"Dr. King ended the terror of living in the south."
It wasn't that black people had to use a separate drinking fountain or couldn't sit at lunch counters, or had to sit in the back of the bus. You really must disabuse yourself of this idea. Lunch counters and buses were crucial symbolic planes of struggle that the civil rights movement decided to use to dramatize the issue, but the main suffering in the south did not come from our inability to drink from the same fountain, ride in the front of the bus or eat lunch at Woolworth's.
It was that white people, mostly white men, occasionally went berserk, and grabbed random black people, usually men, and lynched them. You all know about lynching. But you may forget or not know that white people also randomly beat black people, and the black people could not fight back, for fear of even worse punishment.
This constant low level dread of atavistic violence is what kept the system running. It made life miserable, stressful and terrifying for black people.
White people also occasionally tried black people, especially black men, for crimes for which they could not conceivably be guilty. With the willing participation of white women, they often accused black men of "assault," which could be anything from rape to not taking off one's hat, to "reckless eyeballing."
This is going to sound awful and perhaps a stain on my late father's memory, but when I was little, before the civil rights movement, my father taught me many, many humiliating practices in order to prevent the random, terroristic, berserk behavior of white people.
The one I remember most is that when walking down the street in New York City side by side, hand in hand with my hero-father, if a white woman approached on the same sidewalk, I was to take off my hat and walk behind my father, because he had been taught in the south that black males for some reason were supposed to walk single file in the presence of any white lady.
This was just one of many humiliating practices we were taught to prevent white people from going berserk."
26 comments:
the con blogs are teeming with MLK slander and hate-filled lies on his holiday as their way of honoring a great American.
here's an example posted on a blog that honors "Christian values" every Sunday, then degenerates into hate-filled lies on Monday:
"Well friends, he is not a legitimate reverend, he is not a bona fide PhD, and his name isn't really "Martin Luther King, Jr." What's left? Just a sexual degenerate, an America-hating Communist, and a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own people.
According to Assistant Director Sullivan, who had direct access to the surveillance files on King which are denied the American people, King had embezzled or misapplied substantial amounts of money contributed to the "civil rights" movement. King used SCLC funds to pay for liquor, and numerous prostitutes both Black and White, who were brought to his hotel rooms, often two at a time, for drunken sex parties which sometimes lasted for several days. These types of activities were the norm for King's speaking and organizing tours."
He was the last black leader this country has seen. Unfortunately no one has stepped in to fill the void.
The current crop only want to promote hate and are in it for the money and fame.
As we keep the narratives flourishing.
King had human flaws, he was after all human. We are all human and we all have human flaws. Some simply more or less that's all.
King was, at the end of the day a man who worked to improve the realities of life for blacks in America. He did this not by preaching violence or hatred but rather by attempting to increasing understanding, tolerance, and forgiveness. His message, so eloquently delivered still rings true today as the nation honors a truly Great Man of Color and a Great American.
I am what most visitors to this site would call consevative. The consevative blogs that post such garbage as above are reactionary, racist sites and the blog owner(s) are frightened, pathetic, and hateful individuals.
Don't you love it when conservatives say with unswerving conviction that MLK was a Republican? Of course he wasn't. But for some reason they so desperately want to claim he was. Who knows why. I don't.
What matters is what MLK said and did, not what party he supported.
Among the things he actually said is something no Republican would be caught dead saying. For example, this:
"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 market place. 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."
That "broader distribution" part?
Didn't the GOPers go nuts over something very similar to that when Obama talked about "spreading it around," meaning wealth?
Apparently, the GOPers find that idea good, since they wish to own Dr. King as one of "them."
All this shows is that most of the folks who try to make him into some sort of political party follower probably have never read much of what he actually said.
He was for wage increases for the sanitation workers and supported their union, he was anti-Vietnam war, and he was for a more equal distribution of wealth.
I've never read of any modern Republican who supports any of those things.
Yet they insist he's one of them.
This is the same party whose leading lights did not want a national holiday in his honor.
Now they're tripping over themselves to own him?
Reluctant Reagan signed law honoring Martin Luther King
"A commonly circulated item about Martin Luther King which is not included in this list is the claim that King was a Republican. Such claims are based purely on speculation; King himself never expressed an affiliation with, nor endorsed candidates for, any political party, and his son, Martin Luther King III, said: "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican."
Source: Snopes.com ...
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp
Although some of you may not like the full Snopes "snooping."
RN, it doesn't matter what Snopes has reported. Most people on the conservative side believe Snopes is run by George Soros, so nothing it reports is true.
Same with PolitiFact and Fact Check.org.
I've read conservative folks saying those are all "liberal" mouth-pieces.
You can't deal with people like that.
Facts don't matter to them. And especially facts that are in conflict with their "beliefs."
