Martin Luther King's speech, delivered in 1963 in Washington DC, contained the following quotation:

MLK 1963 speech



Yet, the essential message of this speech, that people should be judged on the basis of their individuality, rather than on the basis of their group membership, has been completely and totally abandoned by the "black" establishment today. This current crop favor racial preferences and the eugenic classification of people in a way that would make collectivists such as Marx or various philosophers who influenced Hitler's "racial theories" proud.

Given this state of affairs:

1. Are the words and actions of MLK totally irrelevant in today's world?

2. Should those who claim to "honor" MLK practice what he preached?

3. Is symbolism more important than substance when it comes to the memory of MLK given his close association with anti-American communists and his alleged plagiarism contained in his doctoral thesis?

I think the issue in America today lies in the notion that:

- The racism MLK fought and won against doesn't exist, arguably other than Affirmative Action.

- Black Americans who perpetually play the race card seemingly want a whole demographic to be lumped into one segment in reference to income, education, culture, etc.

- Many racially motivated activists, in my opinion, have alterior motives that generally push their agendas while using some poor person's skin color as an avenue by which to do it.

MLK changed (of course not single handedly) the face of American society. He was the catalyst in making society realize that skin color has no reflection on intelligence, ability, etc.

2. If I were a survivor of the Civil Rights movement, I'd say that most Do not honor MLK's teachings. Why you ask?

- Social Hand outs (i.e. Welfare, Affirmative Action, Raced Based initiatives) definitely do not judge people by the content of their character, but obviously and unequivocally by the color of their skin.

- Hard work and motivation of your youth and peers hasn't seemed to be a stallworth of many urban and minority communities. Rather, high crime rates, poor educations, and the notion that your situation is helpless seems to be the attitude of the day.

Martin Luther King worked hard for his education (regardless of the plaigarism claims), worked hard to move his peers and community members to do great things, and never was deterred by a little elbow grease and was never afraid to prove that he could do it as well as another man.

As I drove to work in the Dallas Ice Storm yesterday (which, of course... shuts down the city), I noticed that a large number of cars were missing from the Dallas landscape. Was it the Holiday? By the looks of my office, of course not.

I'll never understand why colleges aren't filled with black youths. I'll never understand why small business loans and grants aren't flying out the door for minorities. It is beyond my comprehension why someone poverty stricken isn't trying to get anything into their hands that will change their situation. In black communities today, teachers and parents aren't telling kids that they CAN go and do better. Instead, completely AGAINST MLK's teachings, they're being told that society has made an inadequate lot for them, and that it's just too hard.

Being from a modest background, I was never motivated by money but definitely feel like I have something to prove. I want people to know that a young man from Louisiana CAN be successful in an international business. Similar to skin color, my southern accent brands me from the word go. Heck- on an international stage maybe worse. I go to meetings with a fire in my belly even now. Why can't we teach impoverished kids to have that same fire? To work 50 hrs/week to get what they want. To go to college and do well, regardless of how they got there. Permanent Affirmative Action and hand-out based policy isn't what MLK would've wanted. Race baiting doesn't change how people view skin color, but rather accentuates differences that may not even really exist. Is that what the "I have a dream" speech was about. I definitely think not.

I must admit I lost some of my iron composure when I saw the subtitle for his thread.

Lost as in bursting into peals of riotous laughter.

I understand the sentiment, but my sense of perspective alerted me to a key imbalance which would make a rock giggle.

To wit:
Representative democracy has been achieved in America... are the words and actions of Thomas Jefferson totally irrelevant in today's world?

The Revolutionary War was over long ago, who cares about George Washington's farewell address, the old has-been...

..and don't get me started on Lincoln, that hypocritical hack.

There is a words for this type of thinking...but its against the rules.
Let's call it whooey for short.

No on to whooey analysis,: the study of whooey.


:snort:

Affirmative Action is not solely dependent on race nor is it at all related to the racism king fought except as a means to mollify its affects.

..and the racism King fought against is not dead. King fought against more than Jim Crow. Check a history book, what was King fighting about the day he was shot?

Employment, where racism still resides.

