NationStates Jolt Archive

Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Link (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2008-04-04-voa1.cfm)
Thoughts? Comments? Also, if you live outside the U.S. do you know who Martin Luther King is? I'm curious to see how well-known he is internationally.

Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Link (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2008-04-04-voa1.cfm)
Thoughts? Comments? Also, if you live outside the U.S. do you know who Martin Luther King is? I'm curious to see how well-known he is internationally.

Some silence for the 40th. anniversary of a visionary and a great man.

As a Brit teenager I've heard of MLK. Black civil rights guy. My leftie history teacher likes to go on about him. Plus there seems to have been a little bit about this anniversary on the news here. To be honest, I don't really care about MLK. I'm a white British teenager, what could a black American civil rights leader who died long before I was even born possibly mean to me?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584427']As a Brit teenager I've heard of MLK. Black civil rights guy. My leftie history teacher likes to go on about him. Plus there seems to have been a little bit about this anniversary on the news here. To be honest, I don't really care about MLK. I'm a white British teenager, what could a black American civil rights leader who died long before I was even born possibly mean to me?

Quite a bit considering his general influence...kinda like how Ghandi wasn't just for poor Indians


I asked my kids about this today...out of 50 kids, 2 knew what today was. Lead to some interesting discussions.

BU is doing alot for it (he was a BU grad)...I may go hit up the poetry slam soon

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584427']As a Brit teenager I've heard of MLK. Black civil rights guy. My leftie history teacher likes to go on about him. Plus there seems to have been a little bit about this anniversary on the news here. To be honest, I don't really care about MLK. I'm a white British teenager, what could a black American civil rights leader who died long before I was even born possibly mean to me?
To you, probably very little. But he has certainly had an effect in the U.S., and I'd even say in other parts of the world. Apartheid protests, for example. He helped to change the United States into a place whose government's policy is not racism (although it's still a problem.) And of course, he was just an amazing orator, leader, and admirable person in general.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584427'] To be honest, I don't really care about MLK. I'm a white British teenager, what could a black American civil rights leader who died long before I was even born possibly mean to me?

How many of the above criteria does someone have to fit before they're irrelevant to you?

One of the most radical people to ever be a respected hero to "mainstream America"... shame they had to erase his radicalism in the process.

How many of the above criteria does someone have to fit before they're irrelevant to you?
Not sure, I'd have to look at each case. However I judge it, I still don't see how MLK matters to me. Or the vast majority of people in my country. I can't really feel anything towards a man or cause that's so irrelevant to me.

One of the most radical people to ever be a respected hero to "mainstream America"... shame they had to erase his radicalism in the process.

What are you thinking of? I know he was opposed to the Vietnam War, but were there other examples that people conveniently forgot?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584485']Not sure, I'd have to look at each case. However I judge it, I still don't see how MLK matters to me. Or the vast majority of people in my country. I can't really feel anything towards a man or cause that's so irrelevant to me.

I guess that's fair, but I think you would feel more if you knew more about him.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584485']Not sure, I'd have to look at each case. However I judge it, I still don't see how MLK matters to me. Or the vast majority of people in my country. I can't really feel anything towards a man or cause that's so irrelevant to me.

Racial equality is not something that has been fully achieved in your country so I'm not sure how the cause wouldn't be relevant.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584485']Not sure, I'd have to look at each case. However I judge it, I still don't see how MLK matters to me. Or the vast majority of people in my country. I can't really feel anything towards a man or cause that's so irrelevant to me.

Racism/prejudice is irrelevant to the people of your country? Interesting.

What are you thinking of? I know he was opposed to the Vietnam War, but were there other examples that people conveniently forgot?

He was a socialist, for starters, and said as much in private.

His criticism of the Vietnam War was rather harsh. It wasn't (just) rhetoric about non-violence, and even in that respect he was radical--he called the US "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." He also noted the broader context: the trend in the West to support the oppressors over the oppressed, to disregard the freedom and justice of colonized peoples for its own profit.

He openly supported revolutionary movements worldwide (though he was opposed to Marxism), criticized the West for opposing them, and argued that instead the West should commit itself to its own path of revolutionary change.

In the context of emphasizing his non-violence people forget that King advocated, and participated in, confrontational, illegal direct action tactics, and defended them with rhetoric that is quite militant at points. Among other things, he attacked white moderates as "the great stumbling block" in the struggle for freedom insofar as they preferred the orderly maintenance of the status quo to the necessary disruption of a struggle for justice.

Racial equality is not something that has been fully achieved in your country so I'm not sure how the cause wouldn't be relevant.
Considering the vast majority of people in this country are white, I'd say it doesn't really matter a whole lot. I'm sure it would be different for the black population, but if you asked the average person here what the most pressing issues in this country are they'd probably say stuff like crime, education, immigration, healthcare, ect. I doubt civil rights and racism would feature very much. It's only really important to the PC folks, like members of the Labour party or my history teacher.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584427']As a Brit teenager I've heard of MLK. Black civil rights guy. My leftie history teacher likes to go on about him. Plus there seems to have been a little bit about this anniversary on the news here. To be honest, I don't really care about MLK. I'm a white British teenager, what could a black American civil rights leader who died long before I was even born possibly mean to me?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584485']Not sure, I'd have to look at each case. However I judge it, I still don't see how MLK matters to me. Or the vast majority of people in my country. I can't really feel anything towards a man or cause that's so irrelevant to me.

Hopefully, it never becomes relevant to you. But I suspect that should a time ever comes when it does, it'll be because most of the people of the time will think of MLK as 'irrelevant' also.

Suffice to say that his relevance trancends race.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584518']Considering the vast majority of people in this country are white, I'd say it doesn't really matter a whole lot. I'm sure it would be different for the black population, but if you asked the average person here what the most pressing issues in this country are they'd probably say stuff like crime, education, immigration, healthcare, ect. I doubt civil rights and racism would feature very much. It's only really important to the PC folks, like members of the Labour party or my history teacher.

So if something doesn't affect you it doesn't matter? If apartheid was to be imposed in Britain it'd be fine as long as white people like yourself were doing the oppressing? You paint a wonderful picture of Britain.

Using a pejorative like "PC" to describe wanting justice would strike me as unbeliviably amoral if it weren't for the fact you probably haven't thought it through yet. You should probably pay attention in class, it sounds like you could learn from your history teacher.

Only on NationStates can people put this much political spin on someone like Dr. King

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584427']To be honest, I don't really care about MLK. I'm a white British teenager, what could a black American civil rights leader who died long before I was even born possibly mean to me?

I'm a 25 year old American woman. What could Shakespeare possibly mean to me?

Some things, I hope, are timeless. Chief among those, people who enrich, broaden and help transform our worldview.

Only on NationStates can people put this much political spin on someone like Dr. King

How do you put "political spin" on a figure who was consistently, explicitly, radically political?

Among other things, he attacked white moderates as "the great stumbling block" in the struggle for freedom insofar as they preferred the orderly maintenance of the status quo to the necessary disruption of a struggle for justice.

As a white non-moderate, I'd have to agree. See quote below.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584518']Considering the vast majority of people in this country are white, I'd say it doesn't really matter a whole lot. I'm sure it would be different for the black population, but if you asked the average person here what the most pressing issues in this country are they'd probably say stuff like crime, education, immigration, healthcare, ect. I doubt civil rights and racism would feature very much. It's only really important to the PC folks, like members of the Labour party or my history teacher.

