Globalizing King's Legacy

[dilloduck]

The utopia he wanted to lead people to was a land of equality. Having all races equal benefits all races, and betters them all. You're quibbling over the fact that more focus had to be placed upon blacks in order to accomplish it. Did raising blacks up to a level that allowed them to compete better society?

Having a hard proving he was trying to help any race but the black race, huh?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Having a hard proving he was trying to help any race but the black race, huh?

Not at all. Answer the question.

 

[dilloduck]

Not at all. Answer the question.

Quibbling?? Your the one trying to prove his agenda was Utopia for all races and then have the gall to accuse me of being a racist after you attempt to rewrite history.
Who really knows who all truly benfitted from his life's work? He was trying to help the black race. Hell, ask a black what trace he was trying to help. When they say "black", you tell them they they are mistaken.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Quibbling?? Your the one trying to prove his agenda was Utopia for all races and then have the gall to accuse me of being a racist after you attempt to rewrite history.
Who really knows who all truly benfitted from his life's work? He was trying to help the black race. Hell, ask a black what trace he was trying to help. When they say "black", you tell them they they are mistaken.

Does equalling the playing field for all races better society? It's a simple question. You dance around it because it will either label you a racist, or prove I'm right.

 

[dilloduck]

Does equalling the playing field for all races better society? It's a simple question. You dance around it because it will either label you a racist, or prove I'm right.

You think you can alter the question enough to dodge the point you were trying to prove earlier in this thread?

Equalizing the playing field---you mean like socialism ? Take from the haves and give to the have-nots?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You think you can alter the question enough to dodge the point you were trying to prove earlier in this thread?

Equalizing the playing field---you mean like socialism ? Take from the haves and give to the have-nots?

You think you can dodge long enough to make it appear irrelevant? Maybe I should start a tally.

Equalizing the playing field, so that all have equal opportunity to success. Not socialism. Not redistribution of wealth.

 

[dilloduck]

You think you can dodge long enough to make it appear irrelevant? Maybe I should start a tally.

Equalizing the playing field, so that all have equal opportunity to success. Not socialism. Not redistribution of wealth.

Did MLK try to obtain equal rights for everyone or did he try to obtain equal rights for blacks ? Did he run around telling other races that the "playing field" was for thier own good?

Does equalling the playing field for all races better society?

Did raising blacks up to a level that allowed them to compete better society?

You're running away from this what-were-the-reasons-black-lagged-behind-whites-in-the-50's-and-60's question with great speed.

(I tallied some of the numerous questions you have asked me for ya)
I'll accept an answer to my question in bold which will remain constant.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Did MLK try to obtain equal rights for everyone or did he try to obtain equal rights for blacks ? Did he run around telling other races that the "playing field" was for thier own good?







(I tallied some of the numerous questions you have asked me for ya)
I'll accept an answer to my question in bold which will remain constant.

He fought for equal rights for blacks because they were the single most glaring example of inequity in the country. You're trivializing the legacy of his work because he didn't find some white inequity cause to champion. Tell me, who else should he have championed during that time period? Overwhelmingly, blacks were the most discriminated group in the 60's. The argument could possibly be made that they were the only race denied access to equal opportunity for success. If that is remedied, then the playing field is equal for all. He wanted everyone to be equal. Malcolm wanted his own nation for blacks only. Your argument is based soley on convenience: MLK focused on the plight of blacks, so therefore he was only interested in blacks.

You avoid answering a question in the hopes that I'll step on my own foot and fall. You're hoping I'll say I want income redistribution. You're hoping that I'll slip up, and it's not going to happen. Answer the question: Is leveling the playing field (in the utmost Republican definition of level playing field) better society?

I've asked you question after question (the last of which you've still, after 4 posts, left unanswered) because you're tightrope walking around being a racist. I'll believe you if you say you're not, but your posts lead to another conclusion.

At this point, I don't much care either way. You wanna live your life thinking MLK was just some leader only interested in black folk, go ahead.

 

[dilloduck]

He fought for equal rights for blacks because they were the single most glaring example of inequity in the country. You're trivializing the legacy of his work because he didn't find some white inequity cause to champion. Tell me, who else should he have championed during that time period? Overwhelmingly, blacks were the most discriminated group in the 60's. The argument could possibly be made that they were the only race denied access to equal opportunity for success. If that is remedied, then the playing field is equal for all. He wanted everyone to be equal. Malcolm wanted his own nation for blacks only. Your argument is based soley on convenience: MLK focused on the plight of blacks, so therefore he was only interested in blacks.

