MLK Day, 2005

Men's News Daily ^ | 17 January 2005 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

I most assuredly do not.

So blacks should have been happy to remain second class citizens? I can't imagine living in a world where I was constantly was treated like I was a untouchable person who was unworthy of sharing the same facilities of the majority of the population. Maybe you want to go back to that time, but this black person does not.

See #179 ... or don't. I don't want you to feel like I'm making you a second-class citizen by suggesting anything to you, poor dear.

[DMZFrank]

Good analysis.. Much truth here, PARTICULARLY the "Great Society's" impact on the black community. I think that the Federal legislation was inevitable, given the South's stonewalling.

[wbill]

A hesitant double Amen...two fine fellows but I hate to think we should pick holidays oevr race...though we did on this one.

I agree with you on the hesitant double amen. I guess a better way to speak my point would have been..."If we need to select holidays by race, then Carver or Douglass...." etc etc etc.

It's hard to dispute the opinion that King accomplished a lot in the name of Civil Rights. But was he worthy of a national holiday? Not sure about that one.

I do think that it's safe to state that Dr. King (or anyone, for that matter, who was heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s) would be disgusted by what the movement has de-evolved into today. Did you read about the small stink in Florida about how the minority population would stay away from the polls in 2004 because they were 'intimidated' by the voting machines? 40 years ago, people were facing beatings, dogs, and fire hoses just for the right to vote. Now, they're 'disenfranchised' just because of a fancy voting machine. I think that it's repugnant that the current crop of civil rights 'leaders' consistently sell their constituents short.

[hushpad]

had just given a speech, was driven away in his car, and the riot started immediately.<<<

It happened EVERY time. What MLK did was tell Blacks that they did not have what, they in fact, did have. Before MLK entered the scene, Blacks and Whites were learning to get along - it truly was an era where the different races wanted, desired to understand each other, accept each other.

Of course, what kind of power does that provide a late-starting, ego maniac like MLK? None. In order for the Socialists faction to gain control of the USA - they must create division among us. What better place to start than the obvious color of skin?

Many so-called Black Leaders do nothing but create division, kind of like Hitler did with the German people - he created a division of the Races in order to gain power for himself. He created an enemy for his people. That is what MLK did, created an enemy for blacks.

I'm glad that men like Walter Willliams, Thomas sowell, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell (and women like Condoleza Rice and her family!) were the kind of men/women that would not be led by the outright lies told to blacks. MLK told blacks they were nothing, will always be nothing, at least until whitey is under their boots.

No, I do not believe that MLK day should be celebrated, rather, it should be considered and observed if at all, as a Day of Infamy.

[dfwgator]

King is a classic case of a man who was NOT "for all seasons." The MLK of 1963 is what we celebrate, not the MLK of 1968. They were as different as night and day.

[hushpad]

The revisionists consider white people evil and all other ethnicities good<<

Yes they do and for what? Slavery? Slavery has been practiced through the ages by EVERY race!

The difference, is that whites in America realized what was wrong and CORRECTED it! But that is not good enough for blacks is it? That white men forged this country, provided freedom, learned as people, created medicines and economies, that's nothing to other races.

You know what? Too bad. I'm proud of the USA, her Founders, her Protectors. I'm proud that the people of this country know how to look at a problem and solve it. United We Stand is our motto. If blacks can not be proud of their birth, even as the proud sons and daughters of slaves, proud of their contributions to this country, proud to be part of a melting pot of minds and colors, then I feel sorry for them.

The proud black race needs to rise above its detractors, it needs to rise above the COLOR OF SKIN. With leaders like MLK and Jesse Jackson I do not see it happening.

[hushpad]

All there in the original documents. His rosey image is the revisionism<<


So true. What galls is that Christopher Columbus is a very small footnote in USA History. He was Spain's man after all, simply drove off course.

The true founders and forgers of this country, while not perfect, having their own difficulties with natives, are still superior to the Spanish Explorer.

[dfwgator]

There's a reason Central and South America are sh!tholes compared to the US and Canada. The Spanish totally raped those countries.

