Despite having been labeled a “hypocrite” along with other insults in a recent comment, I shall for the moment let that go and get to the topic on which I wanted to speak today. That’s right, I plan to talk about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. There is much to think on concerning Dr. King, but I would suggest in particular one inspiration and one caution.
The inspiration is the enlightenment Dr. King seemed to possess. He did not want whites to be second class citizens. He wanted equality. He knew that violence would get him nowhere. The disadvantaged had tried rioting quite often before Dr. King’s time and it had gotten them nowhere, so he learned the lesson from their mistakes and kept his ways nonviolent.
I think it took a lot for King to not want to replace white superiority with black superiority. Others in his time wanted to blot out all whites from history. Still others wanted less of a revenge but still some revenge. Dr. King was not after revenge. All of this and more is quite inspiring.
As inspiring as he can be, I would caution that there are some dangers concerning Dr. King. Mainly, he has been made into a liberal idol. He has come not to represent the great ability of blacks, but rather the perceived moral decadence of whites. Never does one hear the story of Dr. King’s heroism without hearing of the evil deeds of the whites of the time. Rarely, if ever, does one hear of the whites who were not bigoted.
Most dangerous of all, Dr. King has come to represent diversity and nothing else. We cannot focus on diversity rather than unity. The diversity of America only makes us great if we are also unified. Otherwise it is merely a weakness, causing division between us. Diversity has destroyed many a nation and it can destroy us as well, if we do not hold onto our core values as a unified whole. Dr. King reached for unity, not diversity. The diversity was already there. Let us learn from him and grasp unity in strong values!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Although it sounds like it, hopefully this post isn’t an attempt to use Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy to oppose policies like Affirmative Action. That would be silly, given that Affirmative Action doesn’t make second-class citizens out of anyone because it applies to everyone (whites included).
It’s true that MLK was very successful with his strategy of nonviolence. That approach permeated all of the policies he advocated for – including foreign policy, which is why he was a very vocal opponent of the Vietnam war. A lot of people tend to forget that (one wonders what the right would have to say about MLK if he were alive today, and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Cindy Sheehan in opposition to the Iraq war). It’s also true, however, that Malcolm X was successful with a strategy that did not advocate nonviolence. It's not unreasonable to argue that there's more than one way to skin a cat.
I’m not sure what media you consume, but the MLK Day holiday and Black History Month do frequently address the contributions of whites during the civil rights era; the Freedom Riders are a great example. In fact, there’s a public debate going on right now as a result of Hillary Clinton’s comments about the contributions of JFK and LBJ in the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
While I agree that the archetype of Dr. King that has been created as the ultimate visual icon for diversity is too narrow, I disagree with the claim that “diversity was already there” when Dr. King was pursuing equality in civil rights. That’s patently false, and it’s still false today. The power structure of this nation, both in politics and the private sector, is not diverse – it is almost uniformly white and male. Diversity is an inevitable result of true unity. If diversity does not exist – it’s fair to conclude that we lack the unity that Martin Luther King was looking for.
The only thing that’s “dangerous” about narrow interpretations of MLK is the idea subtly being suggested here that minorities be quiet, accept what they have, and stop advocating for equality.
While I do oppose much of Affirmative action, it is the race based aspects I mostly appose. This has been eliminated to an extent here in MI, but there is still racism in many policies. policies regarding scholarships are an example. I think in other aspects of affirmative action you will find that we are not as opposed to each other as one might think.
What really disturbed me about your comment was the idea that Malcolm X was just as successful in civil rights as Dr. King. I wholeheartedly oppose this view. The many evil stereotypes about blacks include that they are supposedly foolish, violent, and criminal. Obviously None of these stereotypes are true of blacks as a whole but by possessing all of these characteristics, Malcolm X perpetuated the stereotype. By contrast, MLK wsa wise, intelligent, peaceful, and law abiding to the extent that the law was valid. Also, he gracefully accepted his punishments for breaking the laws he did break. Fools like Malcolm X or Yahweh ben Yahweh work to undo everything MLK did.
Perhaps that last paragraph was a bit emotional, but I shal now cover my interpretation of diversity. I believe that a nation is diverse when it has many different peoples among it, not necesarily when they are all equally represented in places of power. I do not believe that one has to be black to represent a black person well, or white to represent a white person well. My current state senator is black, while most people in his district, I believe, are white. This does not disturb me in the least. I think he represents me just fine. I admit that I would love to see more minorities in office. I truly do want to see that. I would even love to see a black or female president (not obama or hilary, but perhaps more favorable examples of blacks or females). Yet I do not believe that the fact that we don't have one yet means we are not diverse. Does this make sense? Perhaps I misunderstood what you mean by diversity, but I woud love to discuss it, for I feel that a good understanding of diversity is very important.