Crime, education, immigration and healthcare are all inextricably connected to civil rights and race relations. ESPECIALLY immigration. And considering your country, like mine, fought in a war against genocide, I think many people would still find it to be a relevant issue.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13584518']Considering the vast majority of people in this country are white, I'd say it doesn't really matter a whole lot. I'm sure it would be different for the black population, but if you asked the average person here what the most pressing issues in this country are they'd probably say stuff like crime, education, immigration, healthcare, ect. I doubt civil rights and racism would feature very much. It's only really important to the PC folks, like members of the Labour party or my history teacher.

Since when is racism restricted to blacks? Whites, asians, blacks, jews, gentiles...everyone is hit by it. Immigration is exactly what MLK was talking about.

Only on NationStates can people put this much political spin on someone like Dr. King

In what way? Are you saying he wasn't political? I'm confused.

Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Link (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2008-04-04-voa1.cfm)
Thoughts? Comments? Also, if you live outside the U.S. do you know who Martin Luther King is? I'm curious to see how well-known he is internationally.


Hmm, well I didn't even know that until this evening. So I think I can safely say it isn't a big thing to us. Martin Luther King's birthday is a Federal and State holiday each year in January. I didn't know we also recognized the day he died. :confused:

Sorry to say it, but it seems like a little much to me for one man.

And yes I remember him and his assassination.

I didn't know we also recognized the day he died. :confused:

It's not an official day.

Sorry to say it, but it seems like a little much to me for one man.

If we have a day to honor a racist murderer and imperialist like Columbus....

If we have a day to honor a racist murderer and imperialist like Columbus....

And let's not even get started with St. Patrick.

It's not an official day.



If we have a day to honor a racist murderer and imperialist like Columbus....


I don't think I said Columbus was a saint did I? King wasn't either. Frankly I would be fine if neither of them reaped a holiday myself.

I would be just as happy if we gave everyone their birthdays off as a holiday instead. Let's celebrate the living instead of the dead. :p

I don't think I said Columbus was a saint did I? King wasn't either.

No one's perfect, but King's moral failures, such as they were, compare in no way to those of Columbus.

Frankly I would be fine if neither of them reaped a holiday myself.

Why shouldn't we honor the man who played such a crucial role in the struggle that brought legal equality to Black Americans?

Why shouldn't we honor the man who played such a crucial role in the struggle that brought legal equality to Black Americans?or atleast started to...

The History Channel is airing a program on King this sunday. It seems like they're going to delve into the more controversial portions of King's actions.

http://www.putkingonthe20.com/
Get the racist and evil man Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill and put a real hero:
The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior

No one's perfect, but King's moral failures, such as they were, compare in no way to those of Columbus.



Why shouldn't we honor the man who played such a crucial role in the struggle that brought legal equality to Black Americans?


Is there a reason to ignore what Columbus did contribute to the world? The science, the geography, etc?

As you say no one is perfect.

I think both holidays are set aside to celebrate the positive aspects these men each contributed to society.

I personally have always wanted my birthday as a holiday. After all Groundhog Day favors no man, just a furball named Phil. :p

For the record, I have complete respect for Reverend King. He helped move this country into an era that had been coming for many decades. He did it much more peaceably that it could have been and for that he gets an enormous amount of credit without question.

The fact that he was a Republican who openly protested a Democrat administration and it's policies, an administration that tried desperately to stifle him in the 60s, says much for his character and integrity. A lesser man would have crumbled.

I simply did not know that today was something special about him.

I support a Black Panther Day.

I can't believe nobody thought to post this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3dHvYB5JdSs

I can't believe nobody thought to post this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3dHvYB5JdSs


That is a great video! Somewhere in my heaps of things I have that original 45 record. It is a great song. :)

I support a Black Panther Day.

Have you ever actually met a former Black Panther? I'm just curious, because they started here and I do know one.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

"The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."

"Nowhere have the riots won any concrete improvement such as have the organized protest demonstrations. When one tries to pin down advocates of violence as to what acts would be effective, the answers are blatantly illogical. Sometimes they talk of overthrowing racist state and local governments and they talk about guerrilla warfare. They fail to see that no internal revolution has ever succeeded in overthrowing a government by violence unless the government had already lost the allegiance and effective control of its armed forces. Anyone in his right mind knows that this will not happen in the United States."

"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."

Have you ever actually met a former Black Panther? I'm just curious, because they started here and I do know one.

No I have not, although I support their views.

"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."
That sounds frighteningly like fascism as the 'third way'....

http://www.putkingonthe20.com/
Get the racist and evil man Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill and put a real hero:
The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior

Why?

That sounds frighteningly like fascism as the 'third way'....

Okay, now you're just doing it to provoke a response, and I'm too tired to bite.

Is there a reason to ignore what Columbus did contribute to the world? The science, the geography, etc?

And what, pray tell, did he contribute?

Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Link (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2008-04-04-voa1.cfm)
Thoughts? Comments? Also, if you live outside the U.S. do you know who Martin Luther King is? I'm curious to see how well-known he is internationally.

Comments?

Has someone posted this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g7uX6jaEfI

The world would be a much better place if there were more people like him in the world. He was a truly selfless human who had the ability to change lives for the better, and did.

Oh, from the thread title I thought it was about a real king, but it's just about a baptist preacher. :(

And what, pray tell, did he contribute?He opened the floodgates for 500 years of deadly colonialism.

Oh, from the thread title I thought it was about a real king, but it's just about a baptist preacher. :(

even you have to admit that he was a bit more than "just a baptist preacher"

even you have to admit that he was a bit more than "just a baptist preacher"I am a European. He is nothing for me at all.

And what, pray tell, did he contribute?

The discovery of the North Atlantic tradewinds for one thing.

Most navigation calculations of the era were incorrect. While the world wasn't actually held as flat, that is a bedtime story, it was thought to be oval. The reason exploration had not been pursued was because no one believed a crew could survive the length of time it would take to sail the "oval" dimensions generally accepted.

Columbus, though he had all the calcs just as wrong, discovered the manueverability using the trade winds and in that opened a whole world of exploration.

Most of what he did discover or shall we say uncover he did by accident, but then some of the biggest contributions to the world were by accident. :)

Comments?

Has someone posted this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g7uX6jaEfI

Absolutely. Freakin'. AWESOME.

Aaron Macgruder is a genius.

Good riddance.

Everyone that knows a lot about him would have to agree that he was a divisive fraud and hypocrite. His holiday remains a national disgrace.

Everyone that knows a lot about him would have to agree that he was a divisive fraud and hypocrite. His holiday remains a national disgrace.

Do you have anything to back this up?

I don't see what all the fuss is about and why this should interrupt my day but then I have never understood personality cults

Good riddance.

what a horrible thing to say about a person dying

Everyone that knows a lot about him would have to agree that he was a divisive fraud and hypocrite. His holiday remains a national disgrace.

examples?

Do you have anything to back this up?

You mean other than the fact that he was strongly affiliated with the communists? Much of the people directly under him were. He might have preached peace with words, like Jackson and Sharpton do, but he was closely involved with many other violent groups, including the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers. Or just the fact that he was a complete moral hypocrite and liar.

He made everything into a racial issue, every single thing. He's responsible for the racial identity politics that are the root of every problem we have now. He might have talked about equality, but he was really about instituting legal discrimination in hopes of black advancement, which is what affirmative action is.

