Who Should Claim Martin Luther King's Legacy Today?
Cupe Doll
August 29, 2010 02:46:54
|
|
|||||
|
29 votes
|
|
28% | |||
|
9 votes
|
|
9% | |||
|
64 votes
|
|
63% | |||
Daring Blasphemer asked: Was Martin Luther King a conservative? And personally? No, I don't think he was. Then again? I also don't think he was a progressive radical, either.
Honestly? This is a partisan fight to claim the legacy. And, damn it, both sides are wrong to do that.
MLK was more into personal responsibility than most anybody today. And, yes, he was surrounded by radical elements -- but he also sought to resist more divisive polemics. His brand of social justice was firmly grounded in principles of equality under the law -- not special entitlement under the law.
I just saw Al Sharpton on CNN. Dude said Glen Beck gave a good motivational speech -- but that it had nothing to do with civil rights. Ok, Mr. Sharpton, fair enough. But, look, that shoe fits your feet just as well.
What's Sharpton's first premise literally every time he alleges civil rights inequities? That's right -- income distribution disparity. How African American and Latino American incomes lag behind pink European incomes. Which, to Sharpton, has got to mean the discrimination conspiracy is alive and well.
But wait just a sec. Asian Americans actually make more money than pink European Americans. So, by Sharpton's logic? There must be discrimination against pink Americans relative to Asian Americans. Asian Americans are the most privileged. Everything is their fault.
See where I'm going with this? It's nothing Bill Cosby hasn't said. Concluding discrimination from income disparities alone isn't a civil rights argument. It's just more whining.
So, yeah. Sharpton's right that Beck's just giving motivational speeches and failing to address civil rights. But what Sharpton isn't telling is that he himself just keeps on whining -- the opposite of motivational speaking -- and equally fails to address civil rights issues.
It's no wonder everyone tries to claim the MLK legacy. Nobody today has his courage, his character, his moral fiber. They try to claim his legacy for their own partisan profit -- but, thank god almighty, they cannot. Because MLK was one of a kind. Because MLK stood far above the ideological divisions hobbling smaller men like Al Sharpton and Glen Beck.
Honestly? This is a partisan fight to claim the legacy. And, damn it, both sides are wrong to do that.
MLK was more into personal responsibility than most anybody today. And, yes, he was surrounded by radical elements -- but he also sought to resist more divisive polemics. His brand of social justice was firmly grounded in principles of equality under the law -- not special entitlement under the law.
I just saw Al Sharpton on CNN. Dude said Glen Beck gave a good motivational speech -- but that it had nothing to do with civil rights. Ok, Mr. Sharpton, fair enough. But, look, that shoe fits your feet just as well.
What's Sharpton's first premise literally every time he alleges civil rights inequities? That's right -- income distribution disparity. How African American and Latino American incomes lag behind pink European incomes. Which, to Sharpton, has got to mean the discrimination conspiracy is alive and well.
But wait just a sec. Asian Americans actually make more money than pink European Americans. So, by Sharpton's logic? There must be discrimination against pink Americans relative to Asian Americans. Asian Americans are the most privileged. Everything is their fault.
See where I'm going with this? It's nothing Bill Cosby hasn't said. Concluding discrimination from income disparities alone isn't a civil rights argument. It's just more whining.
So, yeah. Sharpton's right that Beck's just giving motivational speeches and failing to address civil rights. But what Sharpton isn't telling is that he himself just keeps on whining -- the opposite of motivational speaking -- and equally fails to address civil rights issues.
It's no wonder everyone tries to claim the MLK legacy. Nobody today has his courage, his character, his moral fiber. They try to claim his legacy for their own partisan profit -- but, thank god almighty, they cannot. Because MLK was one of a kind. Because MLK stood far above the ideological divisions hobbling smaller men like Al Sharpton and Glen Beck.
More: http://ultimatecultureclash.com
More polls by Cupe Doll
Top Opinion
-
Dagon August 29, 2010 07:06:36Martin Luther King was a conservative
+7How can any one claim an idea? From what I saw of king back in the day, he was after common sense and dignity for those who would seek it. So it is the idea , not the man that stands out.I hate to see king used like a ping pong ball, and used by black activists for causes that king did not endorse.
See Votes by State
Loading map...
News & Politics
May 23, 2012 03:20:41
Hot Questions on SodaHead
-
Hottest Woman on Maxim's Hot 100 List?
-
Most Awkward Moment at Billboards?
-
Best Dressed Woman at Cannes?
- View more slideshows »
The Republican Party then had a broad base of ideology. If you were Southern, you were a Republican (Progressive) and a Democrat if you were conservative (which included racists who wanted to keep Jim Crow laws). If you were Northern or from some other region of the country, it was not clear which party you would fit in based on your ideology since both parties accepted members with a variety of political views. There were no RINOs or DINOs in those days.
It is a shame that many people try to use him for their own advantage spitting on his legacy .......
Do people even take history any more ...do they read at all?
It may sound cruel, but I think the assassination of Dr. King was needed to cement his legacy and to ensure that his words did not fade. I know that we miss him terribly and it should be so, but the martyr’s death is never in vain, if his words live on and on…and so shall his...his blood, that was shed by assasins cries unto heaven, while the earth lauds his fame.....
Everytime I hear King's I Have A Dream speech it moves me and inspires me, go and listen to it on occasion along with the writing of a fellow by the name of Spencer W. Kimball - he to came raise your eyes to a far horizon where goodness and mercy shall surely follow all your days....
he was a champion of the oppressed, downtrodded people of any race.
as far as politics. cant compare to anyone today nor the politics of then!.
todays world is not what he totally envisioned.
Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American clergyman, activist, and prominent leader in the African American civil rights movement. He is best known for being an iconic figure in the advancement of civil rights in the United States and around the world. Also a leader of the Christian left in the 20th Century, he is often considered representative in the history of modern American liberalism.
He was in fact a populist, not really a person with a political based drive but a human rights one.
In the first place, my ancestors, like many other Americans, didn't get here until after the civil war. Personally, I owe them nothing.
Second - when these "slave descendants" (if in fact they actually ARE descendants) start getting freebies, they always want more. Just like any other liberal. It's time to stop that; we're going broke trying to make people feel good.
So the least they should have is an American apology. Now it will not solve every single problem , but it will help bring the country together.
If America want to survive as a nation we have to do something about racism or that will be our down fall. We will never make it as a people into the next century.
As to how ridiculous your comment was? I hope you're not serious. Do you really need me to explain your own ridicule?
So let me guess what you're getting at here. You believe black people have no civil rights today -- but in 2035 you plan to lead an insurrection to change all that.
Good for you, Moses. Nevermind reality -- just keep on dreaming.
It was, of course, neither right nor wrong to "free the blacks and then deny them their Civil Rights". Nobody ever said or decided to free the blacks just to deny their Civil Rights. Your question is, like, asking if it's right to give to charity and be flatulent. It's an absurdly false conjunction.
The question if it took too long for black Civil Rights to become established -- if that's what you're getting at -- is a good one, though. Martin Luther King would probably have had a very interesting answer to that.
So which is it? Yes Or No.....
That's why it's hard to believe Manuel won any game. Because if it can't even speak coherently -- how can it possibly be playing chess?