Posted on 01/23/2005 7:33:44 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
Another January, another Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. The observance has to a great extent deteriorated, as have many other holidays, into just a paid day off for people with government jobs and an opportunity for retailers to snatch whatever available credit remains on bankcards.
At the same time, there will be no shortage of worshipful speeches and articles about Dr. King, some of them bordering on idolatry. For the man has moved to the pantheon of secular saints.
Politicians of all persuasions have jumped on the MLK bandwagon. Last year we frequently were reminded that it was Ronald Reagan who signed the legislation establishing the King holiday. The President had misgivings, but was shrewd enough to recognize a veto-proof juggernaut when he saw one.
It’s easy to forget that when the minister was alive he was tremendously controversial. Questioning his methods or motives was not beyond the pale.
Today, saying anything that remotely could be construed as critical of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a certain ticket to being branded a racist or being measured for a tinfoil hat.
And I’m speaking here not about bringing up his alleged marital infidelities or his association with known Communists or even asking why the FBI’s tapings of the civil rights leader — authorized by liberal icon Bobby Kennedy — were sealed for 50 years.
As someone who lived through the period, what I remember most about Martin Luther King, Jr. is what he said about this Nation that now reveres him.
He charged in 1967 that the United States was " the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." He claimed that in Vietnam "we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe." He asserted that Americans might have killed a million Vietnamese civilians, "mostly children."
In the same speech, delivered in New York City’s Riverside Church, he detailed his objections to the Vietnam War, a struggle that many citizens viewed as a valiant effort to save people from the horrors of Communism.
The very first reason he cited for his opposition was this:
"There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."
King’s first objection to Vietnam, then, was that it diverted resources from the war on poverty. According to him, anti-poverty programs had been "eviscerated."
That wasn’t accurate even at the time he pronounced it. Lyndon Johnson declared the war on poverty in 1964. By the year King gave his Riverside Church speech, total welfare outlays by the federal government had almost doubled over those three years.
Spending on almost every facet of the welfare state had escalated. More tax dollars were being devoted to education, jobs training, community development and social services. Eviscerated? Not hardly.
Even liberals had qualms about King’s speech. Not with his ignorance of welfare expenditures, but with his irresponsible comments on Vietnam. The Washington Post editorialized that his speech "was filled with bitter and damaging allegations and inferences that he did not and could not document."
The editorial ended by noting: "Many who have listened to him with respect will never again accord him the same confidence. He has diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country and to his people. And that is a great tragedy."
Martin Luther King exhibited a steadfast devotion to equal rights. He was a man of courage and eloquence. That can’t be taken away from him.
Nevertheless, his memory is severely tarnished by his unwarranted attacks on his own country and his naive faith in the efficacy of the welfare state. Acknowledging those aspects of his crusade isn’t racist. Just reality.
This appears in the January 13, 2005 Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter. Mike Bates is the author of Right Angles and Other Obstinate Truths, which is available at Barnesandnoble.com, Booksamillion.com, Amazon.com or iUniverse.com and can be ordered through most bookstores. http://www.michaelmbates.com
mlk ping
You're upset about somebody discussing a few positive things about Malcom X...on a thread about MLK...where scads of FReepers are singing his endless praises in seeming competition with Democrats?
I esteem Randy Moss higher, but that isn't saying much.
The esteem for "Malcolm" is worse than the uncritical admiration for King. Whatever his considerable negatives, King was not a racist hater but rather the opposite. He did make some comments suggesting that he hated conservatives, but that's not as bad as hating an entire racial group, which "Malcolm" did until, I believe, the final months of his life.
Well, he seemed to be coming to some higher truths about people and race. Other than that, the lady has some points about his rejection of Federal control of the black community. And, you know, he was a big 2A supporter too. If we give King some credit, we gotta give Shabazz some credit too. Hey, John Kerry has a nice hair cut, huh?
That manical hatred was largely fueled by Elijah Muhammad. He even admitted that parts of his autobiography were truth embellishments based on the advice of Elijah Muhammad. EM was a pig like his other mealy mouth protege Louis Farrakhan, another pig. I think El Hajj Malik Shabbaz would have been a republican senator today. I bet my life on that.
I happen to agree and had he not been assassinated by Elijah Muhammad and Louie Farrakhan, he probably would have turned out to be a different person.
No, I know much, much more about him, more than you do I'll bet.
The man was a maniacal hater. It's dismaying to see a reverse-racist whack job like Malcolm X celebrated on FReep.
This comment shows how little YOU know about him. He didn't hate anyone, especially towards the end of his life, and he was far more than a "reverse racist." In fact, anyone who sums him up that way just doen't have a complete picture of him.
God, what a long educational road we have ahead of us ...
