The debate here on Race 4 2008 on LJ’s, Rudy Flips on the Confederate Flag? Blog between yours truly, Republius (for whom I have the greatest respect), econ grad and others, prompts this post by Mike Gamecock DeVine.Some misguided, ignorant, uninformed, and worse, i.e. politically correct free speech squelching white guilt laden liberal opinions about the issue of the display of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina and other Southern States have been expressed in LJ’s blog that must be confronted, from:
1. My “attitude” on the issue.
2. My position on the substance of the issue.
3. My history on the issue.
4. South Carolina’s history on the issue, especially that of the S.C. Congressional Black Caucus and S.C. NAACP when the flag was placed on the State House grounds
5. State ownership of museums
6. The slur that the Confederate flag as a “terrorist” symbol
7. The KKK’s use of the Cross of Jesus Christ
8. The technically racist pre se assumptions by some whites concerning the level of offense Blacks “feel” when they see the flag displayed on State House property vs. the private property of the KKK, born of ignorance
9. Latent anti-Southern bigotry born of ignorance
10. The refusal of some conservatives to use their brains instead of swallowing the liberal PC police line and the resulting desire to appeal to Blacks based on race and not based on conservative principles
11. What such attitudes portend for the candidates in the race 4 2008.
The South matters. White and black southerners matter. What matters to them matters. How candidates address what matters to the South, matters, in addressing their fitness for office.
In 2000, McCain showed that the moniker of his “Express” was a crock when he flip flopped and lied about his position on the issues, and showed that “straight talk” meant saying what the MSM wanted to hear. However, as with my position on Mitt Romney (whom I ever so slightly favor), I am more concerned with where a candidate has flopped now, i.e. stands now and promises to so stand if elected than with past stands and alleged flip flops.
Let me preface my remarks with a little personal and South Carolina history:
1. Back in my early teens in the 70s many of my Caucasian peers wore Confederate Flag (CF) t-shirts as a symbol of teen rebelliousness. I did not hang with racists. Yet, I still banned CF t-shirts from my car.
2. My parents integrated Little league and Cub Scouts. My best friend (who rode the bus home with me on the school bus so as to be able to get to baseball practice) and I endured being called, respectively “whitey” and “nigger lover” (I am white. He is Black.) I hired some of the first Black paralegals in my county.
3. The battle against racism defines my life more than any other issue.
4. I favored the removal of the CF from atop the State House dome in Columbia and its placement on the museum that is the State House grounds, as did the SC General assembly Black Caucus and SC NAACP when the legislation was passed and the removal and placement accomplished years ago.
5. The NATIONAL NAACP came out for a boycott of the state soon after the above action despite what Blacks in SC wanted, because the CF was more visible. The boycott continues to this day. Blacks in SC overwhelmingly oppose the boycott.6. Blacks in SC regularly vote for representatives that favor the display of the flag.
7. The “right” position for someone from outside the state is deference to the State for what flags it wants to fly where.
8. The imagined level of offense taken by Blacks at the viewing of confederate flags at public buildings by whites is really an insult to the intelligence of most Blacks. It is, in a word, racist per se. All humans should be as opposed to slavery, no matter their race, and are. Blacks know the difference between racists that fly it and seek to harm them and a symbol of history, a history that includes the flying of American flags over more slaves and territory than the confederacy ever had.Blacks have crosses in their homes. The Klan also appropriated the Cross.This is 2007, not 1857, 1867 or 1967.
We should not treat blacks as children.
9. pay special attention to how Blacks are treated in the Prager story.
This was my first MSM column.
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Originally published January 16, 2007 in The Charlotte Observer.
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer
“Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?”
That was a precocious little boy’s first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that
America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King’s death on April 4, 1968?
Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that “One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks.”
Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall’s election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina’s top education post because, “Frankly, I’m tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write.”
One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based “Jim Crow” laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.
Character building a priorityBy contrast, King’s dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda “priorities” could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America and What We Can Do About It.”Now, what about Caucasians?
I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members. Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist. This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.Face down the PC crowdI don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites. King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law. Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.
10. We should not appeal to Blacks like the democrats do, i.e. based on skin color and assumptions as to what they think based on that. It is an insult and it’s racist per se. We should appeal to Blacks EXACTLY as we appeal to Whites.
I was not always one to take up defense of the Confederacy against attacks. I have grown less ignorant over the years, and those that spew ignorant attacks on the CSA should join me.
The CSA was fighting for its Independence on the same principles as theUSA did in 1776. I am glad they lost and that the Union was preserved.
I suspect that most of the ignorant smears on the flag is due to the KKK’s appropriation of the flag and the Cross of Christ, I might add. We can’t let microscopically small organizations force rational minds to stop thinking.
Most Black minds are operational.
It is the Left that is afraid of history and seeks to hide it. We must not insult Blacks like this. We must not close our minds in fear of the white and black PC police.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Although you make some good points, your post is seriously undermined by your inability to write without ranting. Perhaps I should say “think without ranting”, for much of this post is following logical threads that are based in emotional rants, against liberals, and democrats.
It leads you to absurd and contradictory conclusions. For instance, at the end of your post you seem to imply that we need to display the flag so as not to insult blacks.
You claim (obviously correctly) that “black minds are operational”. Well, those operational black minds have a habit of assessing the political landscape and voting, by a 90% margin, for Democrats. One wouldnt necessarily conclude that those minds were “operational” if they consistently voted for people who were “the real racists”, or who talked to them like children.
You seem to love the little rhetorical game of making absurd charges against your opponents – the same charges that they make against you. I guess you think it is a bit of intellectual judo or something, or maybe it is just the fashionable rhetorical game of the right these days, but there really isnt anything more to it than that.
If blacks are intellectually capable (as they are), and they vote for Democrats at a level that is beyond even “overwhelming”, then you are going to have to face the fact that Democrats are not appealing to them in the way that you claim. I know it would be tough for you to give up one of your favorite rhetorical tools, but if you are interested in actually winning some more votes, maybe it is time to stop ranting and start soul-searching.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Go away troll. Quite wasting our time with the garbage you spew forth.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
MC,
Who are you calling a troll? Tano or Gamecock?
Tano’s been a longtime commenter on this site and I value his opinion, even though I don’t always agree with him. Same goes for Gamecock.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I may be wrong, LJ, but I’m fairly sure (based on other threads) that Minnesota is talking to Tano, not Gamecock. If I’m wrong, please forgive me.