Not to mention housing and racial steering.

Last but not least King, as a minister fought against the racism in the hearts of Americans and that is far from dead either.


..and welfare has exactly nothing to do with race

To say King was against welfare is simply an outright lie.

Affirmative action debates have been held before and I won't rehash them, but I would suggest a read through as this betrays a basic lack of understanding of the purposes and practice of AA.


I will refrain from grammatical critique.

Poor education and crime rates are not an attitude, they are facts, many true of white rural communities as much as black inner cities.

Most of the poor in this country are white.

They are the inevitable results of unfair school funding and poverty.

The poor in this country work harder that most in the middle class could imagine, and not behind a desk in a cushioned seat.

Let's start here as this post and the opening thread are a more whooey that I can shovel in one sitting.

1. Are the words and actions of MLK totally irrelevant in today's world?
MLK voiced both specific and generalized portions of his dream. While certain specific aspects may come to pass over time and be largely fulfilled, the more generalized notions are truly as big and elusive as the words of the American founders which he so admired.

While we might think we have evolved to a point where we truly have a good handle on the American dream as voiced by MLK, we should consider such litmus tests as this:Athough brothers do lock horns on occasion, I must wonder, is the true essence of interracial brotherhood demonstrated in statements like this:
I believe Dr. King's dream is one that can only be fulfilled one dreamer at a time. I believe that as a whole, the dream has reached critical mass in America; but I do not believe we can say our persuit of the dream is complete as long as there are hearts and minds in need of change. The wonderful thing about Dr. King's dream is that it graciously invites changes of heart with a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation.

I think it was Churchhill who said something to the effect that even though we know deep down that the ultimate victory can never be completely won, it must be persued with every fiber of our bodies, with every bit of our might, and all of our effort, until, in the end, we lie exhausted, but victorious, on the field of battle-- whenever, wherever that field of battle might be.

2. Should those who claim to "honor" MLK practice what he preached?

Yes, at least that portion with which they tend to agree. The only way to realize such a dream is to live it.

3. Is symbolism more important than substance when it comes to the memory of MLK given his close association with anti-American communists and his alleged plagiarism contained in his doctoral thesis?

It is true that almost all great personages deemed worthy of respect are honored for their achievements and pardoned their human frailties. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Lincoln, Dr. King, and others all experienced the same kinds of shortcomings that many of us continue to face today; some of them quite unapologetically. Lessons can be learned from both the strengths and the weaknesses of those who walked this world before us and alongside us. The fact that these men were homo sapiens does not diminish their legacy any more than the beholder desires to see it diminished.

If we desire to hold out any hope that our own progeny will forgive our own shortcomings and view our lives in hindsight more by the greater good that we have engndered than by the sins we have committed, we might should humble ourselves enough to afford others the same consideration.

To the extent Dr. King's words continue to inspire us to a higher plane that we would otherwise persue, his dream lives on.

1. Are the words and actions of MLK totally irrelevant in today's world?

No. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a giant of recent American history and I would argue that his legacy is as significant as any American born in the twentieth century.

2. Should those who claim to "honor" MLK practice what he preached?

I think one can honor someone without becoming a follower or a disciple. Of course here the phrase, "those who claim to 'honor'" is the insult showing that those who do not have the Helmet take on this are in error and are misreading the legacy of Dr. King.

This has been a common conservative trend of the last fifteen or twenty years. It simplifies Dr. King's existence and strips one line of his most famous speech of context and holds it high as the legacy of Dr. King. Therefore those on the left are self-deluded, and were Martin here today he would return as a conservative opponent of AA>

3. Is symbolism more important than substance when it comes to the memory of MLK given his close association with anti-American communists and his alleged plagiarism contained in his doctoral thesis?

Then of course, slumming with an icon of the left is distasteful stuff, so we then must move on to disassociation and impugning of character. Here we are to remember that Dr. King was a cheater in that investigation showed that his dissertation likely was heavily "borrowed" from and many of his sermons were derivative. These allegations seem to hold merit at least. MLK it seems was not a saint.

