Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Uncle-Tomification of Dr. King

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 12:56:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, lest I be misconstrued, let me say from the very outset of my little critique, that I indeed am a fan, a quite big fan of Dr. King, and I'm most certainly all in favor of his nonviolent and nondestructive methods of revolution, whenever and wherever their use is possible and sufficient to effectively bring about change. Yes, as attorneys say, I'll stipulate that his bloodless way of waging an insurgency against injustice was truly noble and richly entitles him to be honored as a great man, one of the few genuinely, humanly, morally great figures in this country's epically hypocritical history.

But, - yes, here's the "but" that I'm sure you've all sensed was implied throughout the above disclaimer - and I sincerely regret that I have to say this, but merely because the Reverend King is beautifully worthy of being reverenced as a great man it does not necessarily follow that this is the real and true and honest-to-God reason that he's evolved into the one black civil rights leader whose name white Americans today praise; no, it doesn't at all follow that he's honored in an honest fashion. Sadly, he isn't.

Yes, I assert this not as a detractor of an authentic hero of social justice, not to bury beneath social critique Kings right to a historical reputation for greatness & goodness, but to praise him in a more critically honest fashion. As a society we could and should honor Martin Luther King Jr. purely out of a sense of his ample human integrity and spiritual courage, but alas it's simply a fact that we don't. Even when it comes to honoring one of the more shining beacons of moral character in this country's wayward odyssey through history we fall right back into our old national habit of hypocrisy. And so yes, some critical self-examination and self-honesty is required of us if we're ever to begin properly giving the man his due, and finally for the right reasons.

Well, although acknowledging them in the face of the hostility of the conventional-thinking majority will indeed take a good bit of strength of character, critically discovering, within ourselves and our national culture, the wrong reasons that we've elevated King to the status of "great American" doesn't really require that much brain-strain at all. To put it in perhaps politically-incorrect terms, MLK is simply the most obvious and best candidate for nonthreatening black man/leader to emerge from the Civil Rights era.

Again, this is not to take anything whatsoever away from King, in his day and in the South the expansion of voting & civil rights that he struggled in an effective fashion for was certainly threatening to the white political power structure in a great many towns and cities with large populations of potential black voters. However, he did not then, and certainly does not today inspire the kind of physical fear that, say, armed and angry Black Panthers did. Mm-hmm, comparatively speaking, Dr. King was revolutionary lite; if we juxtapose him with the likes of Eldridge Cleaver, Angela Davis, or brother Malcolm he indeed quite starkly stands out as "nonthreatening".

At any rate, although he was an activist who sought to bring about certain quite significant changes, King was far from the sort of fire-breathing radical who presents as a real danger or adversary to the albocratic/plutocratic powers that be, or who instills a sense of personal insecurity in the white populace of Middle America. No, he didn't exactly advocate guerrilla warfare or the overthrow of the Federal Government, now did he?! Hardly, rather he called for nothing more radical than allowing African Americans to participate in the sham of American democracy, to fool themselves that they've overcome by electing their own mayors and whatnot.

King, actually, was the ideal black activist, from the perspective of the Caucasoid majority and ruling class, i.e., a proponent of a passive movement to plug black citizens into our society's matrix of sociopolitical conventionality and conformism, where they too would become politically nonthreatening and manageable. Now then, this is of course precisely what our society, its system, its public institutions and mass media, its Establishment, its bourgeoisie, and its programmed white majority wish to encourage. It's indeed the ideal way to neutralize a sizeable demographic with ample reason to be radically disgruntled against the status quo, as well as suckering everyone else who's righteously aggrieved against our inherently economically hierarchical and exploitative form of civilization into remaining innocuously conventional.

That is, promoting Martin Luther King as a historical icon becomes a part of our sociopolitical acculturation, a part of steeping us in the ideology of the American way, in an ideology that would have us patriotically accept, all evidence to the contrary, that ours is an entirely "nice" system that no one needs to rebel against in too seditious a fashion, an ideology that co-opts King the icon to ironically tame the very spirit of revolutionary activism that his example might serve to incite.

Such is the way of things that, yes, this process of King's ascendance to iconhood, of his cultural canonization, of his induction into the pantheon of our society's civil religion, is, it turns out, quite insidiously a process of his assimilation into a societal mythology that teaches us to believe in the worshipfulness of the system, to believe that the system is never so fallen from grace as to require anything more for its redemption than the minor reforms achievable through civil disobedience, to believe that strident and sacrilegious radicalism is never the way to go.