King was/is, a complete fraud. Like I said, anyone that really knows a lot about him, should know that. But I won't hold my breath. Realism isn't popular here.

I am a European. He is nothing for me at all.
Nor is Mandela or Gandhi, I suppose? Just because the battle wasn't on your land doesn't mean it didn't have influence over your world.

Nor is Mandela or Gandhi, I suppose? Just because the battle wasn't on your land doesn't mean it didn't have influence over your world.What influence? They had no effect on civil liberties in the countries I have lived in so far.

What influence? They had no effect on civil liberties in the countries I have lived in so far.

They haven't inspired anyone? Their theories of non-violence etc. have not changed anyones potential course of action? Their battles haven't influenced any politics? They haven't moved people to pick up the fight elsewhere?

Oh, from the thread title I thought it was about a real king, but it's just about a baptist preacher. :(

At first I was almost upset, but then I remembered... it's just UB doing what he does!

even you have to admit that he was a bit more than "just a baptist preacher"

Nah, UB doesn't have to admit to reason ever.

Everyone that knows a lot about him would have to agree that he was a divisive fraud and hypocrite. His holiday remains a national disgrace.

As opposed to you, who remains a fairly local disgrace. Possibly the source of your outrage.

You mean other than the fact that he was strongly affiliated with the communists? Much of the people directly under him were.

This only makes sense if you believe communism, or all communists, is immoral. Which is foolish.

He might have preached peace with words, like Jackson and Sharpton do, but he was closely involved with many other violent groups, including the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers.

You're doing the same thing that you did with the communists. You make the assumption that these people are bad, and then you assume MLK was bad because he agreed with some of the things they said.

Or just the fact that he was a complete moral hypocrite and liar.

And now you're just repeating your argument. I didn't believe it the first time, and you have provided only faulty assumptions as evidence since then. Consequently, I still don't believe it.

He made everything into a racial issue, every single thing.

No he didn't. His Poor People's Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People's_Campaign)was decidedly multiracial, like poverty.

He's responsible for the racial identity politics that are the root of every problem we have now. He might have talked about equality, but he was really about instituting legal discrimination in hopes of black advancement, which is what affirmative action is.

See, this is not support for your argument unless you have some sort of evidence for this. Here, you are merely clarifying your argument, not supporting it. Perhaps if you quoted some respected historian who showed how today's racial identity politics are solely MLK's legacy, you might have some support for this.

King was/is, a complete fraud. Like I said, anyone that really knows a lot about him, should know that. But I won't hold my breath. Realism isn't popular here.

So, do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? This post seemed to be made only of unproven assumptions and repetitions of your belief. But no evidence.

King was/is, a complete fraud. Like I said, anyone that really knows a lot about him, should know that.

Wow. Considering the extent of your knowledge, you probably wouldn't mind providing some proof.

You mean other than the fact that he was strongly affiliated with the communists? Much of the people directly under him were.

There's some truth to that... maybe it had something to do with the fact that the Communist Party was one of a very few largely white organizations that was committed to civil rights.

Ever heard of the Scottsboro Boys?

He might have preached peace with words, like Jackson and Sharpton do, but he was closely involved with many other violent groups, including the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers.

He quite explicitly attacked their violent rhetoric. If he was at times understanding of their militancy, well... he should have been.

He made everything into a racial issue, every single thing.

What on Earth are you talking about?

He's responsible for the racial identity politics that are the root of every problem we have now.

You mean, he organized Blacks to fight against racism? What a shame. Clearly a problematic course for the future. :rolleyes:

It's really disgusting how people like you want to blame the struggle against racism for the damage racism does. It's a classic case of blaming the victim.

He might have talked about equality, but he was really about instituting legal discrimination in hopes of black advancement, which is what affirmative action is.

True, MLK was in favor of real equality, not just nominal equality.

The question is, why aren't you?

Wow. Considering the extent of your knowledge, you probably wouldn't mind providing some proof.

Proof is like a fickle fish. Sadly I can't tell you why.:(

Most navigation calculations of the era were incorrect. While the world wasn't actually held as flat, that is a bedtime story, it was thought to be oval. The reason exploration had not been pursued was because no one believed a crew could survive the length of time it would take to sail the "oval" dimensions generally accepted.

Columbus thought it was an oval. (Egg-shaped, to be exact.) Pretty much everyone else thought it was a sphere. The reason he sailed was that he thought the distance was less than it was.

So if something doesn't affect you it doesn't matter? If apartheid was to be imposed in Britain it'd be fine as long as white people like yourself were doing the oppressing? You paint a wonderful picture of Britain.

Using a pejorative like "PC" to describe wanting justice would strike me as unbeliviably amoral if it weren't for the fact you probably haven't thought it through yet. You should probably pay attention in class, it sounds like you could learn from your history teacher.


:headbang: You haven't the slightest idea, have you? Britain is universally reviled by both the western european countries and the middle eastern ones for sheltering foreign terrorists and radicals.. "white people doing the oppressing" my *rse. Using the phrase "PC" means that the poster has learned not accept propaganda at face value and your unbelieveably precious comment "if it weren't for the fact you probably haven't thought it through yet. You should probably pay attention in class, it sounds like you could learn from your history teacher" would earn you a kick up the backside in any free and sane society. You poor fool, blind acceptance of what our teachers tell us is what caused your race problems in the US in the first place, given the widely-taught belief that black people were not human and therefore it was morally justified to enslave them because of the teaching in the Book of Genesis that God gave us dominion over all the beasts of the field. Go peddle your reactionary condecension elsewhere :upyours:

And while you're in the business of analysing people on the basis of their age, I am in my sixth decade ... what should I go to for enlightenment, O Great One?

I find it disturbing how you point out your white and follow that by saying how MLK doesn't matter to you.

Personally, it also annoys me when people call him MLK. It sounds like something a rapper would be named, and I hate rap. That's just personal pickiness, though.;)

Wow. Considering the extent of your knowledge, you probably wouldn't mind providing some proof.

Didn't you hear? He never has to provide proof, since anyone disagreeing with him is obviously ignorant and can be written off.

:headbang: You haven't the slightest idea, have you? Britain is universally reviled by both the western european countries and the middle eastern ones for sheltering foreign terrorists and radicals.. "white people doing the oppressing" my *rse. Using the phrase "PC" means that the poster has learned not accept propaganda at face value and your unbelieveably precious comment "if it weren't for the fact you probably haven't thought it through yet. You should probably pay attention in class, it sounds like you could learn from your history teacher" would earn you a kick up the backside in any free and sane society. You poor fool, blind acceptance of what our teachers tell us is what caused your race problems in the US in the first place, given the widely-taught belief that black people were not human and therefore it was morally justified to enslave them because of the teaching in the Book of Genesis that God gave us dominion over all the beasts of the field. Go peddle your reactionary condecension elsewhere :upyours:

And while you're in the business of analysing people on the basis of their age, I am in my sixth decade ... what should I go to for enlightenment, O Great One?

An old peoples home. People like you shouldn't be allowed out and about.

I have to say I have read about MLK and I do respect him somewhat, but disagree with who so many people think of him as the main force that drove the civil rights movement, when they were countless persons, both black and white, that helped him.

define "vague notion" and "a lot".