As for communism, this is a remnant of the cold war and the constant barrage that things left of Goldwater were under in the 1950s to prove that they were good Americans. This drivel has not held up under scrutiny.

Well, we forget that Martin wasn't the best husband. Although this, too, seems to have been blown out of proportion in the mudslinging against this iconic figure.

I think this falls under the advice of Bob Zimmerman, "Don't follow leaders, follow parking meters" People are flawed. Martin Luther King, Jr. was as well. But to pretend that he was an opponent of AA, which began during his lifetime is either willful deception or studying only the very surface of the man's life.

This article does a very solid job of showing many of the times where Dr. King made his views felt about things related to AA. I find it interesting to note, additionally, that the first demands King made in his first public protest, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, did not include an end to a segregated bus system in Montgomery, but they did include the hiring of black bus drivers on predominantly black bus routes in Montgomery. This is the thing that really set off the white community. The other two (fixing the line between the white and black sections of the busses and more courteous treatment of black passengers) couldn't really have been worth the year-long negative publicity and inconvenience, could they have?

Um- have you read much of MLK? It appears that this post is a very, very thinly disguised attempt to dishonor possibly the greatest modern hero in America. I put him on the same pedestal of greatness of Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln- I think his likeness would be by far the most appropriate face to honor on Rushmore.

But that wasn't true for me, about 20 years ago- growing up in the perpetual hate and bigotry of the Republican party. I recall the movement against having a "MLK" day by the right- of course- since they lost- they want to start a new history on what the man was and what he meant to America in general.

I wiill tell you why- my little girl reminded me, by her innocent questioning- about how important to history this man was.

I have a black nieghbor, but when I was a child in Texas- you didn't DARE live near a "colored"- it hurt your home values- seriuosly hurt them. Enough to make non-racists move right out of a nieghborhood were a black family may move in. Little black boys and little white girls didn't play together, ever. Blacks were to not be "uppity" and talk back to a white. There were signs "no niggers after sundown" and "whites" and "coloreds" signs at drinking fountains and restrooms- and so on. An this was still in the late 60s, early 70s- so, now, thanks to MLK, I get to choose my friends, and my kids playmates, without retribution, real, dangerous retribution.

There is a very evil and horrible movement to destroy his legacy, to destroy what he stood for, and to make his words twisted into some Ronald-reaganesque parody of evil.

That is why NT's quote about conservatives attending Mrs King's birthday is still in my sig- they don't give a rat's fanny that she or he walked the earth or the strides they made for freedom, possibly the greatest strides in US history, they were there just to make sure she was really dead, so they can start twisting her legacy as well.

[1. Are the words and actions of MLK totally irrelevant in today's world?

Barely worth answering, to silly and too much of a bandwidth consumer to even address. So the answer is "no, duh"

2. Should those who claim to "honor" MLK practice what he preached?

Like, who are you talking about? GW at the funeral? Trent Lot? Newt Getrich? I am sure you are not talking about anyon that matters?

3. Is symbolism more important than substance when it comes to the memory of MLK given his close association with anti-American communists and his alleged plagiarism contained in his doctoral thesis?

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter- the hatred white neo-cons have for this man is amazing. A guy that actually made progress after 150 years of being so called "freed" by the white men- come 1950 and later-uppity black poeple DARE ask for the same freedoms as whites- and you call him "irrelevent today"- I would say he is most relevent simply because you have posed such a question, it is more proof than anything I could post here.

Demonise him, call him "anti-american communists"

LH- have you ever wondered why ALL black poeple aren't anti- american- after all, all but about the last 20 years, we were as evil as one man can be to another towards blacks.

Yes, he was great, he thought outside the box- and "communism" is simply propaganda and word play about a type of economic system that really never threatened us, but allowed feeble minds to be brainwashed into fear and better productivity to slave away for corporate America.

Communism, the actual economic model, has never existed, and soviet Russia was no threat to us, except as we forced the isse, post Kruchev- that was part of the reason he was ousted- he was too imperialistic for Russian culture- Russian culture is very xenophobic and inward turning- folks like Reagan liked to make them into th bogeyman so they can get weak minded poeple to vote for him.