I knew if I came here I would find an excellent tribute to MLK. I love this article.
I also knew Skuddydubbydo would have to drop off his dodo. What a miserable piece of slime.
Shaw, do you really think the majority of conservatives are that ill informed?
Do you really think the loud mouth unthinking individuals making all the noise are representative of the majority of republicans?
Do you believe John McCain, Mitt Romney, and a host of other Republican public servants are that ill informed?
Or is it a matter of politics and what it takes to "get elected" by hawking an alternative to the liberal/progressive agenda?
What bothers me most is the disingenuous tactics that are employed by the career politicians in both major political parties.
Unfortunately too few honest people see the dishonesty their own political party speaks almost daily.
That's my view and you won't be able to change it.
If he were a Republican I doubt he would find acceptance in the current Republican menagerie.
"Do you believe John McCain, Mitt Romney, and a host of other Republican public servants are that ill informed?"
The Republicans I've admired for their decency have left the party or have been hounded out of it.
John McCain did all he could as a senator to NOT approve of an MLK holiday. He regrets it now, now that he sees he was on the wrong side of history and his opposition to honoring Dr. King was shameful.
Mitt Romney said in an unguarded moment that 47% of the American people are "takers." That statement is most definitely "ill informed," and he was the GOP's choice to lead the country. He also claimed that "corporations are people." Really.
There are numerous examples of extremist GOP senators and representatives, state and federal, who, day after day, propose outrageous legislation, one example, state-forced transvaginal probes on pregnant girls and women. Then there are those who say stupid things--see Gohmert, Louis, Bachmann, Michele, for example. Those two are not obscure legislators, they are nationally known and representative of the GOP. And I believe those particular pols ARE ill-informed.
Ducky, in MLK's own words, he was for "equal distribution." Those are words straight from hell according to modern GOPers. You're correct. The GOPers who believe MLK was "one of them" are deluded.
RN... Skud is a perfect example of the current GOP...
Whether or not the majority of the party is ill-informed, let's just use their own logic, as used to determine the morality of Muslims...
Anyone who does not speak out against the ill informed, or racist, or whatever ist or ism you care to choose, is supportive of said ism or ist.
That is how the GOP itself has chosen to define morality of others. Is there a reason they should not be judged by their own standard?
Here's an example of the kind of legislation put forth by conservatives:
Experts are warning that a bill making its way through the Arizona legislature would allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT people, unmarried women or even non-Christians.
Republican state Sen. Steve Yarbrough has said that he introduced Senate Bill 1062 because a "modest clarification" was needed in the state's religious-freedom law, according to The Arizona Republic.
Among other things, the bill would expand those protected by the religious-freedom law for religious assemblies and institutions to "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.”
The conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy has been pushing the measure as a way to protect photographers and bakers from having to provide services for same-sex weddings, which are not even legal in Arizona.
And Yarbrough told The Seirra Vista Herald that the bill would allow hotel owners to refuse to rent rooms to LGBT people and would protect businesses that had a religious objection to hiring unmarried women.
Clarity is a good thing. Things are much clearer now.
I hope that's a random quote from John Lewis and he didn't give the Vulgar Pigboy the dignity of a response.
Off topic:
"There is nothing to add to this demonstration of Obama’s ineptitude. The world we are living in today is far more dangerous, thanks to Obama, than it was 5 years ago—proving once more that as a people, we may no longer deserve the blessings of liberty …"
The cons tell us we drink Kool-Aid?
The world is more dangerous?
I'd observe that an attack on American soil that was responsible for the deaths of 3,000+, and the start of TWO wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people DURING EIGHT YEARS OF GOP ADMINISTRATION, made the world dangerous.
But the whackos who ignore those facts say other people drink kool-aid?
WOW
I say something nice and get attacked.
I guess you believe Jackson and Sharpton are great leaders of the black community.
I don't believe MLK would have been in favor of stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor. He was for equality and equal opportunity. Maybe a business friendly environment would equal more jobs.
As I wrote earlier, skud, most people, who claim to know what MLK was for or against, have never really read him closely:
Here are some of King’s proposals, many of which seemed radical at the time.
"1. Ratify an economic bill of rights
In 1968, members of King’s premier civil rights group, the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC), drafted a letter demanding “an economic and social bill of Rights” that would promise all citizens the right to a job, the right to an adequate education, and the right to a decent house, among others.
“It cannot take more than two centuries for it to occur to this country that there is no real right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for people condemned by the accident of their birth to an existence of hereditary economic and social misery,” wrote the letter’s drafters. While the SCLC was specifically concerned with the ways in which economic inequality perpetuates racial inequality, they made clear that the rights they proposed would apply to all citizens. It sounded radical at the time.