I do have some comments on the War but I may write a whole post on that rather than a comment
If Dr. King could see one aspect of American life post 1960s that would appaul him I am firmly convinced it would be the dehumanization of african-american babies via abortion. While african-americans represent only a small portion of the American population (its in the teens) they represent nearly 40% of the victims of abortion.
35 years and 50 million babies. THAT is a very real and very current civil rights crisis.
--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com
Affirmative Action does not discriminate against any race. It applies universally to all races; so if whites are underrepresented in career areas (as they are in fields like nursing) Affirmative Action provides for polices that encourage more whites (and specifically white males) to go into those fields. AA has been completely eliminated in Michigan as a result of Proposal 2. Any race-based scholarships that remain are privately-funded (so the donors are free to choose whatever characteristics they want exemplified in the scholarship recipients). If you oppose AA, there’s very little we agree upon.
I didn’t say that Malcolm X was AS successful as MLK – I said he was successful. It’s a fact that Malcolm X did have a profound impact on race relations in America, and to an extent he did empower black people to aggressively take the rights they were being denied. Nothing about the philosophy espoused by Malcolm X was “foolish,” “violent,” or “criminal” – it was entirely the opposite and it’s ignorant and racist to say otherwise. The most iconic features of Malcolm (his horn-rimmed glasses and the ubiquitous suit that became the standard ‘uniform’ for the Nation of Islam) were deliberately selected to combat the stereotypes white America long-carried about black men. Malcolm X was nothing like Yahweh ben Yahweh (who openly advocated violence and was convicted for a variety of crimes) – and to compare the two is patently racist and stereotypical, in spite of your condemnation of that sort of thing.
Ironically, Malcolm X asserted that blacks should stand up for their rights in exactly the same way that 2nd amendment advocates, or anti-immigration groups like the Minutemen do. In the face of an uncaring white establishment, Malcolm X advocated that blacks should set up their own civil apparatus to protect their civil liberties. Funny how when white people do those sorts of things they’re patriots, but when blacks do it, they’re “foolish, violent and criminal.” You say that none of those stereotypes are true, but you’re applying them to Malcolm X in spite of the fact that they’re contradicted by both his rhetoric and biography (subsequent to his history as a petty criminal, which he renounced when he became a Muslim and began his career as a civil rights leader).
There’s an interesting hypocrisy in society, and it’s summed up in this portion of a speech Malcolm X gave in 1965 at the London School of Economics “But whoever heard of a sociological explosion that was done intelligently and politely? And this is what you’re trying to make the Black man do. You’re trying to drive him into a ghetto and make him the victim of every kind of unjust condition imaginable. Then when he explodes, you want him to explode politely! You want him to explode according to somebody’s ground rules. Why, you’re dealing with the wrong man, and you’re dealing with him at the wrong time in the wrong way.” What I’ve noticed is that, although they laud MLK’s policy of nonviolence, they would never adopt that practice for themselves – and Malcolm X is vilified by many whites for taking the same road they would take.
MLK and Malcolm weren’t that different in that they were pursuing the same goal, and in fact, MLK did laud him for his efforts upon his death:
“While we did not always see eye to eye on methods to solve the race problem, I always had a deep affection for Malcolm and felt that he had a great ability to put his finger on the existence and the root of the problem. He was an eloquent spokesman for his point of view and no one can honestly doubt that Malcolm had a great concern for the problems we face as a race.”
You’re entitled to your own personal definition of diversity, but the most widely accepted definition is “noticeable heterogeneity” and proportional representation is a part of that. One is hard-pressed to argue that’s what we have right now; especially when it comes to the power structure. If you don’t think it’s significant that in our 231-year history that we’ve never had a president who wasn’t a white male – there’s really nothing more that can be said to convince you that this nation lacks in diversity.
Your current state senator is also my state senator; Bill Hardiman. He’s able to represent the white people in his district because virtually nothing about him represents the interests of black people; he is wholly committed to representing the interests of (moderately affluent) whites. In that way, he’s a perfect example of the lack of diversity in government. He’s a token minority who provides a superficial veneer of diversity. Just glance through his news archive on his website; honoring Pres. Ford, banning abortion, opposing the service tax, cutting funding for / outsourcing social services to the private sector, cutting benefits for and pushing state employees into health care pools, … none of those things address the needs of the black community (and his focus on cutting taxes, especially for businesses, ends up harming many black people by reducing support to the social institutions they rely upon). Were he a populist who actually addressed the interests of black people – he would be under attack in a recall campaign like Robert Dean.