Hava
April 14th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Thanks LJ,
I’m pretty sure he is referring to me.
He seems not to be emotionally capable of hearing voices he doesnt agree with.
I must say that I am pretty impressed with the fact that such people are rare at this site, a fact which raises it above most of the blogosphere.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Of note if I am correct Robert Byrd was a member of four mentioned organization ( I refuse to use thier name) they did awful things to good people.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Blacks can be persuaded by unapologetic Reagan conservatism. Not the watered down with PC kind.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Byrd repented and left the KKK. My problem with Byrd are the liberal and defeatist policies he advocates today.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
MC
Gamecock is an original contributing writer and member of the staff at race 4 2008, i.e. here.
http://race42008.com/about/
April 14th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Tano, what’s great is to have great points that can be seriously undermined rather than simply being under minded!
smile
April 14th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“Blacks can be persuaded by unapologetic Reagan conservatism.”
Yeah, Ronnie did real well there, eh?
April 14th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Slow down Gamecock. I said “some good points”, not great points.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
This is kind of related here about black conservatives..
Ward Connlley is the perhaps the best black conserative I have ever had the chance to hear speak and meet personally! He is clearly on our side!
April 14th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
to 11. If 41 had practiced it after the benefits finally arrived…
April 14th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
LJ,
Perhaps #2 was overly harsh and lacking in substance.
Hava,
Thanks for the clarification. I was referring to Tano.
Tano,
If what you said about me were true I would not have taken the time to read your post in the first place.
Blacks vote for democrats primarily because it is the party of LBJ and the civil rights movement. I believe that more and more blacks will abandon the Dems in the next generation. I think they will do this as more black leaders like Juan Williams talk about the failures of the democratic party. Affirmative action does more harm then good and the PC police have instilled a damaging victim mentality into too many blacks. For evidence of this victim mentality we only have to look to all those talking about slavery reparations. What a bunch of useless PC BS. The path to selfworth and success does not involve people saying “you have been victimized”, “you deserve this”, or “it is their fault”.
If we as republicans want to appeal to Blacks we need to shun the crutchs that the Dems give blacks and instead treat them as we would anyone else.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
to 11. If 41 had practiced it after the benefits finally arrived
For the uneducated (ie, me
) would someone mind explaining what this means? I’m assuming the “to 11″ part means Gamecock is talking to Tano because of Tano’s comment in the #11 spot, but where does 41 come in?
Sorry, just a little lost here…
Havs
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
April 14th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
bush 41
April 14th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
hava
what mc said in post #17
sorry
April 14th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
With regards to the Confederate Flag issue I defer to the SC black population, the SC NAACP, and other Southerners. I am not a southerner and I will not pretend to know what the flag means to them or to blacks.
Hava,
I assume he means that if Bush had been an unapologetic conservative he could have pulled more blacks from the dems.(It takes time to reverse a generational democratic addiction) Sadly, he wasn’t and WJC has always been able to communicate well with blacks.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Hey, that’s all right. I’m a little slow tonight I guess, because I don’t have a clue of what Bush and 41 have to do with each other. Is that his birthdate or something? Is this a way of differentiating between George Bush and George W Bush?
I’m off to Google it. Google know everything.
Thanks for the help, y’all.
Havs
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
April 14th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
MC,
There are a fair number of black Republicans who support affirmative action – Colin Powell for one – and I think it rather odd that you blame the “PC police” for the sense that many blacks have of being victims.
Guess what. Blacks WERE victims – of 350 years of slavery and / or officially sanctioned oppressive segregation.
The day that conservatives really come to grips with that is the day you might begin making some progress on this issue. I understand the mentality at work here. You probably feel, correctly, that neither you nor anyone you know has direct responsibility for all that. It was wrong, we understand that now, we have stopped doing it, so what is the problem.
The problem is that 350 years of enforced oppression has consequences – lots of them. It deprived black people of the fruits of their labor, and this has redounded through the generations to contribute to their level of poverty today. 200 plus years of forcibly breaking up black families seriously undermines the healthy cultural benefits that the rest of us derive from our family traditions and teachings. All those centuries in which the common understanding throughout society, black and white, that race was significant, and that the black race was inferior, is not somehting that just disappears because a president signs some civil rights bills.
There is a long process of societal healing that we are in the midst of. Personally, I think that we, as a society, have a responsibility to take steps to activly propel the process of integrating blacks into the mainstream of American life.
I realize that some black people oppose this. Most however, support it, and feel it is absolutely necessary.
Here is my unsolicited advice to conservatives. If you support the goal of full integration, then recognize that their is a problem that needs addressing. I am not telling you to support AA – if you really think it a bad idea, then present it as such – i.e. the wrong way to get to a goal that you support. But too often what one hears from conservatives is a denial that there is a problem that needs addressing, or this ranting about how people who are trying to address the problem with AA are actually “racists”. That may get you some yucks on the talk radio circuit, but it simply is not true. People who support AA are sincerely interested in overcoming the legacy of slavery and segregation, and if you refuse to recognize that, then you will never convince them that you may have a better idea about how to accomplish the goal.
I really get the impression that insulting your opponents is far more important to most conservatives, then actually engaging the issues and finding the best way to achieve common goals.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I was close. Bush was our 41st president, hence the nickname.
At least it was a date. I was close, right? Right.
Told you I was in a funny mood tonight.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
April 14th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Hava,
40=Reagan,41=Bush,42=Bill,43=Bush. Nice blog by the way.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Does anyone here REALLY believe that, if only Bush 41 was more like Reagan, Republicans would be in a better position vis a vis the black community?
April 14th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Tano,
re: 21.
Interesting stuff. I’d be interested to know if you think the current Dem platform (AA, etc.) is exacerbating the problem (even though as you say, folks are trying to help) or if it’s good strategy.
I used to be very for AA, but have wondered in recent years if it ought not be revisited, at least.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
part 1.
Tano- “The day that conservatives really come to grips with that is the day you might begin making some progress on this issue. I understand the mentality at work here. You probably feel, correctly, that neither you nor anyone you know has direct responsibility for all that. It was wrong, we understand that now, we have stopped doing it, so what is the problem.”
Sadly, you do not understand the mentality at work here. Neither I nor anyone I know or have ever known has had direct or indirect responsibility for anything having anything to do with slavery.