In fact, the effort echoed a proposal made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during his 1944 State of the Union Address, when he called for a “second Bill of Rights,” to guarantee all citizens a “useful and remunerative job” and “adequate medical care."
(cont.)
"2. Guarantee everyone a basic income, no strings attached
King believed that every person was entitled to a livable income, whether they worked or not. In the 1968 book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? he called for unconditional cash transfers to every American citizen. These cash transfers wouldn’t just be enough to scrape by on, either; instead, King thought that a guaranteed income “must be pegged to the median income of society, not at the lowest levels of income.”
At the time that King pitched the idea, a guaranteed income didn’t sound quite as utopian as it does now. Even President Richard Nixon had a basic income proposal called the Family Assistance Plan, which he unveiled to the nation in 1969. Nixon’s plan failed in part because some on the left thought his offer of $1,600 per year for each family of four was not ambitious enough.
Other countries have since experimented with a guaranteed income closer to the kind King advocated. The people of Switzerland will soon be voting on a referendum to guarantee every Swiss citizen a monthly check worth $2,800 USD."
"3. Build a powerful labor movement
King spent much of his career working with labor unions, while also working to push them in a more radical direction. At the time of his assassination, he was campaigning in Memphis, Tenn., on behalf of the city’s striking sanitation workers. He delivered his final address, the famous “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech, to a crowd of predominantly black sanitation workers and supporters of their right to form a union.
The 1968 Memphis strike was not the first time King had reached out directly to the labor movement. He had been delivering speeches before crowds of union members for years, calling for greater cooperation between the civil rights movement and the labor movement.
“The labor movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress,” he told the Illinois State AFL-CIO in 1965. “Out of its bold struggles, economic and social reform gave birth to unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, government relief for the destitute, and, above all, new wage levels that meant not mere survival but a tolerable life.”
But that same year, King also chided the labor movement of his time for failing to wholly embrace the civil rights movement and racial equality.
“Its sporadic and limited support has been welcome, but in relation to its essential strength, labor has made inconsequential contributions to civil rights,” he told AFL-CIO New York City District 65. “As the struggle unfolds in the north where labor is particularly strong, its omissions will become more evident and embarrassing.”
King’s answer to dealing with labor’s “apathy” wasn’t to abandon unions, but instead to nudge them towards greater social activism and militancy.
“The labor movement, if it is to remain vital, needs to raise the standard of living of all workers, not merely those under its contracts,” he said. “As the relative number of workers in unions drops, the strength of labor will fail if it does not become a social force pressing for greater dimensions of wealth for all those who labor.”
"4. Guarantee a job to anyone who can work
The very first right to be enumerated in the SCLC’s economic bill of rights was “[t]he Right of every employable citizen to a decent job.” In addition to a guaranteed income for everyone, those who were willing and able to work would be guaranteed a job.
“I hope that a specific number of jobs is set forth, that a program will emerge to abolish unemployment, and that there will be another program to supplement the income of those whose earnings are below the poverty level,” King wrote shortly before his death.
In recent years, some academics have taken up this call again. Most notably, economists at University of Missouri-Kansas City and Bard College, as well as Duke University public policy professor William Darity Jr., have argued in favor of a government program that would create public sector jobs for anyone who isn’t already employed. A recent poll found that 47% of respondents were at least somewhat sympathetic to the idea."
Shaw,
I am uncertain what your post indicates because it says "that would promise all citizens the right to a job, the right to an adequate education, and the right to a decent house, among others."
No where did MLK say steal from the rich so the poor don't have to work.
The welfare system and extended unemployment have done a very good of keeping the poor, poor because there is no incentive to work.
This is a balanced discussion on welfare.
I would think that the folks who claim to be devout Xtians would be in favor of helping the poor and helpless, since that was a central teaching of their Savior.
But the New Testament isn't the only place where we find helping the poor and the helpless as Xtians' first duty:
Proverbs 19:17
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.
Proverbs 22:9
"Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor."
Hmmm. Shares? Isn't that a COMMUNISTIC idea? And it's in the BIBLE!
Deuteronomy 15:7-11
“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’
Can it be any clearer than that to the Christians who follow their Holy Book?
New Testament:
Matthew 5:42
Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Acts 20:35
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Luke 3:11
And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”
It's interesting, isn't it, how religious folks remind us of the few passages in the O.T. that forbid homosexuality, but these same folks seem to ignore or pretend that Jesus AND THE O.T., again and again and again tell followers of the Bible that they MUST SHARE what they have with the poor and helpless or they will displease their Lord.
One way of sharing is through our taxes that help the poor and helpless when they need welfare.
It's a very Christian idea.
Is there a corresponding bill of responsibilities that attach to all the desired guaranteed rights pointed out here? I haven't been able to find any. Not that I'm suprised by that.
Post a Comment