Such an anti-subversive, middle-class, politically milquetoasty mythology is of course the upshot of the false consciousness (falsches Bewusstsein) that most of us live and move and have our sociopolitical being in. A false consciousness that blends platitudes, passivity, and propaganda; naivete, niceness, and nationalism so as to Stepfordize us all into nonthreatening "good citizens" who never try to fight city hall too aggressively. The true and radical story of Martin Luther King, of a man who engaged in a nonviolent version of revolutionary struggle for genuine justice had the genuine potential to buck such a pabulumy pacifying false consciousness, to energize people to fight city hall and society's capitalist powers and principalities with all of their might, but instead it's been not merely nullified but downright compromised into a just another bit of goody-goodiness that counteracts real and in-your-face radicalism, that converts it into harmlessly socially-conscious flash mobs and slacktivism.

How does it really work? Quite simply, King is popularly portrayed as someone who recognized the truth that our legal and political way of life, our institutions, and those in authority over us are inclined to be superbly fair, humanely right-minded, and loftily principled and that one therefore doesn't need to resort to unruly and ungentle direct action, to any form of destructive dissidence, to sabotage and fomenting upheaval.

Someone such as King is then of course held forth to us, by schools, churches, and the media, as a role model of an eminently emulatable sort, a role model who defines the legitimate boundaries of disobedience and revolt, boundaries we dutifully respect because he was respectable; i.e., boundaries we remain safely within, never constituting much of a real source of menace for our elected overseers or corporate overlords.

Continued below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 12:57:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Conclusion

That is, the wrong lesson learned by us, by everyone who should be rising up against the repressive regime of the rich & powerful, is that the state's monopoly on the legit use of force was deferred to and validated by the good Dr. King's pacifism, thus and so our indoctrination for impotence is reinforced and we the people remain at the disadvantage of thinking that it's always naughty to direct any physical hostility, or even violently harsh words at our leaders and masters.

Dr. King's radicalism, one must admit, was sufficiently mild in nature so as to lend itself to being misrepresented in such a fashion and therefore bears some of the blame, however, in combination with the threat of violence from other quarters of the struggle for racial justice (yes, although passive resisters counsel their brothers and sisters against utilizing violent methods they benefit from those who do, as it's the threat of discontented masses flocking to the camp of those advocating and employing violence that in large measure induces the government and the ruling elite to grant the concessions sought by the less lethal likes of King and Gandhi) King's approach and the sheer force of his human decency succeeded in effecting enough good that he certainly deserves better than his posthumous transformation into a neutered icon. With the Martin Luther King holiday approaching we should each therefore attempt to do our part to reverse the Uncle-Tomification of his benign but still sublimely bolshie brand of activism and to turn his memory into a source of impetus for insurrectionary radicalism by remembering that he wasn't just a great man, or a saint, or an American mahatma, he was also a great radical.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 4:10:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
King was not just a "civil rights activist" but an outright socialist. This is historical record, his own statements attest to it. I don't know why you don't want his babies.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 3:09:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 4:10:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
King was not just a "civil rights activist" but an outright socialist. This is historical record, his own statements attest to it. I don't know why you don't want his babies.

I see, your mentality is right in there with those (of the pointy white hood-wearing set) who were wont to smear him as a Soviet operative fomenting racial and class conflict to help bring America down. Yes, thanks for the brilliant feedback.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 3:16:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ought oh! It occurs to me, a bit belatedly, that some of you might think it just a wee bit inconsistent, shall we say, that I begin by lauding King, then I dispraisingly claim that he wasn't all that terribly radical, and then conclude by declaring him to be a truly great radical. Inconsistent? Not at all. Firstly, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", adored by little political forum wonks and "libertarian" logicasters and knee-jerk skeptics self-ordained in the militant Church of Argumentology, so on principle I never endeavor to be simplistcally consistent, I don't at all consider it to be an intellectual virtue. Secondly, I'm quite simply not actually guilty of any inconsistency here whasoever. No, I've merely observed that King in one sense was certainly a radical but at the same tome in another sense wasn't at all radical. That is, I point out that he merely sought nothing more radical than plugging African Americans into the matrix of the political mainstream, but this was also in fact a significant radical advance for them, this is how disenfranchised their lot was. Yes, then, even King's fairly non-radical goals were thoroughly radical relevant to the injustice of the times. Ergo, to characterize King as both radical and non-radical is in point of fact not at all inconsistent, or backpedally, or flip-floppy. Rather, it's merely a matter of recognizing the variable and fluid nature of radicalism under our current protean form of victim-making society.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 12:58:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 3:09:03 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/7/2013 4:10:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
King was not just a "civil rights activist" but an outright socialist. This is historical record, his own statements attest to it. I don't know why you don't want his babies.

