I Have a Dream (1963)(americanrhetoric.com)
americanrhetoric.com
I Have a Dream (1963)
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
194 comments
To quote the concluding sentences for those who haven't read the whole speech, and which stand on their own as much as any words do...
> "Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.
And I don't mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
And so I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!"
> "Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.
And I don't mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
And so I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!"
powerful and chilling. it is as if he knew. he knew his fate. and he sensed it coming soon. and yet he continued his work anyway. exemplar of American heroism
I don't disagree with you. But the "I have a dream" speech will live forever as one of the greatest political speeches, if not THE greatest political speech, both in rhetorics, impact, and content. I remember reading that speech in English class (I'm German), and it left me deeply impressed. The only other speech I read that came close to this was Richard von Weizsäcker's speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of Germany's surrender, ending World War II.
MLK was one of those very, very rare figures where the power of their ideas (and ethics!) was matched by the power of their voices. I'd really love to know what the world would look like today if he had not been murdered.
MLK was one of those very, very rare figures where the power of their ideas (and ethics!) was matched by the power of their voices. I'd really love to know what the world would look like today if he had not been murdered.
Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address has to be in that conversation...
The popularity of his whitewashing is indeed an impressive meta-political historical feat.
Care to elaborate?
Not OP, but MLK was a pretty radical antiwar socialist who spoke of riots as "the language of the unheard," and stated that most Americans are unconscious racists.
The final bit of his "I Have a Dream," speech is all most people know of his words today, but before he was assassinated, he was attempting to call people to much greater action.
The final bit of his "I Have a Dream," speech is all most people know of his words today, but before he was assassinated, he was attempting to call people to much greater action.
citation needed.
It is a good speech ( I have misgivings about the ornate start, but different times and different audience ). My favorite fragment is the following:
"If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly."
We tend to only hear the 'dream' speech, which is a shame ( doubly so since MLK estate is still milking it[1]).
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/...
"If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly."
We tend to only hear the 'dream' speech, which is a shame ( doubly so since MLK estate is still milking it[1]).
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/...
I wouldn’t say it’s a shame. Most people, even enormously consequential people, don’t have any of their own words passed down to history. Which of George Washington’s speeches is wildly read today?
“I have a dream” is an amazing speech delivered by an amazing orator. That this once in a generation talent also delivered other great speeches is unsurprising but there’s no need to denigrate the special place that IHaD has in our society out of some hipster-esque desire to demonstrate true fandom. It deserves its spot.
“I have a dream” is an amazing speech delivered by an amazing orator. That this once in a generation talent also delivered other great speeches is unsurprising but there’s no need to denigrate the special place that IHaD has in our society out of some hipster-esque desire to demonstrate true fandom. It deserves its spot.
Your comment was perfectly ok until this part:
>there’s no need to denigrate the special place that IHaD has in our society out of some hipster-esque desire to demonstrate true fandom.
You're imputing a lot of motives based on nothing in the parent comment.
>there’s no need to denigrate the special place that IHaD has in our society out of some hipster-esque desire to demonstrate true fandom.
You're imputing a lot of motives based on nothing in the parent comment.
A4E seem to take it okay. That it was a funny image was half the reason I included that part.
Chillax.
Chillax.
> You're imputing a lot of motives based on nothing in the parent comment.
To be fair, OP is responding to an ambiguity. Was GP's point that "I Have a Dream" is great and it's a shame that the wider public doesn't know more of MLK's great speeches? Or was the point that "I Have a Dream" is subpar when compared to the other speeches and thus misrepresents his output?
tldr; Was GP saying "I Have a Dream" is the "Beethoven's 5th" of speeches, or "Ravel's Bolero" of speeches?
Upshot-- OP is not being generous by jumping on the more divisive interpretation. However, since it is a valid interpretation OP's lack of generosity is based on something and not nothing.
Fin.
To be fair, OP is responding to an ambiguity. Was GP's point that "I Have a Dream" is great and it's a shame that the wider public doesn't know more of MLK's great speeches? Or was the point that "I Have a Dream" is subpar when compared to the other speeches and thus misrepresents his output?
tldr; Was GP saying "I Have a Dream" is the "Beethoven's 5th" of speeches, or "Ravel's Bolero" of speeches?
Upshot-- OP is not being generous by jumping on the more divisive interpretation. However, since it is a valid interpretation OP's lack of generosity is based on something and not nothing.
Fin.
You have to work really hard to twist that comment into meaning that speech is subpar. That ambiguity is just not there.
I will admit that I never thought about it like that. The image of fedora wearing individual stating he only listens to unedited audio and insisting that anyone listening to 'dream' speech is part of pop-culture popped into my head .
It is funny.
I apologize if my comment sounded that way. That was definitely not my intention. I think I am just still a little cranky since kid woke me up early and coffee didn't kick in.
It is funny.
I apologize if my comment sounded that way. That was definitely not my intention. I think I am just still a little cranky since kid woke me up early and coffee didn't kick in.
[deleted]
Maybe it's the lack of audio and video recordings of Washington's speeches?
Maybe, but people still read the Gettysburg Address. I had to memorize it in school.
> We tend to only hear the 'dream' speech
Cynically I think there has been a political project to expunge most of King’s ideas from the public memory, leaving only those that everyone is comfortable with. The public image of the man has been watered down to merely opposing segregation and legal discrimination, and all of his more radical economic proposals and opinions tend to be politely ignored. The March on Washington also included a demand for a $2 minimum wage ($17 in 2020 dollars) and self governance for Washington DC, funny how that isn’t mentioned often.
Hell, he was helping support a strike when he was assassinated. How many people were taught that before?
Cynically I think there has been a political project to expunge most of King’s ideas from the public memory, leaving only those that everyone is comfortable with. The public image of the man has been watered down to merely opposing segregation and legal discrimination, and all of his more radical economic proposals and opinions tend to be politely ignored. The March on Washington also included a demand for a $2 minimum wage ($17 in 2020 dollars) and self governance for Washington DC, funny how that isn’t mentioned often.
Hell, he was helping support a strike when he was assassinated. How many people were taught that before?
> Cynically I think there has been a political project to expunge most of King’s ideas from the public memory, leaving only those that everyone is comfortable with.
I don't think so. I think it's more that things get distilled and simplified in public memory naturally. How much of all of all the activities of other greatly-remembered figures are actually all fully remembered and talked about? Do you think the public has anywhere near a complete perception of all the ideals of Gandhi, Mother Theresa, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln?
Unless you are a scholar in the area, you have done specific research out of curiosity, or you have been personally affected by it, most of what you see is the stuff that echos in the public memory, which is the largest events and purest distillation of the ideals and character of the person in question. Human memory is built on patterns, symbols, and stripping of what seems to be unnecessary extraneous information, and this seems to be much more extreme in cultural memory.
I don't think there has been any conscious effort to remove the other ideals that King had, it's just not what he did that people care about most right now.
I don't think so. I think it's more that things get distilled and simplified in public memory naturally. How much of all of all the activities of other greatly-remembered figures are actually all fully remembered and talked about? Do you think the public has anywhere near a complete perception of all the ideals of Gandhi, Mother Theresa, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln?
Unless you are a scholar in the area, you have done specific research out of curiosity, or you have been personally affected by it, most of what you see is the stuff that echos in the public memory, which is the largest events and purest distillation of the ideals and character of the person in question. Human memory is built on patterns, symbols, and stripping of what seems to be unnecessary extraneous information, and this seems to be much more extreme in cultural memory.
I don't think there has been any conscious effort to remove the other ideals that King had, it's just not what he did that people care about most right now.
Imo, memory of other great figures and greatly influenced by politics. And often very intentionally, people using their names have agendas. That includes the three people you mentioned.
That's because ideas shouldn't be bundled together just because a person said them. The I Have A Dream speech is famous precisely because it is the most important/widely agreed upon of his ideas: evaluate individuals according to their own character independently of whatever collective you might otherwise assume characteristics of. That's a good idea. People like that idea.
We don't talk about King's socialism as much, because what he said in that arena wasn't particularly revolutionary, and many people don't find socialism to be compelling (myself included). Hence, remembering ideas.
We don't talk about King's socialism as much, because what he said in that arena wasn't particularly revolutionary, and many people don't find socialism to be compelling (myself included). Hence, remembering ideas.
> That's because ideas shouldn't be bundled together just because a person said them.
I think the exact opposite. I think if you’re cherry picking pieces of thought from a figure and ignoring the bits you don’t like then you’re just using them as a prop.
There is of course some complexity when someone changes over the lifetime and renounces early beliefs. But that isn’t the case here, we’re talking about people ignoring a large chunk of a celebrated man’s work because it makes them uncomfortable. I don’t think you can actually do that, and I think it does him and his legacy a great disservice to even try.
> We don't talk about King's socialism as much … and many people don't find socialism to be compelling (myself included).
Thank you for proving my point.
> Hence, remembering ideas.
What, so the rest of what he said wasn’t ideas? Or that the rest of them have less value because someone said so? If so, who decides which ideas are the real ones to be remembered? You? Me? Our political chattering classes?
Here’s the thing, powerful people and instituons have long had a use for editing and celebrating dead radicals as a way to reinforce their legitimacy while also signaling that Those Times are Now Gone. You see the exact same behavior out of the July Monarchy in their rewriting the history of the three glorious days (see Mike Duncan for more). For King it is extremely convenient to make his story the story of official segregation and legal discrimination and nothing more. That neat narrative of “first segregation, then MLK made it all better, end story” only works if you ignore the rest of his work on war and poverty. Because if that is brought into the light then his work looks only half done, rather than done and finished.
I think the exact opposite. I think if you’re cherry picking pieces of thought from a figure and ignoring the bits you don’t like then you’re just using them as a prop.
There is of course some complexity when someone changes over the lifetime and renounces early beliefs. But that isn’t the case here, we’re talking about people ignoring a large chunk of a celebrated man’s work because it makes them uncomfortable. I don’t think you can actually do that, and I think it does him and his legacy a great disservice to even try.
> We don't talk about King's socialism as much … and many people don't find socialism to be compelling (myself included).
Thank you for proving my point.
> Hence, remembering ideas.
What, so the rest of what he said wasn’t ideas? Or that the rest of them have less value because someone said so? If so, who decides which ideas are the real ones to be remembered? You? Me? Our political chattering classes?