You avoid answering a question in the hopes that I'll step on my own foot and fall. You're hoping I'll say I want income redistribution. You're hoping that I'll slip up, and it's not going to happen. Answer the question: Is leveling the playing field (in the utmost Republican definition of level playing field) better society?

I've asked you question after question (the last of which you've still, after 4 posts, left unanswered) because you're tightrope walking around being a racist. I'll believe you if you say you're not, but your posts lead to another conclusion.

At this point, I don't much care either way. You wanna live your life thinking MLK was just some leader only interested in black folk, go ahead.

Dude, I am NOT trivializing what the man did or the goals he had for black people. Your right, it was natural for him to fight for the rights of negroes and just because he was one DOESN'T make it a trivial or selfish act but if you tried to tell me that Jim Bowie was fighting for every living American at the Alamo, I would tell you that you're full of shit too.

I honestly do not know if society is better due to MLKs efforts. I hear blacks today saying that we haven't progressed a bit and discrimination is just as bad as it ever was. I THINK it might be better but affirmative action, welfare, etc makes me wonder if the right actions were taken and his words were really heeded.

Yes, I will continue to believe that he was tall man in history who made tremendous sacrifices for his people ( or ya --as you like to put it--he was just a leader who cared about black folks )

(If you tried to argue that the negreos were the ONLY race that needed a champion at that time, some Indian outta scalp your sorry ass) :halo:

 

[manu1959]

He fought for equal rights for blacks because they were the single most glaring example of inequity in the country.

no doubt blaks were treated poorly and to a certain extent still are no doubt mlk helped them......however the theft of a country, the near complete genocide of a race of people and the enslavement or imprisonment of the rest is at least a close second

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Dude, I am NOT trivializing what the man did or the goals he had for black people. Your right, it was natural for him to fight for the rights of negroes and just because he was one DOESN'T make it a trivial or selfish act but if you tried to tell me that Jim Bowie was fighting for every living American at the Alamo, I would tell you that you're full of shit too.

I honestly do not know if society is better due to MLKs efforts. I hear blacks today saying that we haven't progressed a bit and discrimination is just as bad as it ever was. I THINK it might be better but affirmative action, welfare, etc makes me wonder if the right actions were taken and his words were really heeded.

Yes, I will continue to believe that he was tall man in history who made tremendous sacrifices for his people ( or ya --as you like to put it--he was just a leader who cared about black folks )

(If you tried to argue that the negreos were the ONLY race that needed a champion at that time, some Indian outta scalp your sorry ass) :halo:

Whether or not his message was accurately understood and implemented is an entirely different story altogether; one which you and I would probably agree more on. I believe MLK yearned for equality for all. From what I can tell, you believe he was only concerned with blacks. It's the crux of our disagreement, and clearly it will take more than what's been presented to convince each other otherwise.

 

[dilloduck]

Whether or not his message was accurately understood and implemented is an entirely different story altogether; one which you and I would probably agree more on. I believe MLK yearned for equality for all. From what I can tell, you believe he was only concerned with blacks. It's the crux of our disagreement, and clearly it will take more than what's been presented to convince each other otherwise.

You bich about me not answering your question.

Does equalling the playing field for all races better society?

I attempt to answer it and now you tell me that's an entirely different story. You've called me every racist word in the book and accused me of belonging to some "camp" of bigots---ALL because my claim is that MLK focused his efforts on blacks. You can find no evidence to the contrary but continue to run around yelling "bigot" like a chicken with its' head cut off. MLK may have "yearned" for a lot of things but what he actually DID was work to improve the lives of blacks. You seem to think as if that is just a small selfish act. I happen to think it was a noble sacrifice.
Come by my Red Cross chapter and call me a bigot---you'll be laughed out of the place.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You bich about me not answering your question.

I attempt to answer it and now you tell me that's an entirely different story. You've called me every racist word in the book and accused me of belonging to some "camp" of bigots---ALL because my claim is that MLK focused his efforts on blacks. You can find no evidence to the contrary but continue to run around yelling "bigot" like a chicken with its' head cut off. MLK may have "yearned" for a lot of things but what he actually DID was work to improve the lives of blacks. You seem to think as if that is just a small selfish act. I happen to think it was a noble sacrifice.
Come by my Red Cross chapter and call me a bigot---you'll be laughed out of the place.

MLK wanted to equal the playing field so all have equal access to opportunity. That message is abused today. You continue to blur the line between MLK's work and the bastardization of it that has occured in his name since his assasination.

