Quoting Martin Luther King, Jr is a common racist defence of White Americans.
How can quoting one of the greatest civil rights leaders be racist? TransGriot put it this way:
Far too many times people are fixated on or like to quote the pre-August 28, 1963 words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. People also have this irritating tendency to hurl pre-1963 MLK quotes at POC’s when they get nervous about POC’s venting about their battles with whiteness and white supremacy.
Whites quote MLK to silence.
The quote they most often use:
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.
King is seen as pushing a see-no-evil, kumbayah colour-blindness as the way to bring people together and end racism. So when people of colour are see-evil, race conscious and not properly kumbayah, whites use this quote to shut them up as being “divisive”, as going against the true spirit of Dr King (as sanitized by white people).
Yet King saw the evils of American society quite clearly – not just against blacks but in general. And he was hardly the sort to keep quiet about it to make peace with whites, which is what MLK-quoters seem to expect from people of colour. King:
Racial segregation must be seen for what it is – and that is an evil system, a new form of slavery covered up with certain niceties of complexity.
…
When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
…
John Kenneth Galbraith said that a guaranteed annual income could be done for about twenty billion dollars a year. And I say to you today, that if our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God’s children on their own two feet right here on earth.
…
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
…
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.
…
It’s an evil war. No matter where it leads, no matter what abuses it may bring, I’m going to tell the truth.
…
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. … We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.
And far from pushing colour-blindness, King saw black pride as necessary:
We must stand up and say, “I’m black and I’m beautiful,” and this self-affirmation is the black man’s need, made compelling by the white man’s crimes against him.
See also:
Abagond as soon as I saw the title of this post show up in my email I got steamed. Just the thought of this all-too-common tactic sets my blood to boiling. King and his cohorts accomplished a lot through non-violent action, but that doesn’t mean passivity! In fact, the less you use your fists the MORE pointed your words must be. He was a dangerous man.
MLK was not colorblind. Yes he wanted a world in which skin color did not determine one’s station in life or the dignity one is afforded by others. That is not being colorblind, that is not the same as “I don’t see color”. Blind is just that, blind.
One of the common themes I see around this quote is the notion that King was advocating against “special treatment” for anyone based on skin color. This is especially common in discussions about affirmative action (not surprisingly, this is where 90% of discussions having anything to do with black people end up). But what white people get is not “special treatment”. Special treatment is sometimes due for special or unusual circumstances. What white people get is to be treated like full human beings while the rest of us are “less than” in every way.
LikeLike
Thank you!
Excellent post, excellent points!
LikeLike
The way dishonest whites try to claim MLK (mainly white conservatives, who try to act as if Southern Strategy never existed) and use him in their sick and paternalistic messages as a weapon against black folks, is one of the main things they do that actually get under my skin. This is one of the first topics that you’ve done in a while Abagond, that I’ve actually caught myself saying “Man! Hell Yeah!” in agreement over.
Spot on, good sir. Spot on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do see a lot of white Americans (who are obviously racist) deceitfully use this tactic during online arguments about race. However, from my experience, “race concious” black folks, who go on and on about black power & pride, tend to be the most racist illogical black ppl in the US.
Racial pride IS divisive and counter-productive to ending racism (which I don’t believe will ever happen, altho that certainly is not an excuse for being apart of the problem). Color-blind kumbuyaness is the only way we’ll see it end.
LikeLike
Thank you for these quotes, Abagond!
It’s sad that the mainstream American memory of MLK is basically the opposite of the man he was becoming when he was gunned down. He was becoming more and more aggressive and impassioned in his fighting style, and more and more concerned with fighting for the rights of ALL oppressed people. Kinda like Malcolm X that way, who is also remembered by mainstream America for being the opposite of what he became late in his life. Malcolm X had become more conciliatory, and less exclusively focused on black struggle, and less anti-white-people.
The collective white American imagination still has a lot of trouble seeing non-white people for what they actually are, and listening to what they actually have to say.
LikeLike
“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.”
Now, I might be wrong here, but mr King does not say here that his kids should turn white. Mr King does not say that this will achieved by acting subservient to the white folks. Mr King does not say here that the color of the skin dissappears, turns into something else, or fades away. He simply states: the content of the character is the way to judge an individual.
Seems like some white americans do not get this.
LikeLike
Yes, yes, yes…you hit the nail on the head with this one. That’s one thing I’ve always known – no matter how quiet and polite I am, and no matter how clean my clothing is or how well-kept my appearance, I am always judged by the color of my skin, first and foremost. Being seen as subhuman, simply for having skin of a certain hue, is tiresome. That’s when you know that a person who judges you as subhuman is never going to see the content of your character, because they’ve already ASSumed that you have no character to begin with…or, they’ve ASSumed what the content of your character is, based solely on the color of your skin! Neither way is what MLK had in mind, I’m certain…
LikeLike
Abagond:
The sad reality for us as black people, is that, Dr. King’s legacy has been corrupted by some of our so-called civil-rights leaders and whites as well. They portray him as soft, the opposite of Malcolm X. As black people, we have to set the record straight…Bottomline!
Tyrone
LikeLike
Abagond, thank you! That’s all I can say.
Tyrone, exactly!
I see it like this, people who would use Dr. King as a defense would always use that one line from the “I Have a Dream” speech about color and content. I would ask as an argument, “What else did Dr. King say?” Any response if you get any in will tell you how much they actually know about Dr. King.
LikeLike
“John Kenneth Galbraith said that a guaranteed annual income could be done for about twenty billion dollars a year. And I say to you today, that if our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God’s children on their own two feet right here on earth.”
If the white collective isn’t terribly fond of Affirmative Action programs attempting to correct a very racist past and present playing field, then they absolutely abhor the thought of America or any former African slave state paying reparations (unpaid wages – plus compounded interest/damages) to the descendants of slaves and other racially exploited/opressed people,.Perhaps if they did pay it, they might stop feeling/being guilty for their racism & white privilege. (Maybe they did/do pay it in some alternate reality, but I’m not waiting, holding my breath for it to happen in this one!)
LikeLike
@tyrone: It is typcal tactic to claim that MLK was an peaceful dove (and harmless) and Malcolm X was a proto terrorist and a nut job. When one actually reads what these guys said and did and preached, anyone can see that they were much more closer than all the white american claims say they were. They were not on the opposite ends of a spectrum but rather side by side.
And if you look at who were their most dangerous enemies on the white side you notice something funny: yes, both the FBI AND the white organised crime had their sights on these two. Not because MLK was such an softy and X was a raging maniac, but because they were both fighting the same system. Side by side. Or like all boxers do, with BOTH hands.
LikeLike
I think MLK is much more accepted TODAY by “Americans” (for the aforementioned reasons) than he was when he was alive. A LOT of white people hated this loud mouth, uppity, rabble-rousing, trouble-making, southern baptist Negro preacher who obviously didn’t know his place. They unleashed dogs, billy clubs, water hoses, jails and J Edgar Hoover’s dirty tricks on his non-violent movement to attempt to contain his activism.
They used a different approach to come against Malcolm – that is until it became apparent that these two leaders needed the “final” solution… and thus sending a message to anyone thinking about continuing their cause.
@ Sam
“Not because MLK was such an softy and X was a raging maniac, but because they were both fighting the same system. Side by side. Or like all boxers do, with BOTH hands.”
I like the way you put that.
LikeLike
I guess I’m curious about what “content of their character” means to you. Let’s assume that any one person’s interpretation of “content” comes from their social environment, upbringing, etc. Since the vast majority of white people are raised inundated in a Euro-focused social environment how could such white people view “content” as anything other than what it means in a white context.
From my perusing of various PoC pride, I’m open to a more precise term, websites it seems like “PoC solidarity” is lauded as a positive character trait. Okay, fine, I don’t have any grounds to condemn this, but I would offer a word of warning about excluding white people from your moral universe.
When you exclude someone from your moral universe you are telling them that you have no moral obligations to them. What you are also telling them is that they have no moral obligations to you, which makes each of you fair game to exploitation and conquest by the other. See, morality is a two-sided, opposite, yet complimentary, coin:
1. I am part of some particular moral/ethical universe
2. I have some say in the understanding and operation of that universe
Most PoC-centric websites seem to be playing a double-game where white people are “1” but not “2”, while PoC are both. Often, though, it seems like things inevitably advance to the state where PoC are “2” but not “1”. In other words, the sum of all morality is dictated by PoC, and the subject of all morality is directed at white people. If you think this is a sustainable state of affairs I think you are likely to be severely disappointed. If I am governed by some set of moral/ethical constraints, over which I have no say, and you are the arbiter of those constraints, but they don’t constrain you, then, I am simply going to pick up my ball and go play somewhere else.
When you tell white people that PoC have no moral obligations to them then you are, by definition, creating a situation where whites and PoC inhabit different moral universes. And when two people inhabit different moral universes they have no moral obligations to each other, at all.
Are you really sure you want to be telling white people, generally, that they have absolutely no moral obligation to PoC?
LikeLike
Alright, so let’s take it to a more personal level. What character attribute of yours would make me favorably disposed to you? It’s sort of a trick question, though, because favorable disposition creates an obligation to exercise that trait *towards me*, or that disposition will be withdrawn. Okay, that’s a pretty meaty sentence, so, let’s give it some application.
Let’s say that you respond by telling me that I should value your loyalty. Okay, but what is the object of your loyalty? Me, a white person? Judging from the content of most of your posts I doubt that you feel much, or any, loyalty to me. You might respond that “the history of oppression” negates any obligation of loyalty you might have toward white people. Fine, but that brings us back to square one: what character trait of yours should I consider to make myself favorably disposed to you. And, this time, remember that if the trait does not have an application constraining your actions toward me then it lies outside my moral universe.
And this brings us back to quoting MLK. I don’t do it. Why? Because it seems clear to me that the cultural legacy of MLK has become …
“You can’t judge me. I’m black, you’re white, and you can’t possibly understand what it’s like to be black in a white-oppressor’s world”.