I see, your mentality is right in there with those (of the pointy white hood-wearing set) who were wont to smear him as a Soviet operative
He was not a Soviet operative. He was a naive socialist in the vein of Orwell, who believed you could have state control without its fruits.

, so on principle I never endeavor to be simplistcally consistent,
In other words you're wrong as a matter of logical principle, the content of your arguments being irrelevant.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 12:58:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And btw, the "pointy white-hood wearing set" consists of National Socialists, not capitalists.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 3:31:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 12:58:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/7/2013 3:09:03 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/7/2013 4:10:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
King was not just a "civil rights activist" but an outright socialist. This is historical record, his own statements attest to it. I don't know why you don't want his babies.

I see, your mentality is right in there with those (of the pointy white hood-wearing set) who were wont to smear him as a Soviet operative
He was not a Soviet operative. He was a naive socialist in the vein of Orwell, who believed you could have state control without its fruits.

Perhaps you're projecting your own ideological naivete, indicated by the belief that you can have a capitalist-dominated system of society without being force-fed its bitter fruits - the dictatorship of the workplace; a grievously subverted democratic process; the objectification & commodification of everything, including human beings; economics overriding human, ethical, and ecological priorities; the corruption of everything that capitalists touch, etc.

, so on principle I never endeavor to be simplistcally consistent,
In other words you're wrong as a matter of logical principle, the content of your arguments being irrelevant.

Hmm, apparently you can't distinguish between simplistic/foolish consistency and legitimate consistency. You also don't seem to understand that inconsistency does not necessarily always equal incoherence.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 4:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 12:58:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And btw, the "pointy white-hood wearing set" consists of National Socialists, not capitalists.

Firstly, read a bit of history chum, back in King's era, in the 50s and 60s, the Klan adhered to a 100% American brand of racialist vileness and nativist know-nothing nationalism (which, btw, included being pro-capitalist on patriotic grounds), it had not yet been infected with neo-Nazism, and so the folks in the pointy white hoods who slandered King as a Soviet agent were most certainly not "National Socialists".

And, secondly, National Socialism, despite the name, which was cynically chosen merely to cash in on the cachet of the word "socialism", was not merely not socialist, it was murderously hostile to the very idea of socialism. Recall, if you will, that in addition to Jews and Gypsies a great many of Hitler's victims were in fact socialists. Yes, like most extreme rightists, Herr Hitler actually had an irrational hatred of socialists, he certainly didn't self-identify as one! This whole conservative canard that the Nazis were somehow socialists is of course a spiteful smear tactic; but, what's more, it's also a quite transparent attempt to deny the right's family resemblance with fascism, to disavow any ideological-psychological kinship with the likes of Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, et al. Of course they properly and clearly belong on your side of the spectrum, but for understandable reasons you'd much prefer to push them over to the left and hope that we don't realize that fascism and Nazism are in fact merely extreme manifestations of the right-wing mindset. It's a shamefully dishonest ploy (almost up there with denying the Holocaust), and except for your philosophical fellow travelers no one buys into it, so give it up and defend your ideological camp and point of view in good faith, or at least try to. Come on, give it a try, show us that rightists have some form of integrity.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 5:46:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmm, do I detect a disappointing lack of interest in Dr. King and the way that his memory has been co-opted by our society to promote political conventionality and passivity?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 5:47:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 5:46:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, do I detect a disappointing lack of interest in Dr. King and the way that his memory has been co-opted by our society to promote political conventionality and passivity?

I'm interested, I don't think Dr. King Deserves a holiday, and I also think that most people don't know that Dr.King did not come up with the idea of passive resistance.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 6:59:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 5:47:59 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:46:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, do I detect a disappointing lack of interest in Dr. King and the way that his memory has been co-opted by our society to promote political conventionality and passivity?

I'm interested, I don't think Dr. King Deserves a holiday, and I also think that most people don't know that Dr.King did not come up with the idea of passive resistance.

Thanks for your participation in the thread. Firstly, I'm all in favor of Dr. King having a holiday, I just take issue with the way that it functions, like so much else in our culture, to condition and domesticate us into compliant and drone-like "good citizens". As to your second point, I disagree, I think that most at least semi-literate people have heard of Gandhi, and a great many people have heard of Thoreau and Tolstoy. Now then, why, pray tell, are you opposed to the very idea of a holiday to honor the Right Reverend King? Could it be because he wasn't right enough, politically speaking, to please a conservative such as yourself? Must conservatives be that partisanly picayune? Please elaborate on your position, and if you're interested share your thoughts on the thesis of the OP. Thank you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 7:02:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 6:59:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:47:59 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:46:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, do I detect a disappointing lack of interest in Dr. King and the way that his memory has been co-opted by our society to promote political conventionality and passivity?