Here’s the thing, powerful people and instituons have long had a use for editing and celebrating dead radicals as a way to reinforce their legitimacy while also signaling that Those Times are Now Gone. You see the exact same behavior out of the July Monarchy in their rewriting the history of the three glorious days (see Mike Duncan for more). For King it is extremely convenient to make his story the story of official segregation and legal discrimination and nothing more. That neat narrative of “first segregation, then MLK made it all better, end story” only works if you ignore the rest of his work on war and poverty. Because if that is brought into the light then his work looks only half done, rather than done and finished.
> I think the exact opposite. I think if you’re cherry picking pieces of thought from a figure and ignoring the bits you don’t like then you’re just using them as a prop.
I'm not using anybody as a prop, nor am I ignoring anything. If you want to talk about King's positions regarding socialism, I'll tell you why I disagree with them. If you want to talk about his position regarding color-blindness, I'll tell you why I think it's the single most important notion to arise from the civil rights movement.
This doesn't "prove your point" that I'm somehow erasing the other positions he held or using him as a prop, I simply don't agree with all of his positions. You seem to be of the opinion that there is some sort of contradiction inherent in that, whereas the position of color-blindness actually has nothing to do with socialism. In fact, the most prominent advocates of socialism today specifically advocate AGAINST color-blindness.
> What, so the rest of what he said wasn’t ideas? Or that the rest of them have less value because someone said so? If so, who decides which ideas are the real ones to be remembered? You? Me? Our political chattering classes?
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Of course the rest of what he said were ideas, the point is that arguments/positions aren't bundled together arbitrarily simply because you would like them to be. If I say "the sky appears blue, I think it has something to do with the way light is scattered through the atmosphere, and that probably means there is a god," hopefully you understand that I've actually made 3 arguments, 2 of which you might agree with. Agreeing that the sky appears blue doesn't mean you have to agree that there is a god. Regarding which have more or less value...you're free to venerate whichever ideas of Dr. King you'd like to, nobody is stopping you. There is no political chattering classes demanding that you do anything regarding which positions of his you found compelling.
I'm not using anybody as a prop, nor am I ignoring anything. If you want to talk about King's positions regarding socialism, I'll tell you why I disagree with them. If you want to talk about his position regarding color-blindness, I'll tell you why I think it's the single most important notion to arise from the civil rights movement.
This doesn't "prove your point" that I'm somehow erasing the other positions he held or using him as a prop, I simply don't agree with all of his positions. You seem to be of the opinion that there is some sort of contradiction inherent in that, whereas the position of color-blindness actually has nothing to do with socialism. In fact, the most prominent advocates of socialism today specifically advocate AGAINST color-blindness.
> What, so the rest of what he said wasn’t ideas? Or that the rest of them have less value because someone said so? If so, who decides which ideas are the real ones to be remembered? You? Me? Our political chattering classes?
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Of course the rest of what he said were ideas, the point is that arguments/positions aren't bundled together arbitrarily simply because you would like them to be. If I say "the sky appears blue, I think it has something to do with the way light is scattered through the atmosphere, and that probably means there is a god," hopefully you understand that I've actually made 3 arguments, 2 of which you might agree with. Agreeing that the sky appears blue doesn't mean you have to agree that there is a god. Regarding which have more or less value...you're free to venerate whichever ideas of Dr. King you'd like to, nobody is stopping you. There is no political chattering classes demanding that you do anything regarding which positions of his you found compelling.
> You seem to be of the opinion that there is some sort of contradiction inherent in that, whereas the position of color-blindness actually has nothing to do with socialism.
Please point where I said that. I think you made that up out of whole cloth.
> Of course the rest of what he said were ideas, the point is that arguments/positions aren't bundled together arbitrarily simply because you would like them to be.
They’re bundled together because they’re all part of one man’s body of work. Specifically the body of work for a man whose holiday were commemorating today. So yes, everything he said and did is bundled together when we are discussing him, and if we cherry pick what he said and did when we’re discussing his work, then we’re not being honest to him and history. Literally my entire point is that his legacy and quotes are cherry picked in a suspicious way when we discuss him.
If we’re discussing color blindness in the abstract unrelated to MLK, then sure, you’d be right. But we aren’t, and it’s incredibly clear that my original point had everything to do with MLK specifically, not color blindness in the abstract.
> Agreeing that the sky appears blue doesn't mean you have to agree that there is a god.
Please point out where I said that you were obligated to agree with everything thing King said because you agree with him on one thing. I’ll wait.
Please point where I said that. I think you made that up out of whole cloth.
> Of course the rest of what he said were ideas, the point is that arguments/positions aren't bundled together arbitrarily simply because you would like them to be.
They’re bundled together because they’re all part of one man’s body of work. Specifically the body of work for a man whose holiday were commemorating today. So yes, everything he said and did is bundled together when we are discussing him, and if we cherry pick what he said and did when we’re discussing his work, then we’re not being honest to him and history. Literally my entire point is that his legacy and quotes are cherry picked in a suspicious way when we discuss him.
If we’re discussing color blindness in the abstract unrelated to MLK, then sure, you’d be right. But we aren’t, and it’s incredibly clear that my original point had everything to do with MLK specifically, not color blindness in the abstract.
> Agreeing that the sky appears blue doesn't mean you have to agree that there is a god.
Please point out where I said that you were obligated to agree with everything thing King said because you agree with him on one thing. I’ll wait.
If your point is that by celebrating him today we're celebrating the entirety of his work, please consider a day like Presidents day. We celebrate Washington's birthday despite him having been a slave owner. If you think that it's impossible to compartmentalize people, so be it.
If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it. I'm capable of compartmentalizing, and the reason I choose to venerate Dr. King on this day are for his contributions towards moving us towards liberalism and color-blindness. You seem to think that means that I'm "using him as a prop," whereas I simply find him to be an extremely important contribution to the advancement of civil rights, and feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs.
If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it. I'm capable of compartmentalizing, and the reason I choose to venerate Dr. King on this day are for his contributions towards moving us towards liberalism and color-blindness. You seem to think that means that I'm "using him as a prop," whereas I simply find him to be an extremely important contribution to the advancement of civil rights, and feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs.
> If your point is that by celebrating him today we're celebrating the entirety of his work, please consider a day like Presidents day.
It's genuinely really funny that you thought that this would be a rebuttal. Based on this entire conversation, what do you think my opinion about President's Day is? I'll give you two guesses, first doesn't count.
> We celebrate Washington's birthday despite him having been a slave owner. If you think that it's impossible to compartmentalize people, so be it.
I think Washington is an even easier case to argue here than MLK. This isn't a simple case of not agreeing with every aspect of someone's entire body of work. This is a case of a man waxing poetic about freedom and the rights of man while at the same time engaging in crimes against humanity by buying and selling human beings as property. This fact isn't merely inconvenient, it bathes his life's work in a hypocrisy that is impossible to ignore.
Personally I wish we didn't celebrate his birthday. I think in general it's a bad idea to put people on pedestals for a variety of reasons, including if they turn out to be monsters in some ways. For Washington this specifically puts us all in the invidious position of explaining why we're venerating a man who could look another human being in the eyes and then sell them off like property.
> If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it.
I'm split on whether this is fantastically bad reading comprehension on your part, or a bad faith interpretation of what I've said. It's 50/50 for me. Because at no point did I indicate that MLK even made a contribution to socialism, or even that I thought he was a socialist. All of that is entirely a fabrication on your part, completely unsupported by what I said.
My entire point is that I find it a bit sus that after MLK's death people only ever seem to engage with one very specific aspect of MLK's work and legacy, and it's I think the part that is selected is politically convenient for those in power. That's it. That's my entire point.
> feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs.
Again, I never said you had to agree with everything that he said. You've made that up to get angry at me about.
It's genuinely really funny that you thought that this would be a rebuttal. Based on this entire conversation, what do you think my opinion about President's Day is? I'll give you two guesses, first doesn't count.
> We celebrate Washington's birthday despite him having been a slave owner. If you think that it's impossible to compartmentalize people, so be it.
I think Washington is an even easier case to argue here than MLK. This isn't a simple case of not agreeing with every aspect of someone's entire body of work. This is a case of a man waxing poetic about freedom and the rights of man while at the same time engaging in crimes against humanity by buying and selling human beings as property. This fact isn't merely inconvenient, it bathes his life's work in a hypocrisy that is impossible to ignore.
Personally I wish we didn't celebrate his birthday. I think in general it's a bad idea to put people on pedestals for a variety of reasons, including if they turn out to be monsters in some ways. For Washington this specifically puts us all in the invidious position of explaining why we're venerating a man who could look another human being in the eyes and then sell them off like property.
> If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it.
I'm split on whether this is fantastically bad reading comprehension on your part, or a bad faith interpretation of what I've said. It's 50/50 for me. Because at no point did I indicate that MLK even made a contribution to socialism, or even that I thought he was a socialist. All of that is entirely a fabrication on your part, completely unsupported by what I said.
My entire point is that I find it a bit sus that after MLK's death people only ever seem to engage with one very specific aspect of MLK's work and legacy, and it's I think the part that is selected is politically convenient for those in power. That's it. That's my entire point.
> feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs.
Again, I never said you had to agree with everything that he said. You've made that up to get angry at me about.
> It's genuinely really funny that you thought that this would be a rebuttal
I'm illustrating the examples under which people can be celebrated without celebrating the entirety of their person, understanding full well that you personally find this to be impossible or somehow hypocritical. Gandhi slept with underage girls and was a racist. MLK was cheating on his wife when he was killed. JFK frequently cheated on his wife, and his sister was lobotomized. The example of Presidents day is simply to illustrate that many (most) people are entirely capable of celebrating people as a token of a certain set of beliefs/virtues/behaviors that exists independently the of the whole historical person.
I don't care who you celebrate or why, but you cannot go around inferring that people are somehow ignorant or hypocritical simply for venerating people in a differ manner than you do...particularly when you appear to be in the minority in this regard.
> My entire point is that I find it a bit sus that after MLK's death people only ever seem to engage with one very specific aspect of MLK's work and legacy, and it's I think the part that is selected is politically convenient for those in power. That's it. That's my entire point.
And MY entire point is that this is very often how most people celebrate the legacy of most figures.