It was wrong, WE have ALWAYS understood that, WE haven’t stopped because WE never started, so you need to take a second look at the situation.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Why thank you very much, MC.
I posted a comment (#22 on my screen) saying that I found out that Bush was our 41st president, but it says next to the comment “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Why is it doing that? Why are some of my comments going straight through, and others being held up? Just curious, and wondering if there was anything I could do speed that process up (the posting of my comments.) If not, I understand, I’m just curious.
Tano, I can’t answer your last question, but I can respond to your AA comments. I listened to the biography of Martin Luther King Jr on CD last summer while driving to my different jobs all over the state. MLK was very much so against AA, because he said all that AA did was present prejudices against white people, and his vision was to see no prejudice in America against anyone, regardless of their race. I do understand that people who support AA are trying to help the blacks in America gain a better life, but just because you have good intentions doesn’t mean that good things will happen because of your good intentions. I have many good intentions (keep a cleaner house, study more, blah blah) but just because I think these things doesn’t mean that it actually happens. And just because Democrats want AA to be a good thing for the blacks doesn’t mean that it is.
On sheer principle, I am opposed to AA in any form. I am a white female–I would not be comfortable if I got a job and a white male did not, simply because I was female. I would not be comfortable getting hired somewhere because of my religion; I would not be comfortable getting hired because I am white. I want to be hired because I am competent and intelligent, and can do the job.
The way for blacks, asians, mexicans, and every other “colored” person to get ahead is to have a good education, and good skills. This comes from going to college and working hard. I think that scholarships that favor one race, one sex, one IQ, over another, is perfectly fine, because they are private scholarships, and the person who sets that scholarship up is giving their hard-earned money away to whomever they want to. This is their right, and I see absolutely no problem with that. Since I am going back to school myself, I have been looking at a lot of scholarships, and I can tell you right now, there are a LOT of scholarships focused on people of other races. I don’t qualify for many, many scholarships, because I am plain ole’ vanilla white. That’s just fine–there are many, many other scholarships out there that I DO qualify for, and I focus on those. There’s enough to go around.
If people can get a good education (which there are scholarships, grants, and loans a’plenty to allow almost anyone to pay for college if they really want it) then at that point, the playing field is level against everyone else. Person A has a bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering, and so does Person B. Let the person with the highest grades or best resume get the job. Don’t play the race card–leave that one at home.
Do I endorse AA? Most definitely not. Do I understand why people would? Yes, I definitely do. Are they correct in their reasoning? No, I don’t think so, but then again, this is America, and we all have our rights to our own personal opinions. One of the reasons I’m proud to be an American.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
April 14th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Tano,
I understand that 200 years of slavery left blacks in a bad way but giving them crutches is not the answer. “Actively propelling” blacks is part of the victim mentality and does not foster a healthier black community of the future. We, as a society, do not have a responsibility to make “ammends” for century+ old wrongs.
I can also see that most AA proponents wish to help but AA is simply “helping” to send the message that blacks “deserve it,” and that is simply not healthy for the black community. AA is reverse discrimination and it is equally true here that “two wrongs don’t make right”.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Hava,
Thanks for 26. Your post is a bit more convincing than 25 and 27.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Tano,
On 23….Gamecock made the statement. Let him defend it.
I was too young to vote for 41 or 42….
April 14th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Affirmative Action on campus has always meant 9\80% of the “black” slots go to wealthy African immigrants while African Americans get perhaps 20% of the set asides for them. The African American community does take advantage of most of the programs set up for them.
The main problem in the African American community is the demise of the father. African American households that have two incomes like Asian or White households are close to the average of earnings. In general two-parent families tend to have children that attend college. Single mother homes usually have children that attend prison.
If you want to bring equality figure out how to reform African American male attitudes and culture.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Most set-asides for blacks go to wealthy African immigrants. You can’t argue that they are overcoming poverty and a history of racism in America.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
MC,
I doubt that Gen. Powell thinks of AA as “givng crutches”, nor that it has had unhealthy consequences for the black community, nor for the Army either.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Perhaps one problem with black male attitudes and culture is a lack of self worth and self respect…..
April 14th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Jesse Jackson wouldn’t agree with me either. The question is do I care? Answer=No.
Please refer back to MLK’s thoughts on AA.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
MC,
I doubt that Gen. Powell thinks of AA as “giving crutches”, nor that it has had unhealthy consequences for the black community, nor for the Army either.
Tano, although I am 100% sure that you are correct, that doesn’t do much for me. Quite frankly, I don’t care what General Powell thinks. Nice guy, blah blah, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree or take everything he says as gospel truth. MC has it right: Two wrongs don’t make a right, and I think it is interesting that the liberal media does not talk about MLK’s position on this subject at all. Considering how much his name is invoked when it comes to discussions about civil liberties, you think this is something that the MSM would bring up often. It doesn’t suit their political purpose to do so, however.
AA is discrimination in reverse. I am against all forms of discrimination whether they positively affect me or not. Discrimination is discrimination. I refuse to see that some discrimination is good, while other discrimination is bad.
Perhaps the world I live in is just too black and white, I don’t know…
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 12:06 am
If Affirmative Action was effective liberals would have a point. However affirmative action has helped very few blacks. The reason is because many of the preferences go to African immigrants. As a rule businesses don’t hire incompetents. So the few native blacks that are hired under affirmative action usually could have gotten a similar job without it.
It does nothing to help people who are culturally indoctrinated against being educated. Current discrimination has a minuscule effect on black incomes. The largest cause of black under-achievement is the dis-functionality of black families.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I’m a black male, who’s recently gone through the college application process (2 years ago). My grades and test scores were competitive for the schools I applied to, but judging by my ultimate offers, I have no question that I benefited from Affirmative Action. It’s not a particularly comforting feeling. Neither was arriving on campus, and essentially being thrust into communities (both school sponsored and self-imposed) which were essentially race based. Did I “require” such special treatment? I hardly think so. I’ve lived a fairly middle class life. Did I “deserve” such special treatment? I hardly think so. I was well aware of the possibility of affirmative action throughtout high school, and I’d be lying if I said it didn’t affect the level of effort I put into my work. Now I’m a 20 year old struggling often times, in a significantly more challenging environment, without the type of work ethic necessaryt ot truly succeed. I don’t want to project my successes and failures onto the rest of the black population, and I hardly want to make excuses for those failures, but when you’re continually held to a lower standard by the rest of population, and you’re aware of this, it’s going to have some effect on how you conduct yourself. In rare cases, perhaps you’ll be motivated to defy the stereotypes. But I think it’s far more likely you’re going to be mired on the glass floor, unwilling to rise to whatever your natural capicities might be. And by the time you figure things out, it might be too late. Your character and habits, and perception of yourself might be set. So, I’m opposed to affirmative action. And even though I intend to go to law school in a few years, I heartily hope the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:20 am
The notion that Martin Luther King was against affirmative action is a total fabrication of the right.