I'm interested, I don't think Dr. King Deserves a holiday, and I also think that most people don't know that Dr.King did not come up with the idea of passive resistance.

Thanks for your participation in the thread. Firstly, I'm all in favor of Dr. King having a holiday, I just take issue with the way that it functions, like so much else in our culture, to condition and domesticate us into compliant and drone-like "good citizens". As to your second point, I disagree, I think that most at least semi-literate people have heard of Gandhi, and a great many people have heard of Thoreau and Tolstoy. Now then, why, pray tell, are you opposed to the very idea of a holiday to honor the Right Reverend King? Could it be because he wasn't right enough, politically speaking, to please a conservative such as yourself? Must conservatives be that partisanly picayune? Please elaborate on your position, and if you're interested share your thoughts on the thesis of the OP. Thank you.

Dr king was certainly right in his beliefs, but he does not crack the top 10 most important in american history. So for an american holiday, I feel that there are more deserving people.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 7:18:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 7:02:13 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 6:59:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:47:59 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:46:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, do I detect a disappointing lack of interest in Dr. King and the way that his memory has been co-opted by our society to promote political conventionality and passivity?

I'm interested, I don't think Dr. King Deserves a holiday, and I also think that most people don't know that Dr.King did not come up with the idea of passive resistance.

Thanks for your participation in the thread. Firstly, I'm all in favor of Dr. King having a holiday, I just take issue with the way that it functions, like so much else in our culture, to condition and domesticate us into compliant and drone-like "good citizens". As to your second point, I disagree, I think that most at least semi-literate people have heard of Gandhi, and a great many people have heard of Thoreau and Tolstoy. Now then, why, pray tell, are you opposed to the very idea of a holiday to honor the Right Reverend King? Could it be because he wasn't right enough, politically speaking, to please a conservative such as yourself? Must conservatives be that partisanly picayune? Please elaborate on your position, and if you're interested share your thoughts on the thesis of the OP. Thank you.

Dr king was certainly right in his beliefs, but he does not crack the top 10 most important in american history. So for an american holiday, I feel that there are more deserving people.

I see. I'll just say that I agree that his beliefs were right and that I disagree with your view that he's unworthy of a national holiday and leave it at that. Now then, any thoughts on the topic of the OP?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 7:20:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, doesn't anyone else think that it's tragically and criminally ironic that Dr. King, who actively disrespected authority in a noble cause, has been posthumously assimilated into our society's ideology of civil goody-goodiness, which functions to condition us to dutifully, i.e., docilely, respect authority?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 7:21:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 7:18:07 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/8/2013 7:02:13 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 6:59:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:47:59 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:46:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, do I detect a disappointing lack of interest in Dr. King and the way that his memory has been co-opted by our society to promote political conventionality and passivity?

I'm interested, I don't think Dr. King Deserves a holiday, and I also think that most people don't know that Dr.King did not come up with the idea of passive resistance.

Thanks for your participation in the thread. Firstly, I'm all in favor of Dr. King having a holiday, I just take issue with the way that it functions, like so much else in our culture, to condition and domesticate us into compliant and drone-like "good citizens". As to your second point, I disagree, I think that most at least semi-literate people have heard of Gandhi, and a great many people have heard of Thoreau and Tolstoy. Now then, why, pray tell, are you opposed to the very idea of a holiday to honor the Right Reverend King? Could it be because he wasn't right enough, politically speaking, to please a conservative such as yourself? Must conservatives be that partisanly picayune? Please elaborate on your position, and if you're interested share your thoughts on the thesis of the OP. Thank you.

Dr king was certainly right in his beliefs, but he does not crack the top 10 most important in american history. So for an american holiday, I feel that there are more deserving people.

I see. I'll just say that I agree that his beliefs were right and that I disagree with your view that he's unworthy of a national holiday and leave it at that. Now then, any thoughts on the topic of the OP?