I'm illustrating the examples under which people can be celebrated without celebrating the entirety of their person, understanding full well that you personally find this to be impossible or somehow hypocritical. Gandhi slept with underage girls and was a racist. MLK was cheating on his wife when he was killed. JFK frequently cheated on his wife, and his sister was lobotomized. The example of Presidents day is simply to illustrate that many (most) people are entirely capable of celebrating people as a token of a certain set of beliefs/virtues/behaviors that exists independently the of the whole historical person.
I don't care who you celebrate or why, but you cannot go around inferring that people are somehow ignorant or hypocritical simply for venerating people in a differ manner than you do...particularly when you appear to be in the minority in this regard.
> My entire point is that I find it a bit sus that after MLK's death people only ever seem to engage with one very specific aspect of MLK's work and legacy, and it's I think the part that is selected is politically convenient for those in power. That's it. That's my entire point.
And MY entire point is that this is very often how most people celebrate the legacy of most figures.
[deleted]
It is kind of funny you should say this. Right after I read this post I saw a tweet by the Icelandic minister of foreign affairs—who is also the vice president of the conservative party and avid supporter of capitalism and NATO—quoting MLK presumably in a context of COVID restrictions getting in the way of our liberties[1].
I think your cynicism is justified.
1: https://twitter.com/thordiskolbrun/status/148308057508271718...
I think your cynicism is justified.
1: https://twitter.com/thordiskolbrun/status/148308057508271718...
There's alot that people aren't taught.
https://standpointmag.co.uk/the-troubling-legacy-of-martin-l...
https://standpointmag.co.uk/the-troubling-legacy-of-martin-l...
this would be laughable if it weren't such blatant propaganda. highly recommend reading more about the FBI/Hoover's hatred for MLK and their tireless effort to destroy his reputation (and his life) through surveillance, harassment, and outright lies.
here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
It can be both propaganda to discredit and also be true.
With all flashy racial movements and Amendments, US still somehow makes it to the bottom 10 countries for racial equality, even worse than a totalitarian country. There is nothing wrong with US racial system. The survey is wrong. You are doing great. Keep heading to that direction.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2021-04-...
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2021-04-...
I’m not surprised that people perceive the US to struggle with racial equality when it (a) has indeed struggled with racial equality since founding and through civil war and (b) airs its dirty laundry pretty openly.
Yeah, I mean police killing innocent black people on the streets is quite public indeed.
[deleted]
Delivered Aug, 1963. Earlier that year, in April, MLK Jr. wrote "Letter from Birmingham Jail." All I can say is, read it if you haven't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail
https://www.csuchico.edu/iege/_assets/documents/susi-letter-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail
https://www.csuchico.edu/iege/_assets/documents/susi-letter-...
Yes, what Dr. King says is born out again and again. It is the code, they key, to much of what is happening today. It is one of the most revelatory, insightful documents I've read in my life.
[deleted]
"So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love?" -- MLK Jr
Half a century later, I want to add: Will we be extremists for ignorance or for civilisation?
Half a century later, I want to add: Will we be extremists for ignorance or for civilisation?
I appreciate the sentiment for which this was submitted, but in reflecting upon MLKJr's legacy, please realize that he was far more than this one speech. He spoke about workers rights [0], civil rights backlash reparations [1], the dangers of incrementalism in civil rights progress [2], condemnation of the Vietnam war [3], and more [4]. Please resist the temptation to reduce his legacy to an out-of-context " content of their character" and call it a day.
And please remember that MLKJr was widely disliked in his time. [5]
[0] https://billmoyers.com/story/martin-luther-kings-fight-worke...
[1] https://www.theroot.com/exclusive-martin-luther-king-jr-talk...
[2] https://letterfromjail.com
[3] https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/beyond-vietn...
[4] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-mlks-...
[5] https://news.gallup.com/poll/20920/martin-luther-king-jr-rev...
And please remember that MLKJr was widely disliked in his time. [5]
[0] https://billmoyers.com/story/martin-luther-kings-fight-worke...
[1] https://www.theroot.com/exclusive-martin-luther-king-jr-talk...
[2] https://letterfromjail.com
[3] https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/beyond-vietn...
[4] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-mlks-...
[5] https://news.gallup.com/poll/20920/martin-luther-king-jr-rev...
Indeed, his life was dedicated to defeating three evils: Racism, Militarism, and Poverty. Reducing it to only racism ignores most of what made his work so important.
With that ignorance fueling the autocolonization we're under today, having extracted the human and material wealth from all the developing nations of the world. Colonizing ourselves through the systems of control that we mastered, regardless of gender, race or creed, driven by the fear of some other doing better than we are.
But this is the point. To show the world that he died for racism. America wants him to be a hero, but an American hero, not a socialist hero.
I wonder what opiniob had Dulles about him.
At the same time though, your links point out that he consistently opposed ideologies that glorify social deviance as some means of "fighting oppression", or espouse black supremacism:
"And so I'm not gonna give you a motto or preach a philosophy burn, baby burn. I'm gonna say build, baby build organize, baby, organize. I've decided to stick with love. Somebody’s gotta have some sense in this world. And a lot of white folks have demonstrated eloquently that they don't have no sense and why should we be that way? The reason I'm not gonna preach a doctrine of black supremacy is because I'm sick and tired of white supremacy."
MLK would not want to be a "woke" figure today. Even his pursuit of meaningful economic equality as equally important to racial equality is enough to make that abundantly clear.
"And so I'm not gonna give you a motto or preach a philosophy burn, baby burn. I'm gonna say build, baby build organize, baby, organize. I've decided to stick with love. Somebody’s gotta have some sense in this world. And a lot of white folks have demonstrated eloquently that they don't have no sense and why should we be that way? The reason I'm not gonna preach a doctrine of black supremacy is because I'm sick and tired of white supremacy."
MLK would not want to be a "woke" figure today. Even his pursuit of meaningful economic equality as equally important to racial equality is enough to make that abundantly clear.
His actions too, e.g. backing up Hosea Williams, John Lewis, and others in the march from Selma to Montgomery [1] that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [2].
[1]: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/selma-montgo...
[2]: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/voting-right...
[1]: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/selma-montgo...
[2]: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/voting-right...
And also something he gave more speeches (sermons) on than anything else, was that on the topic of the Bible, and his faith.
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/ind...
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/ind...
[deleted]
gadders(4)
The turf war over King's legacy (evidenced by your post) is certainly interesting.
Courage is said to be grace under pressure. As we look around our society today, who has the grace, with the enormous hatred, division, despair, and deceit, to lead and speak to such high ideals - and with concrete strategy, effort, and success? Remember that Dr. King did not know the end of the story; it all could have been a waste of time, a horribly demoralizing defeat. If I recall correctly, King's popularity was underwater when that speech was given - not a national hero like today. What hope did Dr. King have? We can look back on the civil rights successes and MLK, King looked back on no such thing - no such thing had ever happened. They were pushing against centuries of slavery, segregation and lynchings - still ongoing - and yet they stood up against that tide and fought - not with despair, hatred, and violence, but under that incredible, unrelenting pressure they envisioned such incredible grace and held firm to it - and they won. When I feel overwhelmed by today's struggles, when I feel the pressure to compromise my values to despair and demoralization, I remember that courage.
MLK was never popular he was considered too left wing, too radical and socialist before he was appropriated and then turned into a mild mannered reformer.
> It's important to remember that Martin Luther King Jr.'s career did not end with "I have a dream" speech. He went on. He went on to extend his concerns and activism. And as he did, his popularity and reputation among northern liberal declined. He turned to protest against the Viet Nam war, correctly. He was assassinated when he was supporting the sanitary workers strike. And in fact, he was on his way to organize a poor people's movement. By that time, he was reaching class issues, not just racist Alabama sherriffs. And, as he turned to those issues, his reputation declined. I suspect, if you listen to the speeches today, about Martin Luther King, you won't hear a lot about that aspect.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/interview-transcript-noam_b_4...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/interview-transcript-noam_b_4...
By the WASP establishment. He was contemporaneous with Malcolm X. It's important to acknowledge that then as now, he was (and is) considered far too collaborationist and conservative by many of the people he purported to represent.
A considerably difficult situation for leadership. Think of all the pressures from every direction, from all the voices, all centered on one person. Dr. King had no power beyond a voice - no elected office, no billions of dollars, no control of mass media, etc. And then holding it all together, guiding it, actually implementing strategies through it - and succeeding.
Although MLK is typically taught today as a Great Orator, his gifts as an organizer, social critic, and leader were probably more important to the long-term trajectory of the civil rights movement. Which is saying something, since he was an exceptionally effective orator.
If you're curious, the first portion of his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is essentially a case study in organizing and guiding a disparate social movement.
If you're curious, the first portion of his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is essentially a case study in organizing and guiding a disparate social movement.
Yes, one of the most revelatory pieces I've ever read.
(When I wrote that King had 'no power but a voice', I didn't mean 'no power but oration'; I meant that all King could do was speak to people - individually, in organzing meetings, publicly, etc. - and try to persuade them.)
(When I wrote that King had 'no power but a voice', I didn't mean 'no power but oration'; I meant that all King could do was speak to people - individually, in organzing meetings, publicly, etc. - and try to persuade them.)
The establishment still preferred him to Malcolm X.
His turn as a “mild mannered reformer” is pure whitewashing (pun intended) of history. He was vocally radical and criticized heavily for it during his lifetime. It’s only after his assassination that people have decided to politely ignore his more pointed criticisms of capitalism and the military.
Here’s a choice quote he gave in 1967 in his “Three Evils of Society” speech.
> Again we have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the protestant ethic of hard word and sacrifice, the fact is that Capitalism was build on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad.
Not exactly mild mannered stuff.
Here’s a choice quote he gave in 1967 in his “Three Evils of Society” speech.
> Again we have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the protestant ethic of hard word and sacrifice, the fact is that Capitalism was build on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad.
Not exactly mild mannered stuff.
[deleted]
A great man whose life ended far too early. I only wish the dignity MLK showed would be alive in political movements today.
EDIT: to those in the comments suddenly bringing up BLM - I didn't mention a single particular political movement. I think both sides could benefit from a huge dose of dignity tbh.