You're right. What he ACTUALLY DID, physically, was empower blacks. He also led and inspired the civil rights movement and made everyone think twice about equality. You focus on the former, I, on the latter.

Here's a comparative, extremely simplified situation: Joe went to a restaurant and bought his family a meal for $100 instead of just eating at home for $20. Here's the difference in our position:

You think Joe just bought his family a meal to feed his family, and feeding your family is an honorable and respectable thing to do.

I think Joe just bought his family a meal to feed his family, and feeding your family is an honorable and respectable thing to do. I also think Joe, by going out to eat instead of staying at home, supported the economy and encouraged the prosperity of the country.

Your position isn't wrong; it's just oversimplified. You think my position is either naive or over-complimentary.

As for you being a bigot, I already said I'd believe you if you said it wasn't true. Your posting had led me to believe otherwise, but you claim you're not, and I don't know you well enough to make the judgment, so I'll default to believing you. You're not a bigot. You're not a racist. Got it.

 

[GotZoom]

Here's a comparative situation: Joe went to a restaurant and bought his family a meal for $100 instead of just eating at home for $20. Here's the difference in our position:

You think Joe just bought his family a meal to feed his family, and feeding your family is an honorable and respectable thing to do.

I think Joe just bought his family a meal to feed his family, and feeding your family is an honorable and respectable thing to do. I also think Joe, by going out to eat instead of staying at home, supported the economy and encouraged the prosperity of the country.

What has happened to "your" (MLK) is that there are too many people making money off bitching that the restaurant never should have charged $100.00 in the first place. In fact, that restaurant charged $100.00 because they are trying to keep black people out of the restaurant. That the true problem is that many blacks can't afford to spend $100.00 on dining out so the restaurant should either lower the prices for blacks (and if they don't - or the restaurant doesn't put ME on their board of directors, I will call for blacks to boycott the restaurant), or have the government give the blacks extra money so they can afford to eat a $100.00 meal.

If MLK was speaking out today, calling for ALL races to be equal, he would be labed an oreo and have both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton calling for "their people" to ignore the message.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

What has happened to "your" (MLK) is that there are too many people making money off bitching that the restaurant never should have charged $100.00 in the first place. In fact, that restaurant charged $100.00 because they are trying to keep black people out of the restaurant. That the true problem is that many blacks can't afford to spend $100.00 on dining out so the restaurant should either lower the prices for blacks (and if they don't - or the restaurant doesn't put ME on their board of directors, I will call for blacks to boycott the restaurant), or have the government give the blacks extra money so they can afford to eat a $100.00 meal.

If MLK was speaking out today, calling for ALL races to be equal, he would be labed an oreo and have both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton calling for "their people" to ignore the message.

I don't disagree whatsoever.

 

[dilloduck]

MLK wanted to equal the playing field so all have equal access to opportunity. That message is abused today. You continue to blur the line between MLK's work and the bastardization of it that has occured in his name since his assasination.

You're right. What he ACTUALLY DID, physically, was empower blacks. He also led and inspired the civil rights movement and made everyone think twice about equality. You focus on the former, I, on the latter.

Here's a comparative, extremely simplified situation: Joe went to a restaurant and bought his family a meal for $100 instead of just eating at home for $20. Here's the difference in our position:

You think Joe just bought his family a meal to feed his family, and feeding your family is an honorable and respectable thing to do.

I think Joe just bought his family a meal to feed his family, and feeding your family is an honorable and respectable thing to do. I also think Joe, by going out to eat instead of staying at home, supported the economy and encouraged the prosperity of the country.

Your position isn't wrong; it's just oversimplified. You think my position is either naive or over-complimentary.

As for you being a bigot, I already said I'd believe you if you said it wasn't true. Your posting had led me to believe otherwise, but you claim you're not, and I don't know you well enough to make the judgment, so I'll default to believing you. You're not a bigot. You're not a racist. Got it.

What a piece of work! :rotflmao: I'm not a bigot by default :teeth:

Joe gets credit for helping the whole world by taking his family out to eat. I guess the whole world is full of heroes. That Joe--what a guy !!

Yes--you position IS naive and over-complimentary

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't disagree whatsoever.

But MLK himself was pure as the wind driven snow! :funnyface

 

[The ClayTaurus]

But MLK himself was pure as the wind driven snow! :funnyface

He might not have been pure, but his message was a good one.

 

[dilloduck]

his message was a good one.

you might wanna just stick with that quote because it's the truth

 

[The ClayTaurus]

you might wanna just stick with that quote because it's the truth

Yup. Equality for all is a great message.