I wasn't even talking about King.
Real men don't whine.
Posted on 01/19/2005 12:40:07 AM PST by Stoat
Being as I don't (didn't) trust King, I have to say that the church was a convenient cloak both to give credence to his actions and to divert the church from the role of saving souls.
Mind you, I am not suggesting that there weren't wrongs that needed to be righted or that the church doesn't have a role in helping the community, but the church's primary mission is to preach the gospel and save souls.
I worked - a suitable protest against that socialist.
"That's a ridiculous argument. Any country where some citizens are allowed to discriminate against other citizens in public facilities because of the color of their skin or ethnic background is not one I want to live in. Ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period! No wonder libertarians can't get more than one percent of the vote."
I tend to think it would have still happened, with the power of the free market. Might not have been as quick, but it would be more thorough. I think if the market were allowed to work and if we had supported the private property rights then the disparity between races would not exist today.
These are just my thoughts, and yes I can't even begin to imagine the pure, unadulterated racism that existed in that time. I agree that it is a blight on American history. But I tend to think the blight would be much forgotten if the solution was found in the market and left to the individual. The government is the absolute worst way to solve social problems.
Do you support adding sexual deviant behaviour to the civil rights legislation and forcing private property owners and private business owners to not be allowed to discriminate against certain sexual behaviours? If not, why not? No, I am not equating the race issue with behavioural choices. I am asking if one discrimination should be allowed and not another.
Riots followed in his wake like muddy slush behind a snowplow.
Excuse me. Are you saying that Siamese Princess is wrong about the facts regarding King?
What is the *truth* about her? Would you mind taking your accusation from the murky depths of slimy innuendo to provable fact? Your insinuation is tasteless and out of place here or anywhere else for that matter.
I don't know why, but I would have expected better of you.
I'm not defending the conditions, I'm simply asking what provision allows sit-ins in a private business? What you think is unjust and unfair? What I think is unjust and unfair? Heck, I have a list of stuff I think is "unfair" a mile long. Let's do it! Fortunately I understood long ago that life isn't "fair". Just ask the poor citizens of Cuba.
Parenthetically I suspect we all have a group that we treat as second class citizens be it due to baldness, age, weight, looks and so on. We may not even know we do it, but after many decades of watching human nature the founding fathers had it right as usual; you can be equal under the law but flawed humans have to be allowed to be asses; no way to law your way out of that one.
I said nothing like you imply. I just said that there are rights that every person had that are now taken away. You want to believe that the civil rights for some people movement was a watershed for everyone. But when the government forced integration in private businesses, some people lost their right to freely associate with who they liked. And the public was polarized, in a way they would not have been had integration been a private decision--as it would have been had people like you been patient and waited for public acceptance of what is right and good, instead of being swayed by the argument that government should do what is right and good, even if it's not constitutional. Your public school textbook response to my post shows what a wonderful job schools are doing of making people who consider themselves conservatives into liberals who will okay unconstitutional government action for "good causes," and you don't even know it.
And you may have been brainwashed to believe that anyone arguing against Brown or the 1964 'right to sue racists and make lawyers money' act is racist, but just because the PC banner flies over your house doesn't mean it's actually true.
Your reply is a study in illogic.
First off, calling it a ridiculous argument doesn't make it one.
Second, there are studies that demonstrate that racial integration and acceptance was trending positively until federal desegregation catalyzed everyone again. Jackie Robinson played baseball without the government's help. Even before Brown and the Civil Rights act, the Baton Rouge boycott had occurred. The civil rights movement would have proceeded apace without the government action, and likely with less southern white resistance. The decision in Brown polarized public opinion, stiffened white southern resistance and put southern white racial moderates in a politically difficult position.
Third, as to your emotive "why, I won't live in a country that allows public discrimination!" b.s., guess what? You do. Social security discriminates against black men every day. Black men don't live as long, and they don't have much of a chance of collecting. And laws regarding public facilities notwithstanding, go hang out in a NYC or DC public school someday and see how integrated they are. There is plenty of institutionalized racism. It may not be cloaked in legality, but passing laws doesn't solve a damn thing if people aren't ready for the change. People weren't. They probably won't be for another hundred years, because forcing PC viewpoints on people doesn't result in them HAVING PC viewpoints, but silently seething about their own subjugation.
Finally, your statement that "ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period" demonstrates that you are one of these folks who thinks that because it does a "good thing," a law is good. You are foolish if you believe that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a nightmare that has resulted in a lawyer's bonanza. Every law has unintended consequences. 1964 was a banner year for those. And as to Brown, well, how many people died, and how many federal programs were spawned to support that travesty of anti-federalism? Would it not have been simpler to let the Southerners alone and, as you say, "not live in" those states? I firmly believe that the South would have economically been forced into changing, as its educated people moved North to escape that racism, but I will never know, as people like you preferred to force that change on people who were not ready. Ending racism is an individual decision. Government can't and won't effect that change.
But in response to your wonderful statement that 'ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period,' let me ask you this: knowing that blacks DO face some discrimination on the basis of their skin color, isn't affirmative action a good thing...period...as it helps to remedy that? You are no conservative if you answer yes, and you are not true to your blanket statement if you answer no.
Your non sequitur about libertarians was further indication of your inability to defend your ideas. Consider an AOL or Disney board, where you can "argue" with people who you might have a shot at "logically" dissuading.
Oh, you must be a fan of the Klan like I am. /sarcasm
(see her reply to me)
As to having no legal means, what do you think the bus boycotts in Montgomery were? Private action is what broke the segregationists' back there, and would have resulted in REAL racial acceptance and integration over the long haul. Instead, federal action polarized the dispute, and turned a lot of Southerners against blacks that might otherwise have been on the fence. The federal government has gone on to create far more racism than it has prevented, no matter the intentions of the drafters of the Civil Rights Act or the judges in Brown.
Bump to everything you've said. I don't believe in racism or sexism or even discrimination against gays personally--but I do believe that you should have a right to associate with who you want, and that government can't change folks' feelings about others, wrong or not. And we all know what government action has produced...a bunch of race-baiting hucksters like Sharpton and Jackson.
I wasn't even talking about King.
Real men don't whine.
I don't object to the sit-ins and protests.
I do object to: King's associations with communists,
his increasingly socialistic beliefs and rhetoric,
and what "civil rights" rather quickly turned into --
black power and overbearing statism.
What Does a Conservative Do on Martin Luther King Day?
Get up ,Go to work ,Come Home ,Go to bed. !
Go to work.
BTTT
Answer: Go to work.(Someone has to pay for the 'dream'!)
Quinn's First Law -- Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.