I don't agree with your idea of using his image to rise up against the rich. The blacks were legally repressed and they deserved liberation. The poor are poor either due to laziness or lack of education, and the rich should not lose their money to "liberate" them.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 3:54:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well by modern standards, Dr. King was the ultimate Uncle Tom. He totally believed in living alongside whites as equals. Thank goodness level headed Black leaders such as Malcolm X were there to set things on the right path.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 3:58:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 3:31:12 PM, charleslb wrote:
Perhaps you're projecting your own ideological naivete, indicated by the belief that you can have a capitalist-dominated system of society without being force-fed its bitter fruits - the dictatorship of the workplace
That's not even a thing. I work at a workplace. I'm not dictated to, working there is my choice.
a grievously subverted democratic process
Democracy being subverted is good. The purest form of democracy is three dudes in a girl in the same spot taking a vote on whether gang rape happens.

the objectification & commodification of everything
That's a good thing too.

including human beings
That's not a thing, it's a person. Some of the things the human produces are things though.

economics overriding human, ethical, and ecological priorities\
Economics resolves conflicts in the things humans claim to value. It can't override one value input without another value input.

the corruption of everything that capitalists touch
A meaningless statement.

Hmm, apparently you can't distinguish between simplistic/foolish consistency and legitimate consistency
Consistency is consistency and A is A.

You also don't seem to understand that inconsistency does not necessarily always equal incoherence.
It does, necessarily, by definition. That which is not consistent does not cohere.

(which, btw, included being pro-capitalist on patriotic ground
Evidence of this?
Remember, capitalism entails open immigration.

was not merely not socialist, it was murderously hostile to the very idea of socialism.
It consisted of government control of the economy. It was not hostile to the idea of socialism, it was hostile to socialists in the manner Crips are hostile to Bloods-- as a rival gang.

it's also a quite transparent attempt to deny the right's family resemblance with fascism,
The economic ideology of fascism is guild socialism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 5:24:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 7:21:51 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 7:18:07 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/8/2013 7:02:13 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 6:59:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:47:59 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:46:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, do I detect a disappointing lack of interest in Dr. King and the way that his memory has been co-opted by our society to promote political conventionality and passivity?

I'm interested, I don't think Dr. King Deserves a holiday, and I also think that most people don't know that Dr.King did not come up with the idea of passive resistance.

Thanks for your participation in the thread. Firstly, I'm all in favor of Dr. King having a holiday, I just take issue with the way that it functions, like so much else in our culture, to condition and domesticate us into compliant and drone-like "good citizens". As to your second point, I disagree, I think that most at least semi-literate people have heard of Gandhi, and a great many people have heard of Thoreau and Tolstoy. Now then, why, pray tell, are you opposed to the very idea of a holiday to honor the Right Reverend King? Could it be because he wasn't right enough, politically speaking, to please a conservative such as yourself? Must conservatives be that partisanly picayune? Please elaborate on your position, and if you're interested share your thoughts on the thesis of the OP. Thank you.

Dr king was certainly right in his beliefs, but he does not crack the top 10 most important in american history. So for an american holiday, I feel that there are more deserving people.

I see. I'll just say that I agree that his beliefs were right and that I disagree with your view that he's unworthy of a national holiday and leave it at that. Now then, any thoughts on the topic of the OP?

I don't agree with your idea of using his image to rise up against the rich. The blacks were legally repressed and they deserved liberation. The poor are poor either due to laziness or lack of education, and the rich should not lose their money to "liberate" them.

I see, the poor are just indolent imbeciles. What a decent and brilliant view. NOT! See some comments that I just posted in my thread on the concept of "earning", in the society section, I think that they rather apply to you. Also, look up the term attribution bias, I think that it also applies to you, and to "libertarianism" in general.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 5:29:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 5:24:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/8/2013 7:21:51 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 7:18:07 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/8/2013 7:02:13 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 6:59:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:47:59 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 5:46:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, do I detect a disappointing lack of interest in Dr. King and the way that his memory has been co-opted by our society to promote political conventionality and passivity?

I'm interested, I don't think Dr. King Deserves a holiday, and I also think that most people don't know that Dr.King did not come up with the idea of passive resistance.

Thanks for your participation in the thread. Firstly, I'm all in favor of Dr. King having a holiday, I just take issue with the way that it functions, like so much else in our culture, to condition and domesticate us into compliant and drone-like "good citizens". As to your second point, I disagree, I think that most at least semi-literate people have heard of Gandhi, and a great many people have heard of Thoreau and Tolstoy. Now then, why, pray tell, are you opposed to the very idea of a holiday to honor the Right Reverend King? Could it be because he wasn't right enough, politically speaking, to please a conservative such as yourself? Must conservatives be that partisanly picayune? Please elaborate on your position, and if you're interested share your thoughts on the thesis of the OP. Thank you.

Dr king was certainly right in his beliefs, but he does not crack the top 10 most important in american history. So for an american holiday, I feel that there are more deserving people.

