Did MLK really change anything in America?

[churchmouse]

OK folks.

 

[Expat]

I don’t know why I try. We’re all racists and bigots to kut. Liberals are the heavily gift to world. No matter how many are murdered.

I’m done. For realz

I think you meant heavenly :-)
Although what you put is pretty accurate in its way. Liberals are a heavy weight on the world.

 

[OakRiver]

Rather than offer generalizations about people based on the color of their skin, y'know the thing Dr. King objected to, perhaps we can get back to discussing his legacy.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

Rather than offer generalizations about people based on the color of their skin, y'know the thing Dr. King objected to, perhaps we can get back to discussing his legacy.

Here are three excellent books on Dr. King's impact and legacy.

This one is another highly recommended book. It provides a lot of gritty details about the early civil rights movement and the hatred that had to be overcome. Read this many years ago and had a huge impact on my view about life in America.

 

[jamil]

Yep. You need not only believe in white privilege to be a bigot. As it is obvious that many bigots do not believe in white privilege, and express the bigotry in other ways. White people on the left practice soft bigotry, and white people on the right practice hard bigotry..... if I was so incline to agree with you earlier statement.

White people on the right being bigots isn’t a component of the statement you applied it to. The statement asserts that jim crow (hard bigotry) came from the left whites. It also asserts affirmative action (soft bigotry) comes from the left whites. At least that’s the most reasonable read to me. So it doesn’t follow from the statement that therefore all whites are bigots. The conclusion that follows is that the left are bigots. You can argue the validity of the logic, or the veracity of the premises. But you had to add the parts which allowed your conclusion.

 

[churchmouse]

White people on the right being bigots isn’t a component of the statement you applied it to. The statement asserts that jim crow (hard bigotry) came from the left whites. It also asserts affirmative action (soft bigotry) comes from the left whites. At least that’s the most reasonable read to me. So it doesn’t follow from the statement that therefore all whites are bigots. The conclusion that follows is that the left are bigots. You can argue the validity of the logic, or the veracity of the premises. But you had to add the parts which allowed your conclusion.

If we all take a strong look at the times that gave us Dr. King I think it would be an eye opener.
So much that is not main stream. And yes, it was the hard core left that was the hurdle in getting past it all. But are we really past it. Will those who benefit/profit from the hatred ever allow us to get past it. There is is the real issues. The hate speak that is openly shared and not by us. Us being, well, you know.
This is part of what Dr. King was against. At least from my memory's of the man.

 

[OakRiver]

Here are three excellent books on Dr. King's impact and legacy.

This one is another highly recommended book. It provides a lot of gritty details about the early civil rights movement and the hatred that had to be overcome. Read this many years ago and had a huge impact on my view about life in America.

Thank you for the recommendations. Most of my familiarity with Dr. King comes from how he inspired the non-violent civil rights movement in Northern Ireland.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

A really good first hand account is a book by Helen Shores Lee,and her sister Barbara Shores about the early struggle,and they knew the man as "Uncle Mike."The book is "The Gentle Giant of Dynamite Hill." It is about their father Arther Shores ,MLK and the early Birmingham bom bings. Could not get a link.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Rather than offer generalizations about people based on the color of their skin, y'know the thing Dr. King objected to, perhaps we can get back to discussing his legacy.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to OakRiver again.

Excellent job of compacting an expansive and critically important point into a single sentence!

 

[OakRiver]

Thank you. I'm not a fan of making things more complex than they really need to be.

 

[indiucky]

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 65812

 

[IndianaDave]

He put to bed many problems.

The problem was that from 2008 to 2016, someone decided to dredge all of them back up and make them an issue again.

This ^^^^

 

[Kutnupe14]

With a nod to Thurgood Marshall...

Federal judicial nominee Wendy Vitter refused to say on Wednesday whether she agreed with the landmark civil rights case that desegregated U.S. public schools.

During her confirmation hearing, Vitter, whom President Donald Trump nominated to become a federal judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana, would not say whether she believed the Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, was correctly decided when Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked her about it.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b064876776a93d

Uhhhh....

MAGA? Still sounds like a dogwhistle.
Kudos to her for, at least, not lying.

 

[jamil]

With a nod to Thurgood Marshall...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b064876776a93d

Uhhhh....

MAGA? Still sounds like a dogwhistle.
Kudos to her for, at least, not lying.

“I don’t mean to be coy, but I think I get into a difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions ― which are correctly decided, which I disagree with. Again, my personal, political or religious views, I would set aside”



“Respectfully, I would not comment on what could be my boss’ ruling, the Supreme Court,” Vitter said. “I would be bound by it. And if I start commenting on, ‘I agree with this case, or don’t agree with this case,’ I think we get into a slippery slope.”



So, refusing to comment on whether she agrees with a ruling means exactly that she doesn't agree with it? I don't want potential judges commenting on the correctness of rulings no matter what side of the isle they come from. That's a gotcha question and you know it. And if you don't know it, well...

And, seriously? Dog whistles? Please tell me you have more than that article as evidence. Because if you're hearing dog whistles for that, holy crap.

 

[indiucky]

I'm not a fan of making things more complex than they really need to be.

Yeah...Oak is Irish not German......

 

[indiucky]

 

[JettaKnight]

That reminds me - my wife was watching a documentary, and there was a clip of then Gov. Clinton on the trail saying, "Make America Great Again".

 

[Thor]

Racism won't be over when race X can get hired into job Y. It will be over when race X can get fired from job Y and no one cares what race X was.

Mostly what we get today are shades of tribalism.

 

[jamil]

Racism won't be over when race X can get hired into job Y. It will be over when race X can get fired from job Y and no one cares what race X was.

Mostly what we get today are shades of tribalism.

That's a micro-agression. Advocating for colorblindness.