The fact that he was a Republican who openly protested a Democrat administration and it's policies, an administration that tried desperately to stifle him in the 60s, says much for his character and integrity. A lesser man would have crumbled.

Where did you get the idea that King was a Republican? Just because he was a religious man doesn't mean he was a conservative. In fact, MLK was a democratic socialist, though he wisely kept this private to avoid his campaign for racial equality from being McCarthyed straight to hell.

There's some truth to that... maybe it had something to do with the fact that the Communist Party was one of a very few largely white organizations that was committed to civil rights.

No, they weren't. They used the plight of American blacks for their own ends. They admitted as much that they didn't give a damn about African-Americans or their plight.

No, they weren't.

Yes, they were.

They used the plight of American blacks for their own ends.

And what ends would those be? Defense of Black civil rights wasn't exactly the most popular course of action.

They admitted as much that they didn't give a damn about African-Americans or their plight.

Somehow I doubt this.

Yes, they were.

You need to do more research on the CPUSA.

And what ends would those be? Defense of Black civil rights wasn't exactly the most popular course of action.

They weren't interested in black civil rights. They were interested in hijacking the civil rights movement - an effort which thankfully failed.

Somehow I doubt this.

It's true. If you'd like, I can provide a source. It'll have to wait, though, because I don't have the source at hand; I'll have to get it at the library (within walking distance).

And Soheran, your being a member of the anti-Soviet (especially anti-Stalinist) left makes your support of the CPUSA all the more puzzling.

You need to do more research on the CPUSA.

You need to pay attention to people who aren't blind anti-Communists. Among other things, the Comintern had an explicit anti-racist stance, and forced its member parties to hold to it.

Seriously, count the number of major Black figures prior to the Civil Rights Era who were communists.

They weren't interested in black civil rights. They were interested in hijacking the civil rights movement - an effort which thankfully failed.

On what basis do you say that?

It's true. If you'd like, I can provide a source.

Go ahead. Who, by the way, is "they"?

And Soheran, your being a member of the anti-Soviet (especially anti-Stalinist) left makes your support of the CPUSA all the more puzzling.

I didn't know truth was a football game.

You need to do more research on the CPUSA.

You are attributing false malicious intentions where none existed. I will be the first to admit that the CPUSA did not treat the civil rights issue as genuinely as it should have, but I can also recognize that at the time, the CPUSA was the only white organization that actually did genuinely care about civil rights.

They weren't interested in black civil rights. They were interested in hijacking the civil rights movement - an effort which thankfully failed.

And I suppose you are a telepath and a seer into the souls of men...

It's true. If you'd like, I can provide a source. It'll have to wait, though, because I don't have the source at hand; I'll have to get it at the library (within walking distance).

Make haste.

I didn't know truth was a football game.

I didn't say it was. I just find it a bit puzzling. The CPUSA was thoroughly in bed with Moscow, and you're as anti-Soviet as they come.

I didn't say it was. I just find it a bit puzzling. The CPUSA was thoroughly in bed with Moscow, and you're as anti-Soviet as they come.

It's not puzzling if you spend any time among radical leftists. We are already beset by sectarianism. Dragging past figures through the muck for being mislead by Stalin and his ilk serves no one.

The CPUSA was thoroughly in bed with Moscow

I'm aware of that. They also were genuinely committed to labor and civil rights organizing. They were (very) misguided, not evil--they sincerely believed that the Soviet Union was the socialist paradise it wasn't.

Make haste.

I'm on my way now. bbiab

I will be the first to admit that the CPUSA did not treat the civil rights issue as genuinely as it should have, but I can also recognize that at the time, the CPUSA was the only white organization that actually did genuinely care about civil rights.

Exactly. It's not that the CPUSA got anti-racism right, it's that they were among the very few white organizations that got anti-racism at all.

I return, with a source, as promised.

"[W]e don't give a damn about the Scottsboro boys. If they burn it doesn't make any difference. We are only interested in one thing, how we can use the Scottsboro case to bring the Communist movement to the people and win them over to Communism."

Richard Powers, Not Without Honor, p. 101.

I return, with a source, as promised.

"The History of American Anti-Communism." Interesting.

Who said that, exactly? And in what context?

Edit: A FrontPageMag article found through Google, and referencing the same book (!), indicates that this was an (unnamed) black columnist quoting an (unnamed) "candid Party official"... in other words, essentially meaningless.

Were there racists in the CPUSA? Of course there were. Does that mean that, as an institution, it didn't take an anti-racist stance and organize for civil rights? Of course it doesn't.

Also, if you live outside the U.S. do you know who Martin Luther King is? I'm curious to see how well-known he is internationally.

Most people in the UK will have heard of him, even if they don't know too many details.

The CPUSA is a throughly revisionist and anti-Marxist organization more akin to a reformist social-democratic party than a genuinely revolutionary party. Sam Webber is completely useless and I doubt they will even exist in a few years. They are a dying organization, and for good reason.

Most people in the UK will have heard of him, even if they don't know too many details.

I was talking to someone 2 years younger than me (I'm 18) and he only vaguely knew who he was and thought that he was involved with Mandella in the struggle against apartheid. Couple of other people didn't have a clue who he was either .I found that pretty weird. I always thought he was a pretty famous guy.

The CPUSA is a throughly revisionist and anti-Marxist organization more akin to a reformist social-democratic party than a genuinely revolutionary party. Sam Webber is completely useless and I doubt they will even exist in a few years. They are a dying organization, and for good reason.

We're talking about their legacy, not their sad current status, Andaras. Historically, the CPUSA was for the longest time the only white organization in the US that was committed to civil rights for all Americans.

Civil rights for all communist supporters you mean. Communist states weren't exactly known for their tolerance for diversity of opinion. The CPUSA was funded by the Soviet Union and operated as an arm of an enemy power. They were traitors and their support for civil rights was actually a huge mark against it in many quarters. How well do you think civil rights demonstrations were viewed with red flags flying overhead? Same thing with anti-Vietnam protests which flew VC and communist flags. Same thing with many of these anti-war marches now, these people hijack everything. The kinds of protests are largely organized by very far-left groups like ANSWER.

Communism killed so many millions of people and enslaved a large part of the world for a long time. These people were advocates of bringing that system to the USA and trying to say that they were acceptable people to have taken support from because officially they supported civil rights for all citizens is ridiculous. Just like the acceptance of violently racist groups like the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam completely undermined the cause they were publicly espousing. I repeat, King was a divisive fraud.

Communist states weren't exactly known for their tolerance for diversity of opinion.

Yeah, so? The CPUSA didn't gain power, and no communist movement has gained power in a country remotely comparable to the US, so you don't even have any plausible means of comparison.

Now, if they had said, "We want to massacre millions of people", you'd have a case, but they didn't, of course.

Just like the acceptance of violently racist groups like the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam completely undermined the cause they were publicly espousing.

Whose acceptance? It's not like the CPUSA was supportive to independent Black nationalism, or vice versa.

In any case, if anything, the mainstream Civil Rights Movement undermined its own cause by not paying enough attention to the radical voices from which it sought to differentiate itself.

How the hell did this turn into ANOTHER goddamn communist thread?

Fuck communism.

Anyways, every America child knows about MLK. Every year they get taught about him. It really gets old hearing the same things over and over.