I see. I'll just say that I agree that his beliefs were right and that I disagree with your view that he's unworthy of a national holiday and leave it at that. Now then, any thoughts on the topic of the OP?

I don't agree with your idea of using his image to rise up against the rich. The blacks were legally repressed and they deserved liberation. The poor are poor either due to laziness or lack of education, and the rich should not lose their money to "liberate" them.

I see, the poor are just indolent imbeciles. What a decent and brilliant view. NOT! See some comments that I just posted in my thread on the concept of "earning", in the society section, I think that they rather apply to you. Also, look up the term attribution bias, I think that it also applies to you, and to "libertarianism" in general.

You think the term does not apply to you and welfare states too. I feel no responsibility to help the poor "just because I am financially able to" and no-one else should be forced to help them either. Libertarian-ism allows each person to keep what they work for. Then the poor have no-one to blame but themselves for being poor, and the rich have no-one to blame for them being rich but hard work.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 5:39:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 3:54:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Well by modern standards, Dr. King was the ultimate Uncle Tom. He totally believed in living alongside whites as equals. Thank goodness level headed Black leaders such as Malcolm X were there to set things on the right path.

No, the good Dr. King was most certainly not an "Uncle Tom" merely because his form of radicalism was comparatively tame, but his memory, i.e., Martin Luther King the icon, has certainly and insidiously undergone an Uncle-Tomification. And yes, the existence of more revolutionary and incendiary African American activists was indeed a factor in any gains attributed to the Civil Rights Movement, in that the desire of the powers that be to defuse the situation by compromising with milder leaders was heightened by the presence of individuals who threatened to to ignite righteous black anger.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 5:41:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 5:39:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/9/2013 3:54:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Well by modern standards, Dr. King was the ultimate Uncle Tom. He totally believed in living alongside whites as equals. Thank goodness level headed Black leaders such as Malcolm X were there to set things on the right path.

No, the good Dr. King was most certainly not an "Uncle Tom" merely because his form of radicalism was comparatively tame, but his memory, i.e., Martin Luther King the icon, has certainly and insidiously undergone an Uncle-Tomification. And yes, the existence of more revolutionary and incendiary African American activists was indeed a factor in any gains attributed to the Civil Rights Movement, in that the desire of the powers that be to defuse the situation by compromising with milder leaders was heightened by the presence of individuals who threatened to to ignite righteous black anger.

A typo correction, "... who threatened to to ignite ..." of course contains one "to" too many.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 6:01:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 3:58:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/8/2013 3:31:12 PM, charleslb wrote:
Perhaps you're projecting your own ideological naivete, indicated by the belief that you can have a capitalist-dominated system of society without being force-fed its bitter fruits - the dictatorship of the workplace
That's not even a thing. I work at a workplace. I'm not dictated to, working there is my choice.

Behold the false consciousness of someone who doesn't even apprehend the implications for human freedom that in our form of socioeconomic system most people spend the majority of their time as workers in a business command structure in which they're subject to the authority and the power to give an axe to one's livelihood that's wielded by bosses and owners.

a grievously subverted democratic process
Democracy being subverted is good. The purest form of democracy is three dudes in a girl in the same spot taking a vote on whether gang rape happens.

Really, this is what your mentality crudely and falsely reduces democracy to. Quite sad really.

the objectification & commodification of everything
That's a good thing too.

Again, quite sad.

including human beings
That's not a thing, it's a person...

Duh. But unfortunately capitalism doesn't get this.

economics overriding human, ethical, and ecological priorities\
Economics resolves conflicts in the things humans claim to value. It can't override one value input without another value input.

In the empirical real world economics alas overrides ethics every day of the week under capitalism.

the corruption of everything that capitalists touch
A meaningless statement.

Alas it's not, except perhaps from the ideological point of view of a "libertarian".

Hmm, apparently you can't distinguish between simplistic/foolish consistency and legitimate consistency
Consistency is consistency and A is A.

Simplistic and wrong.


You also don't seem to understand that inconsistency does not necessarily always equal incoherence.
It does, necessarily, by definition. That which is not consistent does not cohere.

Again, simplistic and wrong.

(which, btw, included being pro-capitalist on patriotic grounds
Evidence of this?
Remember, capitalism entails open immigration.

Do you think that dumb-witted Ku-Kluxers realized that?

was not merely not socialist, it was murderously hostile to the very idea of socialism.
It consisted of government control of the economy. It was not hostile to the idea of socialism, it was hostile to socialists in the manner Crips are hostile to Bloods-- as a rival gang.

You need to study history, socialism, and fascism a wee bit more.

it's also a quite transparent attempt to deny the right's family resemblance with fascism,
The economic ideology of fascism is guild socialism.