A “lie” would not be too strong a word.
First off, AA as we know it was not even around when King was killed. But to the more general question of whether he would have supported such things, there really is not question.
From his book “Where do we go from Here”
“A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”
From “Testament of Hope”, a compendium of speeches, interviews, etc.
“Reporter: “Do you feel it’s fair to request a multi-billion dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or any other minority?”
Dr. King: “I do indeed…Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs. … America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans…They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs…There was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group.” — (Interview,1965, p.367)”
How about something stronger? From his 1964 book “Why We Can’t Wait”;
“No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuriesYet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. ”
The sad truth is that the conservative movement in the 60s was OPPOSED to King and the civil rights movement.
NOw we all understand that this was one of the great moments of moral progress in American history. So whats a good conservative to do? Try to spin the history to make King out to be some kind of a conservative, of course.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:35 am
I saw the other side of this, matt. I went to predominantly African American high school and when my friends and I applied to college many of them went to good private colleges with better scholarship packages. I went to a historically black local state university. Mind you we had similar grades in high school and my income was lower than most of my peers’ families.
After 5 years I met many of my friends from high school at a friend’s wedding. Most of my friends that had gone to the exclusive colleges hadn’t done as well as those of us that went to the local historically black university. That’s because the local college had mostly black professors who didn’t consider being black an excuse for underachievement. There was special help for students but the expectation was you work hard or give your spot to someone who wants to.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Econ grad stud,
That’s another factor that’s at play here too. But for me, it didn’t feel so much like I had an excuse not to succeed (at least not most of the time), but no incentive to work particularly hard. If you know you can get into the schools you’re interested in without putting in serious effort, you’d need to have a real love of learning (and learning everything) to develop a real work ethic. So it cuts both ways, and probably even in ways we’re not always aware of. That’s not to say that affirmative action can’t yield positive results. Of course it can. I have no doubt that many truly deserving people have had their futures immeasurably improved by affirmative action. But when we’re talking about something as fundamental as legalized and institutionalized discrimination, I really think we ought to be able to say something better then “you win some, you lose some”.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:06 am
I recognize that prejudices and racism do exist in many circles and that this contributes to hardships. I don’t think that it is right or correct to link the vast majority of the problems African Americans have to the slavery issue.
Divorce rate among African Americans is the highest of any class of Americans. This is also true of parent families. In my opinion, this contributes to the majority of their hardships and other problems. High divorce rate and single parent families contribute to poverty, lack of educational opportunity, and overall anger at the world. It has to be hard enough being born black in many areas due to these prejudices, but imagine being born into a single parent family in those circumstances? What are the chances of such a person becoming educated fighting the demons of poverty and bigotry? Very slim. As long at there is competition, there will be prejudices and they can and do go both ways.
I must ask this question. To what extent are blacks themselves responsible for their poverty? How can African Americans not own up to the highest divorce rate of any class of Americans? Much of their culture endorses some very bad Rap music by not speaking out forcefully against it and allowing their children to have it. I can’t for the life of me see how this type of music is helpful to them why some leaders don’t speak out against it more (Cosby being the only exception that I can think of).
April 15th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Regarding reparations:
If we allow reparations as most on the left want, at what point does it stop? Is this to match what is given to American Indians? What is to stop other group who were wrong in history to also seek financial reparations? Chinese were also enslaved to work mines and railroads at one point. As you can see, this is a very complex and difficult issue.
I think that the best argument against reparations is that it will undo most all of the progress blacks have made in the civil liberties area. It may set us back to 1967 or earlier. I ask any liberal here – is the money really worth that risk? I don’t think so, but then again – I’m not a black or a liberal. My ancestors did not own slaves (and neither did those of Mexican Americans who by the way, make up the 2nd largest class in America – soon to be the largest in a few more years). Would it be fair to have Mexicans and other minority classes to be subject to pay reparations? I submit to you that forcing Mexicans to pay blacks for atrocities that their ancestry did not commit may cause many to persecute blacks. Again, is the money worth this? Be very careful what you ask for and think things through with your head & not your emotions.
Keep the Confederate flag and respect the state’s rights. Am I a racist for having that opinion?
April 15th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Matt and econ grad,
You’re bringing me back to freshman year in my dorm (Maryland, 1988). Across the hall from me was a black student from Trinidad. Perhaps because he didn’t grow up in an entitlement culture, he was disgusted and offended by affirmative action. He found the concept insulting and condescending, and couldn’t understand why anyone would want to get into a school or be hired for a job knowing that the only reason they were admitted or hired was because of their skin color, and if not for being black, they likely wouldn’t be there. And, worst of all, the white kids thought all of the black kids in their class didn’t truly deserve to be there, regardless of whether their grades merited colorblind admission. To this friend of mine, it seemed like a counterproductive policy; one that diminished the self-esteem of otherwise ambitious young black men and women.
I remember his words having such a profound effect on me, that I included his thoughts in an English paper I wrote on race relations on campus. To this day, I’ll never forget…When I got the paper back, my uberliberal teacher circled my hallmate’s comments which I had quoted verbatim, and in red ink wrote in an accusatory tone something to the effect of…’Are these YOUR feelings or your friend’s?’
From that day forward I realized just how misguided well-intentioned liberals can be. Guess we’re all a little naive at 17…
April 15th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Regarding affirmative action:
This is a small Pandora’s box of sorts. I recognize and endorse that fact that something extra should be done to help some Africans, but I don’t think affirmative action is right. It is usually exercised at the expense of other races thereby fostering resentments and some of the other things I described in #42 post. I wonder if those things are even taken into account now when deploying affirmative action?
I’m of the opinion that affirmative action is damaging to African Americans because it is very condescending. It cheapens the value of those Africans who have really truly excelled or “earned it” as it belittles & demeans their real accomplishments. These are some the same arguments that I’d use against good old fashion nepotism.