I was talking to someone 2 years younger than me (I'm 18) and he only vaguely knew who he was and thought that he was involved with Mandella in the struggle against apartheid. Couple of other people didn't have a clue who he was either .I found that pretty weird. I always thought he was a pretty famous guy.

He is, those guys are just ignorant.

HSH Prince Eric, please use your brain to think, and not to spout the same tired, propaganda over and over again.

American communists have always made clear their commitment to democracy. The fact that they were duped by Stalin and his ilk is completely irrelevant. American communists thought that the Soviet Union was the worker's paradise that they had been working for; the classless society of soviet democracy its supporters always claimed it to be.

They were mislead, most certainly. But being mislead does not give someone evil intentions. Unless you realize that, then it is impossible to have any discussion on this matter.

Yeah, so? The CPUSA didn't gain power, and no communist movement has gained power in a country remotely comparable to the US, so you don't even have any plausible means of comparison.

Now, if they had said, "We want to massacre millions of people", you'd have a case, but they didn't, of course.

Whose acceptance? It's not like the CPUSA was supportive to independent Black nationalism, or vice versa.

In any case, if anything, the mainstream Civil Rights Movement undermined its own cause by not paying enough attention to the radical voices from which it sought to differentiate itself.

Yeah, they didn't gain power. However, they knew about what was going on in communist states and how the Soviets were holding much of Europe hostage. Yet, they still advocated bringing this system of government here. King knew this and he still accepted them, just like he did the violent bigots around him.

HSH Prince Eric, please use your brain to think, and not to spout the same tired, propaganda over and over again.

American communists have always made clear their commitment to democracy. The fact that they were duped by Stalin and his ilk is completely irrelevant. American communists thought that the Soviet Union was the worker's paradise that they had been working for; the classless society of soviet democracy its supporters always claimed it to be.

They were mislead, most certainly. But being mislead does not give someone evil intentions. Unless you realize that, then it is impossible to have any discussion on this matter.

That's complete bullshit. They knew damn well what was going on in those states. You think that only the U.S. government knew that the states in the Soviet Union didn't have any choice about the matter? If you believe they were ignorant fine, but they were willfully ignorant and that's even worse really.

Every year they get taught about him.

Yeah, and probably the same bullshit, too.

"The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law."

"You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism."

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." (Though they might actually make people read Letter from Birmingham Jail in the better History classes...)

"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up."

"But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

"These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions."

"I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about Where do we go from here, that we honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, Who owns the oil? You begin to ask the question, Who owns the iron ore? You begin to ask the question, Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water? These are questions that must be asked." (He goes on to say that he's not talking about communism, for what it's worth.)

So where are all the politicians who wax eloquent about Martin Luther King's dream now?

Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Link (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2008-04-04-voa1.cfm)
Thoughts? Comments? Also, if you live outside the U.S. do you know who Martin Luther King is? I'm curious to see how well-known he is internationally.

So where was Jesse Jackson this year? I'm so used to hearing him tell the story of how he was with King when he died, that the absence this year is irritating...

However, they knew about what was going on in communist states and how the Soviets were holding much of Europe hostage.

Perhaps they should have known, but they denied it. I see no reason to attribute this to intentional malice rather than convenient denial.

King knew this and he still accepted them, just like he did the violent bigots around him.

King explicitly and consistently opposed both violence and bigotry.

That's complete bullshit. They knew damn well what was going on in those states. You think that only the U.S. government knew that the states in the Soviet Union didn't have any choice about the matter? If you believe they were ignorant fine, but they were willfully ignorant and that's even worse really.

Tell me, would you believe the message form the very group of people that want to see your entire movement strung up as traitors for daring to want to make a better world?

The American communists were deluded because the US government, like any good propagandist, mixed truth with lies. The truth about the Soviet Union was mixed with lies about about the kind of world communists seek to create. The American communists were willfully ignorant, yes, but then again, so are you. One ill turn deserves another, I guess.

Perhaps they should have known, but they denied it. I see no reason to attribute this to intentional malice rather than convenient denial.

King explicitly and consistently opposed both violence and bigotry.

And so does Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and every other race pimp there is. Making public statements about non-violence and equality, while surrounding himself with violent groups and supporting legislation for discrimination in favor of black advancement is what King was about.

Tell me, would you believe the message form the very group of people that want to see your entire movement strung up as traitors for daring to want to make a better world?

The American communists were deluded because the US government, like any good propagandist, mixed truth with lies. The truth about the Soviet Union was mixed with lies about about the kind of world communists seek to create. The American communists were willfully ignorant, yes, but then again, so are you. One ill turn deserves another, I guess.

Again. A person is expected to have some level of awareness about a cause they are advocating. They didn't need the government to tell tham that the Soviet Union in particular and other communist powers were holding nations hostage and brutally oppressing the populace.

And anyone that did any kind of actual research into conditions would see that people were not being allowed to leave and those that did were detailing the starvation, executions and intolerance.

Willfull ignorance is no excuse. Accepting support from the CPUSA is no different than accepting it from Rockwell and his Nazis.

And so does Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and every other race pimp there is. Making public statements about non-violence and equality, while surrounding herself with violent groups and supporting legislation for discrimination in favor of black advancement is what King was about.

I'm still stuck on how opposing a slave regime like Jim Crow, or the segregation of blacks from decent public utilities constitutes "supporting legislation for discrimination". :rolleyes:

And so does Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and every other race pimp there is.

Oh, shots at Jackson and Sharpton--how typical.

Making public statements about non-violence and equality, while surrounding herself with violent groups and supporting legislation for discrimination in favor of black advancement is what King was about.

King didn't surround himself with violent groups. What are you talking about? And yeah, he supported real equality for Blacks, not equality relegated to a piece of paper. The real question is: why don't you?

I'm still stuck on how opposing a slave regime like Jim Crow, or the segregation of blacks from decent public utilities constitutes "supporting legislation for discrimination". :rolleyes:

He's talking about King's support for affirmative action.

I'm still stuck on how opposing a slave regime like Jim Crow, or the segregation of blacks from decent public utilities constitutes "supporting legislation for discrimination". :rolleyes:

So King wasn't the driving force in bringing about AA and racial quota laws?

The Jim Crow laws were enforced in local areas in the South. That's it. AA is actual discrimination written into federal law.

Willfully ignorance is no excuse. Accepting support from the CPUSA is no different than accepting it from Rockwell and his Nazis.

I'm going to keep that in mind for future reference.

Still, you have not shown any malicious intent. This whole argument is just a side show. Face it, you cannot prove that American communists were a malicious bunch because they frankly weren't. They wanted a better world, and had the misfortune of being corralled in with a tyrannical charlatan who used communism as an excuse for oppression.

Would you call the American Nazi Party malicious? Or would you let them hide behind what is actually written down and espoused directly and not the actions of Nazis from the past? Keep in mind that fascists of the era killed far less people than the communists. Yet communists are accepted in many European nations where even displaying a swastika will put you in prison.

So King wasn't the driving force in bringing about AA and racial quota laws?

The Jim Crow were enforced in some local areas in the South. That's it. AA is actual discrimination written into federal law.

Until the 400 year legacy of slavery and discrimination can be undone, programs like affirmative action will remain necessary. Generations of miring in poverty, cut off from education and opportunities cannot be undone by simple act of allowing blacks the right to have coffee in a white cafe. It demands compensation, and I will stand by that line until black Americans have the same average standard of living as white Americans.

