence?

The 1866 and 1968 versions are just more of the same: compliance with a level of protectionism over and above the basic rights of man at the cost of his own freedom. Did you know that the federal fair housing laws essentially make it a crime for me to discuss the racial demographics of a neighborhood or town? It doesn't matter if I am reading directly from a .gov website or if I am doing so at the request of my clients. it is enough that someone, who might not even be a party to the transaction or conversation, would make the charge of racial discrimination. And do you know who arbitrates these accusations? A person accused of violating these laws is not brought before a jury of his peers to have the facts and the law judged by the people. The accused is judged by his accuser. Is that your standard of justice?

You would have to point me to the civil rights legislation to which you are referring, but a great majority of laws have been written with a certain sense of moral equity, going back to the founders. Before I can reply to the law(s) you are describing, I first need to know which one it is, specifically.

consider it done. What of those laws was not already covered by the 14th? The only equity that should come out of Congress is equity in the law. Not in results. Not in treatment by other individuals.

 

[88GT]

Hold up... arent all laws based on a moral code to which we may or may not agree?

No. And yes, but only if you subscribe to the idea that the acknowledgement of a particular set of basic rights intrinsic to man's existence is a morality that need be mandated.

We don't have a prohibition on murder in this country because we think murder is bad. That would necessarily mean there is a point where murder might become acceptable and its prohibition removed. Instead, we have a prohibition on murder because it is a violation of man's right to act in his own interest. You can argue, as I intimated above, that such a position is in itself a moral code (as I have done to some extent in another thread). In which case, yes, all laws, are based on some level of morality.

There is one fundamental difference, however, with this view of natural rights morality vs the rest of the moral codes used to justify additional laws: the natural rights morality protects man's ability to act in his own interest (as long as said action doesn't prevent anyone else from doing the same). All laws on this code are aimed at protecting this right, not at compelling a particular set of behaviors, which is what all laws based on other codes attempt to do.

It's the difference between outlawing theft (protecting property) and outlawing sodomy (whose right are violated?), outlawing bondage (literally, freedom) and outlawing recreational drug use (whose rights are violated?).

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Observations:

I'm sure you will get much rep, but what practice have you put in place to learn who your enemies are?

This: "There are just as many Race-crazy folks of any color as any other color. {My observation of many nationalities and races on at least 3 continents, through 3 wars, and knowing intimately the survivors of those wars.} "It behooves us all on this forum to keep a calm that only wisdom of experience can teach." {I try my utmost to live up to, and speak out for all the good I know, regardless of the personalities that try to bring me into conflict by doing so; some folk's lack of intellectual prowess is matched only by their lack of breeding. (Suck it up, acid-head.)} "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." {I try to maintain a life just below the Zombie-radar cone, yet stand up for what I have learned is RIGHT. "In Quietness And Confidence Shall Be Thy strength." I meant it: Buy Silver; Buy Bullets: Buy Silver-Bullets. } Sometimes you can tell an enemy by what it does not do or say, as well as by what it does and says. Soon we will all need to hang together, literally, or else hang separately when they come for the guns. The wise among us already know.

 

[Que]

A thought for consideration: I agree that MLK Jr. and those who worked with him argued for a principle larger than themselves. The premise that all men are created equal and that we deserve to live in a color blind society. I can and do respect that. I fear that many of his associates have done his original message a great disservice, especially in the intervening years long after his death. Whether he would have joined them in that - is really not fair to speculate upon. We have to take his words at face value in order to be fair about it.

Consider two of the people that were his associates, that I believe have tarnished his legacy:

1) Jesse Jackson - took the MLK Jr. message and turned it into a Chicago style extortion racket. The Rainbow-PUSH thing, while started with good intentions - went down the road to hell. Especially in the 80's it was nothing but a corporate shakedown machine. That's unfortunate, and belittles and cheapens the message which could have been much more positive.

2) Morris Dees and the SPLC. They have turned the original intent of King's work from correcting and eliminating INjustice - to one of a bunch of "do-em-gooders" using government to ensure equality of OUTCOMES for all. Further they have taken a slanted view of the world and who in it deserves their self-righteous scorn. I fear that they miss the boat a lot. Rambone, they have gone on record as branding folks that get too libertarian as "terrorist groups".. Guys like you and Prometheus (and much of INGO, I fear) is on their lists... Indeed, they even took a sideways glance at APPLESEED!! On the record, no less. And that's an organization rooted in nothing but noble purpose from all that I can see. While the Southern Poverty Law Center did some noble things and corrected some major league injustices, in much the same manner as the ACLU, they have taken a one sided view of things - and in so doing have become a caricature of themselves and what they could/should have been.