So, the subsequent history of the putative civil rights movement is one big rejection of any legitimate grounds for white people to judge PoC. The inevitable consequences of this are that white people are systematically excluded from the moral universe inhabited by PoC, and, therefore, have no moral obligation to PoC. This is where MLK was headed and what the civil rights movement has jumped into with both feet. You can write me out of your moral universe, but you’re probably not gonna like the consequences.
LikeLike
“When you tell white people that PoC have no moral obligations to them then you are, by definition, creating a situation where whites and PoC inhabit different moral universes.”
Nice try Asher! lol at your gobbledygook reasoning…
Let me ask you, who set up these two separate and distinct universes in the first place? And who benefits from it?
If their was a real thing like “moral obligation” – where WHITENESS is concerned – would “racism,” in all of its different forms, still be in existence?
What “moral obligation” does a 4 year old victim of child molestation owe to her serial molester/abuser that is -still- molesting and mistreating her and her siblings many years after the first event?
LikeLike
“So, the subsequent history of the putative civil rights movement is one big rejection of any legitimate grounds for white people to judge PoC.”
Righto!!! Whites have always judged people of color as less than, and so on. Don’t you think it’s time to give that up??
White people would do the world, and themselves, a service if they would now only judge whiteness, and the tremendous mess it made – everywhere and on everyone, don’t you think?
LikeLike
Asher…“You can’t judge me. I’m black, you’re white, and you can’t possibly understand what it’s like to be black in a white-oppressor’s world”.
Rather than quoting Dr. King, let me lean on Mr. James Baldwin in that regard :
“I have said that the Civilized have never been able to honor, recognize, or describe the Savage. Once they had decided that he was savage, there was nothing to honor, recognize or describe.”
And the beat goes on today still. Consequently, No – You can’t, Yes – I am, Yes – you are and No – you can’t, particularly seeing as you’re not only a representative of that world, but a beneficiary of all it’s had to offer from the jump – based solely on the color of your skin.
“So, the subsequent history of the putative civil rights movement is one big rejection of any legitimate grounds for white people to judge PoC.”
Your use of the word “putative” speaks volumes. You can see it anyway you like, however, the truth of the matter (from one who’s more than experienced her share of white, foot-on-neck behavior from the Jim Crow era, right up to today – both literally and figuratively) is – the Civil Rights Movement was about US, perpetually, white-defined “savages” demanding to be treated equally as human beings not chattel – with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of which the self-defined “civilized” had always and forever, up until that point, selfishly availed themselves.
You seem to be hung-up on your inability to continue to judge Black folk – as if anybody but God/Allah/Jehovah/Spirit (whichever label one prefers), has that right. {smdh} You’ve got it seriously twisted, because the movement was never about any legitimate or illegitimate REJECTING of white people’s anything – EXCEPT of course, their convoluted ideas of “Divine RIght,” aloong with that whole OWNING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS thing.
“The inevitable consequences of this are that white people are systematically excluded from the moral universe inhabited by PoC, and, therefore, have no moral obligation to PoC.”
That’s some serious circular logic right there! How can immoral white people expect to be included in the moral universe inhabited by PoC if they have been proven to be immoral?! To wit: http://youtu.be/Vr00KMl-Jus (there are 5 additional parts, take a look, then tell me PoC don’t have grounds to exclude “the immoral of you” – and there are many – from our “moral universe”).
“You can write me out of your moral universe, but you’re probably not gonna like the consequences.”
That sounds an awful lot like a threat, but you should know: YOU (and others like you) aren’t the only ones capable of exacting “not-liked” consequences.
PoC working toward “self-determination” is just that. – you don’t get to decide anymore what we should do, or say, or how. I know it clashes with that whole “Divine Right” belief, but – so be it.
LikeLike
@ Asher:
It would be nice if whites, first of all, acted like they LIVED in a moral universe, if they at least TRIED to live up to all those grand things they like to believe about themselves. Your “Be nice to us or else!” argument is not a promising start.
LikeLike
Everyone lives in *a* moral universe, even Stalin and Hitler, just maybe not in yours. If someone does not treat you as a subject to moral treatment then it is likely that they do not regard you are residing in their moral universe. So what, I encounter all sorts of people who clearly have no moral regard for me.
My response is to conclude that I have no moral regard for them. This does not mean that I’ll decide to, say, shoot them in the head, but that those considerations are practical, not moral.
So, yeah, this is a *threat*, and explicitly one, not to any of you, individually, but just as a general warning. From my personal experience and from reading blogs like this one, I have ample evidence that tells me that most black people do not consider me in their moral universe, and, as such, they have no moral obligations to me.
So, I have no moral obligations to them, yeah, including slavery. I have no interest in owning blacks as slaves, not as a moral obligation, but as a practical consideration.
Also, I used the word “putative” in place of the emotionally-demeaning “so-called”. I don’t have any moral regard for the movement that calls itself “civil rights” but I also have no interest in using emotionally-demeaning language toward it either.
Both replies to me were completely orthogonal to my initial comments, which were, basically, querying why I should consider black people, generally, as moral subjects when they clearly do not consider me one.
LikeLike
Three quick points:
1.
I’m an atheist, so, not sure what “divine right” has to do with anything, and I don’t ever recall anyone invoking “divine right” within of my lifetime.
2
The argument only looks circular if you have an underlying premise of timeless, absolute, universally-binding morality. I don’t. Just because your moral standards identify me as “immoral” doesn’t make me so in any absolute sense, just in your particular sense. Which indicates we inhabit different particular moral universes. The downside to this is that I have no moral obligations to you, nor you to me.
3.
Your self-determination affects my self-determination if they are taking place within the same political entity. Your desire to self-determine with no regard to my self-determination is something I regard as a declaration of war against me. Yeah that’s a threat. An explicit one.
LikeLike
sepultura13…Thank you, much. I just try to call it as I see it – as opposed to how some folk would have me see it.
I’m old, and wa-a-ay too tired of having white folk demand, that the lens – through which I view my people and this world – always include them. IMHO, that’s been a large part of my/our problem. As I continue on this journey of self-determination and rediscovery, my grandmother’s words continue to echo: “It’s not what they say, Debbie – it’s what they do!”
And what they’ve done, has been both an immoral and horrific assault, not only on our bodies – but our minds – for a very long time, if we’d but pay close attention.
And for a very long time – though I often “felt” the twinge that something was not quite right about something a person said or did – I wasn’t paying attention (chalk that up to that almighty demon of internalizing, which always results in “the garbage in/garbage out” madness).
Now though, I periodically have to ask myself, “How in the HAYELL could you have given so much credence to the thoughts/feelings/ideas about being Black – to those who are NOT Black, and who’ve shown (and continue to show) by their actions, that they have no respect for your very existence as a human being, much less your opinions?!”
The question keeps me focused, allowing me to “separate the wheat from the chaff” as it relates to my interaction with white folk (and let me be real clear here, I do believe there exists some wheat, just not as much as they like to say!).
LikeLike
Deb, I’m not telling you what you *should* do. All I’m pointing out is that by defining me out of your moral universe you are declaring yourself my enemy. This is because, I assume, we inhabit the same body-politic, but different moral universes. In such cases, there is allways a struggle for supremacy between conflicting moral visions inhabiting the same political space. And since you and I represent different moral visions of the world, by your definition, that makes us enemies.
Is that really where you want to go?
LikeLike
@ Deb:
As I continue on this journey of self-determination and rediscovery, my grandmother’s words continue to echo: “It’s not what they say, Debbie – it’s what they do!”
Exactly! “Actions speak louder than words” is a rule I’ve always adhered to. When one demands that YOU do this, that, or the other thing, without holding themselves to the same lofty standards, it reeks of hypocrisy and insincerity – and really, who can take a Janus-faced hypocrite seriously?
I agree with you that some wheat does exist…unfortunately, separating the wheat from the chaff is most often akin to searching for a needle in a haystack.
I know what you mean about the demon of internalization – I’ve been fighting that beast for a while, now that I’ve identified its existence in myself.
Great comments! Yours are some of many that I look forward to reading – keep ’em coming! 😎
LikeLike
Asher…I won’t even bother to address your example of Hitler/Stalin, or the fact that people like them (you?) do “not regard you are residing in their moral universe.” – because that’s just crazy to me.
“So what, I encounter all sorts of people who clearly have no moral regard for me.”
No surprise there, given your, “My response is to conclude that I have no moral regard for them. This does not mean that I’ll decide to, say, shoot them in the head, but that those considerations are practical…”
“So, yeah, this is a *threat*,…”
Since you’ve implied it once and said it outright more than once – you are, in fact, threatening me/us. I get it, okay? But let me tell you – that in no uncertain terms, what I said to you at the end of my last comment was not a threat (because I don’t threaten folk) – it was a promise
“Also, I used the word “putative” in place of the emotionally-demeaning “so-called”
What? Like we don’t know that’s what “putative” means?? That’s even more emotionally demeaning if you ask me.
“Both replies to me were completely orthogonal to my initial comments…”
Actually, they were not (given, I hope, your metaphoric meaning of orthogonal was “independent”) – they were quite on point.
“I’m an atheist, so, not sure what “divine right” has to do with anything, and I don’t ever recall anyone invoking “divine right” within of my lifetime.”
Okay, before I suspected – but now, I know exactly with whom I’m dealing. If you are white, or one of those folk who believe in “Being White…And Other LIes” (http://www.cwsworkshop.org/pdfs/CARC/Family_Herstories/2_On_Being_White.PDF) you definitely have an inkling about “Divine RIght.” If you don’t, as you say – look it up.
“Your self-determination affects my self-determination…”
This is the only part of your diatribe that holds any water – just this part. But given my perception of your “Divine RIght” attitude, you seem to not understand the truth of your own statement. I live in the world, Asher – not the “body politic” or “political space.” I don’t see white folk as my “enemy” necessarily, but I sure as hell don’t trust – that they will always be my friends.