Furthermore, I’m typically against lowering accountability and standards in most any area. Accountability and standards need to be continuously improving not declining!! How can things ever improve if standards keep getting lowered? It seems like there is hardly ever any resistance to lowering standards, but raising them is very difficult. I think that the real here is to get a fair and equal society and I think the best way to do achieve that is to treat everybody the *same* (by that I mean keeping standards equal). I’m not against giving some folks additional help in some circumstances, but standards must me maintained or on the rise!
April 15th, 2007 at 6:24 am
SC’s Dem Gov, 6 0f 7 Black Dem Senators voted to put flag there
Good PBS discussion and fact summary
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/flag_5-29.html
Shelby Foote excerpt:
SHELBY FOOTE: The flag is a symbol my great grandfather fought under and in defense of. I am for flying it anywhere anybody wants to fly it. I do know perfectly well what pain it causes my black friends, but I think that pain is not necessary if they would read the confederate constitution and knew what the confederacy really stood for. This country has two grievous sins on its hands. One of them is slavery – whether we’ll ever be cured of it, I don’t know. The other one is emancipation – they told 4 million people, you’re free, hit the road, and they drifted back into a form of peonage that in some ways is worse than slavery. These things have got to be understood before they’re condemned. They’re condemned on the face of it because they take that flag to represent what those yahoos represent as – in their protest against civil rights things. But the people who knew what that flag really stood for should have stopped those yahoos from using it as a symbol of what they stood for. But we didn’t – and now you had this problem of the confederate flag being identified as sort of a roughneck thing, which it is not.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I’m actually deeply in favor of, at least in college admissions, income based affirmative action. I think it’s a constitutional and morally justifiable way of allowing those who attend poor high schools, and haven’t had the opportunity to learn to the extent that maybe others have, to rise up above their circumstances. It would no doubt help many minorities, but not exclusively minorities. For the life of me, I can’t understand why we haven’t transitioned to that system already.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:29 am
First of all, the Stars and Bars was not the offical flag of the South durning the civil war. And quite frankly if it was they were wrong to start the war and were wrong in context of the war. Should Germany hang the Nazi flag over their Goverment buildings since they “fought under the flag” even now they were in the wrong and the flag has been use by bigots?
April 15th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Paul,
That is comparison is grossly unfair. Everything about the nazis was evil. The south wasn’t simply about slavery.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Also how do you support your claim that “they were wrong to start the war and were wrong in context of the war”?
April 15th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I understand that, they was a bunch of wronghead reasons why they started the civil war.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:58 am
That means nothing to me. Saying “they was a bunch of wronghead reasons…” does not support your claim in the slightest.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Paul
Ask the black representatives in SC why they voted to put the flag on the State House museum grounds, not me.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
The Shelby Foote quote is absurd.
The confederacy was all about the right of states to enforce slavery. Period.
It was an immoral, traitorous tyrannical regime. The analogy to the Nazis is apt – they were very different regimes obviously, but they were both existentially evil.
I find it sad and pathetic that so many white folks in the South seem to feel the need find glory in that “heritage”.
There is nothing wrong with paying honor to those young men who fought for what they felt was their “country”. Young men who fight in wars are usually clueless about the larger issues at play in the war, and their committment of their lives to the cause usually precludes, or at least delays till long after the war, any attempt to fully understand the conflict, and form their own moral judgements about it. So while they fight, and maybe die, they operate on the simple level of being willing to sacrifice for their people, under the direction of their elders. We can honor those sentiments and those committments without bringing into the picture the symbols of the regime for which they were fighting.
Confederate soldiers were honorable for simple, personal reasons – the willingness to sacrifice, the love of their homeland. They wer not part of an honorable movement however. Their cause was not just, and so the symbols that they rallied to should not be honored.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Gamecock,
If I had to guess, I would guess that the black politicians were acting as good politicians. They recognized that getting the flag off the statehouse dome was a very big step. Pushing for its banishment from all state-owned property was not politically feasable. The compromise was politically doable.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
States own museums. The SC State House grounds are a museum.
The Confederacy was about more than slavery although it was the institution around which the issue of federal domination of the states revolved. Slavery was practiced in many northern states and more money was made off slavery and the tariffs associated therewith by northern banks than by sotherners.
The war was about how soutghern states were being exploited by the north much as the American revolution was about taxation without representation by Britain.
You moral argument breaks down when one realizes the above.
The confederate soldiers died under the flag the KKK appropriated and thus made it harder to educate tanos.
The KKK also appropriated a cross on which Christ died.
The KKK does not own these symbols and your assumption concerning how strongly Blacks are offended by whites honoring their 300,000 dead heros is refuted by the fact that 6 0f 7 Dem Black state senators voted on the issue.
The flag is not slavery.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Gamecock,
Sorry, but I disagree. You are not educating, you are spinning.
The anti-slavery movement was one of the great moral trajectories along which Western civilization has evolved, for the good.
Slavery was outlawed in the North through the gradual persuasion of the people there that it was wrong.
Southerners seemed resistant to such suasion, whether because of economic concerns or cultural.
The war was about whether slavery would survive or not. Southerners correctly sensed that as the country grew, and more states became part of the Union, the pro-slavery bloc would lose out. One might interpet their seccession as pure conservatism – standing athwart history and saying no! – but in this case, their resistance to change was a mistake – a mistake of moral proportions.
I know that most of us non-Southerners would like nothing better than to see this whole dispute relegated to the dustbins of history. WE have no existential need to stereotype or continually castigate Southerners. It is some factions in the South though who constantly re-raise the issues, who seem obsessed with undoing the moral judgements about the mistakes of their ancestors. The waving of the flag is very much a pathetic in-your-face act by dead-enders.
All of our ancestors did things we now consider wrong. Thats life. Get over it already.
April 15th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
“All of our ancestors did things we now consider wrong. Thats life. Get over it already.”
I agree howerver, this does not apply to all victims now does it? One certainly can’t say such a thing to the Reverends Al & Jesse, now can they?