But still, Soheran said it best:

King didn't surround himself with violent groups. What are you talking about? And yeah, he supported real equality for Blacks, not equality relegated to a piece of paper. The real question is: why don't you?

The Jim Crow laws were enforced in local areas in the South. That's it. AA is actual discrimination written into federal law.

Ah, so not only is affirmative action bad, but it's actually worse than Jim Crow.

Oh, white people. How they are oppressed.

Would you call the American Nazi Party malicious? Or would you let them hide behind what is actually written down and espoused directly and not the actions of Nazis from the past?

This is either/or?

The American Nazi Party is openly and explicitly bigoted. That's their party's ideological stance. No, I would not hold them accountable for the actions of Nazi parties elsewhere that they either deny or reject.

Ah, so not only is affirmative action bad, but it's actually worse than Jim Crow.

Oh, white people. How they are oppressed.

Are you denying that AA is discrimination? I'm curious.

Or are you saying that's ok to discriminate against a racial majority in favor a minority of people?

Until the 400 year legacy of slavery and discrimination can be undone, programs like affirmative action will remain necessary. Generations of miring in poverty, cut off from education and opportunities cannot be undone by simple act of allowing blacks the right to have coffee in a white cafe. It demands compensation, and I will stand by that line until black Americans have the same average standard of living as white Americans.

But still, Soheran said it best:

Basically you are saying that discrimination is alright if it allegedly supports this goal that you list? Very, very interesting.

You see I didn't know that I could punish the ancestors of people who might have wronged mine.

Would you call the American Nazi Party malicious? Or would you let them hide behind what is actually written down and espoused directly and not the actions of Nazis from the past? Keep in mind that fascists of the era killed far less people than the communists. Yet communists are accepted in many European nations where even displaying a swastika will put you in prison.

There is a very real difference between communism as an ideology, and fascism as an ideology. Until you can understand that the vast majority of communists have never and never will believe in totalitarianism, and are quite often the most pro-democracy groups in Western nations, than no dialogue between us in possible.

Tyrants all over the world kill for many ostensibly good reasons. Hundreds of millions of people throughout the ages have been put to the sword in the name of Christendom. Does that somehow invalidate the words of Jesus that we should love and tolerate our fellow humans?

Of course not. Why then do the actions of zealots of communism invalidate communism's central message: that class oppression is no less a crime than any other form of oppression, and that working people can band together to end their oppression.

The past century speaks of a tragic disparity between intentions and actions for communists. No such disparity exists for fascists. But every radical progressive idea has always had such birthing pains. The idea of the republic did not die because the French Jacobins were corrupted by power, and the idea of communism in turn will not die because the Russian Bolsheviks were corrupted by power.

Basically you are saying that discrimination is alright if it allegedly supports this goal that you list? Very, very interesting.

You see I didn't know that I could punish the ancestors of people who might have wronged mine.

I wasn't aware that correcting a past wrong, and providing people a way out of the nightmare that is their social position constituted "punishment".

I wasn't aware that correcting a past wrong, and providing people a way out of the nightmare that is their social position constituted "punishment".

Once again. How exactly is it correcting a past wrong to discriminate against one people for another that was historically discriminated against? I just never bought that line of thinking.

Your grandfather robbed mine, so pay up. Nope.

Are you denying that AA is discrimination? I'm curious.

Technically, any non-random choice is discrimination, so in that sense, yes, of course it is. So what?

But you're probably asking whether it's racist discrimination, and the answer is, obviously, no.

Or are you saying that's ok to discriminate against a racial majority in favor a minority of people?

It has absolutely nothing to do with "minority" and "majority" status. It has to do with rectifying the unjust consequences of past and present racism.

There is a very real difference between communism as an ideology, and fascism as an ideology. Until you can understand that the vast majority of communists have never and never will believe in totalitarianism, and are quite often the most pro-democracy groups in Western nations, than no dialogue between us in possible.

Tyrants all over the world kill for many ostensibly good reasons. Hundreds of millions of people throughout the ages have been put to the sword in the name of Christendom. Does that somehow invalidate the words of Jesus that we should love and tolerate our fellow humans?

Of course not. Why then do the actions of zealots of communism invalidate communism's central message: that class oppression is no less a crime than any other form of oppression, and that working people can band together to end their oppression.

The past century speaks of a tragic disparity between intentions and actions for communists. No such disparity exists for fascists. But every radical progressive idea has always had such birthing pains. The idea of the republic did not die because the French Jacobins were corrupted by power, and the idea of communism in turn will not die because the Russian Bolsheviks were corrupted by power.

The vast majority? Based on what? The actual states that practice communism?

Oh, but let me guess. There has never been a "real" communist state. You know that has never been a "real" capitalist state. With all the social programs that have always existed in Western societies, they are farther away from "real" capitalism than the communist states ever have been from "real" communism. "Real" by the book fascism has never been practiced either.

You can be an apologist, but hopefully as few people will listen to you as few did to the other communists.

Once again. How exactly is it correcting a past wrong to discriminate against one people for another that was historically discriminated against? I just never bought that line of thinking.

Your grandfather robbed mine, so pay up. Nope.

So in other words, "fuck those darkies. They can just mire in poverty for the rest of eternity. I ain't paying trivially higher taxes to compensate for 400 years of slavery". :rolleyes:

I didn't know truth was a football game.

I would like to call attention to this phenomenal response and would like to apologise to Soheran for my inevitable plagarising of it.

How exactly is it correcting a past wrong to discriminate against one people for another that was historically discriminated against?

The ends do not justify the means. It is not right to mistreat one group of people for the harm done to another.

The real question is whether affirmative action is "mistreatment", and the answer is "no." You don't have a right to a particular job, or to a particular slot in college admissions... especially not when (as is usually the case in institutions with affirmative action programs) there are more qualified applicants than there are spaces.

Now, on the broader level, we are justly concerned with patterns of discrimination, because we are concerned with distributive justice: if a group is systematically discriminated against, that is wrong because its members get less than their fair share. But affirmative action does nothing of the sort. In that respect, all it does is erode unjustly-attained white privilege.

Technically, any non-random choice is discrimination, so in that sense, yes, of course it is. So what?

But you're probably asking whether it's racist discrimination, and the answer is, obviously, no.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "minority" and "majority" status. It has to do with rectifying the unjust consequences of past and present racism.

Let me get this straight.

You acknowledge that it is discrimination, but don't care because it's directed at a historically powerful group.

Discriminating against one group simply because they are Caucasian or Asian is obviously not racial discrimination.

Discriminating against one group, no matter if they didn't do anything themselves or even if their ancestors were not in the country at the time or had no part in said events is all part of rectifying the past.

Very nice.

The vast majority? Based on what? The actual states that practice communism?

Oh, but let me guess. There has never been a "real" communist state. You know that has never been a "real" capitalist state. With all the social programs that have always existed in Western societies, they are farther away from "real" capitalism than the communist states ever have been from "real" communism. "Real" by the book fascism has never been practiced either.

You can be an apologist, but hopefully as few people will listen to you as few did to the other communists.

I said I was speaking about communists, as in the people who believe in communism, not communist states. No one wanted the Soviet Union to turn into the statist nightmare that it was, save for a few Stalinist apparatchiks. Millions of communists were purged by Stalin for opposing his power grab, mind you.

I have never, and never will, defend the Soviet Union's crimes. But I will object to being labeled as a tyrant for believing that the workers can control the means of production.