LikeLike
Wow – this nazi troll writes in the same style as a recently-captured, inbred white-trash scumbag who is currently incarcerated in Oregon and awaiting extradition to Washington state. This pseudo-intellectual thinks that his perpetual usage of polysyllabic verbiage will mentally cripple, astound and amaze us into silence and submission with repetitive, circular claptrap and borderline-psychotic, thinly-veiled racism and inane rhetorical questions. Deb, you have the patience of a saint! Trying to explain a simple thing to this cretin is like trying to describe the color blue to one who has been blind from birth.
LikeLike
sepultura13…Again, my sincere thanks for “hearing” what I’m trying to express.
“When one demands that YOU do this, that, or the other thing, without holding themselves to the same lofty standards, it reeks of hypocrisy and insincerity…”
To say the least (I won’t even begin to go into what it says about them at most)!
“…unfortunately, separating the wheat from the chaff is most often akin to searching for a needle in a haystack.”
Yeah, that’s why these days – I concern myself more with “separating,” rather than searching (a much less rigorous and soul-murdering enterprise :-))
“I know what you mean about the demon of internalization – I’ve been fighting that beast for a while, now that I’ve identified its existence in myself.”
At least you’ve identified its existence in yourself, methinks that’s half the battle! Do keep workin’ at it, because not only will it guide your intentions, it’ll enrich your existence – I promise.
LikeLike
Asher…“Is that really where you want to go?”
Apparently, where I “really want to go” (to truth) doesn’t really matter to you.
LikeLike
sepultura13…“Deb, you have the patience of a saint!”
No I don’t – I slipped and fell earlier hurting my neck and I just don’t wanna work it too much right now. 🙂
LikeLike
Lemme try.
Asher,
Here’s what we’re trying to tell you. Be quiet, open your mind, and you may learn something. There. That’s all. It may sound harsh to you, but I noticed something interesting, something we’ve seen before. You turned this issue into a personal attack against YOU and white people, but mostly against YOU. This isn’t about you. This is about US.
Here’s the deal, POC, blacks especially are ALWAYS attacked by so-called “good” whites longer than we can remember. At the same time they’ve created a “matrix of whiteness” that has created a norm where POC are marginalized to no end, demonized constantly, and made to feel less than human while whites are taught the exact opposites. And it has been due to the twisted mindset of white people and their immoral values from the past to the present. That’s not hype. That’s not even hate. It’s the TRUTH. The truth hurts like hell, but it’s still in important value, a value most whites don’t seem to take in OR dish out.
Asher, you can try to turn this into an “all-out attack against whites, specifically you” if you want. We’ve seen it before. We’ve heard it before, and it will happen again. This is not about rejecting whites. This is about rejecting whiteness. This is about rejecting white supremacy and the very foundations holding it up. Last but not least, this is about rejecting the thinking of whiteness. All are connected to a realm of dysfunction, hatred, violence, and death against POC since its inception.
Like I said, if you want to learn, I suggest you don’t throw around your “white” weight at us.
LikeLike
Lastly,
Asher, if you still feel the need to continue with your “talk” then all it suggests is that you’re but a mere troll.
LikeLike
Very well said – BrothaWolf / Deb / Sepultura !!!
“This pseudo-intellectual thinks that his perpetual usage of polysyllabic verbiage will mentally cripple, astound and amaze us into silence and submission with repetitive, circular claptrap and borderline-psychotic, thinly-veiled racism and inane rhetorical questions.”
LOL Yep! Pure Gobbledygook … aka B/S
LikeLike
It’s simple guys:
If I cannot judge you then you are not in my moral universe. If you are not in my moral universe then I have no moral obligation to you at all. It’s really that simple. Morality is about judgement and obligation – two sides of the same coin. What are your moral obligations to me? Can’t name ’em? Then, I doubt I have any moral obligations to you, and will operate on this assumption until you can demonstrate to me why I should consider myself as having any moral obligation to you. Hint, it will involve you presenting a robust narrative of your moral obligation to me. That’s just how morality operates, that *is* what it *is*.
brothawolf, you have it backwards. I do not view this as some emotion-based “attack” on white people. Just the opposite, it’s an emotion-free rejection of any moral obligation toward white people. When I hear PoC talk about “self-determination” all I hear is “we don’t own nuttin’ to white folk”; fine, but then white folk are gonna get the notion that they don’t owe anything to you. Morality is a “thing”, absent that “thing”, there is no morality. A-morality is the default, and the morality that exists is a result of an ethos, the greek meaning “a shared understanding of the world”, absent which there is no functional morality.
It is patently clear from my interactions with PoC-centric black people (that is definitely not anywhere near all black people) that they deny any shared understanding of the world with me, which, of course, goes both ways, Therefore, I have no shared understanding of the world with them. Therefore, we have no ethos, and, thus, no moral obligation to each other.
The default state of affairs between any two randomly selected groups of people is war. There are three remedies for this state of affairs: one group conquers the other, the two groups develop a common ethos (shared understanding of the world), or there is a large space of separation between the two groups – basically, one runs away with their tail between their legs. Other than one of those three solutions the battle lines will have been drawn, and it’s war.
LikeLike
People derive meaning in life from their identity. One of the pre-eminent logical philsophers of the 20th century, WVO Quine, noted that there is no entity without identity. I identify as white, or White, if you prefer. I am a cultural inheritor of Western Civilization and all that comes with it. So, you are saying that I cannot have that cultural identity marker, but you are not giving me any replacement for it.
Sorry, my identity of whiteness is rather unfocused on your identity of PoC. It doesn’t need it to identify itself. My brother-in-law, mebbe 20 percent black, is white. Sorry that’s just the way it is. That’s his identity. He’s married to a white woman, my sister. All the partners in his IP law firm are white. His kids have 90 percent of their DNA markers from white ancestors. Every person at the last Christmas Party he was at was 100 percent white, except my – barely – Hispanic wife. Some dumbass, PoC-centric dweeb tried to pull the “brotha” thing with him and we laughed him out of the bar.
My wife was watching me type this stuff up, and didn’t understand what is meant by “people of color”. When I described it to her, her eyes got really big and then her face screwed up into this exquisitely derisive sneer. What she said was a little, uh, unflattering.
No, she definitely does not consider herself a part of your little “people of color coalition”. I am toning it down. A very demeaning six-letter word was uttered. Several times. As an aside, this reminds me of the greatest social vice available to man: ingratitude. Ingratitude is the vice that undermines all human virtue. A good number of black people have been very decent and kind to me over the years, and to demean that, remember God’s agreement to save Sodom if he found ten righteous men, would be the the height of ingratitude.
Anyways, I’m white. That’s my identity and allegiance, although there’s plenty of room for wiggle in that identity and it doesn’t subsume the totality of my identity. Anyone wanting to deny that identity is cruising for a bruising.
LikeLike
Are you really sure you want to be telling white people, generally, that they have absolutely no moral obligation to PoC?
Why bother if they are going to feed you reams of garbage? By the time they finish telling you all this nonsense like what you are writing you would be sawing logs. I’ve yet to hear a white person lecture on these topics in the real world unless they are getting paid or are insane. I once had a ‘madman’ follow me down the street, screeming racial epithets at me. That is the only ‘in depth’ conversation I have ever had with a white person on racial issues. In hindsight it was hilarious though.
What character attribute of yours would make me favorably disposed to you?
How about 38 triple Hs’?
Just because your moral standards identify me as “immoral” doesn’t make me so in any absolute sense, just in your particular sense. Which indicates we inhabit different particular moral universes. The downside to this is that I have no moral obligations to you, nor you to me.
You say ‘potato’, I say ‘potaato’, you say ‘tomato’, I say ‘tamaato’.
Your desire to self-determine with no regard to my self-determination is something I regard as a declaration of war against me. Yeah that’s a threat. An explicit one.</em.
By that reasoning Asher, you'd better start 'declaring' war against all the broads out there as they have a different 'moral' compass than you which states; "most men are a55holes". Declare away! But if you do, you will never get another leg-over!
This pseudo-intellectual thinks that his perpetual usage of polysyllabic verbiage will mentally cripple, astound and amaze us into silence and submission with repetitive, circular claptrap and borderline-psychotic, thinly-veiled racism and inane rhetorical questions.”
You forgot high cockalorum! The only thing he astounds me with is his cluelessness. I stopped reading his posts after the first few sentences. I started getting cross-eyed after the third sentence. As for being amazed into silence, I have just had supper so half his battle baffling people with bull-poop was over.
If you are not in my moral universe then I have no moral obligation to you at all.
Tell that to your better half when you are told to take out the gargbage. “I do-not have to take out the garbage dear as it is not in my moral compass!” If you don’t get a frying pan upside the head, you’ll be lucky. Just chalk it down to her bludgeoning you out of her ‘moral compass’.
What the BeJesus does this pseudo-philosophy babbling have to do with the speeches of Martin Luther King? No, don’t bother to respond!
LikeLike
Matari…Thanks.
LikeLike
“If I cannot judge you then you are not in my moral universe. If you are not in my moral universe then I have no moral obligation to you at all. It’s really that simple. Morality is about judgement and obligation – two sides of the same coin. What are your moral obligations to me? Can’t name ‘em? Then, I doubt I have any moral obligations to you, and will operate on this assumption until you can demonstrate to me why I should consider myself as having any moral obligation to you. Hint, it will involve you presenting a robust narrative of your moral obligation to me. That’s just how morality operates, that *is* what it *is*.”
You WISH it was simple, but sadly it isn’t that simple, and we aren’t the ones who made it complicated.
Morality is about knowing the difference between right and wrong and acting on them. Black people and POC have been telling whites what their moral obligations are towards them, but what a surprise, like what you’re demonstrating at this moment, YOU DON’T WANT TO HEAR IT. THAT’S THE DAMN PROBLEM. From experience, white people don’t like to hear about their morality or lack thereof from POC. HOWEVER, whites feel it is there “moral obligation” to tell us what we’re supposedly doing wrong which includes the usual words from ‘bootstraps’ to ‘personal responsibility’. But, we can never tell white people what they’re doing wrong because that is considered immoral. SMDH.
