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
This was fairly common. The new history revisionists don't like to hear this, however.
You know all those rights that you're so grateful that the Founding Father's gave us? He made sure that everyone was able to enjoy them, not just those of a certain racial makeup.
Had it not been for the civil rights movement back then, blacks would still be considered second class citizens. Whether you like it or not, the slaves helped to found this country, without the freedom of choice of even being here. No black man or any women had any input into the Constitution of this country.
Our forefathers had enough foresight to allow for ammendments to the very document that you hold so dear. It is a wonderful thing that people of all colors, races, and sexes can take part in the continued liberty and freedoms that our forefathers believed in. It is great that our Constitution is now all inclusive. It is no longer just a "white, man's" document.
No doubt, there are many people in other nations that are oppressed. Slowly but surely, we are enabling the oppressed to enjoy freedom. Give anyone a taste of freedom and they will surely take part in securing it. I believe that is what Martin Luther King did and many other civil rights activists.
Someone is not free just because the law says so. Society had to accept it. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about economics. The 60's were about true freedom. We cannot legislate fairness, but I and anyone else can speak up in support of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.
Gladly. I implied nothing, but if the shoe fits wear it.
Dr. King gave us all those freedoms?
Oh yes! You must be refering to the improved system we now enjoy where color of skin is the litmus test for determining extorted social benefits and the content, or lack thereof, of one's character has no meaning or relevance in any public debate.
Not.
Sorry to say, my friend, not even Dr. King's family knows what's what with his legacy or its real meaning as these articles readily demonstrate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105606/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1314086/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1234322/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1299283/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1064100/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1063406/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971735/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971666/posts
Now you, OTOH, are completly free (...thank God almighty...) to believe and promote whatever you wish. As for me, I think I will just remain grateful to the Founders for their enduring and proven wisdom.
True, but the canonization of MLK is as much the product of the media and liberals as it is the Black community. Me, I esteem Malcolm X a little higher.
"...you fail to be putting in context is the period that Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement occurred."
I beg to differ. I remember the times fairly well.
"You also fail to include the period of time between the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 1960's."
Again, I beg to differ. That's the 100 year period of Democrat terrorism commited against American blacks.
"Had it not been for the civil rights movement back then, blacks would still be considered second class citizens."
Now this is a real non sequitur. That conclusion is without basis other than your say so. I happen to have confidence in the power of the Constitution to address and right grievences in the same fashion that the founders did when they privately addressed the inequities of their day. Of course, we knew that solution as the Civil War.
Assuming, OTOH, that what you say was true - that today's conditions are directly due to Dr. King, then he must also be saddled with the very real reverse discrimination that we employ today, the social segregation that blacks increasingly practice, the disintegration of the black family, etc., etc., etc.
"Whether you like it or not, the slaves helped to found this country, without the freedom of choice of even being here."
Never said one thing or another about slaves and their input. Of course, the same is true of all the Americans that came here as indentured servants or under penal sentence.
"No black man or any women had any input into the Constitution of this country."
Oh please - let's not go down that road because the same is true for nearly every modern nation. What is of note is that women aided and supported the American struggle in nearly every sphere of effort and thousands of blacks voluntarily fought and died for this country's Constitution from Crispus Attucks to the close of the Civil War. IOW, long before King and company arrived on the scene. There must have been something that animated them.
"Our forefathers had enough foresight to allow for ammendments to the very document that you hold so dear."
I hope you do too. If not, you might be in the wrong place.
"It is great that our Constitution is now all inclusive. It is no longer just a "white, man's" document."
It never was a "white man's document." If you disagree, could you please point out the section you refer to?
"...there are many people in other nations that are oppressed. Slowly but surely, we are enabling the oppressed to enjoy freedom."
I'm so glad we agree. Liberty is its own best advocate.
"Someone is not free just because the law says so."
So true. What is your explanation for the travails of black America today?
"The 60's were about true freedom."
Couldn't disagree more. The sixties were definitely NOT about freedom - quite the opposite. You're not much of a conservative are you?
"We cannot legislate fairness, but I and anyone else can speak up in support of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans."
These are my points - exactly. Current civil rights legislation is destructive to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.
You make an interesting point. Shabazz, at the end of his life was forming some new, and constructive, revelations about race and freedom. King, OTOH, was apparently busy with a radical agenda unrelated to issues of race and far more involved with attacking the core of American life.
Louis Farrakhan has some explaining to do. Talk about someone who has gotten away with murder.
Demoncrats and Republicans have made him into what they want him to be. He is now an imaginary figure of fantasy importance.
MLK was a man of enormous charisma and courage and certainly a pivotal figure in the civil rights movement. There is much about him that I admire. An assesment of his life could creditably yield the adjective of great. Despite that, he does not deserve to be the ONLY American with his own holiday named after him. That honor should be reserved for only one person in American history, the greatest of all Americans, George Washington. More so than any other SINGLE figure of the revolution, he was the "indispensable man." Without his courage and integrity, the US would simply not exist, and if it did, it would have been as a monarchy or emporership.
MLK's birthday was a sop to PC and a reflection of the DemocRAT Congress that voted it. The depth of MLK's association with the most anti-freedom ideaology of our time will prove to very embarrassing when it is fully revealed. Additionally, MLK's legacy to the modern day civil rights movement is a socialist bequeathment, that of looking to big government solutions for many of the behavioral problems in today's black community.
For the record, I am a black man who is sick of all the homage to the PC kultursmog that is rampant in this country today.
If Elijah Mohammud didn't have Shabazz killed, Farrakhan would have later on.
Yep you're right.
Kudos to whomever posted this, and to its author.
Even conservatives today are too often ignorant of King's growing leftism. It is no accident that the liberal establishment idolizes him to the extent that they do.
We should ALWAYS be highly skeptical of ANYTHING they say and ANYONE they worship. And King is a case in point.
I agree. King would never have gotten his show off the ground if he didn't posses the very real traits you mention. Unfortunately, many will never know that there were scores of black leaders, men and women, laboring to achieve the goals he 'co-opted' for a national coalition.
I remember reading somewhere of the apprehension many leaders, in the trenches for a long, long time, felt in lending their names and community prestige to the SLC when being organized. When King left town, so did the attention on local organizations and goals. The spotlight belonged to Dr. King for better or worse.
One problem with history is that it takes so long for the bullsh*t to shake out that the principal actors are dead and gone by the time people are able to look at things objectively. Another problem, of course, is the lying media...
Bump
Probably the biggest reason why I hold Malcolm X in higher esteem than MLK is because Malcolm X felt that Blacks should control the economic and political affairs in their communities and not wait for someone to do it for them or hand them any money for it. Malcolm was also for self-defense and had no problem with the Second Amendment.
I don't think we should pick national icons or holidays for blacks because they need or deserve a black icon or holiday of their own.
Somebody did say colorblind was the goal once but I've seen scant evidence anyone really meant any of it.
I'm ambivalent about King as a man and leader. I am not ambivalent about his holiday. I don't think he deserves it and as I already said, I'm not about to root for a black person to get one just because they are black and maybe stood for good things some of the time.
We should declare national holidays on the order of merit only and be very stingy with them.
He was also coming to some conclusions about smallness of race politics and the greater family of humanity.
Jesus, is this all you know about "Malcolm"?
The man was a maniacal hater. It's dismaying to see a reverse-racist whack job like Malcolm X celebrated on FReep.
God, what a long educational road we have ahead of us ...
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.