>“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.
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'm not saying that ALL those who say people should be judged by the content of their character, rather than by their race, are in fact supporters of race preferences and quotas for blacks. But certainly all of King's close associates who survived to see such preferences and quotas implemented have supported them. Jesse Jackson supports them. So do Joseph Lowery and John Lewis. So did Coretta Scott King. Not one of them stood up and said, "Hey, these racial set-asides and reverse discrimination programs violate Dr. King's dream of a color blind society, and they need to be ended."
In addition, liberals have a long track record of sounding "moderate" on an issue until the time is ripe to go for something far more radical, at which point they do. A good example playing out before us right now is Barack Obama on same-sex "marriage". All through the campaign he claimed to oppose such "marriages", but now he's calling for the repeal of DOMA, the result of which would be nationwide same-sex "marriage".
So, in my opinion, anyone claiming that King would oppose quotas if alive today, based on his "content of their character" phrase in his famous 1963 speech, has a hard case to make. One would have to believe that he'd today be fighting against the entire liberal establishment, including his old buddies Jackson, Lowery, Lewis, etc. on this issue. In fact, since most conservatives have even thrown in the towel on this issue, King would have to be to the right of most Republicans to declare any opposition to these race preference proposals.
In addition, we also have King's own words. Shortly before his death, he did an interview with Playboy. By this point, quotas were starting to be hinted at as a tactic for bringing about "equality". King said this: "If a city has a 30 percent Negro population then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30 percent of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas."
Note that he said blacks should have at least 30 percent of all the jobs. This means he would have found it acceptable for blacks to exceed their quota, just not to fall below it. This is the very pattern we see today where it's fine for blacks to be overrepresented (population-wise) in some high paying fields, such as the NBA or the production staff at BET. But if they fall below, then quotas are demanded.
I didn’t personally know the man, so I can’t say.
Well, all we can do is speculate based on the few hints available. My opinion is that King's natural leftism, the pro-quota behavior of his surviving associates, the tendency of leftists to constantly move further left after each victory, and King's own words indicate that he would support anti-white policies if alive today.