“brothawolf, you have it backwards. I do not view this as some emotion-based “attack” on white people. Just the opposite, it’s an emotion-free rejection of any moral obligation toward white people. When I hear PoC talk about “self-determination” all I hear is “we don’t own nuttin’ to white folk”; fine, but then white folk are gonna get the notion that they don’t owe anything to you. Morality is a “thing”, absent that “thing”, there is no morality. A-morality is the default, and the morality that exists is a result of an ethos, the greek meaning “a shared understanding of the world”, absent which there is no functional morality.”
Again, POC have tried their damnest to help you as long as we don’t point out your faults. Here’s the problem with your argument about owing something. You may hear that (suspiciously stereotypical) statement from POC, but if you think they got that conclusion out of a vaccuum, you are devoid of the realities faced by us. White people have for so long don’t think they owe anything to the POC they’ve harmed. Why should we expect them to start owning up to their bullsh*t when they continue to deny it over and over again. In the end it really isn’t about owing anything, it’s about doing what’s right, and white people have a hard time recognizing what’s right and wrong.
“It is patently clear from my interactions with PoC-centric black people (that is definitely not anywhere near all black people) that they deny any shared understanding of the world with me, which, of course, goes both ways, Therefore, I have no shared understanding of the world with them. Therefore, we have no ethos, and, thus, no moral obligation to each other.”
…It’s because whites DON’T want to hear about OUR understanding of the world especially when they are the villains. As we thought your sense of moral obligation is warped. If it was in check, you would not try to derail this topic into for your own purposes. You would’ve sat, read, and possibly learned something valuable.
As for the last paragraph, I can only say that it’s war only if you take it there, and whites have been asking…no BEGGING…for war for centuries, white Americans in particular. You’ve conquered without mercy and morphed yourselves into pseudo-saints. You could ask for help and redemption, a common solution for all of us, but you would rather continue holding onto power that you’ve stolen in cold blood and created from broken bodies. And instead of being human and facing up to that, you’d rather run with your overprivileged tail between your legs calling “foul!” Well, POC are not stupid or helpless. We know the truth. We know reality. We know white people better than most of them know themselves. It’s not arrogance. It’s fact.
LikeLike
I think Asher is suggesting that the Negroes and other colored folks are suffering from a new and redefined form of “drapetomania” – as in there’s something very wrong with us for not wanting to be a part of white people’s (or his own) “moral” universe. Obviously this bothers him … lol
What would white people do without blackness?
They would cease to be white! (As if they ever were.)
Hangin’ out here has helped me to understand why HUMOR (and Herneith) is such an important facet of the black experience!!
LikeLike
lolol. The entire discourse of this blog is that black people do NOT want to be part of my moral universe.
If I can’t judge you, you are not part of my moral universe If I have moral obligations to you that means I get to judge you. It is a give and take. You do not get one without the other. But let’s get real.
You are, functionally, in my moral universe.
This means I get to judge you.
eff’ing deal with it.
Let’s say it three times.
White people get to judge black people … white people get to judge black people … white people get to judge black people.
And, yes, black people get to judge white people.
Sorry, this is just reality. Deal with it.
I’m white. You’re black. And, yes, I get to judge you. As three-six mafia sez “silly rabbit”.
LikeLike
Matari, the facts on the ground are that the vast majority of white people consider you a part of their moral universe. This means they consider themselves as having moral obligations to you, and you objectively benefit from such consideration, far more than you seem to appreciate. You participate in a moral world where there is massive moral consideration granted to black people by white people with very little return consideration.
There is a vast network of black privillege, which, if you are black, you partake. What is privilege? It is being able to get away with stuff that someone else can’t. That’s it. That’s all privilege is. If you’re a black man then there is a vast array of things that are open to you that is not open to me, as a white man. In order to get laid, as a white man, I pretty much have to have a full-time job. I grew up in a neighborhood where well over half the males were my age. Almost none of them were employed and almost all were getting laid.
That’s black privilege.
Why do you think it is that black people use the n-word in public? Because it is something that white people cannot socially do.
And, yes, that confers immense power. The simple fact of being able to do anything that another cannot confers a feeling of immense power.
That’s the essence of privilege.
That’s black privilege.
LikeLike
So, there’s this term “male privilege” out there, which I’m sure you’ve all encountered. So, what is male privilege? Just what men can get away with that women can’t. Ah, but there is reciprocal female privilege? Don’t believe me?
Here’s a link http://saverenee.org/
That’s female privilege. If you as a female get some consideration that men do not get that is female privilege. If you as a black person get some consideration that white people do not get that is black privilege.
Black privilege is real. It is an objective part of reality. Deal with it.
Let’s stipulate the following premise. All other things being equal, any random individual will, in the short-term, take the easiest path from point A to point B, all other things being equal (yes, I know the latin phrase).
So, let’s apply this premise to the term “passing”, yes, we all know what it means. A hundred years ago, people with one black grandparent would “pass” themselves off as white. Why? Well, because it conformed to their immediately benefit. Okay, So, let’s take some randomly selected person with one black grandparent, who could choose to identify as black or white. What are they most likely to identify as in any particular circumstance? We all know the answer to this.
When given a chance, they will identify as black because , check our premise, it is in their immediate interests.
Now, let’s tie this issue of interests into the earlier topic of moral consideration. Moral consideration, in any context, is rather integral to human well-being. Other things equal, if I am able to portray some attribute that elicits greater moral consideration from others, then that is a means of enhancing my well-being. The simplest explanation, Occam’s Razor, is that “being black” confers more moral consideration than “being white”. The chosen identities of those who can pass as either “black” or “white” identifies, clearly, who is and who is not privileged.
Not only is there black privilege, but black privilege is stronger than white privilege.
LikeLike
Asher–
I gotta tell you that though you have written a lot on this thread, it seems like all you really wanted to say was 1. that you’re going to judge black people, 2. that black privilege is stronger than white privilege, and that 3. you imagine you’re going to hurt some black person sometime, you want the black people who read this blog to know it, and that it’s important to you that you justify it in a way that makes sense to yourself.
I don’t get what you mean at the end of your 4th to last paragraph. You imply that a person who COULD pass as either white or black would prefer to be seen as black today. You write it as though it’s some sort of common knowledge or even common sense. And you suggest that’s because it’s better to be black in America than white, today, I guess.
Part of this is complicated for me because you don’t seem to recognize that a lot of what you’re seeing as racial alone is actually a whole lot more cultural at its core; there are white people who, because they have grown up around black Americans, have the mannerisms and a worldview more alike to that of most of black America than white America. And vice versa. But here’s the thing– whereas most black Americans, considering such a white person, would not see that white person as one of them upon first seeing him or her, let them interact with that white person for as few as probably five minutes and they’d intuitively pick up on the fact that this person was from the culture they were from. The same is true to a large extent if you’re talking about a black person who has been raised around white Americans, but there is one important difference– though there are some white Americans who would be fairly willing to view that black person as one of them, the majority would still see that black person as still fundamentally and totally different from themselves and their white fellows. Now mind you, I’m not saying black Americans, all thirty million of them, are some sainted group of human beings incapable of prejudice; surely there would be some among them who would be unable to see past the whiteness of the skin of the fictitious white person I described above, but the group itself would not be as hung up on the issue as is the case when the roles are reversed.
But there’s a bigger flaw in what you’ve written here than this. You’re looking at all of this as though we all exist together in some abstracted plane of being– your moral universe is, I think, where you point to this without meaning to. What’s absent in this, and what’s absent through all your posts is any concept of the history of this nation. And yes, I know you know the facts of history. But all you do is know them as though they’re mere intellectual constructions like the various philosophical constructs you refer to above. Like when you claimed the mantle of whiteness in your challenge up above; I’m guessing you’re thinking of the Parthenon, the Sistine Chapel, Common Law, the Declaration of Independence and all that good stuff. I doubt you’re also taking ownership of the slave trade, the Inquisition, or most of American history. I think this because if you did consider that a part of our white European/American history, and if you also considered black people real human beings, you’d realize that justice itself demands that some sort of reconciliation and reparation on the part of America towards black Americans and other Americans of color. At the very least, you wouldn’t be so caught up with “moral universes” and your wife’s use of racist language to refer to others whom you’re only writing to because some part of your insecure self doesn’t really believe most of what you’re writing.
Here’s the thing– from the overall tone and anecdotal content of your writing, it sounds like you’re young enough that you’re going to live into the next several decades. You surely know that demographers speculate that by 2050 white Americans will no longer be a majority. But long before that date, whites are going to have lost still more of their ability to frame the world and every subject of discussion about it in conversation with anyone in our society. If you don’t start getting used to that reality now, and if you don’t begin devoting serious thought to what it will mean for white Americans to no longer have the political power that comes with the majority status it’s enjoyed for the last four centuries, it will be YOU who will have it bad, very bad, in the America of the future– the one many of us are already building. We’re building it right in front of you, and speaking for myself, I don’t have a problem with your being a citizen of it. But you’re not going to fit in thinking like you do up above. And I’m not going to recognize you or speak for you just because yours and my ancestors both came from Europe. Either you will change and become a real American, or you will receive no help or claim from me. If you insist on staying a White American– with the whole divine right thing that someone referred to above– then you’re gonna be on your own here, and when you look around and see there are no longer many of you for you to draw warmth and protection from, you’re not going to like living in my country.
LikeLike
Asher wrote:
“Not only is there black privilege, but black privilege is stronger than white privilege.”
I REST my case!
Certifiably ‘delusional’ … as usual.
Nothing new, or out of the norm here.
{{{..yawn..}}}
LikeLike
I think this asher is just a troll. Just like other trolls he states his stance “If I can’t judge you, you are not part of my moral universe” and then goes on and on and on and on and on.
It is good to remember that it was he who made the statement that there are two separate universes of morality. Nobody else had made that before him. It is his very own and very immature opinion.