[LWalk18]

Your basic argument is that the Civil Rights Movement was unnecessary, that things and attitudes were changing due to Robinson and other events immediately after WWII. I don't believe you are taking into account the resistance to some of these changes. Robinson faced daily racial abuse from baseball fans both north and south. And your scenario that segregation would be resolved if all of the blacks moved north discounts racism in the north and the fact that it takes at least a little money to move, something that many blacks in the south did not have.

[mudblood]

"You pathetic excuse for a human being."

I try. You should find yourself a good white-pride website to post your chearful banter on.

[Altamira]

True! Law profs can't say "drop and give me 20!" and since grading is done by anonymous exam, they can't retaliate, either!

[Red Phillips]

Can we all be adults for a second and take in a little dose of reality. Survey the geographic landscape. What do you see? You see that the vast majority of countries are organized around ethnicities. For better or for worse, that is the way it is. (Ethnicity is not the same as race, but you could consider it a subset of race, perhaps.) Meaning most citizens of Hungary are ethnic Hungarians (Magyar). Most citizens of Japan are ethnic Japanese. That is the way it is, and that is the way it has always been. Since the dawn of time ethnicities have been warring against other ethnicities. It is a product of man's fallen nature. (Why do you think the Ukraine is having a problem? Because it is made up of Polish remnants of Polish domination and Russian remnants of Russian domination and they don't like each other.) And anytime you have a minority of a different ethnicity, they are almost always viewed negatively by the natives. Sometimes when they are a minority but successful in business they are resented, like Jews in Germany. When they are not as successful, by and large, like the Gypsies (Roma) in Europe, they are despised. Have you ever been to Rome? Every one from the taxi drivers to the hotel clerks tell you to watch out for the Gypsies. Why does anybody think America is immune from this?

While a few dunderheaded neo-con types, blabber about America being a "proposition nation," they are in fantasy land. At the time of its founding America was inhabited as you would expect a British Colony to be, by Anglo Saxons and Anglo Celts. (Meaning largely English speaking Celts, not Gaelic speakers.) In fact, the fact that the South was populated mostly by Celts is one of the main reasons the North and South never got along. The minorities that were here in significant numbers were usually Western Europeans who were closer culturally to the Brits, such as Germans and Dutch. Large scale immigration of other ethnicities did not happen for a while and when it did, guess what, they didn't get along. The Italians didn't like the Irish and the Irish didn't like the Poles.

My dog in this hunt is the ridiculous notion that the South was somehow a unique bastion of hate as the holier than thou civil rights proponents almost always insinuate. Bologna. Spared large scale voluntary immigration, the South was and still is much more ethnically homogeneous than the North. Add to that mixture the fact that slaves of an entirely different race were brought here by force, and you have a very heated mixture. Add to that Lincoln's little war and the abomination of Reconstruction and the results are entirely predictable. In fact, it is likely only the Christian character of this country that spared us from a genocidal conflict. And before any high and mighty Yankee looks down their nose at me, know that Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves back to Africa. And when that was not feasible, many Northern States passed laws to prevent immigration of freed slaves. And the territories who wanted to be free were at least partially motivated by not wanting to have to compete with Black labor. And why were the majority of slaves in the South? Because, quite simply, that is where the cotton grew. Don't kid yourself for one minute, that if cotton grew up North we wouldn't be having this exact same conversation in reverse.

So please spare me the holier than thou garbage about segregated water fountains unless you also condemn the "Irish need not apply signs" that were a common sight up North or unless you are willing to tell the Ukrainians to just get along.

I have no qualm with government services being administered evenhandedly. For example no one should have to set in the back of a public bus. (There really shouldn't be public transportation, but that is another thread.) But, the reason the civil rights laws must rely HEAVILLY on government intervention and relentless PC brow beating is because they are trying to change a very fundamental part of how human beings are wired. To seek their own. And that is not inherently a bad thing. We should be against hate and unkindness, which is wrong. But so many "conservatives" have bought the liberal brainwashing that all they can do is flagellate their fellow Americans and genuflect to the PC god. "See, I said MLK was a great man. I'm not one of those types of conservatives." Give me a break.