EDIT: to those in the comments suddenly bringing up BLM - I didn't mention a single particular political movement. I think both sides could benefit from a huge dose of dignity tbh.
You almost certainly are misunderstanding how all of this works; because the dignity of MLK then mostly isn't applicable to today.
Let me explain. The entire point of non-violence was not "if we dress up and act nicely, then they will change their minds and respect us."
It was "if we dress up and act nicely, but continue to protest, they will still definitely commit violence to us, but it will expose their hypocrisy, making our moral point stronger."
Let me explain. The entire point of non-violence was not "if we dress up and act nicely, then they will change their minds and respect us."
It was "if we dress up and act nicely, but continue to protest, they will still definitely commit violence to us, but it will expose their hypocrisy, making our moral point stronger."
Civil rights movement while it is happening: Oh shucks, this is very impolite and rude! Can’t they get their message across in a less impolite and disturbing manner?
Civil rights fifty years after the fact: Oh what heroes those people were. Of course they only wanted commonsensical things and surely I would have supported them if I were around back then.
Civil rights fifty years after the fact: Oh what heroes those people were. Of course they only wanted commonsensical things and surely I would have supported them if I were around back then.
There are a lot of protest, the vast majority of which are peaceful.
That said, I do not think that MLK would condone the burning of churches, ransacking of businesses, and destruction of police stations as a means of protest.
There have always been a destructive minority associated with the civil rights movements. This does not delegitimize the movement, but neither does it legitimize the destruction.
As MLK often points out, these actions are counterproductive and polarizing.
That said, I do not think that MLK would condone the burning of churches, ransacking of businesses, and destruction of police stations as a means of protest.
There have always been a destructive minority associated with the civil rights movements. This does not delegitimize the movement, but neither does it legitimize the destruction.
As MLK often points out, these actions are counterproductive and polarizing.
There is no need to speculate:
> King told reporters that the Watts riots were “the beginning of a stirring of those people in our society who have been by passed by the progress of the past decade” (King, 20 August 1965). Struggles in the North, King believed, were really about “dignity and work,” rather than rights, which had been the main goal of black activism in the South (King, 20 August 1965). During his discussions with local people, King met black residents who argued for armed insurrection, and others who claimed that “the only way we can ever get anybody to listen to us is to start a riot” (King, 19 August 1965).
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/watts-rebell...
> King told reporters that the Watts riots were “the beginning of a stirring of those people in our society who have been by passed by the progress of the past decade” (King, 20 August 1965). Struggles in the North, King believed, were really about “dignity and work,” rather than rights, which had been the main goal of black activism in the South (King, 20 August 1965). During his discussions with local people, King met black residents who argued for armed insurrection, and others who claimed that “the only way we can ever get anybody to listen to us is to start a riot” (King, 19 August 1965).
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/watts-rebell...
I'm afraid it does delegitimize the movement. If someone commits crimes on behalf of BLM, it's BLM's job to publicly denounce those individuals and recite the main BLM values (what are they, btw?). Not doing that gives an impression that BLM is either a disorganized mob or, worse, that it quietly supports those criminals.
I largely agree but wouldn't be so definitive, given the diffuse nature of the civil rights movement. I think condoning or making excuses for lawlessness deligitimzes the speaker, and anyone who stands behind the statements. That said there are many within these movements that do not condone lawlessness
It's worth reading up on how the protests of the 60s were perceived by whites at the time, and thinking about how that compares to the 2020 protests.
Read 'Letter From a Birmingham Jail'. It could have been written today.
[deleted]
What do you think BLM is? Would it surprise you to learn that the vast majority of the BLM protests in 2020 were completely nonviolent? Or that more than a couple of marches led by MLK were marred by violence?
MLK was hated by many at the time. To see why, just look at the comments opposing BLM today. They are conspicuously similar in tone and content.
MLK was hated by many at the time. To see why, just look at the comments opposing BLM today. They are conspicuously similar in tone and content.
If you look at some polls MLK was seemingly hated more universally in his time than BLM is today.
Many of the attacks are the same, but today there's an odd rhetoric that attacks what BLM does with an imaginary myth that protests during MLK's time were wholly peaceful (they weren't, and were also derided due to violence at the time).
Many of the attacks are the same, but today there's an odd rhetoric that attacks what BLM does with an imaginary myth that protests during MLK's time were wholly peaceful (they weren't, and were also derided due to violence at the time).
Precisely. Look at the anti-MLK editorial comic pictured in https://www.cbr.com/martin-luther-king-jr-cartoons-depiction.... Identical messaging you see used against BLM today; titled "I plan to lead another non-violent march tomorrow" with MLK pictured front of a burning hellscape.
Kenosha certainly was a site that just happened to be on fire as peaceful BLM protesters passed by. It is only the evil media character assassination campaign that forever tarred this otherwise splendid organization.
You present a good argument, but it falls flat before simple facts. MLK left images of crossing the bridge dressed as an accountant. BLM left images of a riot.
Anti-BLM propaganda does not even have to work hard. All it needs is amplification.
You present a good argument, but it falls flat before simple facts. MLK left images of crossing the bridge dressed as an accountant. BLM left images of a riot.
Anti-BLM propaganda does not even have to work hard. All it needs is amplification.
Finding one scene of violence (and I have no idea what happened there) is meaningless. We can find scenes of violence after sporting events. There were violent protests during the civil rights era too, and the enemies of civil rights exploited it in the same way with the same language.
The question of violence is how often it occurs on a broader scale. I live where there were many, many protests and little violence (and often the violent ones were outsider instigators and criminals looking to create it, not civil rights protesters).
The question of violence is how often it occurs on a broader scale. I live where there were many, many protests and little violence (and often the violent ones were outsider instigators and criminals looking to create it, not civil rights protesters).
MLK was very different from BLM. I say that as a black person myself. MLK spoke about American greatness and American dignity and accorded the highest respect to the Founding Fathers, whereas BLM-aligned folks tend to trash these topics and want to tear down statues.
Black people were protesting these statues in the 60s too. A more realistic viewpoint is that it took nearly 60 years to gain enough power to do something about them.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/black-protestors-have...
If you want to continue trashing BLM, maybe look into how MLK was received in the 60s. There are a lot of people trying to amp up myths to intentionally use MLK to disparage BLM. Make sure you're not unintentionally getting caught up in that.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/black-protestors-have...
If you want to continue trashing BLM, maybe look into how MLK was received in the 60s. There are a lot of people trying to amp up myths to intentionally use MLK to disparage BLM. Make sure you're not unintentionally getting caught up in that.
I already know that most of the BLM protests were non-violent. Notice that in my comment I didn't mention BLM or any other particular movement - your assumptions are appreciated though.
[deleted]
It’s sad that this dream has not been realized.
Yet if you remember what the day of Nov 5, 2008 felt like.
This speech was playing in the background, and the feeling was we were living in the day he dreamed about it. A black man had been elected as the president of the United states.
Yet even in that glorious position it was not powerful enough to end the oppression of black people.
Is this dream just that? Is it a dream that cannot be achieved. If the president of the United States can’t bring it about well then who can?
Or what if it has already been achieved and yet we prefer pretending that it is not. That there is something else in this dream being fulfilled that scares us even more than it not, so we go back to the way it was.
I though when Obama was elected we would put the divisive Clinton and Bush years behind us, but instead we’ve grown worse. If anything the cancer has spread more rapidly.
Yet I still think MLK’s command is good - “Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.”
Yet if you remember what the day of Nov 5, 2008 felt like.
This speech was playing in the background, and the feeling was we were living in the day he dreamed about it. A black man had been elected as the president of the United states.
Yet even in that glorious position it was not powerful enough to end the oppression of black people.
Is this dream just that? Is it a dream that cannot be achieved. If the president of the United States can’t bring it about well then who can?
Or what if it has already been achieved and yet we prefer pretending that it is not. That there is something else in this dream being fulfilled that scares us even more than it not, so we go back to the way it was.
I though when Obama was elected we would put the divisive Clinton and Bush years behind us, but instead we’ve grown worse. If anything the cancer has spread more rapidly.
Yet I still think MLK’s command is good - “Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.”
It's a good point.
But I prefer to view it as "Dream as in verb." Followed by the work to realize it.
Yes, it's exhausting to see progress clawed forward inch by inch, or simply held steady against backwards pressure, but that's what real change looks like. Those who do that work, day in and day out, for years, are heroes.
Every movement needs flashy wins for inspiration and celebration. Because that's how media and the human brain work.
But it's important to be clear that those wins are the results of work, yet not the work itself. And that before and after the celebration, the work continues. Eight years cannot be expected to unmake five hundred.
But I prefer to view it as "Dream as in verb." Followed by the work to realize it.
Yes, it's exhausting to see progress clawed forward inch by inch, or simply held steady against backwards pressure, but that's what real change looks like. Those who do that work, day in and day out, for years, are heroes.
Every movement needs flashy wins for inspiration and celebration. Because that's how media and the human brain work.
But it's important to be clear that those wins are the results of work, yet not the work itself. And that before and after the celebration, the work continues. Eight years cannot be expected to unmake five hundred.
See but heres the thing, can 160 unmake 300?
You could also argue the work you’re talking about started after the civil war, accelerated during the civil rights era, and culminated in 2008.
If you told a recently freed slave that in 150 years a black man would be elected president and that includes nearly half of the white population voting for him. They would’ve looked at that day as a wonderful dream.
Yet you are telling them, that day will come but you will not be satisfied.
And rightly so they wouldn’t be satisfied.
So think even now you’re working towards a dream. Progress was done in 08, but took a step back in 2016. Isn’t it depressing that this dream you’re striving with all your might won’t satisfy even if achieved?
Or has the dream been realized. And simply put there is now no excuse. That underneath every time we’re a victim, we are also guilty ourselves.
You could also argue the work you’re talking about started after the civil war, accelerated during the civil rights era, and culminated in 2008.
If you told a recently freed slave that in 150 years a black man would be elected president and that includes nearly half of the white population voting for him. They would’ve looked at that day as a wonderful dream.
Yet you are telling them, that day will come but you will not be satisfied.
And rightly so they wouldn’t be satisfied.
So think even now you’re working towards a dream. Progress was done in 08, but took a step back in 2016. Isn’t it depressing that this dream you’re striving with all your might won’t satisfy even if achieved?