So in other words, "fuck those darkies. They can just mire in poverty for the rest of eternity. I ain't paying trivially higher taxes to compensate for 400 years of slavery". :rolleyes:

And the fact that black slaves were owned by a small percentage of every race is not valid? Or the fact that a lot of blacks were not slaves.

My own ancestors did not come to the country until the early 1900's on both sides. How exactly is it my responsibility to compensate for something that not only I myself, but none of my ancestors had anything to do with? Even if they did, when did we start punishing people for something that they had no part in?

Oh, the 1960's, right.

I said I was speaking about communists, as in the people who believe in communism, not communist states. No one wanted the Soviet Union to turn into the statist nightmare that it was, save for a few Stalinist apparatchiks. Millions of communists were purged by Stalin for opposing his power grab, mind you.

I have never, and never will, defend the Soviet Union's crimes. But I will object to being labeled as a tyrant for believing that the workers can control the means of production.

Obviously some people did or it wouldn't have.

And what you are saying is that you support the idea of textbook communism, even though it's been shown in every case to be an utter disaster when it's attempted?

And the fact that black slaves were owned by a small percentage of every race is not valid? Or the fact that a lot of blacks were not slaves.

My own ancestors did not come to the country until the early 1900's on both sides. How exactly is it my responsibility to compensate for something that not only I myself, but none of my ancestors had anything to do with? Even if they did, when did we start punishing people for something that they had no part in?

Oh, the 1960's, right.

I refuse to continue this discussion because it will be impossible for me to remain civil. Thank you and good night. :rolleyes:

I refuse to continue this discussion because it will be impossible for me to remain civil. Thank you and good night. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't think so. Good night.

You acknowledge that it is discrimination,

In the same sense that choosing an apple instead of a pear is? Yes.

but don't care because it's directed at a historically powerful group.

Not "historically" powerful... presently powerful, presently unjustly powerful.

Discriminating against one group simply because they are Caucasian or Asian is obviously not racial discrimination.

Obviously it is. There is no "simply because." If Caucasians and Asians were in the position of Blacks, I'd support affirmative action for them too.

Discriminating against one group, no matter if they didn't do anything themselves or even if their ancestors were not in the country at the time time or had no part in said events is all part of rectifying the past.

We rightly apply such standards to punishment. But nobody is being punished. Nobody's rights are being denied.

I would like to call attention to this phenomenal response and would like to apologise to Soheran for my inevitable plagarising of it.

Plagiarize at will.

How exactly is it my responsibility to compensate for something that not only I myself, but none of my ancestors had anything to do with?

It's not. And nobody's asking you, personally, to compensate anyone.

We rightly apply such standards to punishment. But nobody is being punished. Nobody's rights are being denied.


Ok. So not accepting me into a university or private school if I have a higher score or qualification in favor of racial diversity is not punishment?

Not giving me a job or promotion in favor of a less qualified minority is not punishment?

I never understand the supporters of AA who constantly claim things like that.

As for the nonsense about whites being unjustly powerful in the United States. I'm not even going to start. It's too hot outside.

Ok. So not accepting me into a university or private school if I have a higher score or qualification in favor of racial diversity is not punishment?

Not giving me a job or promotion in favor of a less qualified minority is not punishment?

I never understand the supporters of AA who constantly claim things like that.

As for the nonsense about whites being unjustly powerful in the United States. I'm not even going to start. It's too hot outside.

If you want to talk about AA so much just make a thread about it instead of derailing this one. I'm sure TCT and Soheran will straighten you out over there.


On topic: I'm not a big fan of celebrating a man's death, especially a respectable man, so I'll just stick with MLK day.

Ok. So not accepting me into a university or private school if I have higher score or qualification in favor of racial diversity is not punishment?

Do you have a right to a place? No? So of course it isn't.

College admissions routinely discriminate on all sorts of bases... geographic location, apparent interests, legacies, athletics... hell, even when they make distinctions based on supposedly meaningful things, like grades and SAT scores, the differences are often too small to be really meaningful (and even when they're substantial, in some cases they will indicate the wrong conclusion.)

That's the nature of the game.

Not giving me a job or promotion in favor of less qualified minorities is not punishment?

Again, do you have a right to a particular job or promotion?

Any decision of this sort is going to be somewhat arbitrary, if nothing else because any judgment of qualification is indirect: they can look at measurements, they can compare you to similar cases, but they can only guess at how you, personally, will do.

There is no place for distributive justice on the individual level, because it's impossible. We have to look at the social level... and there, the unjust consequences of past and present racism are obvious. Why shouldn't we take them into account?

True, we can't tell exactly how much a given minority person has been harmed by racism... but we can't tell exactly how qualified a given person is, either.

We're talking about their legacy, not their sad current status, Andaras. Historically, the CPUSA was for the longest time the only white organization in the US that was committed to civil rights for all Americans.
Even in their 'heyday' they were irrelevant and completely unattached to the interests of the working class. Their adoption of Khrushchevite revisionism was just the first step into oblivion.

But non-whites had a right to all of these things in the past and were denied? And we have to make up for that by saying that whites or men don't have those same rights now. You are justifying racial discrimination by saying that no one has a right to anything, but if that's the case, then there was no wrong doing at all since they had no right to anything in the first place.

I don't think you are going to convert me. Sorry.

And Click Stand. I'd suggest you stick to Call of Duty 4. I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of those who sit on the mic and call everyone a bitch by that kind of ignorant statement. It's a thread talking about MLK and his legacy. Wtf.

But non-whites had a right to all of these things in the past

No, they didn't. They didn't have the right to particular jobs or particular slots at universities either.

The problem was not the means (some people don't get admitted or employed), but the end (a situation of massive racial inequality).

If we discriminate against people for a legitimate goal (economic efficiency, racial equality), that's legitimate. If we discriminate against people for an illegitimate goal (racism, sexism, such that we get massive arbitrary inequality), that's not legitimate.

It's not particularly difficult to grasp.

No, they didn't. They didn't have the right to particular jobs or particular slots at universities either.

The problem was not the means (some people don't get admitted or employed), but the end (a situation of massive racial inequality).

If we discriminate against people for a legitimate goal (economic efficiency, racial equality), that's legitimate. If we discriminate against people for an illegitimate goal (racism, sexism, such that we get massive arbitrary inequality), that's not legitimate.

It's not particularly difficult to grasp.

No, it's not hard to grasp. I'd assume it would be hard to truly believe such nonsense.

And Click Stand. I'd suggest you stick to Call of Duty 4. I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of those who sit on the mic and call everyone a bitch by that kind of ignorant statement. It's a thread talking about MLK and his legacy. Wtf.

Don't understand what this has to do with COD 4 but that changes nothing anyways. All I'm saying is Affirmative action will just envelop this thread, and leave it with no relation to MLK. I know there is a relation between the two, but MLK will be left in the dust once this turns into a 100 page AA thread, which I would assume is undesirable for those who want to discuss the thread topic.

I'll leave it at that...

Click Stand;13588150']Don't understand what this has to do with COD 4 but that changes nothing anyways. All I'm saying is Affirmative action will just envelop this thread, and leave it with no relation to MLK. I know there is a relation between the two, but MLK will be left in the dust once this turns into a 100 page AA thread, which I would assume is undesirable for those who want to discuss the thread topic.

I'll leave it at that...