[rambo316]

You know who was responsible for "MLK" Day?

Ronald Reagan.

[cyborg]

Most all Spanish colonies are steaming piles. Rape indeed... I thank God they didn't discover anything in Trinidad where my mother is from.

[mrustow]

The partner asked me if I wanted the "honor" of representing the King family. I wasn't crazy about the idea, and was even less so when I went to their website and found that it contained ideas that I felt were communistic and decidedly leftist. I reported my findings to the senior partner, declined to participate, and left it at that.

I think that they really wanted to be able to say that the firm represents the King family, and were annoyed with me that I didn't want to waste my time on them. As it turns out, no one else in the firm wanted to waste precious billables representing them, either.

They can pay for a lawyer, just like everybody else...especially with all the money they make shaking down everyone who dares to use an MLK quote.

The Kings apparently feel that due to the Rev's sacrifice, none of them should ever have to work or pay their own way, again. Imagine if the family of everyone who made the ultimate sacrifice felt that way? Oops, hundreds of 911 families already do!

[mrustow]

Grey Ghost II: "Despite, the decrease in lynchings, the average life expectancy of a black male has gone DOWN."

mrustow: "That's nonsense! Where did you get that whopper -- World Weekly News?"

Grey Ghost II: I researched this and you are correct and I was wrong. I apologize to all for not doing the proper research before I made this erroneous statement. -----------------------------------------------------------

No sweat.

[mrustow]

Good analysis.. Much truth here, PARTICULARLY the "Great Society's" impact on the black community. I think that the Federal legislation was inevitable, given the South's stonewalling.

I'm afraid you're right about the federal legislation, especially regarding voting rights (In the face of the 14th Amendment, I'm not sure that the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act had anywhere near the same significance or effect). How much federal mischief could have been avoided, if only people who claimed to be for states' rights had simply respected the rights of blacks, as citizens of southern states?

[mrustow]

Your basic argument is that the Civil Rights Movement was unnecessary, that things and attitudes were changing due to Robinson and other events immediately after WWII. I don't believe you are taking into account the resistance to some of these changes. Robinson faced daily racial abuse from baseball fans both north and south. And your scenario that segregation would be resolved if all of the blacks moved north discounts racism in the north and the fact that it takes at least a little money to move, something that many blacks in the south did not have.

Robinson faced daily racial abuse from baseball fans both north and south.

That would explain why Jackie threw in the towel, quit baseball, and the major leagues were never integrated.

Jackie Robinson prevailed! That's because, not to denigrate his heroism, but like many blacks of his generation, he had true grit. That so few blacks today have true grit, is why they have such trouble understanding Robinson's achievement. (As to your thought, "And do whites today have true grit?" Most whites today don't have it, and don't need it. But their forbears did.)

And your scenario that segregation would be resolved if all of the blacks moved north discounts racism in the north

No black man was ever kept out of the City College of New York, then academically the toughest college in America, on account of the color of his skin. But that wasn't the main reason that blacks called the North "the Promised Land." During the world wars, manpower shortages in northern factories created opportunities for blacks to work and make real money. Sure, the opportunities for new black migrants dried up, as soon as Johnny came marching home again, but most of the other blacks kept their jobs.

and the fact that it takes at least a little money to move, something that many blacks in the south did not have.

All it took was a train ticket. Read the histories, if you don't believe me. The typical black who headed North didn't have a pot to pee in.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Bravo.

In the classic episode of "Star Trek" entitled "I, Mudd" Mr. Spock drives two androids to distraction by saying to each in turn "I love you, however, I hate you." When the hated android points out that she is identical in every way to the loved one, Spock responds, "yes, that's why I hate you."

How can anyone in the world not see the irony? The two most similar ethno-cultural communities in world history continue to be treated in exactly the opposite ways. For most of their four hundred years of history together it was whites who were celebrated and Blacks who were demeaned. And now the liberals have come along and (I suppose) in the name of some grand compensatory scheme decided that the only way to correct that deplorable situation is to reverse it.