I find it pretty hilarious that you don’t think Barack Obama constitutes a “favorable example” of a black man given how hard he’s strived to appeal to white America. I’d love to know what he could possibly do to become more white to appeal to you.
About Malcolm X, I would have to mention I rather expected to be labeled a racist because I said an unkind thing about a minority. I have noticed a great lack of freedom to say anything unkind about any nonwhite person without being labled a racist. My favorite example so far is when two radio announcers were labeled racists for commenting on an entirely slutty outfit worn by a black person. The outfit was whorish, and while no one gets called anti white for calling Paris Hilton a whore, if we ever say so much as that a black person wore something indecent we are labeled racists. I am hesitant to expand on my discrediting of Malcolm X because the label of "racist" has destroyed far greater men than me and I would be a fool to address the issue for long in so public a place.
Regarding Hardiman, I have noticed that you have labeled anything that republicans believe in as "white", or as you use the term to mean, "anti-black". I do not consider "white" and "black" to be opposed in politics and I do not at all consider the politics of the republicans to be detrimental to blacks. An example you stated was that Hardiman has reduced financial support to social services that blacks depend on. Perhaps blacks do depend on the government more than whites do, though I would never dare to suggest this is the case. Hypothedically, if it is so, then this is a great problem. All individuals need to be able to be self sufficient. Republicans encourage business expansion so that companies can exand their jobs to need to hire more people. This causes a need for employment. Then the people (including blacks in this case, but also including everyone else) can get legitimate jobs and no longer need the government. We do not support dependance on government, but rather self sufficiency and try to give people the tools to become self sufficient. By not enslaving underprivilaged minorities to badly run government systems (and there is no governmental system that is not badly run), we intend to help them help themselves and live free of depednance on the state. I strongly believe that the Republicans help minorities more than any other party. Dems are just far better at propaganda.
Regarding Barack Obama, I do not intend for him to appeal to my race at all. Indeed I would be greatly offended if he did. I did not intend to imply that he is a lousy example of a black person, but rather that he is a lousy example of a politician. The reason is simple. I hate his policies. I hate his ideas. I think he would do a lot to destroy America. I think the same of most Democrats, just as I expect you think the same of most Republicans.
If I may be so arrogant, I offer you one caution. I have been trying my best not to be blatently offensive, yet you have called my a hypocrite several times, you've called me a racist, and you have called my ideas hilarious (laughably stupid). This is not the sort of talk for a civilized discussion. I am personally willing to ignore your insults, but many won't be. I am doing my best to refute the ideas i disagree with while still showing respect. I would appreciate the same consideration
Nick,
You would be wrong. Martin Luther King was an ardent advocate of family planning. He was presented with the Margaret Sanger Award by Planned Parenthood in 1966, and of the award he wrote this:
”Dear Mr. Canfield:
Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award. This award will remain among my most cherished possessions. While I cannot claim to be worthy of such a signal honor, I can assure you that I accept it with deep humility and sincere gratitude. Such a wonderful expression of support is of inestimable value for the continuance of my humble efforts. Again let me say how much I regret that at the last minute urgent developments in the civil rights movement made it impossible for me to be in Washington to personally receive the award. My wife brought glowing echoes of the wonderful reception and impressiveness of the total occasion. I am happy to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award and I can assure you that this distinct honor will cause me to work even harder for a reign of justice and a rule of love all over our nation.
Sincerely yours,”
Martin Luther King Jr., May, 1966
If you ever get a chance, you might want to try reading King’s writing “Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern.” A great many black leaders took to heart the concept of family planning, because one of the most significant factors to creating socioeconomic equality in the US is allowing African Americans to choose when and how they have children.
As for your statistics, the actual number is that Blacks account for about 12 and they have around 35 percent of the abortions. That, however, is due to the lack of comprehensive reproductive health education available to African-Americans in general (something that is going to get worse with the elimination of Affirmative Action). Your statistic about "50 million" abortions is also ridiculously high (and would include all abortions of all races, not just blacks).
PS – it’ spelled “appall.”
Corwin,
You’re entitled to your opinion about Malcolm X (an unfavorable opinion of one particular individual who happens to be a minority does not make one a racist), and while some of the positions you hold could be considered racist, I don’t think that they contain any malice in them so I don’t think you’re a racist. If anything, you’re just less sensitive to and aware of the myriad facets of race relations in the US.