What do I care if he was a full blown communist? What does that matter? The end result- America was more free, no matter what his personel beliefs were, and no matter what his personal life was.

There are powerful leaders that whose personal lives are near totally without bad habits- and they are NOT the usual fighters for freedom- Hitler comes much closer to mind. Teetotaler, vegetarian, war hero.

Whereas FDR and Churchil had lots of personal demons- but they rose above it, and made freedom fly.

No thanks to the right wing, of course- instead, a daily attack on the greatest modern hero of our time.

20 years ago? You do know that in the early 1960's when MLK was lobbying for equal rights for blacks that the most vehement southern segregationists were democrats, don't you? You *do* know that the US president who freed the black slaves (resulting in a civil war and his own assassination) was a republican don't you? 20 years ago is modern US history. Legal segregation was a thing of the long past in 1986. However, the neo-racists who look like MLK have apparently favored a self-imposed segregation on multiple fronts. This self imposed cultural segregation, along with a mandated government forced racial segregation (affirmative action), have replaced the historical racism seen in this country.



So MLK is above question? If you even question whether his legacy has been lost on the current crop of neo-racist "black leaders", one is "evil"? And why do you impugn president Ronald Reagan? This man did more to eliminate human slavery than anyone since Abraham Lincoln. But then again, you've already demonstrated that you are completely ignorant of the historical legacy of the republican and democrat parties (for example, Al Gore's late father was a rabid segregationist). And NT's signature file? lol. MLK's wife was hardly a player in MLK's "legacy". If anything, she was a victim of his serial adultery. She just become a symbol for people who believe in symbolism over substance apparently. But that *is* the modern democrat party isn't it?



But why? His words have been completely and totally lost by yourself and your allies among the neo-racists who believe that "payback", that "reverse racism" and that government mandated racism that looks at the "color of one's skin" rather than the "content of one's character" is absolutely justifiable. Such thinking goes against the very essence of what MLK stood for. So why are his words relevant in today's world?



I won't correct the your mangling of US, Soviet and British historical political figures since it's just another illustration of the lack of facts you have at your disposal. Or perhaps it was just getting a little late?

I didn't judge MLK in my post if you happened to read it. I asked a series of questions. It is a historical fact that MLK had close associations with anti-American communists during the time when the USSR was a real threat to the survival of our country. They, after all, threatened to "bury us" during a very public temper tantrum by their leader at the time at the UN. We almost went to nuclear war with then during the JFK administration over their deployment of nukes in Cuba. That was the context of the time when MLK was cavorting with the enemy. MLK's legacy as an accused plagairist during his doctoral thesis is also a historical fact. Either you think it's important or it's not.

These were my questions, not my comments.

If you want my opinion, MLK *was* one of the most important figures in US history. His impact was far reaching and his demand that blacks be treated equally under the law, per the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence because their rights, as men, were unalienable, was a completely legitimate and moral argument.

However, it is also completely obvious that his moral message has been perverted by the latest crop of political opportunists who have no interest in pursuing that nobel legacy. Instead, it's all about payback, self segregation, the insistence of a separate but equal (in results and opportunity) culture, and a trend to act as apologists for a pattern of self destructive anti-civilization behaviors under the guise of "tolerance".

It would seem that their perverted message has taken hold in people such as yourself. I maintain that a thoughtful analysis of the actual history and current situation would lead one in another direction.

But one can only lead the horse to water......

My how things have changed. I find it very odd how some choose to focus on the segregationist nature of Democrats 50 years ago, but never choose to mention the abandonment of the entire racist sub-culture of the democrats and their adherence to the Republican party, following the civil rights movement, and an intentional Republican effort to woo the white southern racist vote in order to oppose it.


I'm not sure how else to respond to the remainder of your post. You state you are not judging Martin Luthor King, and then in the same paragraph call him anti-American, assert he was allied with Khrushchev and call him a plagiarist. Is that how you define not judging the man? How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction between these two statements of yours?