As for the civil rights movement, this guy propably does not know that some white, yes WHITE AMERICAN, guys died in that struggle too. So things are not so simple as this guy claims.
LikeLike
Let’s clear up a few things. I’m a strict physicalist. The term “human” has become a purely spiritual term, it’s now nothing more than a metaphysical abstraction, sorta like the term “being”.
At least ten years ago I began calling myself an “anti-humanist”. There is no such thing as a “human being”, it is an empty cypher, a metaphysical place-holder signifying nothing real. There is a hugely biologically diverse species known as homo sapiens, of which there are a multitude of types. My grandmother is a far different life-type from my wife. If I had approached my now-wife in the same manner as I approach my grandmother at the family Easter lunch I wouldn’t be nailing hot ass on a 5’9 frame three to four times a day. And, no, these life-types aren’t strictly defined by continent of origin, although there are distinct statistical patterns.
“Human” means nothing to me, so using it will engender nothing but bemused derision. I have met a staggering diversity of people. I have never encountered a human.
On a practical level either you are an ally or a threat. It’s a hard world out there and you need allies cuz’ there are always threats. Note, this is NOT a Manichean view of the world, which is purely metaphysical.
Not sure why you’re laughing at Occam’s Razor. At some point, explanatory variables multiply until all your reasoning is ad hoc, which is what most immature post-modernism boils down to.
Most putative post-modernism is blatantly two-faced:
All cultures are equally good but western culture is really exceptionally bad
All moralities are equally valid but those who differentiate by same and other-sex relations are oppressive
Every moral system is really nothing more than a way to oppress others but our moral system will free you from oppression
It’s nothing more than a hypocritical quest for power, and things like feminism and the civil rights movement are two such manifestations. I don’t care about your quest for power; I just want you to be honest about it.
LikeLike
@sam
Um, no, there are potentially infinite universes of morality. Every type of life begats its own type of morality, and there are as many different moralities as there are different types of life. Life evolved, and continues to evolve, to serve the different needs of different types of life. Which brings me back to …
@brothawolf
Morality is not about some absolute, timeless standard of right and wrong. It is a method of organizing communities into cohesive units, so that tribal members turn their aggressions against outsiders and not in-tribe members. Morality has five distinct categories of motivation
1. Care for others, protecting them from harm.
2. Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
3. Loyalty to your group, family, nation.
4. Respect for tradition and legitimate authority.
5. Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.
The first two promote bond between tribal members, between members inhabiting the same moral universe. The last three are about excluding outsiders, about defining who is NOT in our moral universe so that we can focus on those who ARE in our moral universe. The first two are socialistic, the last two nationalistic. Socialism and nationalism, two sides of the same coin, there cannot be one without the other, and, yes, I know damn well what national socialism means.
@sam (revisited)
What in the world makes me think that someone inhabits the same moral universe as me just because we share the same skin color? The Occupy Wall Street buffoons are “white”, but I assure you that we do not inhabit the same moral universe.
@demerrin
Want to hurt black people? Lulz, silly I just want 90 percent of “black people” to leave me alone. The other 10 percent, extrapolating from my personal experience, are just fine with me. I assure you that most of those 90 percent do not feel the same way, given that they are dependent on the welfare state disproportionately funded by people with skin hue like me. BTW, what’s sorta sad about this whole experience is that probably all of the black people reading this blog are the sort that I would be complete fine with including in my life. As they already are.
@the whole “troll” thing
A troll is usually someone who posts completely inflammatory and off-topic comments to disrupt a conversation, which is decidedly not what I am doing
LikeLike
@demmin
I don’t regard the use of the term “racist” as legitimate any more than I regard the term “ni**er” as legitimate. There main use today is to smear perfectly decent people. “Ni**er” is to 1950 what “racist” is to 2010, both words are pathetic smears. My wife has been raped twice in her life, both times by black men. Not having been raped by black men I don’t share that same faulty, but understandable, prejudice.
That being said, I regard your “people of color coalition” with a far deeper degree of sneering derision than she could ever comprehend. It’s intellectually idiotic. It’s a blathering mish-mash of half-baked pseudo-Freudian psychobabble.
Fun to watch though.
Cheers
LikeLike
@Asher
You said My wife was watching me type this stuff up, and didn’t understand what is meant by “people of color”. When I described it to her, her eyes got really big and then her face screwed up into this exquisitely derisive sneer. What she said was a little, uh, unflattering.
No, she definitely does not consider herself a part of your little “people of color coalition”. I am toning it down. A very demeaning six-letter word was uttered
Then you say I don’t regard the use of the term “racist” as legitimate any more than I regard the term “ni**er” as legitimate. There main use today is to smear perfectly decent people. “Ni**er” is to 1950 what “racist” is to 2010, both words are pathetic smears. My wife has been raped twice in her life, both times by black men. Not having been raped by black men I don’t share that same faulty, but understandable, prejudice
What a horrific thing to have happened to you wife.
I am however confused at what you are trying to convey here. There seems to be HUGE inconsistencies with what you are saying and how it is meant to be interpreted. You talk about ‘legitimacy’ and the derisive use of the ‘N’ word yet you show your disdain for POC in the second part of the first quote (above) part of your little “people of color coalition”. Whats that all about?
Are you really trying to tell us you have come on here to impart your knowledge and give advice when barely scratching beneath the surface, you have revealed yourself as intolerant in the first place?
LikeLike
@Asher
So, yeah, this is a *threat*, and explicitly one, not to any of you, individually, but just as a general warning. From my personal experience and from reading blogs like this one, I have ample evidence that tells me that most black people do not consider me in their moral universe, and, as such, they have no moral obligations to me.
This ‘threat’ that you talk of reads more to me about ‘your’ personal fears rather than a ‘general warning’ about excluding you as a WM from the moral universe of BP. This is a common theme with WP where there are a seeming ‘collective’ of BP talking about issues that matter/are relevant in their lives and the said WP fear that BP are ‘plotting’ something or that someting is ‘afoot’.
I do wonder whether WP fear a massive uprising is just around the corner and the want to quash it by reminding and reiterating where the balance of power is through skewed rationale.
Just out of curiosity how did you come about this website?
LikeLike
I am intolerant of all sorts of stuff. So what. Who isn’t. Tolerance isn’t some timeless, infinite, universal demand. It’s a local immediate, tool for minimizing violence between tribal members. The derision isn’t toward anyone that you want to classify as PoC, a term I consider hilarious as if the defining categorization of everything was PoC/non-PoC. My derision is toward people who want to say that everything is reducible to PoC/nonPoC, a distinction obviously derided by many the readers of this blag would characterize as PoC.
Legitimacy is local, not universal. Same for morality. So, when I say I do not regard what is called the civil rights movement of today as “legitimate” that is a judgment based on what I consider to be desirable in the world. The civil rights movement is, at bottom, a struggle for power, and it views me as a potential object of that power. It wants to impose it’s moral system on me. I don’t blame any moral system for trying to control my life, that’s just what moral system do, that’s just what they are, although it is a declaration of war, and I treat it as such. Consider: Naziism was a moral system. Certainly not *my* moral system, but one, nonetheless. Morality simply comes from the Latin “mores” meaning “customs”, so, morality just happens to be the governing sentiments of any particular population at any point in time.
Okay, take slavery, which was ubiquitous in human history until relatively recently, as another example. Now let’s start from the proposition that”George Washington was, on balance, a moral person”. If you accept that proposition then it follows that one can own slaves and still be a moral person. I accept the first proposition, so i have to accept the second, which I do, also.
Which brings me back to my beef with so called postmodernists, who want to say that everything is relative to some particular moral system but then turn around and judge slavery as some timeless, absolute evil. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Ether morality is always relative, it is, or it is not, in which case you get judged the same way as everyone else.
LikeLike
oops, meant to type “who isnt” not “what isnt”. Everyone is intolerant of all sorts of stuff, it’s just to different things.
And I found this website through zekjevets
LikeLike
^ That explains a few things.
LikeLike
Hi Gen
Gen
^ That explains a few things.
What part are you referring to?
LikeLike
@Asher
The civil rights movement is, at bottom, a struggle for power, and it views me as a potential object of that power. It wants to impose it’s moral system on me. I don’t blame any moral system for trying to control my life, that’s just what moral system do, that’s just what they are, although it is a declaration of war, and I treat it as such.
It seems that I was correct in my suspicions that this is more about your fear and the perceived threat to yourself rather than you coming here to drop’ wisdom/knowledge in a bid to bring something constructive to this discussion
LikeLike
@Demerera
I was referring to the “I’m under attack” victim BS in general being spewed by Asher, especially relating to certain explosive recent events on this blog.
LikeLike
To live is to be threatened. I’ll paraphrase Franz Fannon who noted that the dream of the oppressed is not freedom but to become the oppressor. I don’t “feel” under attack in some sort of emotional, immediate, personal sense, so knock off the psychobabble. And, yes, the civil rights movement is, like all political movements, is about acquiring power. I don’t need to “feel” threatened to make that observation.
LikeLike
There is a world of difference between faulty prejudice and intolerance. The former is likely to produce sub optimal outcomes. What’s always amused me is that “positive” prejudices are every bit as dangerous and “negative” prejudices. Faulty prejudice implies there is such a thing as non-faulty prejudice. I am prejudiced to infer that someone with a swastika tatoo is not likely to be kind to jews, which is a reasonable inference. A faulty prejudice would be inferring that people wearing red shirts are inherently dangerous because I was once attacked by someone with a red shirt.
As for intolerance … I am intolerant of all sorts of stuff, and unashamedly so. I tend to be highly intolerant of demeaning attitudes, UNLESS those attitudes have been earned, e.g. my derisive contempt toward postmodernists. Here’s an example: I am intolerant of psychobabble.
LikeLike
sam said:
I think this asher is just a troll.
Yes indeed. I thought that after the first sentence of its first round of verbal diarrhoea.