Or has the dream been realized. And simply put there is now no excuse. That underneath every time we’re a victim, we are also guilty ourselves.
What I find interesting is how the FBI attempted to blackmail him with the constant cheating he did against his wife and managed to not give in (it was a ridiculous level of infidelity). The FBI embarked on an outrageous power trip in order to keep control over "dissidents” and save for some bad press, the institution has never faced consequences in any meaningful way.
For the rest of the world who might not be aware why this is up, this is a speech an American Civil rights leader gave about 60 years ago at the height of a lot of issues in the US with race relations.
Today in America it's "Martin Luther King day", a public holiday celebrating his birthday (15th Jan), many businesses are closed. He was assassinated in 1968.
Today in America it's "Martin Luther King day", a public holiday celebrating his birthday (15th Jan), many businesses are closed. He was assassinated in 1968.
Very few businesses close on MLK day. It's pretty much just schools and other government offices.
Living in the Seattle area, and I would say that about the same number of businesses close for MLK day as do for labor day or 4th of July. And I think it is fairly consistent at least on the West Coast. I’ve certainly never had to work on MLK day since moving here.
They mostly close where I live.
Where might that be? I live in Madison, WI and I can't ever recall a business being closed on MLK day.
I can think of two major metropolitan areas where it is commonplace, in my experience. (I'm not disagreeing with what you see.)
Fascinating. I'm not sure if I should chalk it up to my state's tendency to be much more racist than it pretends to be, or it's stubbornly entrenched protestant work ethic ideals. I suppose 'both' and 'neither' are also valid options.
Maybe it depends partly on having a sizeable African-American population? Is there one in Madison? It's not African-American businesses that I see closing, but there might be more emphasis on the holiday in general.
"Luther"
Ta. I've heard of him a few times, but it's not really something non-americans can truly grasp.
I think you are right, I think it is really hard for non-americans (or rather people that don’t live in the USA) to grasp how huge he is. However I do think—at least for Europeans (me being one my self)—your political alignment makes a different how much you’ve heard of him. Basically, the more left leaning you are the more you know him.
[deleted]
An interesting comment on MLK published today [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/17/mlk-is...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/17/mlk-is...
pretty vile race baiting. no single argument in the first 4 paragraphs, just hissing implications of racism levelled generically towards people based on their race.
It actually sounds pretty on point to me. It is uncomfortable to admit, but our nation is still incredibly racist. In some areas of the country this is more obvious than in others, but we still practice the same kinds of oppression we did in the 60s, we just do it under a different banner. It's because of drugs, or gangs, or welfare queens, or 'everyone must vote in person with state ID issued at our vanishingly few DMVs and only during working hours'.
>we still practice the same kinds of oppression we did in the 60s, we just do it under a different banner. It's because of drugs, or gangs, or welfare queens, or 'everyone must vote in person with state ID issued at our vanishingly few DMVs and only during working hours'.
This is intentional.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...
>The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:
>You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
This is intentional.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...
>The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:
>You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
They actually have a recording of Atwater saying it.
Yeah, you can listen to the 42 minute recording at the link I posted.
That's the narrative being used to sow division, and it's not supported by data.
U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-mar...
84 percent of non-white respondents said they supported requiring photo ID, along with 77 percent of white respondents
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-dems-non-white-19452985...
U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-mar...
84 percent of non-white respondents said they supported requiring photo ID, along with 77 percent of white respondents
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-dems-non-white-19452985...
One survey on one issue proves nothing.
To be fair, it was in response to an assertion with no evidence.
An ancient philosophical issue is the most fundamental question of the Internet:
'Do two people, who don't know what they are talking about, know more or less than one person who doesn't know what they are talking about?'
(courtesy: Click & Clack, the Tappet Brothers)
'Do two people, who don't know what they are talking about, know more or less than one person who doesn't know what they are talking about?'
(courtesy: Click & Clack, the Tappet Brothers)
> our nation is still incredibly racist
The US as a whole is the least racist nation in the world, so not "incredibly" racist by a long shot.
The US as a whole is the least racist nation in the world, so not "incredibly" racist by a long shot.
Agreed. This particular fragment really stood out for me:
'Oh, wait … King made that speech at Grosse Pointe High School, where Michigan’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently passed an anti-CRT bill making it illegal to teach that the “United States is a fundamentally racist country”.
Never mind.'
It is a weird opinion piece, because its arguments are just loosely connected pieces of information ( in the fragment above, geography ). Then again, Guardian political stance is at least very consistent.
'Oh, wait … King made that speech at Grosse Pointe High School, where Michigan’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently passed an anti-CRT bill making it illegal to teach that the “United States is a fundamentally racist country”.
Never mind.'
It is a weird opinion piece, because its arguments are just loosely connected pieces of information ( in the fragment above, geography ). Then again, Guardian political stance is at least very consistent.
I think it's a relevant anecdote, don't you? That the very place where King advocated for civil rights 60 years ago is now attempting to white-wash it's racist history.
Not every part of the US is. But that one certainly is.
Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed.
I'm sure someone might raise the point that some anti-gay/trans bigotry books are ALSO being suppressed, so I'll preemptively state that these are not the same thing.
Not every part of the US is. But that one certainly is.
Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed.
I'm sure someone might raise the point that some anti-gay/trans bigotry books are ALSO being suppressed, so I'll preemptively state that these are not the same thing.
Eh, poetic license has its place and I am more forgiving when it comes to opinion pieces.
That said, the anecdote is almost completely irrelevant. At the best, it is trying to use image of MLK and argue the following:
"MLK gave a speech here once, therefore making it a sacred ground, where 'nothing we declare bad' can happen".
That is not a very convincing argument. I do not see it as relevant even if we lower its status to an anecdote. At best, it is just something that happened.
<< Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed.
I am not big on overarching statements, but I will address the one quoted above. If open discussion is being suppressed, we have no one to blame, but ourselves, because we let this happen. Inch by inch, some subjects became impossible to discuss without repercussions. It is absolutely wild given how free this country used to be in terms of speech. We now have kids in universities who self-censor so as not to offend.
So yeah, open debate is being suppressed, but probably not the way you want to believe it is.
That said, the anecdote is almost completely irrelevant. At the best, it is trying to use image of MLK and argue the following:
"MLK gave a speech here once, therefore making it a sacred ground, where 'nothing we declare bad' can happen".
That is not a very convincing argument. I do not see it as relevant even if we lower its status to an anecdote. At best, it is just something that happened.
<< Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed.
I am not big on overarching statements, but I will address the one quoted above. If open discussion is being suppressed, we have no one to blame, but ourselves, because we let this happen. Inch by inch, some subjects became impossible to discuss without repercussions. It is absolutely wild given how free this country used to be in terms of speech. We now have kids in universities who self-censor so as not to offend.
So yeah, open debate is being suppressed, but probably not the way you want to believe it is.
Anecdotes are just that - but sometimes can be illustrative. MLK is revered in the United States - even the most ardent right-wingers will put him up as a role model for "good" race relation handling. Yet the criticisms levied today against groups like BLM are identical in phrasing, tone, and vitriol, as what MLK faced in his life. I think that's an interesting anecdote.
Since MLK is revered, people will say that his accomplishments were ultimately successful. There are few to none legal discriminations of the races in the US - in fact anti-discrimination is protected. Yet, we realize now, with more decades of research and understanding that ending "systemic" racism isn't as simple as passing a civil rights bill or formalizing the definition of a "hate crime". So it's not that the specific place that King gave a speech is hallowed ground. But rather that his work was ultimately incomplete (at least partially because he was assassinated).
> Re: open debate suppression
The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap.
There are two foundational differences.
One:
Those attempting to stifle free speech on campuses by banning what they deem hate speech are using private institutional policies in the open market. There is no law being passed that's preventing Dave Chapelle from doing standup comedy. Just private citizens exercising their own free speech rights and influencing private entities into deeming their free speech more important than Chapelle's.
On the other hand, "critical race theory" bans are sweeping the nation with republican legislatures introducing into LAW the requirement for teachers and librarians to err on the side of the preferences of individual parents rather than educators or academics with regards to what "facts" they teach to students.
Two:
By the paradox of intolerance, tolerance and "tolerance of intolerance" are meaningfully different concepts. While they get categorized as the same by bad faith actors, they actually have opposite goals. Arguably, intolerance of intolerance is itself in the service of tolerance. Likewise, restriction of free speech in the interest of stifling hate speech IS meaningfully different from restriction of free speech in the interest of PROMOTING hate speech. Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this. Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred. These are not based on feelings or emotions - they are based on statistics with regards to hate crimes, bullying, suicides amongst marginalized groups, etc.
On the other hand, the bans on critical race theory are based on no data or scientific basis - the very term is completely mis-defined as a niche Graduate-level academic discourse is used to describe absolutely ANY open debate of the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery. The categorization of "critical race theory" as racist against whites, used to bully or discriminate against whites, or any of the sort is not backed in any evidence or research. It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past. Which, incidentally, is exactly what Martin Luther King said is necessary even in a peaceful civil rights movement. The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward. And they have the power to take meaningful action as part of this.
Since MLK is revered, people will say that his accomplishments were ultimately successful. There are few to none legal discriminations of the races in the US - in fact anti-discrimination is protected. Yet, we realize now, with more decades of research and understanding that ending "systemic" racism isn't as simple as passing a civil rights bill or formalizing the definition of a "hate crime". So it's not that the specific place that King gave a speech is hallowed ground. But rather that his work was ultimately incomplete (at least partially because he was assassinated).
> Re: open debate suppression
The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap.
There are two foundational differences.
One:
Those attempting to stifle free speech on campuses by banning what they deem hate speech are using private institutional policies in the open market. There is no law being passed that's preventing Dave Chapelle from doing standup comedy. Just private citizens exercising their own free speech rights and influencing private entities into deeming their free speech more important than Chapelle's.
On the other hand, "critical race theory" bans are sweeping the nation with republican legislatures introducing into LAW the requirement for teachers and librarians to err on the side of the preferences of individual parents rather than educators or academics with regards to what "facts" they teach to students.