The psychology of fascists and other "radical rightists" is merely an extreme and naked manifestation of the fundamental psychology of all rightism.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 7:54:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 3:58:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Democracy being subverted is good. The purest form of democracy is three dudes in a girl in the same spot taking a vote on whether gang rape happens.

Btw, when one uses an atrocious analogy like this for its shock value one should also remember and consider its Makes-me-look-stupid-and-insensitive value. I might also point out that factually speaking this is a rather weak analogy, as democracy in fact does not involve allowing those accused of participating in a crime to participate in the jury vote to decide his guilt or innocence.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 8:01:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 7:21:51 PM, tmar19652 wrote:

I don't agree with your idea of using his image to rise up against the rich. The blacks were legally repressed and they deserved liberation. The poor are poor either due to laziness or lack of education, and the rich should not lose their money to "liberate" them.

I see, the poor are just indolent imbeciles. What a decent and brilliant view. NOT! See some comments that I just posted in my thread on the concept of "earning", in the society section, I think that they rather apply to you. Also, look up the term attribution bias, I think that it also applies to you, and to "libertarianism" in general.

Correction, the comments that I meant to refer you to are located in the economics section, for your convenience here's a link, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 10:49:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 5:41:41 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/9/2013 5:39:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/9/2013 3:54:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Well by modern standards, Dr. King was the ultimate Uncle Tom. He totally believed in living alongside whites as equals. Thank goodness level headed Black leaders such as Malcolm X were there to set things on the right path.

No, the good Dr. King was most certainly not an "Uncle Tom" merely because his form of radicalism was comparatively tame, but his memory, i.e., Martin Luther King the icon, has certainly and insidiously undergone an Uncle-Tomification. And yes, the existence of more revolutionary and incendiary African American activists was indeed a factor in any gains attributed to the Civil Rights Movement, in that the desire of the powers that be to defuse the situation by compromising with milder leaders was heightened by the presence of individuals who threatened to to ignite righteous black anger.

A typo correction, "... who threatened to to ignite ..." of course contains one "to" too many.

I believe Malcolm X thought he was an Uncle Tom for daring to live as equals with Whitey.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 11:22:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 7:54:20 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/9/2013 3:58:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Democracy being subverted is good. The purest form of democracy is three dudes in a girl in the same spot taking a vote on whether gang rape happens.

Btw, when one uses an atrocious analogy like this for its shock value one should also remember and consider its Makes-me-look-stupid-and-insensitive value. I might also point out that factually speaking this is a rather weak analogy, as democracy in fact does not involve allowing those accused of participating in a crime to participate in the jury vote to decide his guilt or innocence.

Republics in fact do not. Democracy in fact does, every day, in certain neighborhoods (the ones where gang rape happens and doesn't go to court).

Juries imply something undemocratic-- that 12 persons scattered across a locale containing more than 12 persons get all the votes.

Gang rape-- 4 persons packed in a locale containing 4 persons-- that's either democratic, or only global government can be democratic.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 11:29:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 6:01:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
Behold the false consciousness of someone who doesn't even apprehend the implications for human freedom that in our form of socioeconomic system most people spend the majority of their time as workers in a business command structure in which they're subject to the authority and the power to give an axe to one's livelihood that's wielded by bosses and owners.
This isn't actually an argument.

Really, this is what your mentality crudely and falsely reduces democracy to. Quite sad really.
This isn't actually an argument.
Again, quite sad.
If something isn't made objective, it isn't made real. If it's not a commodity, it can't be distributed to pareto optimality.

Duh. But unfortunately capitalism doesn't get this.
Capitalism does not permit the sale of a person, without the consent of that person.

In the empirical real world economics alas overrides ethics every day of the week under capitalism.
This isn't actually an argument.

Alas it's not, except perhaps from the ideological point of view of a "libertarian".
Ideological point of view is redundant. Also. This isn't actually an argument.

Simplistic and wrong.
This isn't actually an argument.

Again, simplistic and wrong.
This isn't actually an argument.

Do you think that dumb-witted Ku-Kluxers realized that?
If not, then they can't be pro-capitalist-- you can't support capitalism without knowing what it is.

You need to study history, socialism, and fascism a wee bit more.
This isn't actually an argument.

The psychology of fascists and other "radical rightists" is merely an extreme and naked manifestation of the fundamental psychology of all rightism.
Psychology is virtually irrelevant to their policy positions, which is the defining characteristic of an ideology. Ideologies are adhered to by diverse persons with diverse minds.