They’re almost TOO easy to spot, anymore! 😎
LikeLike
@Asher
To live is to be threatened. I’ll paraphrase Franz Fannon who noted that the dream of the oppressed is not freedom but to become the oppressor. I don’t “feel” under attack in some sort of emotional, immediate, personal sense, so knock off the psychobabble. And, yes, the civil rights movement is, like all political movements, is about acquiring power. I don’t need to “feel” threatened to make that observation.
Yet you have made that observation and you DO feel threatened by the fact that BP are discussing issues that they feel are relevant and important to them. You ARE worried that this means some sort of ‘revolt’ against WP and that scares you.
One thing I will agree with you on is your view of intolerance. I too am intolerant, intolerant to B*llshit like the kind you are spouting on here. As for psychobabble, it is YOU who are posting on here posting with the twisted logic -less ramblings of a mad man which you are trying to pass of as rationale and reasoned thought.
Lastly, I dont waste time trying to psychoanalyse the clearly deluded and narrow minded – I merely say what I see cos they generally dont understand/cant comprehend/dont want to confront the nuances in conversations such as these
LikeLike
LMAO at the expected “blacks are the majority welfare recipients” and “my wife was raped by black men” excuses – I was waiting for those!
@ sam, Matari, brothawolf, Herneith and Deb:
What do you think the next racist trope will be? Any bets? 😀
LikeLike
Trolls, generally, don’t argue for a position. I do. QED. In my experience charges of trolling, if accurate, are redundant. The closest thing to trolling I see here is the commenter who keeps insisting that my comments derive from a personal foible: insecurity. Now, that’s trolling.
Most charges of trolling these days just boil down to “he’s saying stuff I don’t like ergo he’s a troll”. It’s sorta like Orwell’s observation that the term “fascism” had degenerated into “whatever I happen to dislike”. You dislike what I say, ergo, I’m a troll.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
Demerera, do you think people will say they do not share ‘faulty’ prejudices or intolerance themselves – but then go right ahead and afflict others with them regardless?
I knew a couple, lets call him Anton and her Maria who were both deluded/brainwashed in equal measure. There was something that just didnt sit right about the two of them and their views, particularly her who was so disdainful of people that were the same nationality as her but darker despite the fact that due to her physical features, she strongly resembled someone other than white too.I always sensed a discomfort about issues to do with ‘race’ from both where in particular he would voice something and she would agree though I strongly suspect that it was Maria’s difference/diversity that attracted Anton to her in the first place.
In answer to your question, using my example I think she had been suppressed and ridiculed about the differences of ‘her people’ and se responded by adopting this faulty prejudice afflicting it on others as she was trying to get an affinity with Anton whilst distiancing herself from her own people.
Hope it makes sense
LikeLike
Blacks are NOT the majority of welfare recipients. The Welfare State is not reducible to welfare, strictly speaking, e.g. food stamps. It includes public sector employment which is hugely disproportionately black, I believe that over 70 percent of HUD employees are black. The Welfare State is many things and one of them is a massive transfer of social resources from whites, as an aggregate, to blacks, as an aggregate.
Black life would be a mere shadow of what it is today if it weren’t propped by whites, in aggregate. That’s just not debatable. The fact is that whites IN PRACTICE very much consider themselves as having moral obligations to black, that’s how I was raised, and blacks objectively benefit from such moral sentiments. It is just brute reality regardless of whether or not blacks choose to acknowledge it.
Let’s start from the current state of affairs. The brute reality is that the vast majority of whites consider themselves as having some notion of moral obligation to blacks, generally. Now, let’s do a little thought experiment: picture some randomly chosen black person selected from the general population in the US. Now imagine that tomorrow every single white person has an abrupt change of sentiments, suddenly regarding themselves as having absolutely no moral obligations to black people. How would that sudden change of sentiments affect that randomly selected black person’s life?
It would almost certainly suddenly get much, much, MUCH worse for that particular black person. Black people, in aggregate, derive a great deal of objective benefit from the moral sentiments of white people, and a change in those sentiments would be a disaster for black people.
That’s just reality. I know it. You know it. And damn well everyone knows it .. although lotsa folks be lying about that.
LikeLike
There are reasonable prejudices and unreasonable ones. The observation that “it is not safe for a woman to climb into a hottub and drink heavily with four men she just met” is a prejudice. It is a reasonable one.
Anyways, the only reason I brought up the personal anecdote of my wife is that it highlights the idiocy of the whole “us people of color gotta stick together” tripe. I remember reading about research into social trust in business settings which was broken down into many aspects and relationships, and one such categorization was “race”.
Hispanics were much more likely to trust whites in a business setting than blacks and this was stable over considerable periods of time.
Okay, boys and girls time for Occam’s Razor, again. What is the simplest, and best, explanation for Hispanics sustained preference for trusting whites, on average, over blacks. Well, it’s because whites are, on average, more trustworthy than blacks. Over time, aggregates have an almost unerring tendency to correct for negative outcomes regardless of what any one particular individual may feel – there’s a great book on this phenomenon called the wisdom of crowds. Aside: there’s a story about someone who had a very large container filled with gumballs. Over the course of many estimates by random passers-by the average of the estimates were remarkably close to the real number of gumballs.
Anyways, the brutally obvious explanation that blacks are ON AVERAGE less trustworthy than whites does not negate taht there are plenty of wonderfully trustworthy blacks and plenty of completely retrograde whites.
LikeLike
Asher,
All we’ve heard is your rants about moral obligations, privileges, and bringing up how your wife was raped twice by black men. For some reason, I don’t by the last one. However…
What does any of this have to do with quoting MLK?
LikeLike
@asher: “To live is to be threatened.”
Well, you may think so if you live in fear. Me, I have no fear. I walk where ever I want, when ever I want. You see, living in fear, like you do, is set yourself into a prison of your mind where you get isolated and start to hallucinate the stuff you keep babbling about.
In honesty, you sound a lot like that scumbag who killed those kids in Norway. He also believed that only he knew what was going on and felt threatened. He also did not believe in humanity, just like you. I think you should get some help soon, because you do not seem to be feeling well.
I can tell you from my own experience that living without fear is very liberating. Once you stop believing that somebody out there is about to harm you, the whole life opens up. Sure, you may get into situations which call for self protection of sorts, but you don’t have to be so scared as you seem to be all the time.
As for a morality or moral in general, you seem to be very immoral guy to me. You know, you sound a lot like any ole fascist I have met in my life time, or some neo nazis I have met. And, surprise surprise, they too live in fear of something, whatever actually, just like you. See? Fear is not healthy.
And really, what this babbling of yours has to do with the MLK?
LikeLike
@ Asher:
I agree with the last two commenters: I am not seeing what this has to do with the post. Either bring it back on topic or go to the Open Thread:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/open-thread/
Otherwise I will start deleting new off-topic comments. You have gone on more than long enough.
LikeLike
Morality IS reciprocal. Always. When I encounter PoC-coalition types I see absolutely no acknowledgment of this. Most White people, have clearly integrated MLK into their various brands of the American mythos. That’s why they quote MLK. Admiration for MLK as a great moral leader is something with which they identify, which is why they quote him in the first place. When someone tells me that I “ought” not to quote MLK they are attempting to impose their moral understanding of the world on me, but I never see this accompanied by a reciprocal consideration. It’s just a demand for submission, the implication being that blacks are the absolute moral arbiters of what is moral and immoral for whites to do. A demand for “justice” is really just a play for power UNLESS it is accompanied by reciprocal considerations.
And it actually undermines the possibility of humble, local, (not universal) justice, the type that makes people generally decent and considerate to each other on a practical, personal level.
Anyone who begins with a “the world ought to look like such and such” and then attempts to impose it as a universal moral order is going to be aggressively opposed by me.
Anyways, concepts like morality, privilege, etc. are really pretty simple. Morality is a practical tool to keep members of the same tribe from fighting, at least as much as possible. Privilege is simply having access to stuff that someone else doesn’t. That’s it. “White privilege” is a metaphysical sleigh-of-hand, and is an intellectually dishonest attempt to exempt racial discussions from empirical investigation and the hypothesis-evidence dialectic. I gave specific evidence of black privilege, that when an individual can “pass” as black they tend to do so. There was a pretty prominent court(?) case from several years ago where a right white couple adopted a mixed-race boy at a very early age. When he applied for college his dad got his DNA tested and it turned out he had something like 7 percent ancestry from north africa. That qualified him as “african” for admissions purposes.
There are all kinds of privileges. There is no “Privilege”. That is just an intellectually dishonest attempt to avoid having to argue from empirical evidence. yeah, feminists, there are privileges to being male, but there is no “Male Privilege”. There are also privileges to being female. There are also privileges to being black and the evidence for it is blatantly obvious. Anyone who denies this is just intellectually dishonest..
Back to MLK. People identify themselves by their moral vision of the world and they tend to quote sources they find morally authoritative. This is why they quote the Bible. This is why they quote MLK. If someone isn’t allowed to quote some source then it’s pretty difficult to expect that they will continue to view it as morally authoritative. Telling white people they can’t quote MLK is just an attempted assertion of black privilege.
LikeLike
Not sure what you mean by “living in fear”. You are confusing a subjective emotional state and objective reality. I don’t “feel” fear in most of my immediate experience. Here, try this: quit paying your taxes and see what happens. The fact that you don’t “fear” the government has no bearing on whether or not you would go to prison for tax evasion. Your reduction of my comments to personal emotional states is just … weird.
Anyways my objection to the initial post was that it oozed with moralizing without acknowledging the reciprocal nature of practical morality. When I read posts like this all I hear is “we don’t owe white folk nuttin’.”.
Fine, but then you’re going to create a situation where white folk are going to conclude that they don’t owe you anything either. Basically, it’s pointing out that one is asking for “justice” and “morality” without acknowledging that there is no justice and morality without reciprocity and I see no recognition of the need for reciprocity. All I hear is “gimme dat”
LikeLike
Nonsense, clearly black people owe it to white people to get in great numbers reasonably payed jobs in tax gathering, if you ask me.