Two:
By the paradox of intolerance, tolerance and "tolerance of intolerance" are meaningfully different concepts. While they get categorized as the same by bad faith actors, they actually have opposite goals. Arguably, intolerance of intolerance is itself in the service of tolerance. Likewise, restriction of free speech in the interest of stifling hate speech IS meaningfully different from restriction of free speech in the interest of PROMOTING hate speech. Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this. Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred. These are not based on feelings or emotions - they are based on statistics with regards to hate crimes, bullying, suicides amongst marginalized groups, etc.
On the other hand, the bans on critical race theory are based on no data or scientific basis - the very term is completely mis-defined as a niche Graduate-level academic discourse is used to describe absolutely ANY open debate of the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery. The categorization of "critical race theory" as racist against whites, used to bully or discriminate against whites, or any of the sort is not backed in any evidence or research. It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past. Which, incidentally, is exactly what Martin Luther King said is necessary even in a peaceful civil rights movement. The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward. And they have the power to take meaningful action as part of this.
> ANY open debate of the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery.
This is not true. The disputed interventions generally prohibit racially divisive ideologies, or claims that racial divisiveness is somehow "natural and inevitable", or that the United States is "inherently founded" as a country on racism or racial divisiveness.
A claim that one cannot "open[ly] debate... the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery" without espousing these ludicrous ideas is simply baseless.
This is not true. The disputed interventions generally prohibit racially divisive ideologies, or claims that racial divisiveness is somehow "natural and inevitable", or that the United States is "inherently founded" as a country on racism or racial divisiveness.
A claim that one cannot "open[ly] debate... the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery" without espousing these ludicrous ideas is simply baseless.
> that the United States is "inherently founded" as a country on racism or racial divisiveness
The Constitution includes the three-fifths compromise, where slaves count for 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation.
It seems like a pretty supportable claim. Banning readily supportable claims about history from being taught seems... ahistorical.
The Constitution includes the three-fifths compromise, where slaves count for 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation.
It seems like a pretty supportable claim. Banning readily supportable claims about history from being taught seems... ahistorical.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-lawmaker-says-850...
> includes well-known titles like the Pulitzer Prize-winning William Styron novel, “The Confessions of Nat Turner” and best-sellers that were turned into movies or television series, such as John Irving’s “The Cider House Rules,” Alan Moore’s dystopian “V For Vendetta,” and the graphic novel version of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
> The list of books also includes titles from Black writers, such as “Between the World and Me” by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and “Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women that a Movement Forgot” by Mikki Kendall.
> Isabel Wilkerson’s book “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” which, among other things, made the case that Nazi Germany modeled its anti-Semitic policies on the segregation of Black people in the United States, also made Krause’s list.
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-ra...
> This June, a parents’ group in one Tennessee district challenged the use of an autobiography of Ruby Bridges, who in 1960 was one of the first Black children to integrate an elementary school after Brown v. Board of Education. The parents complained that in depicting the white backlash to school desegregation, the book violated the state’s new law in sending the message that all white people were bad and oppressed Black people.
All of this is possible because "Critical race theory" was not defined precisely when it was banned. And by introducing these bans, it gives parents and legislatures the ability to define any concept they feel uncomfortable with at the time that they see their children learning about as "banned CRT".
The very foundations of this movement were founded on bad faith, in many cases as part of backlash to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
An inaccurate totem of what children were learning was created, and then filed under "CRT".
> includes well-known titles like the Pulitzer Prize-winning William Styron novel, “The Confessions of Nat Turner” and best-sellers that were turned into movies or television series, such as John Irving’s “The Cider House Rules,” Alan Moore’s dystopian “V For Vendetta,” and the graphic novel version of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
> The list of books also includes titles from Black writers, such as “Between the World and Me” by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and “Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women that a Movement Forgot” by Mikki Kendall.
> Isabel Wilkerson’s book “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” which, among other things, made the case that Nazi Germany modeled its anti-Semitic policies on the segregation of Black people in the United States, also made Krause’s list.
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-ra...
> This June, a parents’ group in one Tennessee district challenged the use of an autobiography of Ruby Bridges, who in 1960 was one of the first Black children to integrate an elementary school after Brown v. Board of Education. The parents complained that in depicting the white backlash to school desegregation, the book violated the state’s new law in sending the message that all white people were bad and oppressed Black people.
All of this is possible because "Critical race theory" was not defined precisely when it was banned. And by introducing these bans, it gives parents and legislatures the ability to define any concept they feel uncomfortable with at the time that they see their children learning about as "banned CRT".
The very foundations of this movement were founded on bad faith, in many cases as part of backlash to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
An inaccurate totem of what children were learning was created, and then filed under "CRT".
> MLK is revered in the United States - even the most ardent right-wingers will put him up as a role model for "good" race relation handling.
Via very selective quoting.
https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1483016365049004035
“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”
Two sentences later in the speech, which Rubio omits:
"It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned."
Via very selective quoting.
https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1483016365049004035
“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”
Two sentences later in the speech, which Rubio omits:
"It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned."
<< Those attempting to stifle free speech on campuses by banning what they deem hate speech are using private institutional policies in the open market.
Yes; the hate speech being defined as speech they hate. That is not a great standard, because I can assure you the definition will expand in directions you may not find acceptable. But it is an easy rallying flag and a good political tool.
<< The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap.
This is not what I meant by self-censoring. Dave Chapelle episode is something else altogether and we can discuss it if you want, but I am not sure if this is the line of argumentation you want to take. What I referred to was a clear departure of university ethos to present kids with various POVs, expand their mind and have a healthy discussion. Instead, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction recognized by some as 'stifling'[1].
<<It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past.
I am honestly not sure what you are talking about here. What culture are you referring to? What past needs to be confronted? US openly committed genocide on Indians - it is on the books last time I checked. US imported slaves and it was a while before they were even freed on paper? Do you see anyone denying that? What exactly needs to be confronted? Lynchings? Segregation? What? None of this is hidden. If anything, you have a prime time now to call anything racist. You can call cereal racist and a clear and present indicator of white supremacy and CNN will give you a platform to spread that opinion further. Some of us just can't help but chuckle, because the backlash you are referring to is created by this weird fixation with race exemplified by 'everything is racist' movement.
<<Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this.
Does it mean it is the correct stance ( is majority automatically right on any given issue )?
<<Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred.
Yes and there are historical reasons for those you listed. US, on the other hand, was founded based on a firm rejections of those limitations as enshrined in that foundational document called a constitution.
<<the very term is completely mis-defined
Please define it then.
<<The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward.
I find this the most interesting line of the entire post. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I do not see discomfort. Have you ever marveled at the beauty of the pyramids? I have about the same discomfort about pyramids as I do about US history.
[1]https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15277443/north-korean-defector...
Yes; the hate speech being defined as speech they hate. That is not a great standard, because I can assure you the definition will expand in directions you may not find acceptable. But it is an easy rallying flag and a good political tool.
<< The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap.
This is not what I meant by self-censoring. Dave Chapelle episode is something else altogether and we can discuss it if you want, but I am not sure if this is the line of argumentation you want to take. What I referred to was a clear departure of university ethos to present kids with various POVs, expand their mind and have a healthy discussion. Instead, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction recognized by some as 'stifling'[1].
<<It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past.
I am honestly not sure what you are talking about here. What culture are you referring to? What past needs to be confronted? US openly committed genocide on Indians - it is on the books last time I checked. US imported slaves and it was a while before they were even freed on paper? Do you see anyone denying that? What exactly needs to be confronted? Lynchings? Segregation? What? None of this is hidden. If anything, you have a prime time now to call anything racist. You can call cereal racist and a clear and present indicator of white supremacy and CNN will give you a platform to spread that opinion further. Some of us just can't help but chuckle, because the backlash you are referring to is created by this weird fixation with race exemplified by 'everything is racist' movement.
<<Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this.
Does it mean it is the correct stance ( is majority automatically right on any given issue )?
<<Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred.
Yes and there are historical reasons for those you listed. US, on the other hand, was founded based on a firm rejections of those limitations as enshrined in that foundational document called a constitution.
<<the very term is completely mis-defined
Please define it then.
<<The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward.
I find this the most interesting line of the entire post. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I do not see discomfort. Have you ever marveled at the beauty of the pyramids? I have about the same discomfort about pyramids as I do about US history.
[1]https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15277443/north-korean-defector...
A debate about CRT would be fine, just dont expect that CRT axioms will be taken as gospel. The line was crossed when some teachers started coercing white kids into saying that they're inherently racist oppressors solely because of their skin color. Texas, if I remember correctly, promptly banned teaching kids that they're inheretnly racist, without naming CRT anywhere. And that's what I think other states should do: dont ban CRT, ban its core tenets. And again, it's fine to discuss CRT, so long as nobody is forced to accept it.
Being against CRT, which is by definition a racist ideology, is nothing at all similar to whitewashing history. If you don't believe me, read the words of Ibram X. Kendi himself, the leading CRT proponent in the US:
"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
Why would anybody support this racist nonsense? We can (and do) learn about history in the proper context. You hold the people accountable who "did the bad thing", you don't blame everyone who has the same color skin of being guilty of the same thing. Because that would be racist. That's why CRT is bad.
"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
Why would anybody support this racist nonsense? We can (and do) learn about history in the proper context. You hold the people accountable who "did the bad thing", you don't blame everyone who has the same color skin of being guilty of the same thing. Because that would be racist. That's why CRT is bad.
If the people who were attempting to ban "critical race theory" could define it precisely, and ban it equally precisely, I would not have an issue.
That it is banned in public schools is proof that they do not and cannot define it. CRT is a Graduate-level subject that had no allocated curriculum in elementary or high schools.
Rather, it's being used as a dog whistle for all debate regarding privilege, SYSTEMIC racism, the acknowledgement of US history as racist, or work still to be done today.
The bans of "critical race theory" are not actually banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory but openly suppressing discussion of civil rights and racism.
That it is banned in public schools is proof that they do not and cannot define it. CRT is a Graduate-level subject that had no allocated curriculum in elementary or high schools.
Rather, it's being used as a dog whistle for all debate regarding privilege, SYSTEMIC racism, the acknowledgement of US history as racist, or work still to be done today.
The bans of "critical race theory" are not actually banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory but openly suppressing discussion of civil rights and racism.
CRT is defined precisely though. It is the application of collective guilt based on skin color for the actions of individuals with the same color skin. It is similar to the Stormfront crowd blaming all black people for violent crime. It's inherently racist.