After attacking him, you then ask how anyone would dare impugn Ronald Reagan. Why, are only those people you personally attach personal loyalty to beyond impugning? In a post where you insult Martin Luthor King, and then proceed to (as far as I can tell) attack all Blacks in America, and follow it up with an insult of all Democrats in the country, you lose the ability to be righteously indignant if somebody makes a less than flattering comment regarding one of your personal idols.




I had some difficulty determining what you were so angry at here. I am guessing you believe any minority in the US (though you only name Blacks) who believe there is still endemic racism in American society and wish to see further steps taken to rectify the situation, is a 'neo-racist'? I cannot imagine what you are referring to by 'payback' unless it is affirmative action programs. These are controversial to be sure: I personally believe they were a critical and necessary law at one point, but have outlived their usefulness. However to label those who still believe in Affirmative action 'racists' is... well, it is very much like labelling any who disagree with President Bush as 'traitors'. It is hateful and inflammatory and bent on demonising any you disagree with rather than arguing their points on substance.





In all honesty I cannot even begin to imagine what you are talking about here, since you had so much anger and hate in your post you neglected to include any facts or precisions which might help readers determine who was the target for your vitriol. I am horrified to think that you might be aiming this at American Blacks in general, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that such is not the case, as such open and brutal racism is beyond contempt.

The premise of this is innocent enough.

The presentation is tactless and lacking any tangibles to work with.

The basic question is: Is the message of MLK irrelevant because racism is over?

Well of course racism isn't over but even if it were (or the hedged "the racism MLK fought") over MLKs message is relevant. King's message of a merit based society is eternal.

The sidebar of this question: Shouldn't blacks follow King's advice and example?

The problem here is that EVERYONE should follow King's advice and example.

As for the King Conspiracy theories and whatnot... that's someone else's argument.

First off, my post was in response to the historical ignorance of "cruisingram". But, since you asked...

The democrat party have not "abandoned the racist sub-culture", they have embraced it, albeit in a different form.

The form of neo-racism that they embrace is based on the concept of racism as the weapon of payback.

Never mind that the victims of this reverse racism weren't even alive when "real" racism was practiced against blacks in this country. It's enough that they "look" like them. Never mind the victims of "real racism" aren't the recipients today of this reverse racism. Again, it's enough to those who believe in collective guilt, and thus collective "payback", that they "look close enough" to those involved historically.

From my perspective, racism is racism. Trying to morally justify it in the context of "payback" is just as wrong as when it was commonly practiced by previous generations.

Besides, I did not judge King in the way that you assert. I asked the "question". You can answer it or you can delve into an imaginary debate with a strawman of your own creation.

It's really, really difficult to answer these questions, LH, as they are all rhetorical, so I'll respond to your commentary.

First things first...There is no modern "democrat party"; there's a modern Democratic Party just as their is a modern Republican Party. Don't mistake this for me being anal-compulsive about spelling, Democrat Party becoming a slur the right uses for the Democratic Party. Okay, now onto the argument you're making. Yes, the Democratic Party has an ugly racist past, as does the Republican Party, which is easily explainable: AMERICA HAS A RACIST PAST. This entire country has an ugly racist past so it only stands to reason that both political parties reflected that at one time or another. To say that one party has been better than the other is absurd.

I don't disagree with your views on Affirmative Action, LH, but to say that MLK's ideals are meaningless or irrelevant today is a bit of a hyperbole.

CP

Nope- I know what happened to the Democratic party in 1968, I believe most everyone on this board does. As soon as th Dixiecrats lost control of the Dem party, they fled to the republican party i droves- I thought that went without saying LH- I think everyone here knows the basic history of the civil rights movement- I know, as little as twenty years ago, though not the ruthless violence towards it in the early 70s, interracial dating was still heavily frowned upon.

I know that MLK was pro-AA.

I read a large majority of his works and speeches- above all else- he was a classical liberal, in almost every sense of the word.

There have been several links that prove racism still exists, and is prevelent and all ecompasing part of our society- yet you choose to ignore that- you have 0, zilch nada claims to the opposite outside your own, and I doubt very seriuosly if you have ever read a single one of the links provided to show, in an unbiased and scientific manner, that racism is widespread and rampant.