LikeLike
@Asher
“My wife was watching me type this stuff up, and didn’t understand what is meant by “people of color”. When I described it to her, her eyes got really big and then her face screwed up into this exquisitely derisive sneer. What she said was a little, uh, unflattering.
No, she definitely does not consider herself a part of your little “people of color coalition”.
Dearest Asher,
don’t you see? your wife is practicing reciprocity. Some just think it’s to high a price to pay. 🙂
LikeLike
Interesting post! I do agree that some people seem to gloss over the actual meaning of MLK Jr’s content of character phrase. I always used the definition of “character” as an “essential quality. It’s something you can’t see, it’s just who a person is on the inside. So without getting to really know a person you could never know that person’s character. Even after knowing someone for a long time, you might not know that person’s character (ex: Husband who molests a child–his wife probably thought she knew him). I do think the phrase is used repeatedly without people saying which definintion of character they use. People will always judge by outside appearances (not character) no matter how advanced they think they are. It’s fitting that the judging by character quote is in the “I have a Dream” Speech because I believe that’s all it is–a dream that will never be reality.
LikeLike
@Bulanik and all
What is bypassed is that both men, at their most developed and mature thinking, were poised to unite the 2 tendencies, moderate and radical. Different in method, agreed on outcome – scary indeed. They had to be eliminated. Not just their living, breathing flesh – no – that’s not enough – but elimination by reduction into simplistic, manipulable soundbites.
A long long time ago I read the book entitled ‘To Kill a Black Man’ by Louis E Lomax which looks at the parallels in the lives of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. I was surprised at how comparable their ultimate goals were and I think that you put it aptly when you say that whilst their approach was different their desired outcome was the same.
Its also quite telling that as a child we only briefly touched on Civil Rights and in particular Martin Luther King but no other black history or people of note. I dont even remember talking about slavery, at the time the only information I had was that from what i’d heard from relatives etc or seen on tv i.e. Roots. Now, Black History Month is celebrated in most schools and certainly my children and their peers are much more aware of Black history via their academic teaching.
When I think of things like this, it always brings to mind the line sang by Stevie Wonder in Gary Byrd and the GB experiences ‘The Crown’
“Because there was no mention in the books we read about our heritage..”
Has this changed in the US? I understand you celebrate MLK day but are the teachings at general school level encompassing Black history into their curriculums?
LikeLike
@ Asher
Not to go off topic, but despite your earlier denial, I do believe you’re a troll. Recently you said this…
But yet, here, you plainly say that Black Privilege exists:
You just contradicted yourself, and indeed placed yourself back into suspected “Troll Status”. Despite your ridiculously long winded rants, which are nothing more than an attempt to come off as brilliant, you still come off as an “Intellectual Paper Tiger” when you make slip ups like this, I’m afraid.
LikeLike
um, notice the very distinct differentiation between White Privilege and white privilege and Black Privilege and black privilege. the lack of pluralizing black privileges doesn’t change the distinction of privileges as a part of mundane reality and the metaphysical Privilege.
Glad we could clear that up for ya. There are all sorts of distinct privileges that accue to someone solely by the color of their skin, thus, black privilege or black privileges, if you prefer. This does not imply a metaphysical Black Privilege. The claim that only black people get to interpret what MLK means in his speeches is an assertion of a black privilege (empirical, non-metaphysical).
The claim of White Privilege is that there is an underlying metaphysical essence that dictates all of reality. I clearly was NOT using the term black privilege in that manner, as I was referencing particularly named privileges, which I specifically ennumerated.
LikeLike
@asher: Well, just couple years ago I wrote in the biggest daily news paper of this country that I considered the government and the parliament both be organised crime based on the EU definitions. At the same time our prime minister took a woman to the court because she dared to write a book about their romance. The woman was convicted as was the publisher. They were also censured. Nobody said a thing to me, not publicly or privately, no police showed on my door, my writing can still be found in the Net etc.
Thing is, at no time I was feeling affraid or scared or threatened. I spoke out. See, prison does not scare me, nor does the police or courts. Nor the prime minister, or our president, or secret police or any lawyer etc. That is how it is when you do not feel threatened. You are free to speak and think and do things in your life without the fear and the control it brings into your life.
MLK did not let fear control him. He spoke out. Perhaps he was scared sometimes, shaken, but he did not let it take control of his life. He did not live in fear. He did not fear the government like you suggested in your tax example that we should. He was just a man, but a man who did not let his fears over come him. A big lesson to all of us.
LikeLike
“The claim that only black people get to interpret what MLK means in his speeches is an assertion of a black privilege (empirical, non-metaphysical).”
Wait a minute! I don’t think anyone here said that only black people get to interpret what MLK means in his speeches. This topic is about how people, who happen to be mostly white, use MLK to justify or excuse racism. Most white Americans misquote, misinterpret, and misunderstand (purposely or without thinking) what MLK was trying to tell America. Anyone who has a profound understanding of who this man was, what he said, and what he fought against would know better no matter what race that person is. It just so happens many whites get it wrong to hide behind the continuous bullshit against POC.
LikeLike
Yeah, don’t have the right to do that. All kinds of people count on me for all sorts of things. It would selfish and pointless for me to go to prison for “my beliefs”, whatever that even means. I’d also point out that MLK was getting hot tail due to his social status as a prestigious political leader, so, who can really say what his real motivations were. Was King in any real danger? I kinda doubt it.
Also, I am curious about what you think your piece in that prestigious paper accomplished. Did it change anything? I mean if you were really making waves, and the government were as corrupt as you claim, don’t you think they would have shut you down? Sorry, but the very fact that you’re walking around without a care indicates that your piece was just another keyboard jockey running off another internet comment. Fine, that can be diverting but it has zero impact on the course of history.
Sorry if that sounds harsh.
LikeLike
@brothawolf
“Anyone who has a profound understanding of who this man was, what he said, and what he fought against would know better no matter what race that person is.”
What you give with one hand you take with the other. My guess is that a “profound understanding of what MLK stood for” is going to strongly correlate with race and ideology. I actually interpret MLK in roughly the same way as PoC-coalition/ideology types interpret him. I also think that this reduces MLK to the level of Al Sharpton. The MLK that you revere is one I consider a hustling buffoon.
As to excusing “racism” … see my comment above. “Racist” pretty much just signifies that someone white recently disagreed with a PoC on something. That’s pretty much its functional value these days. Since I don’t regard disagreeing with a PoC as inherently evil, the term “racism” is pretty much gonna get nothing more than an “eh, whatever” from me. And that is pretty much what I’m seeing living in hyper-liberal Seattle. “Racism? Eh, whatever.” If your moral order does not present someone with a fairly clear and unambiguous way to attain the distinction of “good person”, then you’re not going to have many people buying into your moral judgments.
LikeLike
No. Speaking for myself, when I call a white person a racist, I do so out of pent-up frustration, you know the kind that you know you’re a POC in a white dominated society and that said society don’t want to hear it? Nowadays, I call out their comments racist if they are indeed racially offensive. I don’t call them racist unless they continue their dribble. That’s when I call them as I see them.
I can respect whites disagreeing with me. What I don’t respect is hearing the same shit all the time as responses. I don’t respect having the script flipped where they pass the blame onto me. I don’t respect being told that it’s no big deal. I don’t respect white people who tell me that it’s genetics or some crap. I don’t respect being told over and over again how my people are responsible for most of the crime in this uncivilized society. I do not respect being acknowledged for my mistakes and sins and are ignored for my accomplishments and talents. I do not respect being referred to as a typical angry black man as if I have no reason to be angry. And, I don’t respect being told in some way or another that I don’t know my own experience but a white man or woman does.
MLK also stood against economic and social injustice, the same injustice that goes on today. It was not just about race and idealogy…How do you interpret MLK if you say you roughly do it the same way as us POC members do?…The MLK I revere is a hustling buffoon? You know, I could say that John F. Kennedy was a womanizing playboy. I could say J. Edgar Hoover was a bully with power. I could say that Richard M. Nixon was indeed a crook. I could say Gerald Fold was clumsy as hell. But back to the subject at hand, how is MLK a hustling buffoon in your mind?
LikeLike
@ Asher
Bull! You didn’t preemptively hint anywhere, that there was a difference between the two based on capitalization. That’s a weak attempt at covering your tail, because no one else (to my knowledge, that’s credible) uses that “rule” of yours when talking about privilege. So in a manner that is more laughable than the semantics you’re prone to using, don’t try to save face and backpedal now because someone pointed out again, that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
And your “Racist Just Means Disagreement!” meme is just the most recent and disingenuous white attempt at excusing bigotry. It’s made by those whites who like to pretend that they aren’t being racist, by dishonestly conflating disagreement with some unfounded hyperbole infused accusation. All so they protect their position by going into “Persecuted Martyr Mode”, and shifting everyone’s focus on those the white is talking about. It’s nothing more than one of the new “Race Cards” that, once applied by bigoted whites, continuously (for the length of the conversation) shields their more blatant ignorance from any sort of scrutiny. Not to mention erases raising the question for their real motivation behind expressing such ignorance.
(It’s a technique that doesn’t really work, despite how eloquently they make sure said ignorance is expressed and how professionally they make sure it’s presented.)
LikeLike
@ Franklin
NICE!!
“And your “Racist Just Means Disagreement!” meme is just the most recent and disingenuous white attempt at excusing bigotry. It’s made by those whites who like to pretend that they aren’t being racist, by dishonestly conflating disagreement with some unfounded hyperbole infused accusation. All so they protect their position by going into “Persecuted Martyr Mode”, and shifting everyone’s focus on those the white is talking about. ”
*************************************************
I think Asher believed that none of us could see the B/S he tried to mask in an avalanche of words, sort of like the way a baby believes she/he is hidden from view while covering his/her eyes. Much to his chagrin, that didn’t happen! Now if he’d just pack his (unpacked) bags of b/s and go home (or back to Zek’s place) before he totally wears out his (derailing) welcome.