Actually for once, the AA discussion was short and ended quickly. But it's hard to talk about MLK without talking about AA.

Actually for once, the AA discussion was short and ended quickly. But it's hard to talk about MLK without talking about AA.

It may very well be the Rapture if that actually happpened. Though I will agree it is a hard topic to stay away from, even putting MLK aside.

:)

Communist states weren't exactly known for their tolerance for diversity of opinion.

As opposed to your open embrace of new and challenging ideas.

Communism killed so many millions of people and enslaved a large part of the world for a long time.

...as opposed to every other form of government in history.

These people were advocates of bringing that system to the USA and trying to say that they were acceptable people to have taken support from because officially they supported civil rights for all citizens is ridiculous. Just like the acceptance of violently racist groups like the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam completely undermined the cause they were publicly espousing. I repeat, King was a divisive fraud.

You seem to be more interested in dividing civil rights leaders into camps than he ever was.

As opposed to your open embrace of new and challenging ideas.

...as opposed to every other form of government in history.

You seem to be more interested in dividing civil rights leaders into camps than he ever was.

Complete nonsense.

I keep an open mind about everything. If you think that accepting political correctness, racial identity politics, and communism are new and challenging ideas, then then you are one with the big problem.

Communism was the biggest threat to the Western world at the time. To deny that is ridiculous. King worked with and allied himself to people who wanted to bring a system of government to this country that was forcefully occupying a large part of the world, had no civil rights at all for the opposition, and killed tens of millions of people.

I'm not sure what that last comment was meant to say. Yes, I would put violent, extremist political and peaceful civil rights organizations in different camps. They all lose credibility when they refuse to condemn the others.

I keep an open mind about everything.

That's quite a claim. Especially considering the fertile evidence to the contrary.

I don't use so-called racist terms here like I do in real life for people that deserve it.


An awful lot of the people who died in Hurricane Katrina should have "Stupidity" written as the cause of death.

And one of my favorites:

I guarantee that having a kidney stone is worse than giving birth and it can happen much more often.

Guarantees without all the fuss of actually experiencing something! That's quite the open mind.

If you think that accepting political correctness, racial identity politics, and communism are new and challenging ideas, then then you are one with the big problem.

I don't think any of them are new ideas. They all predate me by quite a bit. I do think they can be quite challenging ideas, and I think that's been shown pretty clearly in the five million debates across NSG.

Communism was the biggest threat to the Western world at the time. To deny that is ridiculous.

I disagree. I think there were bigger threats. It is, of course, a somewhat subjective matter to determine what was the "biggest" threat, and plenty of arguments can and have been made that it was communism, but I disagree. It is not ridiculous, it's just a different point of view.

King worked with and allied himself to people who wanted to bring a system of government to this country that was forcefully occupying a large part of the world, had no civil rights at all for the opposition, and killed tens of millions of people.

Wait, so now civil rights ARE important to this country? King associated with members of the communist party, with whom he agreed in some ways on ideology, if not practice--particularly, as he stated, that a human being is neither an interchangeable cog in the machine of the state nor a mercenary individual looking after only his/her own self interests. He did not kill people. He did not support killing people, in fact, there's pretty good documented evidence that he was rather against the idea of killing people. And while we're on the subject of killing, approximately how many victims of Communism did we "liberate" during the Vietnam war?

I'm not sure what that last comment was meant to say. Yes, I would put violent, extremist political and peaceful civil rights organizations in different camps. They all lose credibility when they refuse to condemn the others.

I would as well, but your method of distinguishing such organizations does not seem to follow guidelines of "peaceful" and violent", since you continue to place the work of Dr. King in the same "camp" as that of the Black Panthers. King's repeated condemnation of the violent tactics of the Panthers does not seem to have any effect whatsoever on your judgement.

I fail to see how any of those three examples is evidence of not having a open mind.

Or accepting conspiracy theories about Katrina is supposed to be challenging and progressive?

Public condemnation and private acceptance was King's game.

I find it disturbing how you point out your white and follow that by saying how MLK doesn't matter to you.

Personally, it also annoys me when people call him MLK. It sounds like something a rapper would be named, and I hate rap. That's just personal pickiness, though.;)

You know, I was looking for a name for my new rap show. This might fit.

I fail to see how any of those three examples is evidence of not having a open mind.

Or accepting conspiracy theories about Katrina is supposed to be challenging and progressive?

Public condemnation and private acceptance was King's game.
Well, it was unlikely that King accepted conspiracy theories about Katrina considering that he died more than thirty years before it happened..

Well, it was unlikely that King accepted conspiracy theories about Katrina considering that he died more than thirty years before it happened..

God I despise these people the most.

I was addressing different parts of his post with each sentence. Obviously.

I fail to see how any of those three examples is evidence of not having a open mind.


Oh! Pick me! Pick me! Ive got one!


*checks link in sig*


I never said I wasn't a bigot. Tolerance is the reason we have so many of the problems in the West today.


Still wanna pretend youre open minded.

That's quite a claim. Especially considering the fertile evidence to the contrary.





And one of my favorites:



Guarantees without all the fuss of actually experiencing something! That's quite the open mind.



I don't think any of them are new ideas. They all predate me by quite a bit. I do think they can be quite challenging ideas, and I think that's been shown pretty clearly in the five million debates across NSG.



I disagree. I think there were bigger threats. It is, of course, a somewhat subjective matter to determine what was the "biggest" threat, and plenty of arguments can and have been made that it was communism, but I disagree. It is not ridiculous, it's just a different point of view.



Wait, so now civil rights ARE important to this country? King associated with members of the communist party, with whom he agreed in some ways on ideology, if not practice--particularly, as he stated, that a human being is neither an interchangeable cog in the machine of the state nor a mercenary individual looking after only his/her own self interests. He did not kill people. He did not support killing people, in fact, there's pretty good documented evidence that he was rather against the idea of killing people. And while we're on the subject of killing, approximately how many victims of Communism did we "liberate" during the Vietnam war?



I would as well, but your method of distinguishing such organizations does not seem to follow guidelines of "peaceful" and violent", since you continue to place the work of Dr. King in the same "camp" as that of the Black Panthers. King's repeated condemnation of the violent tactics of the Panthers does not seem to have any effect whatsoever on your judgement.



This post is win. Unfortunitally, debating with our "realist" friend here is pointless, because he'll just ignore your well backed up arguements that destroy his flimsy ons, make stupid claims, and throw a tantrum when you demand a source for the bull he spouts.

Oh! Pick me! Pick me! Ive got one!

*checks link in sig*

Still wanna pretend youre open minded.

I'm bigoted towards things that I've already make an opinion on. Being close minded implies that I won't consider a new idea. That's ridiculous.

I'm bigoted towards things that I've already make an opinion on. Being close minded implies that I won't consider a new idea. That's ridiculous.

I googled "define: bigot" and came up with:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."

This post is win. Unfortunitally, debating with our "realist" friend here is pointless, because he'll just ignore your well backed up arguements that destroy his flimsy ons, make stupid claims, and throw a tantrum when you demand a source for the bull he spouts.

Yeah, I decided to spare myself the ongoing misery when I saw his response and how it ignored about 90% of my points. Honestly, I spent the day subbing in a class of mouthy 12 year olds who were far and away more ridiculous than the kindergartners I usually teach, and that pretty much filled my bullshit quota for the week.