I submit to you that most conservatives understand this and know how to cowboy up by persevering. Unfortunately, it is the liberals who have a very hard time hearing that message. It is either too insensitive, cruel, or not applicable.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
cwpete,
It is somewhat less applicable because it is still going on to some extent.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Tano, don’t condescend to me. I know history, incl what you cite, none of which arf=gues against the display of the flag on museum grounds owned by the state. My parents and me fought to integrate the south. You obviously don’t read what I say, incl my bio. I lived what you talk about. I endured the epitherts of n-word lover and I have very close friends that endured slurs for neing my firend. I hired the first black paralegals. I continued to grow and move on. I had an advantage. I lived in the south. Too bad you know it all or you could know more. I watse time trying to teach you something from my own personal experience in the south then and now. You are a walking cliche spewer. You know it all and are morally superior to all. How old are you? 20 something?
You, like the liberals want to hide history they only half understand and a present they don’t understand all for politically correct ignorance.
You know a lot. You understand a lot, but its what you have gotten wrong that so sucks.
It would do you good to copy what i have written and study it later. I was a liberal activist and dem party official. I converted in 2000. I live down here and have all my life. In SC, GA or NC. I know what you only imagine.
You guess a lot. I live in it. And I have the credibility of a whistle blower. Too bad you have that arrogant wall of prideful youth up.
Maybe you’ll get it later in life.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Tano
It is those that want to move the flag that continually re-raise this issue.
I have stated repeatedly that I am glad the union was preserved.
You write to me like I was in the KKK.
You refuse to show the respect to read what say.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Tano,
I agree that these things are still going on, but to a much lesser extent then what they were a generation ago (progress). However, this is still very applicable (getting over it). First, this will never completely cease as long as there is competition in my view. Second, bigotries and prejudices can go both ways, do you not agree?
Life is cruel and very unfair at times. For anyone say “get over it” as you have done, one would have to agree with and accept that statement. This does goes against the liberal utopian dream of ultimate fairness and equality.
Appreciate the conversation.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Tano,
DITTO on Gamecock’s last two posts. Although not a southerner, I say listen to one who is and who knows firsthand.
Regarding AA,etc…..
As a student of history I know of many groups of persecuted peoples. It is not our responsibility to right the wrongs of history and it is not healthy for society to treat blacks like incapable second class citizens in need of special consideration and treatment.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Tano,
I listened the MLK’s biography on CD, on loan from the library. I spent weeks listening to the CDs while traveling around the state (it was a long book, and therefore had many CDs.) I distinctly remember hearing MLK talk about how he did not believe in AA because all that AA boiled down to was bigotry the other direction. I say “distinctly” because it caught me by surprise. I was pleasantly surprised that this great man of our time could understand the large ramifications that are brought on by AA, and not just look at the short-term “benefits.” Because it was a CD, and on loan from the library, I don’t have it here to look it up and type any quotes from it, but I can tell you that I know for a fact that I heard exactly what I stated above. It was an authorized biography (authorized by the King family) and was written by a close friend of the family and of the movement. The author most definitely would not be “fabricating” items for the right, to say the least.
Some day, if I have time, I will go to the library and check out the book version of the book (lol!) and find that information again, if only to make sure in my own mind that I’m not going crazy.
Until I have his book in my hand, I cannot quote anything from it, but I can state unequivocally that I do know that this subject was covered in the biography, and that MLK was against it. I wish I had the quotes to back myself up, but since it’s a Sunday night at 9:45 pm…
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Gamecock,
I invite you to reread what I wrote. At no point, in anything that I said, did I level specific charges against you.
Except to say “get over it”. Which was not meant at you per se, but at those for whom you seem to have some strange need to defend.
Why are you so defensive?
I never claimed that you retrospectivly rooted for the Confederacy. But you do try to justify the cause, even
while rejecting it. You quote approvingly someone who claims (absurdly) that blacks would not be offended if only they read the constitution of the Confederacy. Gee, maybe he has a point – educate me, wontcha? What was the status of blacks under the Confederate constitution? And speaking of being condescending – you dont find that attitude to be so?
And I never mentioned the KKK, nor certainly ever tried to associate you with that. Whats up with that?
Look, you strike me as someone who is filled with the zealotry of the convert. You abandonded liberalism, and so now want to be seen as the truest of the true conservatives. Maybe that is why you are so insulting and over-the-top in your antiliberal rhetoric.
But all the things you (rightly) claim credit for, in relation to your interactions with blacks, was done as a liberal, in a hostile conservative climate. Hey, I’ll give you a medal for all that.
Maybe someday, when you get older, you will understand that the younger Gamecock was tapped into something good and true. Maybe you are tapped into something good and true today too. Maybe you can become a really big person, transcending the petty divides – taking the best things from liberalism, and the best things from conservatism. But that doesnt seem to be your agenda today. No – its actually ironic that you accuse me of being so young. It is you who have this youthful illusion that whatever you believe at the moment must be some cosmic truth. You probably felt that way about liberalism when you were a liberal. Now that liberalism has disappointed you, you seem to feel that way about conservatism, even going so far as to defend things you probably know are indefensible, while all the while denying that you believe them. I predict for you more disappointments. Maybe someday you will find an equilibrium, some wisdom. good luck.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
MC,
Fact is that, though Gamecock is a southerner, he is not the only one.
Life is complicated. There are plenty of southerners who I read and listen to. Some are like Gamecock, some have very different perspectives. Its not that I dont listen to GC, its just that I dont agree.
“It is not our responsibility to right the wrongs of history ”
Well, I disagree to some extent. Because these specific wrongs were done as a society. Officially sanctioned. And we all have benefitted from it. Even those of us whose families came in the 20th century, and never lived in the South – we find ourselves in the midst of a prosperous country that was built, in part, on uncompensated labor. The oppression was against a defined group – defined by the oppressors. Now that the legal oppression has stopped, I find it disingenuous to simply claim that the groupings no longer have any relevance. Ultimately they dont of course. But until the consequences of the oppression are dissapated, I think it right and proper to do what we can to activly attempt to eradicate the legacy of the oppression. Agree or not – those are my values.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Tano,
Two points for you.
Point 1) In Post #39, you say:
This is true.
So…we can’t know whether King would support “AA as we know it” today, but “there really is not question” (though you attempt to reframe it as a “more general question” even though it is the exact same “question” which you pose in your first statement) that “he would have supported such things.” Huh? You’re saying we don’t know if he would have supported the modern incarnation of AA, so therefore we do know he he would have supported the modern incarnation of AA?