Racism didn't go away, it just became slightly more subtle- now, it isn't that racists will beat you in the streets- they just make sure and never call you back if you have a black sounding name or voice.

Your entire question is on the premise that racism is an anachronism, that it doesn't exist, except in reverse racism- but you have never proven THAT exists. In fact- AA has rooted out about the only "reverse racism" that exists, with a vengence.

Your premise that racism does NOT exist is the very reason that MLK's words and philosophies will ALWAYS be relevent- because he is the beacon of light that makes the cockroaches of racism scurry whenver that light is shown.

You have a mighty chip on your shoulder of "reverse racism" - which is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Ya, so many white poeple are living poor because a brutha is "holding the white man down".

And Reagan was pure scum, a terroristic happy baby killer. I know this from personal experiance of his policies. That man was only a hero for white right wingers-otherwise- he was just another big spending republican liar that increased the size of goverment and increased the power of goverment over our private lives, while enriching his corporate corrupt pals- about the third or forth most corrupt admin in US history.

That is why I fnd it so laughable when folks like yourself denigrate MLK, a lion amongst the Jackals of racists, The light to the cockroach of the Reagans.

What on earth are you talking about? Oh, how people like to invent history...

Lest we not forget that segragationists and the stallworths of biggotry were DEMOCRATS, and in my opinion still are. They just took a new angle to pander to the poor and down trodden... garnering votes still from the lowest common denominator.

The fact of the matter is that Lincoln even was a republican, and that although there was biggotry rampant in all parties- it wasn't the Republican platform as it was for Democrats.

I find it interesting that people like to make arguments like these:


I understand that there was rampant racism in this form during the 60's and 70's in America. Don't ever fool yourself into thinking it was/is unique to Texas. Some of the strongest Klan and Neo-Nazi parties are in the Midwest and the North.

The issue for me isn't that I doubt that MLK is one of the greatest Americans to walk the earth, but moreover that I believe that the black leadership/politicians in the US have become panderers and snake oil salesmen. That their motives for keeping the idea of racism alive suits their needs, so they sell an idea that is perpetuated nationwide. It causes apathy and perpetuates mediocrity. Is this what MLK wanted? I seriously doubt it.

Would a civil rights leader who was imprisoned, marched hundreds of times, and who eventually lost his life, want his children and grandchildren to have success shrouded in legislation? Would he want the idea that his kids only got there because they were given it to be the center of attention, as opposed to their acheivement? Would he want his communities' public schools to be known for their complacency and his communities' people to be born into cyclical poverty perpetuated by an ideology of social inferiority?

Not just no, but heck no. I believe as a proud southerner, that many of us pride ourselves in attempting to blur racial lines. We grew up around black people as much or more than many others in the US. Does a NY Jewish person understand black culture like (me) a guy from S'port? No way. Our town is about 58% black. We played T ball, worked with, and grew up around a mixed bag of nuts, white and black alike. We knew black guys that wore boots and listened to George Strait, just as we knew white guys who wore Kangos and listened to Heavy D. I think that's the direction MLK would've wanted us to move in. Individuality that doesn't concern itself with preconceived notions of who we should be.... not race baiting and pandering based upon an idea that apathetic leaders perpetuate.

To Clarify Aevens- I lived in Texas in the 60s and 70s, the racism and conservatism of Texas was the reason my folks moved to Alaska- well, that and higher pay - and when I say 20 years ago- I am talking about Republican opposition to MLK days around the nation, the opposition to his holiday etc. Now that MLK day is celebrated across the nation, and the racists lost in thier bid to have him quietly recede into history- the recidivist history writing can began on the right.

Arizona, if you recall, was one of the last states to have a MLK holiday, I believe, I could be mistaken.

Yes, I agree with you Aevens- the north was every bit as racist, and some say Ohio is one of the worst to this day- I have read some small studies on that- it would be off topic- I am not saying the south, 20 years ago, was any more or less racist- it was certainly the hot bed of racism in the 60s though, but, you are correct in saying the north was no angel in this fight either!

