Replies

Surprise, surprise! Once again, we must keep reminding any deluded moderates or “mainstream” conservatives of a simple fact. When leftists say they want a society that is post-racial, which has moved beyond race, what they mean is a society in which whites, and ONLY whites, act as if race doesn't matter. Whites are expected to meekly submit to any racial demand made of them by other races. That's what the left means by post-racial.

This has been obvious for a long time, but there are plenty of conservatives who don't get it. Every time something like this Robert Reich speech occurs, these conservatives are befuddled. “What happened to Martin Luther King's dream of a nation where people are judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character?” they always ask. Well, the sad truth is, MLK never wanted that in the first place. He said it because it was as far as the left could go in 1963. Were he around today, he'd be praising Reich's proposal. Anyone who believes he'd be objecting to freezing white males out is deluding themselves.

Conservatives need to take a clue from Joseph Lowery's inauguration prayer. All those rainbow colors are to be praised, except for whitey, who needs to come around a little more and defer a little more. And more, and more, and more.....

“Conservatives need to take a clue from Joseph Lowery’s inauguration prayer. All those rainbow colors are to be praised, except for whitey, who needs to come around a little more and defer a little more. And more, and more, and more”

Can you imagine if that verse had been changed just a tiny bit...with a White President..as in put the black man in the place of the white man in that verse. There would be such an outrage. Yet it’s okay to do it to whitey.

>“What happened to Martin Luther King’s dream of a nation where people are judged not by the color
>of their skin, but the content of their character?” they always ask. Well, the sad truth is, MLK
>never wanted that in the first place. He said it because it was as far as the left could go in 1963.

I disagree, you’re assuming that ALL people who would place character (the inner-man) above the color/race (the outer-man) are in actuality just trying to promote a countering-racism (I use that term because counter-racism means you’re trying to counter it, and the term “reverse-racism” is simply [oxy]moronic.) Now, MLK may have REALLY believed that a society of character would be better than a society of race; that it would have meant that “blacks” as a whole would be better-off in such a case is the question you’re really raising: which ideal was primary?

I didn’t personally know the man, so I can’t say. But, if we believe that God is more concerned with character than with outward-appearance and if man is made in God’s image (however marred or imperfect), then it stands to reason that there will be at least some people who ARE more interested in character than in color. People who would rather that Justice be done uniformly, rather than the rich/political being treated differently than the “average”, and the poor from them both.