In other words: IF X, THEN NOT X? Must’ve learned that in one of those “special” logic theory classes. Or maybe you weren’t paying very close attention in logic class. Or, more likely, you never took a logic class. Or, even more likely, you choose to ignore simple logic in order to employ specious arguments.
Point 2)
Continuing further today’s lesson in logic, you (correctly, I might add) earlier state that MLK could not be aware of today’s incarnation of AA.
Then, you have assumed that the “something special” he was referring to in the above quote would be — wait for it — the current incarnation of AA.
Since you seem a bit slow (or, more likely, disingenuous) let me spell it out for ya, Tano:
a. There is no way to know that MLK would be in favor of today’s AA as being the “something special” he was referring to.
b. Whatever that “something special” is, an explicit premise to MLK’s conclusion (i.e., the need for that “something special”) is that it “equip[s] [the Negro] to compete on a just and equal basis.” Care to explain exactly how it “equips” him to do that, in the face of mounting sociological and empirical evidence that it does just the opposite? (Not to mention, the explanations for the harm it does in “equipping” blacks to compete defy common sense, as has been articulated in other posts in this thread.)
April 16th, 2007 at 2:37 am
mjs,
If you werent so excited about the opportunity to be insulting, maybe you might have realized that there is less to your argument than you imagined.
First thing you need to realize is that it was not me that raised this issue. I did not set out to establish that MLK supported, or would have supported AA (a claim requiring some positive evidence). I merely was arguing against the opposite position – that MLK was opposed to AA.
And on that very specific question, I gave the obvious answer – that AA as we know it did not exist.
Maybe I should have stopped there, because that is a definitive refutation of the specific claim.
But of course the obvious rejoinder would have been – that MLK would have opposed it had he still been alive to confront it.
And of course, that specific claim is unanswerable, unless you have a hotline to heavan. Which no one here does.
But there is a more general question that could be explored, and despite your denials, it really is a different question.
Is AA the kind of thing that MLK might have supported or opposed, based on the thoughts he expressed when he was alive?
The quotes I offered stand as evidence (circumstantial, but I think dispositive) that he would have supported AA. If soemone expresses support for the notion of doing something to compensate for the hundreds of years of oppression, then I think it follows that that person is closer to an AA position, than someone who simply claims that since legal segregation is over, then we simply start playing fairly from this day forth, and the accumulated damage to the black community is simply an irrelevant historical fact.
Furthermore, my slow and faulty logic also tells me that someone who says: “The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures” is clearly of the belief that the “something special” referred to earlier is to be “compensatory measures”. AA is a compensatory measure. The opponents of AA, though they may promise a level playing field , do not propose compensatory measures.
Furthermore once again, one of these special, compensatory measures that he supported turns out to be “They could receive special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs” (you can find this in my original post too). Now, with this I think you have to admit that we are getting pretty close to AA, wouldn’t you say?
So yes my dear new logical friend. We cannot say for absolute certain what anyone would say about things that happen after they are gone. But I think the quotes that I offer present a strong, and logical case that MLK supported, and advocated for, measures that greatly resemble AA, in theory and in detail.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Furthermore, once again. I dont know what you mean by “mounting sociological and empirical evidence” (I would hope the sociology is empirically based, by definition). The evidence I am aware of is that AA has been successful – and has spurred the growth of th eblack middle class.
I mentioned in an earlier post the position of Gen. Powell. I did so not simply to dredge up a person who happens to be black, and who happens to be Republican, and who happens to have an opinion on this matter. He has more than an opinion. He lived through the implementation of a version of AA in the Army (that would be called empirical evidence), and he concluded from those experiences that it was an invaluable tool that not only helped the individuals involved, but the institution. I don’t see what kind of standing you would have to disagree with the conclusions that flow from that experience.
There is another obvious example of someone who has benefitted from the spirit of AA, though not from any formal implementation of it. When Thurgood Marshall, the first and only black Supreme Court justice retired, Clarance Thomas was appointed to succeed him. Of course the president had to make the pro forma claim that Thomas was not chosen because he was black, but no one with more than half a brain believed that. His qualifications for the position placed him in a pool with literally thousands of other people with equal or greater qualifications (very many with greater). If you narrowed that pool down with the usual qualities – selecting a Republican, selecting someone who was a known quantity to the Administration and had friends in high places, someone conservative – you still had a pool of hundreds as qualified as Thomas. Throw in the fact that he was black (lets give him some extra points there), and suddenly he was just about the only choice.
Now I suspect that most of you here are perfectly happy with Thomas as a SC justice. This is the spirit and the underlying point of AA in action. The truth is that there is no such thing as an infinitly precise objective ordering of everyone who might apply for a job or seek admission to a university. There are pools of people who are all basically qualified, and who have a different mix of strengths and weaknesses. Choosing one or the other is often subjective. Using a desire to further the integration of the black community into the mainstream of America can certainly be one of those tiebreakers. I see nothing wrong with that, and a lot good about it. And so do most people, including Republican presidents. They just seem to have to deny it when they do it.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Oh, and Reagan did nothing to hide the fact that he specifically wanted to appoint a woman to the SC.
On what principled basis did that sentiment sit? This is AA, once again. He wanted to integrate women into the highest levels of government, and so, while appointing someone with the requisite qualifications of course, he gave extra consideration to the fact hat O’Conner was a woman. She would not have been on the top of some objective list of candidates, under any of the usual sets of qualifications, but she certainly was over the necessary threshold. And she was a woman.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:24 am
MLK was fighting for equal opportunity as well as dignity. Those who are die-hard AA proponents and those who favor quotas, go against the spirit of most of his message. MLK understood clearly that excessive entitlements, handouts, or other free lunches would create an indentured servitude, one of the very things that he was fighting so hard against. He wanted total complete independence and freedom (dignity) for all people – not just Africans alone. I think MLK would have opposed most AA programs as they are interpreted today. It is because of my belief that MLK would oppose many AA programs that I honor and respect the man. If this interpretation is incorrect, they he’d probably be just another “reverend” Al or Jesse.
To this quote here given by mjs from one of MLK’s books:
“”A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.” ”
I’d like to emphasize is the “to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis” part. I understand that to mean that the tools and opportunity should be available so that they can *compete*. My criticism of many AA programs is that they are implemented in such away as to remove the *competition* and just “give” something. With a clear understanding of this, how can anyone support reparations?