Nowadays while poor whites, Fundamentalist whites, uneducated whites, homophobic whites, bigoted whites, criminal whites, rightwing whites, and whites who can't speak good English are ridiculed as subhuman neanderthals, Blacks in each and every one of these categories are celebrated and encouraged.

Whites (by which I mean Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Celts, who are the main targets of liberal racism) who have no running water are funny and deserve their misery, Blacks who have no running water are romantic revolutionary figures on a par with Che Guevara.

While Fundamentalist whites are the modern counterpart of the medieval inquisitors and must be disabused of all supernaturalism in favor of European science, Fundamentalist Blacks are Rousseau's pre-religion "noble savages," not only not in need of de-supernaturalization, but whose supernaturalism is revolutionary and proto-Marxist (you know, like that of moslems and Irish Catholics).

While uneducated whites who talk like Snuffy Smith are a strange combination of clown and monster (as in the notorious "X-Files" episode about inbred rednecks in Pennsylvania), Black utilization of the speech of Uncle Remus is somehow a revolutionary act of Marxism-Leninism.

Bigotry and "homophobia" are "hate crimes" when allegedly committed by whites, but there is utter liberal silence at the mirror reflection of those attitudes by Blacks, who are mirror reflections of poor Southern whites (and vice versa).

A poor white who turns to crime supposedly does so despite the "fact" that he was born into the Ruling Class of the World (you know, like the people Robin Hood used to help), while poor Blacks do so as a revolutionary statement about social justice.

A poor white who insists that "the Jews" have stolen his country and fluoridated his drinking water is (rightly) dismissed as a raving lunatic. Contrariwise, the most successful and well-educated Blacks are actually encouraged by society to engage in JBS-level conspiracy theories about Jewish neocons inventing AIDS.

And finally, while "Ah'm proud o' mah race!" in the mouth of a white marks a benighted, toothless, high school dropout, the same statement is actually the crowning achievement of an Ivy League education for American Blacks.

It seems the ultimate liberal plan for Blacks is to turn them into white trash with melanin.

Yet the unpleasant fact of history is that American did not correct its faults when it should have before someone like King could come along. No. History will always and forever record the end of jim crow as a project of the most radical elements of American society. I'm sure there's some great universal justice at work behind all this. But of course, that same justice will eventually catch up with Blacks who now enjoy sitting on the sidelines while their white fellow-citizens and "co-religionists" are abused by their atheist and liberal friends.

Every year on MLK Day the topic of discussion is "the dream." But what is that dream? Is it a color blind society? A society in which the traditional roles are reversed in an attempt to attain a "karmic" tit for tat? Or is it a society of abortion on demand, homosexuality, attacks on the Ten Commandments, etc.? How long can the Black masses remain willfully ignorant of the fact that the people who claim King as their own (including most members of his family and his old associates) are the very ones who are promoting the most radical attacks on Biblical morality today? How long will the Black masses see all this inflicted on us all in the name of "the dream" and continue to tell themselves that King was merely a Black Billy Sunday?

Of course this type of cultural blindness applies universally. Most poor white Protestants are convinced that the Founding Fathers were all "born-again chr*stians!" It's kinda hard to fault one and leave the other unmentioned.

Ultimately, King was a false messiah, a "messiah" whose death was supposed to redeem all, all but in fact only redeemed a some and actually marks others as accursed and beyond redemption. The real irony is how eerily like J*sus his cult as become. To this day devout chr*stians cannot see the irreverence J*sus represents to Torah Judaism just as Fundamentalist Blacks cannot see Dr. King as anything other than a "born again chr*stian." How ironic that the greatest iconoclasts and smashers become icons and idols.

I don't know if the Fundamentalist Black masses will ever be able to understand this, but the adoration of King by people who in the main blaspheme heroes makes him the hero for people who don't believe in heroes, just as racism has become the sin for people who don't believe in sin (and who deny that all mankind is descended from Adam and Eve).