Critical theory in general (not just CRT) is an attempt to use a marxist lens to view <insert social issue here>. This is why collectivism is central to CRT.
This is why we read nothing but race-based assumptions from proponents of CRT. It's a framework that requires us to not consider the content of ones character, but rather the color of their skin.
Critical theory in general (not just CRT) is an attempt to use a marxist lens to view <insert social issue here>. This is why collectivism is central to CRT.
This is why we read nothing but race-based assumptions from proponents of CRT. It's a framework that requires us to not consider the content of ones character, but rather the color of their skin.
[deleted]
Just like the old days huh? The "It's Marxism!" signs are still not that far away are they now?
Sadly, it's true - https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-theory-3026623
I can't help but think that people must have some wildly inaccurate conceptions of what CRT is, based on how they talk about it. I didn't really know, so I looked at the Wikipedia page for it and here's the short version:
"an intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour"
Which doesn't sound like an inherently racist ideology to me. I highly suspect quotes like the above are being taken out of context. Unfortunately this statement appears to be pulled from somewhere inside a book on the subject, which I have not yet invested the time to track down let alone read. My assumption would be that, as is true in many such cases, a lot of the terminology is being misrepresented by leaving the reader to assume a colloquial definition of the words rather than the context laid out in the supporting text. Indeed, several articles hint that this is indeed the case:
"Kendi defines racism as “a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities.” Racist inequality exists when “two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing.” Racist policies are any law, rule or regulation that keeps that inequality in place.
The discrimination Kendi is talking about is not the police, politicians or teachers who believe one thing or the other, but policies that are in the system that effectively keep the power to maintain or change that policy primarily in the group that benefits from that discrimination."[0]
[0] https://fredericksburg.com/opinion/letters/letter-crt-necess...
"an intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour"
Which doesn't sound like an inherently racist ideology to me. I highly suspect quotes like the above are being taken out of context. Unfortunately this statement appears to be pulled from somewhere inside a book on the subject, which I have not yet invested the time to track down let alone read. My assumption would be that, as is true in many such cases, a lot of the terminology is being misrepresented by leaving the reader to assume a colloquial definition of the words rather than the context laid out in the supporting text. Indeed, several articles hint that this is indeed the case:
"Kendi defines racism as “a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities.” Racist inequality exists when “two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing.” Racist policies are any law, rule or regulation that keeps that inequality in place.
The discrimination Kendi is talking about is not the police, politicians or teachers who believe one thing or the other, but policies that are in the system that effectively keep the power to maintain or change that policy primarily in the group that benefits from that discrimination."[0]
[0] https://fredericksburg.com/opinion/letters/letter-crt-necess...
One must ask themselves if they think the government should treat people differently based on the color of their skin. If you think the answer to this is yes (because CRT requires it), then I'm curious to hear why we now believe this form of racial discrimination to be a net positive in society.
Exactly which part requires it? Indeed, the very definition asserts that 'race' is a social construct designed for the purpose of opressing some for the benefit of others.
I think one must instead ask themselves "where the hell did I get this notion of what critical race theory means?".
I think one must instead ask themselves "where the hell did I get this notion of what critical race theory means?".
>I think one must instead ask themselves "where the hell did I get this notion of what critical race theory means?".
I provided the exact quote from Ibram X. Kendi, if you don't accept the description from the foremost expert on CRT on how it requires racial discrimination, I'm not sure it's a truth you would ever be willing to accept.
In the interests of not turning this place into Reddit, it's probably best to take Mr. Kendi at his word, and leave the rest up to the reader :)
I provided the exact quote from Ibram X. Kendi, if you don't accept the description from the foremost expert on CRT on how it requires racial discrimination, I'm not sure it's a truth you would ever be willing to accept.
In the interests of not turning this place into Reddit, it's probably best to take Mr. Kendi at his word, and leave the rest up to the reader :)
> I provided the exact quote from Ibram X. Kendi
Yes, and I provided reasoning as to why I think that quote is taken out of context. I have provided the text of the definition of Critical Race Theory from Wikipedia, which almost word for word has lifted it from Encyclopedia Britannica.
I'm going to have to take that over one sentence that was most likely taken out of context and the interpretation apparently only backed by 'trust me bro!'.
Yes, and I provided reasoning as to why I think that quote is taken out of context. I have provided the text of the definition of Critical Race Theory from Wikipedia, which almost word for word has lifted it from Encyclopedia Britannica.
I'm going to have to take that over one sentence that was most likely taken out of context and the interpretation apparently only backed by 'trust me bro!'.
Do you think the government & public educational institutions should treat everyone the same regardless of skin color?
I presume you're about to pull a quote from some proponent of critical race theory whos says otherwise, so I don't know why you're bothering to be coy about it.
By all means, please do so and link the context around the quote so I can properly evaluate what they're actually saying, instead of just what some random internet is implying they are saying.
By all means, please do so and link the context around the quote so I can properly evaluate what they're actually saying, instead of just what some random internet is implying they are saying.
"Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn."
– MLK, "Where Do We Go From Here" 1967
[deleted]
[deleted]
A comment as an European outsider to our fellow americans here in HN: I would say this speech is not just american but it belongs to the whole recent western culture as much as May 68, the Carnation Revolution, or the fall from Berlin's wall.
What is its presence like in your part of the world? Do people know about it? Do they read it? How is it perceived?
I’m a European that migrated to America a few years ago. MLK is certainly well known where I come from (Scandinavia). His legacy is known by most and his political alignments and are known by most people on the left political spectrum. When people bring up racial injustice in America his name often pops up. However it is not often where his name is connected to the broader context. People on the left might mention him when talking about economic injustice in relation to race in Europe, but I would say it is rare. Sometimes really competent journalists might quite him or bring his historical context, but that is even rarer. He is most often thought off as an American addressing American problems, which I personally think is a pity.
I would think his legacy in Scandinavia is about the same as the legacy of Nelson Mandela is to Americans.
I would think his legacy in Scandinavia is about the same as the legacy of Nelson Mandela is to Americans.
I would say it is well known by everyone who has a regular amount of general culture. The view of MLK it is without doubts positive, and the social fight he represents it is seen as it was necessary or inevitable, like universal suffrage, feminism and the like (but particular for the cause).
In Spain it is indirectly studied together with cultural movements of the XX century and the evolution of society. But not too much or specifically, but as it became a Pop Icon (due its martyrdom, appearance in news, documentaries, or even advertisement spots) everyone would know about it as much as people in America might now about Gandhi just to say an example.
Very few people might know specifics of his life, or a very accurate context on how exactly was American society at the time he lived, but undoubtably everyone knows or has heard of MLK, could recognize his face and the first sentence of his speech and the social fight against racial discrimination.
What it is not completely understood from American society, for example, is all the nuances and cultural differences regarding racism and daily interactions. For example, people picture racism as black or white dichotomy (forgetting many other issues or different minorities), and they cannot understand why the word “nigger” is taboo and at the same time used constantly in shows by black people themselves, I remember even a youngster who thought that it was kind of joke/slang thing and repeated it aloud without fully comprehend the social taboo around it or degree of ofende that it would have that implied for an american person. In this regard movies and Netflix shows sort of educate people about these topics in American culture.
I would say, in spite of everyone fully agreeing with the ideals of MLK, racism or how social integration across different racial groups works, is still understood in different ways and totally depends on the local culture of each country; one example which I found myself crazy: in Spain no one could understand blackfacing as a derogatory action as it is part of some cultural celebrations without any intention of mocking or whatsoever, but in Britain I believe the same action would be understood as a large offense against black or people of color. And still in both countries the majority of its population would agree without hesitation on the ideals that MLK represents.
But again, these are cultural differences, the message of MLK is largely accepted and even understood necessary as part of a social society where everyone an be part of and being judged by its personality not by its race.
P.D. I hope not to be misunderstood, as I know in America many people is largely sensible to this topic.
In Spain it is indirectly studied together with cultural movements of the XX century and the evolution of society. But not too much or specifically, but as it became a Pop Icon (due its martyrdom, appearance in news, documentaries, or even advertisement spots) everyone would know about it as much as people in America might now about Gandhi just to say an example.
Very few people might know specifics of his life, or a very accurate context on how exactly was American society at the time he lived, but undoubtably everyone knows or has heard of MLK, could recognize his face and the first sentence of his speech and the social fight against racial discrimination.
What it is not completely understood from American society, for example, is all the nuances and cultural differences regarding racism and daily interactions. For example, people picture racism as black or white dichotomy (forgetting many other issues or different minorities), and they cannot understand why the word “nigger” is taboo and at the same time used constantly in shows by black people themselves, I remember even a youngster who thought that it was kind of joke/slang thing and repeated it aloud without fully comprehend the social taboo around it or degree of ofende that it would have that implied for an american person. In this regard movies and Netflix shows sort of educate people about these topics in American culture.
I would say, in spite of everyone fully agreeing with the ideals of MLK, racism or how social integration across different racial groups works, is still understood in different ways and totally depends on the local culture of each country; one example which I found myself crazy: in Spain no one could understand blackfacing as a derogatory action as it is part of some cultural celebrations without any intention of mocking or whatsoever, but in Britain I believe the same action would be understood as a large offense against black or people of color. And still in both countries the majority of its population would agree without hesitation on the ideals that MLK represents.
But again, these are cultural differences, the message of MLK is largely accepted and even understood necessary as part of a social society where everyone an be part of and being judged by its personality not by its race.
P.D. I hope not to be misunderstood, as I know in America many people is largely sensible to this topic.
Very interesting. Many people in the U.S. don't understand the problem with blackface, etc. (though they would have to live in a cave to not know it's considered offensive).
FWIW, the use of the n-word by African-Americans is an appropriation (in a good way) of power. For so long, its use was a demonstration of white power over black people, the power to demean publicly. Now white people don't dare use it (probably the most offensive word in English) - again, a good thing - but African-Americans hold the unique authority to say it.
> P.D. I hope not to be misunderstood, as I know in America many people is largely sensible to this topic.
If it helps, you might replace a certain word above with "n-" or "n*" or "n-word". It's a common trolling racist technique to find any 'legitimate' excuse to use that word.