April 16th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Funny you should mention Thomas, Tano. Check out J. Thomas’ powerful dissent in Grutter at the following link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZX1.html
I’m sure he’d appreciate your efforts at perpetuating the farce.
WRT to your other rejoinders on my earlier post on AA, I’ll respond when I get home later today.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
cwpete,
It seems prety clear to me that there is a concerted effort by conservatives to “own” MLK.
In one sense, this is pretty absurd, given how the conservative movement was so thoroughly opposed to him when he was alive (and this certainly includes St. Ronnie).
In another sense though, it is probably a healthy thing.
The general dynamic at work in our politics is that liberals tend to indentify problems in society and to propose solutions, and conservatives tend to deny that problems exist, and to oppose all reforms.
This serves a valuable function in society. Most new ideas, whether they come from politicians, or from businesses (new business models), or from scientists (new hypotheses), or even from the art world (new works of arts) – most new creative ideas are bad ones. Conservative opposition serves as a peer-review process, a selective pressure akin to how the market deals with new business models, or reviewers deal with new scientific papers, or new art works.
But from amidst all these new ideas, most of them bad, in all these fields, sometimes there is a very good idea. One that eventually blows through all criticism and becomes accepted by the society at large, and represents a new example of progress.
Conservatives, or the critics in any field, then have to come to grips with this new reality. Very few people have the intellectual strength to admit they were wrong – and that is true of movements as well. So we usually see some other mechanisms by which the critics can spin their way into the future, with their credibility hopefully intact.
That is what I see going on with MLK. Conservatives now accept that the civil rights movement was a great moment of moral progress in America, despite the fact that they opposed it at the time, bitterly. So part of this spin is to try to make the case that MLK was actually some sort of a conservative. I think you need to come to grips with this dynamic.
The point is not to recognize that MLK was thoroughly liberal and therefor reject him. The point should be to recognize that this is an instance where liberals got it right, and conservatives were wrong. You certainly can comfort yourself with all manner of beliefs regarding the rarity of this phenomenon if you need to. Whatever gets you through the day…
The specific strategy that conservatives use to claim MLK, especially on AA-type issues, is to focus on his call for people to be judged by the “content of their character”, rather than on racial bases. This is certainly true. All of us have that vision. The issue thouhg, is how to get there. The AA movement, growing out of the sentiments that MLK articulated in the quotes above, seek to use AA as a tool to hasten the integration of the black community into the fabric of American life. No one has ever advocated that AA become a permanent feature of American life. It has always been seen as a tool to get from point A to point B – with point B being the utopian color blind society we all know is right.
The anti-AA crowd will eventually win the day – we all hope that they win the day. But not until we reach the day where being African-American is no more significant to ones prospects in American life as being German, or Irish American.
Those who think that 350 years of oppression of a defined group of people, in terms of their income, their education, their freedom, can simply end one day, and that from that day forth there magically exists a level playing field are, in my opinion, seriously delusional. To the point where it leads to serious questions about their real committment to a true level playing field.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Tano,
That is pretty good liberal rhetoric you have with this statement:
“It seems prety clear to me that there is a concerted effort by conservatives to “own” MLK.”
MLK is an American icon. He is not a liberal icon or a conservative icon, he is an American icon. Attempts by anyone in either party to claim “ownership” only server to thwart some of the things he fought for. I agree with you in that this is “healthy.” However, conservative do not deny reforms, they disagree with liberals about how most reforms should take place (the whole government liberal verses private conservative thing).
Conservatives are not always the critics. In many cases they are the ones who are antagonizing or instigating the change you have referred to. The shoe does not always go on one foot here. Case in point, the welfare reform instigated by conservatives and signed by President Clinton was a total success. This was a win / win for all expect the big government types who fought it tooth & nail but eventually lost out.
I got a kick out of this whopper:
“So part of this spin is to try to make the case that MLK was actually some sort of a conservative. I think you need to come to grips with this dynamic.”
I’ll tell you right now that MLK was no conservative, you misunderstood me if you felt that I was trying to suggest otherwise. But, MLK was no liberal by today’s standards either. The liberal party today is significantly different than what it was in MLK’s day (as are the conservatives). Case in point, can you imagine Teddy Kennedy saying:
“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country.”
…as his brother did in MLK’s day? JFK is as much a liberal icon as Reagan is to conservatives. Yet the Democrats are more about cradle to grave entitlements now than what they ever were.
I also have a comment here:
“No one has ever advocated that AA become a permanent feature of American life. ”
Show me where a definitive timetable was provided for any AA program. In fact, show me an AA program that has been retracted. It has been my experience that when such programs are set up, they don’t go away. In fact, the justification from those on the left for keeping them in tact is to ensure that things don’t revert to how they were before these AA policies existed. Again, I’d live very much to see where liberals of any sort purported the retraction of any AA program. If anything, it was the conservatives who tried to do that – then got slapped down.
Also to this:
“But not until we reach the day where being African-American is no more significant to ones prospects in American life as being German, or Irish American.”
True, that is happening in many places with out AA programs or quotas. I really hate this hyphen-Americanism. In my view, you are American or you are not. That is colored blindness in my definition.
One last point here on this:
“Those who think that 350 years of oppression of a defined group of people”
Let me state again straight out that there have been oppressions. All races have been oppressed in history at one point or another. I’ll even grant that Africans have been one of the most oppressed along with Jews. However consider this:
Where would the US ancestors of slaves be if these crimes had not been committed. They’d probably still be in Africa or their ancestors would have been enslaved to a different nation. If they would have remained in Africa, would they be better off there considering the famines, pestilence, wars, AIDS, and genocides than where they are today? The argument is that slavery was bad therefore it should not have happened – meaning that the Africans would have remained where they were in Africa. These decedents here in the US are better off where they are verse decedents of Jamaica and other former slave nations. Recognizing that may help some Africans to honor the sacrifices of their ancestors as well as forgive their captors.
The “reverends” Al, Jesse, and others exploit these crimes. As much as it is required for some to repent, it is also required for the victims to forgive. Even if many don’t repent, we must still forgive.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Also,
I need to clarify that being in the US in no way justifies the slavery and other crimes committed in the past. I’m trying to point out that America is still the best place to be, and many Africans have had opportunity here that they would not have had if it had not been for the crime of slavery. Things never will be perfect, however there will always be room for improvements.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Tano #65
You actually make some good points that strike home. More later. Cheers bro. You make me think.
Mike Gamecock DeVine