Yeah, and I think it starts with you getting a more complete picture of who Malcolm X was. You don't have to agree with him or like him but you sure need to know more about him.
I really don't see why.
I won't go line by line on your post. While I am talking about the past, you basically agree. You disagree that without the civil rights movement, blacks would still be considered a second class. They were considered a second class by segregation. Given the resistance to the civil liberties movement back then, it seems reasonable to deduct that progress would have been little, if any, had it not been for MLK and others during that time.
I have not addressed the present in my past posts, which I think is what you are mainly concerned about. Currently, there are many children who are locked into a social pattern. Fortunately, many have been able to break this pattern through education and opportunity. I do not believe a child would want to remain poor and underpriviledged (of any race), if given the opportunity to succeed.
Schools cannot be the cure for all social ills. However, in the poor neighborhoods, mentoring and programs offering some hope of social improvement through counseling would be better than job quotas. Recreational programs offering life skills, and motivation would be a consideration. There are PAL's (Police Athletic Leagues), there should be some other leagues for the kids who are poor and are not athletic. How about a "Positive Attitude League"?
I have not had the time to study up on today's gangs, crime, etc. However, IMO, spending money on fostering hope in poor neighborhoods for children that feel there is no hope, would be better spent, than on the criminal/penal system later. I grew up in a poor neighborhood, and I know many of the kids (both black and white) succeeded and moved away. There were others who I remember being so very bright and talented that didn't. School aptitude tests could be something considered.
Crime, drugs, etc., will never be completely wiped out. However, as a society we have always spent money on the penal system. Many innocent lives are spent on social ills. The money we spend on the poor children today, will be saved later.
So, I'm jumping off the soapbox. Take what I have said, or leave it. I haven't really sat and thought about much of this in a very long time. So in the end, a post criticizing Martin Luther King, was a good thing for me to read.
Uh, think about the American Revolution?! Do you complain about "those" people fighting for their rights?!
I didn't think so.
Do you, by any chance, consider yourself conservative?
I will agree that he was not a "reverse racist" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. There are only racists, and there are non-racists. Malcolm X was a racist -- anything that "Whitey" did was always trying to keep the black man down. Phooey -- the best way of ending racism is to stop labelling by race, and stop blaming everyone else. Start blending in with society on the job, stop living the stereotype, and racism will end.
I consider myself a "compassionite" conservative. I am concerned about society, and I do not think throwing money at a problem will solve it. If government is going to spend money on social issues, it should have certain goals. I whole-heartedly support liberty, freedom, and justice for all.
I feel strongly about personal responsibility, and concern for others. Ideally, people should take care of themselves and their own families, as we do. However, I feel society has an obligation to help others, when there is a real need. I believe in a strong, national defense. I'm the person that people look to, to speak up when I see an injustice done.
I'm not really sure if I am considered a "conservative", but I have not voted for a democrat in years. I miss President Reagan, and I strongly support and like President Bush. I realize that there is no point in trying to convert a liberal, or anyone else with a very strong opinion. However, I consider it my duty and my right to point out the facts, if I think they are being distorted.
The first reason I visited Free Republic was to read the articles, and read the counter articles, and gleefully see other people realized how slanted the media is. I lurked for probably two good years before ever posting. I do not remember what my first post was, but I believe it had to do with the Clinton/Monica ordeal. (Hence, my screen name). I thought everyone who defended him had lost their minds, including his wife. I still lurk more than I post. The majority of my posts are not this long, since I see no reason in kicking a dead horse. Do you consider that conservative?
"anything that "Whitey" did was always trying to keep the black man down"
So are you saying that whites were not intentionally trying to keep the black man down? They sure as hell were and had been for a couple of centuries. Some people are paranoid because people ARE after them.
"anything that "Whitey" did was always trying to keep the black man down"
So are you saying that whites were not intentionally trying to keep the black man down? They sure as hell were and had been for a couple of centuries. Some people are paranoid because people ARE after them.
Not all people were slave owners, nor racists, nor bigots. Get over it.
Unless the government has the clear and enumerated right to be fixing 'social' issues, I consider it wrong for them to meddle in them. If your allegiance is to the Constitution, you're alright. Of course, that would mean the complete Constitution. It looks like we're just never going to get together on the King thing.
The American Revolution was fought for freedom from government tyranny, not about race. The the Revolutionaries took responsibility for their own actions by not blaming all their woes on someone else. They literally fought for their (and our) freedom -- they didn't demand "reparations" from England -- and they certainly didn't riot in the streets and burn each other's houses or businesses.
Of course, the complete Constitutition. I doubt we would ever get together on that, either. Since the constitution was purposely left open for interpretation. I doubt we would ever interpret it the same. I've already been down this road, when I first started posting.
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.