I’m certain there’s hundreds or thousands of other equally clueless GUESTS waiting anxiously in the wings wanting to make their “insightful,” “original,” never before heard, racist presentations (regarding MLK’s quotes – or whatever) known to us po’ little people. So be polite Asher. Step aside and make room for some of your other troll buddies.
….
LikeLike
@asher: “Was King in any real danger? I kinda doubt it.”
He was arrested, beaten, threatened numerous times, quite openly hated by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, the KKK and then some, as well as an open enemy of organised crime, and you doubt he was in danger?
He was murdered, you know. He was shot. That kind of makes your doubt in very much doubt.
LikeLike
@ Asher
White people have brains. They are fully capable of understanding MLK and quoting him properly. Some do. But many do not. Instead they water him down and then use his words to defend racism. White Americans, as a whole, have sanitized MLK (and demonized Malcolm X) to protect their white supremacist world.
LikeLike
“White Americans, as a whole, have sanitized MLK (and demonized Malcolm X) to protect their white supremacist world.”
BRAVO!!!!
LikeLike
Abagond:
In what way does a white person reciting the King quote about hoping one day children will be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin “defend racism”?
This criticism appears to be in the form of doublethink.
LikeLike
@Asher
….but it has zero impact on the course of history. Sorry if that sounds harsh
Bearing in mind the subject matter here – that of Martin Luther King, would you agree that he had an impact on the course of history in a positive sense? Do you see that overall his intention was not to promote an encompassing, united US moving forward? And that to deal with a problem you HAVE to tackle the cause and that oftentimes this is going to unearth things that people would rather ignore or leave buried?
I must state here I am not talking about speculative, garralous gossip about how he conducted himself on a personal level. I am talking about what he did for mankind. You surely can’t argue that there isnt a legacy here – the core of which has contributed to the breaking down of many unfair laws which subjugated those in the US without a voice.
LikeLike
@Franklin
Are you eff’ing kidding me? You’re not familiar with the near universal practice of capitalizing White/Straight/Male (insert your favorite group, with caps) Privilege narrative? Jesus, what is this, sixth grade? Yeah, it’s standard practice to capitalize those. I think it started with feminism. The standard meme is that there is a universal underlying Male Privilege that metaphysically permeates every nook and cranny of being and sublimates and bends the feminine to itself, so that the male is self-determined and the female is other (male)-determined.
Same for White Privilege. White Privilege is an underlying metaphysical essence of being and makes whites self-determining and PoC other-determined. At least get on the playing field bro’, cuz’ you’re lacking even a passing understanding of the basics. I guess I was assuming a basic understanding of the drivel you’d get in some diversity class in freshman year. Sorry, for extending you that courtesy.
Are there white privileges? Yep, you bet. White Privilege. Uh, no.
LikeLike
@Demerera
I really don’t think MLK had much long-term impact at all. Segregation was already inevitably doomed by the impending repeal of anti-miscegenation laws. Oh, you didn’t know that? Yeah, segregation and Jim Crow existed for one reason: to keep black men from having sex with white women, that’s all. No, complex metaphysical “White Supremacy”, just good old empirically-based biologically-driven male versus male sex competition. Since the purpose for segregation was doomed, segregation was doomed.
If MLK had suffered some childhood accident resulting in early death the world would today would look pretty much like it does.
LikeLike
@brothawolf
I tend to think that anyone who talks about “economic and social injustice” without specifically determining who is in-tribe versus who is out-tribe is a hustling buffoon. The concepts of fairness and equality are organizing principles that promote in-group cohesion while at the same time excluding outsiders from those considerations of justice. I’m sure that there black people I would consider part of my tribe, although I doubt I’d consider most of the posters here as such. From what I know about MLK, I would not consider him a part of my tribe.
Morality and justice are not universal systems of right and wrong. They are organizing tools to promote in-group cohesion. So, if you’re going to talk to me about social and economic justice, then you first need to justify to me that you are a part of my tribe. If you can’t do that then you are trying to hustle me.
LikeLike
@ Franklin:
* Applauds *
Well done! 😎
LikeLike
@Asher
So, do you think the civil rights movement would have been more ‘succesful’ if instead of trying to integrate , it should instead have been about ‘demanding respect due for free human beings’ as expressed by Professor Farley. He then goes on to say ‘whats the value in begging for the right to spend money in a store owned by a racist who would rather kill you than serve you’?
Segregation was already inevitably doomed by the impending repeal of anti-miscegenation laws. Oh, you didn’t know that?
I think we are ALL patently aware of how the ‘ruling majority’ of this time abused their authority/status/perceived superiority to molest, rape, and abuse and cross racial lines for centuries resulting in miscegenation of the races.
LikeLike
Where do you get the idea that white men raping black women was commonplace under slavery? Maybe it was, but I haven’t looked much into it. White men raping black women is virtually nonexistent today, the last year I heard about under 15 black women were raped by white men, and since FBI statistics do not distinguish between white and hispanic in the perpetrator category, although they do in the victim category, it is conceivable that there are zero rapes of black women by white men in some years.
Black male rape of poor white females, on the other hand, was really common. Why? Because strong male slaves were expensive and more valuable to the rich, white ruling class than were poor white females.
As for “due respect as a free human being”? Meh, overrated. I’ve been disrespected enough in my life to know what it’s like. I’m short. Young women really prefer tall men as sex partners and, so, I received a good amount of disrespect for my height at younger ages. And if respect is all you’re looking for then I’m it, in trumps. I guaran-damn-tee you that I am personally more respectful of black folk than 99 percent of black folk. Actually, from my observation, white people are, generally, more respectful of black people than black people are of black people.
So, if respect is your measure then we’ve already arrived.
LikeLike
Asher is clearly a troll. He is not being serious. I would not waste your breath on him. Life is too short to court fools.
LikeLike
@ Randy:
There is nothing wrong with King’s quote in itself. It is the way many white people use it:
The quote is read this way:
1. General statements about whites = judging whites by the colour of their skin
2. Judging whites as individuals = judging whites by the content of their character
Since most statements about white racism fall under #1, the quote is used to cast them as racist. “You are the racist one!”, “You are keeping racism alive!” It has become a common way for whites to put their racism beyond discussion.
LikeLike
@abagond
Asher is clearly a troll. He is not being serious. I would not waste your breath on him. Life is too short to court fools.
I agree. I suspected it from the get go and knew that he would expose himself eventually. Sensing he feels emasculated and is trying to blame BM/BP for this.
LikeLike
Haven’t read the comments, but pretty much all the best leaders get rhetorically hijacked like this. I’ve seen people ty this garbage with Ghandi, Mandela, pretty much any church father, and even Christ himself.
LikeLike
@ Asher
Yes, Asher. Capitalizing letters is a concept that any English speaker is familiar with. Trying to attach your personal own made rules to tweak what has already been established, while trying to convey that “it’s always been that way”, is just a clever attempt at lying. Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t work on anyone who is smarter than you. Which is safe to assume is anyone outside of those that share your stupid semtiments. Sentiments that have had numerous holes poked in them by various posters here.
@Abagond
Hurry up and ban this moron so he can whine on his White Racism Apologist Blogs that he “Went Down Like a True Hero!” because “he tried to have a conversation here, but you unjustly banned him!”. All so he have his stupidity validated by his simpelton peers. He's not interested in being anything other than antagonistic. Even Randy is more honest (although marginally) than this fool. Heck, look at how he's acting on Zek's blog…
http://zekjevets.blogspot.com/2011/10/positive-white-identity.html
LikeLike
I’ve learned a lesson here. Trolls who make themselves sound intellectually superior will end up looking more foolish. I’m not even going to get into it with Asher because, once again, he tries to veer away from the topic into nonsense about black male rape, how women treated him poorly, and how he treats blacks better than blacks. None of those have anything to do with Dr. King’s quote or the tendency to misquote and misinterpret them.
Asher, sounds about as intelligent as Unamused, seems as humble as G.L. Piggy, and appears as charming as No Slapps.
Louie,
I’ve seen the same thing too, and it all stems from their self-interest of avoid any and all accountability and responsibility. It truly is sad when you think about it.
LikeLike
Here’s a diary from DK entitled “Most of you have no idea what Martin Luther King actually did,” written by HamdenRiceFollow, that might be enlightening to some and/or merely affirming to others
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/29/1011562/-Most-of-you-have-no-idea-what-Martin-Luther-King-actually-did
LikeLike
Abagond:
That’s a fair point.
However, if regular black folks feel justified to bristle at the association of them with their worst-behaving fraction (such as the Memorial Day rioters and larcenous flash mobbers) shouldn’t regular white folks feel similarly entitled to bristle at the association of them with their own worst-behaving fraction?
LikeLike
“shouldn’t regular white folks feel similarly entitled to bristle at the association of them with their own worst-behaving fraction?”
The MAjORITY of White people engaging in systematic racism to defend white supremacy and SOME Black people engaging in criminal activity are not equal actions nor do they produce the same outcomes….
Please try again….
LikeLike
I agree: racism is vastly more common among whites than crime among blacks. MOST whites ARE racist. It is more than just the Klan, but most whites do not see that because racism has been NORMALIZED among them.
LikeLike
“Asher, sounds about as intelligent as Unamused, seems as humble as G.L. Piggy, and appears as charming as No Slapps.”
LOL !!
🙂
.. and was as endearing as Zek!
LikeLike
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAGIbhdj5d8)
LikeLike
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
Which still can be said fifty years later.
LikeLike
By the way, don’t forget that MLK was very charismatic in his appearance.
Last week I found an article on great orators. In the article, a picture of Martin Luther King was lined up with those of John F. Kennedy, Haile Selassie, Winston Churchill, Margeret Thatcher and Joseph Goebbels.
I asked my six-year-old daughter who she thought was the friendliest of them. Without any knowledge of who the portrayed persons were, she pointed her finger at King’s picture.
By the way, according to her, Churchill ended last because of his ‘evil smile.’
LikeLike
White people whitesplaining MLK to his son:
LikeLike