I don't doubt there are charlatons and snake oil salesmen amongst "black leaders"- but they are no were near as powerful, rich or influential as the folks that oppose them- so I don't really worry about them. If that black professor of the vid I posted once ever becomes an established "black leader" and wins a house seat- I will join you- but otherwise- the whole concept of AA being "racist" is silly and stupid.

You weren't doing too bad there for a few sentences... but the foot is so enticing... look at it. It wants to be shot. Sitting down there... wrapped in leather... go ahead... it's asking for it... shoot it, shoot the foot.

BANG!

Terroristic happy baby killer. Near as I can tell his policies didn't include any allowance for English Spelling Training either.

A) Read my sig

I was in central America as a doorgunner/crewchief during the "contras" - I know from personal experiance who and what he supported. I stick by the statement. To say Reagan was not a baby killer would be to say that OBL is a freedom fighter.

I must admit that when I first saw this thread I had the same sort of reflexive mindset a math teacher gets when she sees a paper bearing the statement 2+2=22 in her Calculus class.

Namely, to laugh and remember to save this joke for the teacher's lounge.

...but of course even humorous errors can be serious as well so I'll try and approach this patiently.

Okay, there are two major categories of problem with this viewpoint ground into the opening post and questions.

First is the simple undeniable error of some of the assumptions. These are not the errors of opinion or perspective, but point-blank falsehoods these include the idea the Dr. King was/ would be in oppostion to Affirmative Action and (rather bizarrely) welfare.

Posters have already established he was in favor of both. I'll add he was also sympathetic to reparations.

In fact no one has of yet pointed out any particular failures of the nebulous of "those who claim to honor King" to live up to his legacy at all.

That shoots down question two's underlying assumption until we see an iota of evidence.

The last question suffers from a similar malady.

None of these "claims" were presented for analysis and even if true the rhetorical nature of the question actually defeats its own viewpoint. Namely no one in heir right mind will say the symbolism is more important seeing as the effects of King actions were enormous and practical. What matters was what he accomplished and the only "symbolism" is the supposed plagiarism/anti-Americanism.

The substance is that the man died fighting for the core values this country holds dear and he deserves all the respect a fallen soldier is due.

1. In a time where much of the nation's resources and best and brightest are being wasted in a endless and pointless war, Martin Luther King Jr. couldn't be more relevant than he is right now.

For example King broke with President Johnson over the Vietnam War. It wasn't a popular position to take but in the last five years of his life King was in a transitional phase. Much of this debate is frozen in 1963 and "I Have A Dream." That was the man's finest moment to be certain and he gave probably the greatest speech in American history.

But Dr. King was much more than a wind-up doll with a string in the back that when pulled says, "I Have A Dream." He evolved and grew more progressive in thinking beyond the civil rights of Black people to the human rights of all people.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people?" they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment, or my calling.

I have to say I'm amused by some of the remarks made in this thread because they are based upon a model of Dr. King that is historically inaccurate and subject to the emotional exaggerations of the originator of the thread.

Is Dr. King relevant in 2007? As we continue our shared journey out of the darkness of American apartheid the words and deeds of King provide guidance along the way. Yes, he is still relevant in a way that presidents, politicians and social commentators of his time no longer are.

2. We honor Dr. King when we work within the process of the American political system instead of picking up the gun and the torch and resorting to armed insurrection. We honor Dr. King when we are tolerant in the face of intolerance. We honor Dr. King when we recall that despite the racist history of the nation when men and women of good will find a common cause the evil of racial segregation and its defenders were swept aside into the garbage can of history by a relentless tide that would not be denied. The civil rights era was a quiet revolution but it was a revolution nevertheless and Dr. King was a revolutionary.

We honor Dr. King when we do not betray the dream. Too many of his followers have lost their way and fallen into traps of self-aggrandizement and superficial battles King would have never wasted his time on. But this is by no means limited to Black people. Certainly a 77-year old MLK would be disgusted by the way Black people have sabotaged themselves with drugs, crime, loose morals and a lack of faith in the future, but White people have also backslid into a delusional comfort zone that racism no longer exists and therefore any remedies against it unduly harms them.