That, to me, is very unfortunate. Taking Dr. King's words at face value (since I was too young to be there...), I have to assume that he would be disappointed at the way that some of these people have taken liberties with his legacy.

I'll give you Jesse Jackson, but I'm not familiar with the second gentleman. You have named two that have gotten it wrong, but can you name any that got Dr. King's message right? I'm not asking about you agreeing with every word they say or with their every belief, but did they get the message right that all people deserve to be treated equal according to the laws of the land. Beyond that, can you name two that got the message of non-violent protesting, right?

I can name a few off the top of my head: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og0QBldrKd4"]Charleston Heston[/ame] and John Lewis and Elwin Wilson

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Very good question, Que.

Thanks for the Lewis and Wilson link. I had not heard of them.

I can think of several - unfortunately, their names and the stories are not recorded by the press. One example. I moved to Salem about 8 years ago from Kalifornia... Salem has a decidedly less than stellar reputation in the racial relations department. There is still a lot of "quiet" racism that goes on out here in podunk Washington County. And some NOT so "quiet"... At one event I attended, Ron, a friend of mine (who happens to be African American) had been asked to sing. There were many there that day who, I knew, resented that my friend was signing there. And they resented it because of his race. Some were getting a bit rowdy about it. A person I know - a friend of Ron's, stood up and crossed the stage to greet Ron warmly. Put his arm around Ron's shoulders and made it clear that in every way Ron was his equal, and was to be treated as such. Nothing was said, but everyone present understood his action. one person's action and example, quietly changed a situation.

I know of several such people and similar incidents that I have seen. In every case, they took courage. And they demonstrated EXACTLY what you are talking about. But in no way were they ever recorded. I have seen acts of courage from people of all races. I have seen a family in Japan willing to befriend a Korean man - and he, them. Enough so that he joined their family. Given what Japan and Korea went through in the 30's, that is rather amazing. My Korean friend would have EVERY reason to hate the Japanese. The history between those two peoples would make Hitler blush... or at least be in the same ballpark with him.

So yes, I can think of them - but no they will not be famous or even recorded in the press. Just chiseled forever in my memory.

The best things that are done are often done quietly - by people who didn't not seek attention for their actions, rather they did what was right - because it was right.

Great question sir - and yes, there are GOOD examples in this world, just as readily as there are bad ones.

 

[dross]

It's clear to me from my own study that MLK was a socialist. He certainly advocated socialist ideals in many areas and he was associated with many socialists and communists.

That said, he gets something of a pass from me on that.

There was a huge gap of injustice in our country we left open to be filled with socialist ideals. If you claim to be for freedom and equality and then by law you discriminate against a group of people on no basis other than superficial physical characteristics, you invite a competing philosophy into your own home. If people who look like me are being lynched, denied the vote, intimidated, not allowed to speak, and denied even the services we purchase, I would be very inclined to overlook the finer points of economic theory in favor of my son not being lynched or my daughter not being raped.

MLK was courageous at a time when that didn't mean that someone might criticize you, it meant someone was most likely actively planning your murder or your incarceration. He risked and gave his life for the best of reasons: freedom. Real, pure, down to earth, honest to god freedom. Taxes are anti-freedom to be sure, but in the big picture, getting hung from a tree with barbed wire because you tried to vote wins on the linear scale of things to fight for.

Now, a couple of finer points. One, let's be truthful about King. King was a socialist, okay. His personal life I don't care about one bit. Lincoln was a racist, yet he ended slavery. Washington married his wife for her money, but he was also one of the most accomplished men of his time and one of our greatest presidents. Everyone I know is fundamentally flawed in some way. That doesn't take away from the good they do. King did a great deal of good.

MLK belongs to all of us, not just black folks. I was a child when he was murdered. My father was racist, but I remember knowing even as a little kid that the attitude was wrong. I knew it was unfair.

King spoke of a color blind society. I wish we could get there. Unfortunately, it seems to me that white folks and black folks have reversed positions on that one.

King was a fighter for freedom, and though flawed as are all men, he deserves to be remembered as one of our great Americans.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

King died fighting what he believed to be the good fight. He gave his life for his people. I respect that.

 

[dross]

King died fighting what he believed to be the good fight. He gave his life for his people. I respect that.

By "his people" do you mean Americans?

 

[rambone]

‎"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

 

[rambone]

Silence is Betrayal

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6RuCY8-gFw[/ame]

 

[Que]

Great post, dross! I've enjoyed this thread. I will see you guys back here, next year.

 

[rambone]

"How long? Not long!"

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAYITODNvlM[/ame]