FWIW, the use of the n-word by African-Americans is an appropriation (in a good way) of power. For so long, its use was a demonstration of white power over black people, the power to demean publicly. Now white people don't dare use it (probably the most offensive word in English) - again, a good thing - but African-Americans hold the unique authority to say it.
> P.D. I hope not to be misunderstood, as I know in America many people is largely sensible to this topic.
If it helps, you might replace a certain word above with "n-" or "n*" or "n-word". It's a common trolling racist technique to find any 'legitimate' excuse to use that word.
During his lifetime, MLK was far more highly regarded by those outside the US than he was by those within it.
Mainstream America never really accepted and embraced him until after his death and with a heaping dose of whitewashing. (As seen by far too many folks who only know his Dream speech and Selma march.)
Mainstream America never really accepted and embraced him until after his death and with a heaping dose of whitewashing. (As seen by far too many folks who only know his Dream speech and Selma march.)
Unfortunately it is still a dream. I've seen too many people quote only the most famous line as if the dream were already true, as a way to ignore the injustices that King cited. It became better because of King and continued to improve, but it remains a struggle, and many want to reverse what has been achieved.
One thing that is fun to think about in alternate history timelines is what if segregation had never really ended and carried forward into the Information Age?
Imagine different websites for whites and blacks. You thought responsive design was complicated? Imagine racist design. Perhaps we would have different protocols if a user was white or black. WTCP/WUDP and BTCP/BUDP? Imagine internet architecture being designed such that packets from white users would always be prioritized over black users.
Of course, some black hackers could craft VPNs to spoof your connection to appear as a white user and get faster speeds or access forbidden sites. Imagine white hackers creating viruses or cyber attacks but only against black hosts.
Really, really crazy stuff to think about.
Imagine different websites for whites and blacks. You thought responsive design was complicated? Imagine racist design. Perhaps we would have different protocols if a user was white or black. WTCP/WUDP and BTCP/BUDP? Imagine internet architecture being designed such that packets from white users would always be prioritized over black users.
Of course, some black hackers could craft VPNs to spoof your connection to appear as a white user and get faster speeds or access forbidden sites. Imagine white hackers creating viruses or cyber attacks but only against black hosts.
Really, really crazy stuff to think about.
> Imagine different websites for whites and blacks.
They exist. Try going on a public platform, such as a gaming platform, and identifying yourself as black. Look at all the most popular people on TikTok, Twitch, etc.
They exist. Try going on a public platform, such as a gaming platform, and identifying yourself as black. Look at all the most popular people on TikTok, Twitch, etc.
This OP is two hours old and has more votes and comments than most of the front page stories, yet it's dropped to the second page.
If it's a quirk of the algorithm, I hope the mods can address it manually in this case.
If it's a quirk of the algorithm, I hope the mods can address it manually in this case.
My favorite MLK speech is:
"Accepting Responsibility for Your Actions."
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/acc...
"Accepting Responsibility for Your Actions."
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/acc...
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."
"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."
"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."
"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."
"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education."
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."
"Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial."
"Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That's the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system."
"The principle of self defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi."
"It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it."
"Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man."
"Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as His divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world."
"Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace."
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."
"The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood."
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control."
"The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."
"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."
"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."
"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education."
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."
"Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial."
"Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That's the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system."
"The principle of self defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi."
"It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it."
"Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man."
"Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as His divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world."
"Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace."
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."
"The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood."
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control."
"The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
Good lord these comments.
The man gives perhaps one of the most important speeches in American History, and of course here comes the silicon valley brigade to tell everybody what he really meant.
He was speaking to 250,000 people after a massive civil rights march. This is what he chose to say. I don't think we need anybody to interpret it for him.
The man gives perhaps one of the most important speeches in American History, and of course here comes the silicon valley brigade to tell everybody what he really meant.
He was speaking to 250,000 people after a massive civil rights march. This is what he chose to say. I don't think we need anybody to interpret it for him.
[deleted]
There is no need for one-upsmanship on this solemn holiday. Let us celebrate and reaffirm the message of the speech. There is no need to elbow it aside in favor of things you think more important.
Let freedom ring.
Let freedom ring.
[deleted](1)
>I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Boy have we gone off the rails on this one. Skin color has become a primary way people self identify. Sad.
Boy have we gone off the rails on this one. Skin color has become a primary way people self identify. Sad.
Actually we're a bit more on the rails, on that one -- if you haven't heard, skin color was used as a way to identify others at the time, rather than self identify. Then once identified, they were subjected to horrible treatment. The world certainly isn't perfect but it has improved.
> skin color was used as a way to identify others at the time
And today. I hear people do it regularly in private contexts, and we also see it in public ones.
And today. I hear people do it regularly in private contexts, and we also see it in public ones.
Sure. A wise man once said, "The world certainly isn't perfect but it has improved."
To be clear, in my experience it's worse now than pre-2016, and still a very serious problem.
Recent events have emboldened racists for sure, but the original comment was that we've gone off the rails since the King speech, which is a comparison to the Civil Rights Era US. Is it your experience that the post-2016 era is worse than that? I'm white and I wasn't alive at the time, so it isn't my place to judge there, but I'd find that pretty surprising I guess.
> the original comment was that we've gone off the rails since the King speech, which is a comparison to the Civil Rights Era US. Is it your experience that the post-2016 era is worse than that? I'm white and I wasn't alive at the time, so it isn't my place to judge there, but I'd find that pretty surprising I guess.
I wasn't there either. Lots of African-Americans I've spoken to think we are going backward. As a simple example, the Voting Rights Act has been rolled back, and many segregation-era voting restrictions restored.
And regardless, the comparision doesn't matter. Better or worse than the early 1960s is not a standard (and it would be a very low one), and does nothing to address what is happening today.
I wasn't there either. Lots of African-Americans I've spoken to think we are going backward. As a simple example, the Voting Rights Act has been rolled back, and many segregation-era voting restrictions restored.
And regardless, the comparision doesn't matter. Better or worse than the early 1960s is not a standard (and it would be a very low one), and does nothing to address what is happening today.
I think I for the most part agree with you.
I think we're talking past each other because you are arguing for a reasonable comparison (recent US to current US), while I was arguing against the specific unreasonable comparison made in the original comment -- some imagined version of King's objective based on taking a single line of one out of his speeches vs the modern US.
Sidenote -- I'm not sure why you cut my quotes where you do. This most recent one changes the meaning of my sentence significantly by removing "but the original comment was that," which makes it clear that I'm responding to a specific argument. In fact, the quote you've come up with makes it look like I'm making the claim that I'm arguing against.
I think we're talking past each other because you are arguing for a reasonable comparison (recent US to current US), while I was arguing against the specific unreasonable comparison made in the original comment -- some imagined version of King's objective based on taking a single line of one out of his speeches vs the modern US.
Sidenote -- I'm not sure why you cut my quotes where you do. This most recent one changes the meaning of my sentence significantly by removing "but the original comment was that," which makes it clear that I'm responding to a specific argument. In fact, the quote you've come up with makes it look like I'm making the claim that I'm arguing against.
> I'm not sure why you cut my quotes where you do. This most recent one changes the meaning of my sentence significantly by removing "but the original comment was that," which makes it clear that I'm responding to a specific argument. In fact, the quote you've come up with makes it look like I'm making the claim that I'm arguing against.
Sorry, just not being careful. I fixed it.
> I think I for the most part agree with you. / I think we're talking past each other ...
I did not mean to convey disagreement; I thought we mostly agreed too, in the same way you say, I was just exploring the topic. Apparently I need to be more careful with my writing today!
Sorry, just not being careful. I fixed it.
> I think I for the most part agree with you. / I think we're talking past each other ...
I did not mean to convey disagreement; I thought we mostly agreed too, in the same way you say, I was just exploring the topic. Apparently I need to be more careful with my writing today!
No worries -- I think I was in a defensive mindset because the original comment that kicked everything off appeared to be pulling an annoying rhetorical technique.
Being judge by the color of your skin and self identification have nothing to do with each other.
He says nothing about self-identification, but about external judgement. Which I guess you're doing here.
How you self identify has a massive influence on how people externally judge you.
Sure, but that’s on them isn’t it. Should they not identify as their race, religion, creed or culture because you judge them for doing so?
Yes, if that's not what you want to be judged on. When you publicly self identify as something, you are signaling to the world that that is the most relevant lens to view you through.
So your judgement on the content of their character is a negative one because they choose to outwardly identify themselves as the race they belong to, and incorporate it into their character?
Ok. I guess instead they should suppress that and just act “white” (or whatever the majority race is)?
Ok. I guess instead they should suppress that and just act “white” (or whatever the majority race is)?
This might come as a shock to you, but you can be judged favorably too. When I applied for grants for dance performances, I never mentioned my gender expression, but the approval committees would tell us that they wanted more "queer voices." But that's not the lens that I wanted them to view my proposal through.
Also, I think you need to explain how race is incorporated into a person's character. Maybe start by defining what you think character so that we are using a shared definition. Because I think your different protected characteristics are completely separate and in no way intrinsically linked to your character.
Also, I think you need to explain how race is incorporated into a person's character. Maybe start by defining what you think character so that we are using a shared definition. Because I think your different protected characteristics are completely separate and in no way intrinsically linked to your character.
This is sadly true. Sorry to see this downvoted.
[deleted]
The US government saw and treated him as a domestic terrorist and Russian/communist agent. The NY TImes and mainstream media famously attacked him and he was hated by 75% of Americans.
The NSA illegally spied on him and other alleged domestic terrorists:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29968101
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/nsa-surveillan...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-kin...
He famously called the US government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/21/king-o...
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/15/martin-luther-king-jr-ml...
https://www.history.com/news/martin-luther-king-jr-fbi-j-edg...
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/18/10777146/mlk-day-martin-luther...
The NSA illegally spied on him and other alleged domestic terrorists:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29968101
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/nsa-surveillan...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-kin...
He famously called the US government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/21/king-o...
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/15/martin-luther-king-jr-ml...
https://www.history.com/news/martin-luther-king-jr-fbi-j-edg...
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/18/10777146/mlk-day-martin-luther...
> He famously called the US government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
I don't see how this statement could be even remotely controversial, then or now.
I don't see how this statement could be even remotely controversial, then or now.
csense(1)
"I've Been to the Mountaintop" https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemou...
A nice special from Democracy Now: https://www.democracynow.org/2022/1/17/mlk_day_special_2022