Between the Blacks who say nothing has been done and no progress has been made and the Whites who say everything has already been done and the problem has been resolved is the reality only a few of us possess the critical thinking skills to shake off the illusion and see the truth.

We honor Dr. King when we don't stop being placated by empty rhetoric and half-measures. We honor Dr. King when we say progress has been made, but more progress needs to be made.

3. How many photographs have you ever seen of Martin smoking a cigarette? Not many because he went out of his way to avoid being seen with a cigarette because he thought it was bad for his image.

Regards the links between the Communist Party and Dr. King there is no question they existed. But these charges coming from such notorious racists as J. Edgar Hoover and Strom Thurmond these charges were tainted by the antipathy of those making them.

King addressed the charges on the Face the Nation television program:

CBS NEWS ANNOUNCER (archival): From Washington, D.C. the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference will Face The Nation.

PAUL NEVIN, Journalist (archival): Dr. King, it's been alleged that you have been slow to sever your ties with alleged communists in the Civil Rights Movement, even after government officials have warned you against them.

MARTIN LUTHER KING (archival): Now first, I'd like to say that communism is based on an ethical relativism, a metaphysical materialism, a denial of human freedom, and a crippling totalitarianism that I could never accept. The only person that they identified that had any connection with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was removed. He's been off of our staff a long, long time.

DAN RATHER, CBS News (archival): This places you in the direct opposite position of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation., J. Edgar Hoover who gave some testimony recently to the contrary.

MARTIN LUTHER KING (archival): I would hope that the FBI would come out and say something that I think is much more significant and that is that is amazing that so few Negroes have turned to Communism in the light of their desperate plight. I think it is one of the amazing developments of the 20th century. How loyal the Negro has remained to America in spite of his long night of oppression and discrimination.

King was right that Black people never embraced Communism in large numbers. He realized that his type of non-violent resistance would not even be possible in a Communist form of government. King was astute enough to draw upon assistance wherever it might come front but smart enough not to fall into the trap of allowing the dubious political leanings of supporters tarnish the larger objective of civil rights.

Regarding whether or not King had plagiarized or not it falls under the same category of his extra-marital affairs. King was not a perfect man. He had his failings of character and the flesh same as every other great man and woman. He was a reverend, not a saint. The shortcomings of Dr. King have to be taken into account in seeing the man as a living, breathing human being instead of a sanitized icon. But Dr. King is made more human, not less by being imperfect.

Frankly, some of the tacky swipes at Martin and Coretta Scott King made in this thread are tasteless and stupidly offensive. Unless someone possess an insight into the inner workings of their marriage I'd have to say they probably don't know what they're talking about. Mrs. King suffered the indignities of her husband's infidelity in her own quiet way and apparently she forgave him for his poor choices. That should be respected by anyone purporting to honor Dr. King's legacy.

Interesting quote. I suppose it could be taken in a number of ways, in that truth is relative in most cases.
However, for the sake of argument I'd like to know particularly what you meant.

I find it interesting in a thread of this caliber to see what people believe Dr. King would've foreseen or what in his legacy is left outstanding.

In reference to the majority of your post, I agree. I find fault in anyone that degrades an American hero as if a man is ever infallable. If you dig deep enough, you'll find that a man swears, or has problems with his wife, or maybe drinks a little too much now and again. So what?

Does that negate the history changing good that he did? Of course not. Find an American hero alive during the media age, and you're 100% assured to find fault in one form or another. But is Dr. King a Hero still? Of course... no question.

Here's a prime example of a person in denial. I'll answer the questions... and I've read some of his works.



1) MLK's words are as relevant today as they were when he spoke them. They're just not relevant blacks in general. A white man might have assassinated MLK's body, but black civil rights leaders have assassinated his legacy and his message; replacing it with their own philosophy of victimhood.





2) They should at least try, just like Christians should try to practice what Jesus preached. I don't see many trying though.





3) I don't know about MLK's associations, but symbolism over substance is the primary outcome of everything in the black community. It's bling-bling over prosperity.