People who speak ill of minorities are often called racist as a knee-jerk reaction because we’ve got a 300+ year history of abject racism that’s apt to make people jumpy and prone to overreaction. It wasn’t so long ago that racism was front and center everywhere in the US; it still exists today, but it’s not socially-acceptable. I can’t comment on the two disc jockeys because I’m not familiar with that situation (if you can post more details I’d be happy to look into the case), but if they were fired for being racist – it’s likely that there’s far more nuance. If it’s a case like that of Don Imus – he was rightly fired for using specifically-racist and derogatory comments about black female athletes (he also has a track record of being an outright racist).
People are always going to disagree with your opinions and some may even call you names. If you self-censor because of it, that’s your problem. You should, however, be comfortable with your opinions of they’re borne out by the facts.
The Republican Party primarily represents the interests of whites. That’s just how it works out. The party isn’t racist – it just doesn’t try to appeal to minorities because its ideology and issues are directed elsewhere.
As for the rest of your comments, I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man logical fallacy. The words “Republican” or “GOP” appear nowhere in my writing, and nowhere did I discuss generally the Republican Party and its stance on issues of race. My comments were specific to Bill Hardiman and to society in general. To that end, you are using quotation marks as though I’ve uttered those terms – and as the record clearly shows, the words “anti-black” appear nowhere in my writings. I deliberately did not label parties because there’s much within the current incarnation of the Democratic party (with its attempt to appeal to the wealthy corporate sector) that is hostile to the interests of minorities.
It’s not racist to say that blacks rely on the government more than whites; it’s a fact that is supported by statistics. What would make that observation racist is the conclusions one might draw from that objective fact.
This is really a different argument for a different post, but self-sufficiency is subjective. Everyone, to some degree, depends on the government (even those who consider themselves “self-sufficient”) – and it’s that system that have produced the quality of life we have in the US. The kinds of expansion of business that the Republican Party is pushing for is antithetical to improving the quality of life here in the US because the jobs that are being created can’t sustain our quality of life; they’re primarily low-paying and with no health or retirement benefits. Employment isn’t the problem; we have an unemployment rate of around five percent. The problem is UNDERemployment. The problem is that the American Dream doesn’t exist anymore; it’s no longer guaranteed that working 40+ hours a week will secure one a middle-class lifestyle. There are tens of millions of people working full-time or more who are still either in poverty or one minor financial catastrophe from poverty. There are plenty of well-run government organizations from the Social Security Administration to the BLS; are you actually saying that our military isn’t a well-run government organization doing a good job?
The irony is that the Democrats are very POOR at propaganda; that’s why they lost out to the Republican Revolution. They’ve lacked (and continue to lack) the ability to control the dialogue in the nation. It’s quite humorous that you say otherwise.
Pushing for deregulated free markets is what has caused many of the financial catastrophes that we have right now; they’re what have eliminated many of the good-paying jobs in the US, they’re what precipitated the subprime lending crisis, they’re what permit the predatory credit industry from taking advantage of so many low-income people (by overextending them credit and then locking them into poverty for life with outrageous fees and interest rates).
Even if you disagree with my positions on economics, it’s undeniable that most black people PERCEIVE that the free market ideology promoted by the GOP is inconsistent with their interests, so at the very least there’s a perception problem that the Republican Party needs to overcome.
Perhaps it’s a matter of semantics, but I don’t believe that the republican candidates are out to destroy America. I think that they have the same goals that I have (and the same goals of the democratic candidate) – but we all have different policies to achieve those ends, and upon those we all disagree. Some are less earnest than others, but can find much to admire in most of them (especially Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent, John McCain).
I take umbrage at your accusations. I’ve been nothing but civil and respectful. I’ve not called you a hypocrite or a racist. Try actually reading what I’m writing. The only time I used the word “hypocrisy,” it was in reference to society in general. The only time I used the word racist, it was to characterize the allegations you were making about Malcom X (the phrasing of the criticisms is racist, not you). You have to learn to divorce your sense of yourself from the words you choose. As I’ve already noted – I don’t think you’re a racist.
Furthermore, I’ve not called your ideas “hilarious,” or “laughably stupid.” I noted that it’s hilarious that you don’t find Barack Obama at all appealing given that he’s done a great deal to attempt to appeal broadly to those of all races and those of all political ideologies (to the extreme degree of refusing the help of divisive figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in spite of the fact that it would increase the number of his supporters and rid him of the allegations that he's not "black enough"). In the same way, I found it “hilarious” that many gun rights advocates still vehemently opposed John Kerry in 2004 in spite of all of the attempts he made to appeal to proponents of the 2nd Amendment. The situation is hilarious, not your ideas.
Post a Comment