Also, that's an assertion that neither contains nor clearly implies the argument for it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 4:03:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/10/2013 11:29:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/9/2013 6:01:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
Behold the false consciousness of someone who doesn't even apprehend the implications for human freedom that in our form of socioeconomic system most people spend the majority of their time as workers in a business command structure in which they're subject to the authority and the power to give an axe to one's livelihood that's wielded by bosses and owners.
This isn't actually an argument.

No, just an analysis.

Really, this is what your mentality crudely and falsely reduces democracy to. Quite sad really.

This isn't actually an argument.

No, just a sad fact.

Again, quite sad.
If something isn't made objective, it isn't made real. If it's not a commodity, it can't be distributed to pareto optimality.

Hmm, an attempt to justify the objectification and commodification of human beings, how unfortunate for you pro-capitalists that you have to seek to justify so many profoundly unjustifiable aspects of capitalism.

Duh. But unfortunately capitalism doesn't get this.
Capitalism does not permit the sale of a person, without the consent of that person.

No, capitalism merely creates a socioeconomic state of affairs that amounts to "universal prostitution", as Marx termed it, in which it's quite inescapable that workers give their technical "consent" to be sold into wage slavery, to be used like an object by an employer, to be reduced to a state that prevents them from actualizing their experience of being human to the fullest.

In the empirical real world economics alas overrides ethics every day of the week under capitalism.
This isn't actually an argument.

Mm-hmm, it's just another statement of unlovely fact that anyone might empirically know if he found the inclination to pull his nose out of the works of von Mises and Hayek to discover the character of actual capitalism as its practiced by actual driven-to-amorally-and-inhumanly-accumulate-capital capitalists.

Alas it's not, except perhaps from the ideological point of view of a "libertarian".
Ideological point of view is redundant. Also. This isn't actually an argument.

Simplistic and wrong.
This isn't actually an argument.

But it has the virtue of being true, that will suffice.

Again, simplistic and wrong.
This isn't actually an argument.

Yeah, but again, it's true.


Do you think that dumb-witted Ku-Kluxers realized that?
If not, then they can't be pro-capitalist-- you can't support capitalism without knowing what it is.

Rubbish. And, btw, you, for one, do, and so do a great many "libertarians".

You need to study history, socialism, and fascism a wee bit more.
This isn't actually an argument.

The psychology of fascists and other "radical rightists" is merely an extreme and naked manifestation of the fundamental psychology of all rightism.
Psychology is virtually irrelevant to their policy positions,

Psychologically naive rubbish.

which is the defining characteristic of an ideology. Ideologies are adhered to by diverse persons with diverse minds.

Yes, ideologues do not all perfectly conform to some monolithic mentality that cancels out all mental diversity, however, psychology does to a good extent underlie people's political and economic opinions and there's a very definite psychological type that a great many rightists seem to conform to, making it indeed possible and legitimate to psychologically profile them.

Also, that's an assertion that neither contains nor clearly implies the argument for it.

Still trying to negate truth with technicalities, are you an attorney, perhaps, or in law school?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 4:20:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/10/2013 10:49:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/9/2013 5:41:41 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/9/2013 5:39:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/9/2013 3:54:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Well by modern standards, Dr. King was the ultimate Uncle Tom. He totally believed in living alongside whites as equals. Thank goodness level headed Black leaders such as Malcolm X were there to set things on the right path.

No, the good Dr. King was most certainly not an "Uncle Tom" merely because his form of radicalism was comparatively tame, but his memory, i.e., Martin Luther King the icon, has certainly and insidiously undergone an Uncle-Tomification. And yes, the existence of more revolutionary and incendiary African American activists was indeed a factor in any gains attributed to the Civil Rights Movement, in that the desire of the powers that be to defuse the situation by compromising with milder leaders was heightened by the presence of individuals who threatened to to ignite righteous black anger.

A typo correction, "... who threatened to to ignite ..." of course contains one "to" too many.

I believe Malcolm X thought he was an Uncle Tom for daring to live as equals with Whitey.

My position in the OP doesn't oblige me to defend every opinion or position expressed by the early Malcolm X, many of which he himself ceased to defend and profoundly revised toward the tragic end of his life. Ergo, you can stop taking cheap shots at my thesis by casting a bad light on someone such as minister Malcolm, who in fact is quite peripheral to it; mm-hmm, this tack is actually quite ineffectual, as the view of Dr. King held by more revolutionary African American leaders doesn't really touch my assertions at all. If you disagree with me you might instead wish to formulate an actual argument. Yeah, give it a go, challenge yourself and see what you can come up with.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.