MLK and AA type preferences - Political Forum

Xibit · #1 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 10:23 AM

Playboy.com - Arts & Entertainment - Playboy Interviews - Artist Interviews - Celebrity Interviews - Political Interviews - Martin Luther King

Quote:

PLAYBOY: Do you feel it's fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?

MARTIN LUTHER KING: I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages -- potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races.

Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs, which are regarded as settlements. American Indians are still being paid for land in a settlement manner. Is not two centuries of labor, which helped to build this country, as real a commodity? Many other easily applicable precedents are readily at hand: our child labor laws, social security, unemployment compensation, man-power retraining programs. And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the War -- a program which cost far more than a policy of preferential treatment to rehabilitate the traditionally disadvantaged Negro would cost today.

The closest analogy is the GI Bill of Rights. Negro rehabilitation in America would require approximately the same breadth of program -- which would not place an undue burden on our economy. Just as was the case with the returning soldier, such a bill for the disadvantaged and impoverished could enable them to buy homes without cash, at lower and easier repayment terms. They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive, as did ex-GIs, special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs. Under certain circumstances of physical disability, medical care and long-term financial grants could be made available. And together with these rights, a favorable social climate could be created to encourage the preferential employment of the disadvantaged, as was the case for so many years with veterans. During those years, it might be noted, there was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group. America was only compensating her veterans for their time lost from school or from business.

Quote:

PLAYBOY: If Negroes are also granted preferential treatment in housing, as you propose, how would you allay the alarm with which many white homeowners, fearing property devaluation, greet the arrival of Negroes in hitherto all-white neighborhoods?

MARTIN LUTHER KING: We must expunge from our society the myths and half-truths that engender such groundless fears as these. In the first place, there is no truth to the myth that Negroes depreciate property. The fact is that most Negroes are kept out of residential neighborhoods so long that when one of us is finally sold a home, it's already depreciated. In the second place, we must dispel the negative and harmful atmosphere that has been created by avaricious and unprincipled realtors who engage in "blockbusting." If we had in America really serious efforts to break down discrimination in housing and at the same time a concerted program of Government aid to improve housing for Negroes. I think that many white people would be surprised at how many Negroes would choose to live among themselves, exactly as Poles and Jews and other ethnic groups do.

It is, indeed, a national tragedy that so many people are willfully ignorant of what MLK proposed and, based off of a virtual non-contextual snapshot of his views (read: that "line" from the I Have A Dream Speech), actually portray MLK and his beliefs in a way that's completely at odds with what he believed and proposed, as noted above and below:

Quote:

"It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis?

What will it profit him to be able to send his children to an integrated school if the family income is insufficient to buy them school clothes? What will he gain by being permitted to move into an integrated neighborhood if he cannot afford to do so because he is unemployed or has a low-paying job with no future?

In asking for something special, the Negro is not seeking charity. He does not want to languish on welfare rolls any more than the next man. He does not want to be given a job he cannot handle. Neither, however, does he want to be told that there is no place where he can be trained to handle it. Few people consider the fact that, in addition to being enslaved for two centuries, the Negro was, during all those years, robbed of the wages of his toil. No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages."

Quote:

"Justice for black people will not flow into society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory. Nor will a few token change quell all the tempestuous yearning of millions of disadvantaged black people. White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society. The comfortable, the entrenched, the privileged cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change in the status quo. When millions of people have been cheated for centuries, restitution is a costly process. Inferior education, poor housing, unemployment, inadequate health care--each is a bitter component of the oppression that has been our heritage. Each will require billions of dollars to correct. Justice so long deferred has accumulated interest and its cost for this society will be substantial in financial as well as human terms. This fact has not been fully grasped, because most of the gains of the past decade were obtained at bargain rates. The desegregation of public facilities cost nothing; neither did the election and appointment of a few black public officials."

I hope the quotes here will eradicate the ignorance - ignorance that is all too often arrogant in its know-nothingness. People who, by all appearance, have not read a word (well, more than 30 or so words) Dr. King wrote are in no position to tell anyone what Dr. King stood for and what he would or wouldn't support. Yet, people who only refer for those few words they've heard during January or February are the first ones who try to tell someone else what MLK stood for.

These people (and there are plenty of them), out of their arrogance and willed ignorance, continue to have the audacity to try preach to people who are far more familiar with MLK and his beliefs than they are. They try to preach to knowledgeable people about what MLK stood for and how African Americans today who support Affirmative Action or favor reparations are at odds with MLK when the facts are clear: MLK (his views) never was and never will be opposed to AA or reparations. As noted above, MLK made very explicit statements and proposals that solidify his support for and layout, in his words, the conceptual basis for AA and even reparations - if not something even more "radical" (MLK's word) than either of those ideas.

*

emptypepsi · #2 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 10:45 AM

To be clear, do you feel that MLKs statements then serve as further argument in favor of reparations (sub-question: are you personally in favor of them?), or is this simply your way of eradicating a misunderstanding in the fabric of the issue (e.g., what MLK stood for)?

Xibit · #3 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

To be clear, do you feel that MLKs statements then serve as further argument in favor of reparations (sub-question: are you personally in favor of them?), or is this simply your way of eradicating a misunderstanding in the fabric of the issue (e.g., what MLK stood for)?

EP, first, regarding MLK's statements and whether they further the argument for either AA or reparations, all I have to say is: IT IS WHAT IT IS.

To be clear, I posted this information so people can be clear about what his actual thoughts/position was in as far as we can tell from what he actually had to say about the issues as they were in his day. I posted this information because as sure as there is a USA, when we have these conversations that deal with people's feelings about AA and race, someone will try to use MLK against what MLK himself was clear and specific about.

So, yes. This thread is about eradicating the WILLED IGNORANCE on this subject of MLK and what he stood for. No more. No less.

And I'm sorry, I won't give anyone arrogant enough to try to lecture people about what MLK stood a pass and allow them or anyone else to say that they have a mere "misunderstanding." All the information I posted is readily available and a number of articles/commentaries have been written and posted all over the internet. So, no. No one has an excuse to be ignorant of what MLK stood for - especially someone with the audacity to try to lecture others about MLK and what the leaders of his time fought for, etc.

To be clear, that's been done here and so many times to where, frankly, I'm sick and tired of being so underwhelmed by what can be nothing else but a ploy. I call it a ploy because someone who is that ignorant and really doesn't know what s/he is talking about re: MLK can only hope to pull the wool over the lecturees eyes. The lecturer hardly ever makes a disclaimer that they really don't know what they're talking about. So, it can be nothing else, IMO, than a ploy.

I mean, the idea that Blacks/Black leaders today are somehow out of touch with what MLK fought for reeks of historical ignorance. It's as if the people who try this 'ploy' are ignorant of how MLK was received in his time and how MLK was doing and saying essentially the same the Blacks/Blacks leaders are now. In fact, MLK had to make that same speech. He had to tell people in his time who, perhaps, charged him with being out-of-step or out-of-touch... that he was saying the same things that have been said by Black (leaders) for years.

*

Xibit · #4 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

This is sad. Your cherry picking of evidence accomplishes nothing....

Sorry, Rodog. This thread is about MLK's beliefs as they relate to whether he was for or against AA type preferences/programs. Now, if you believed I cherry picked something then it is incumbent upon you to highlight a number of things MLK said/wrote that shows how he didn't support AA type preferences/programs.

That's the discussion here. Feel free to join in without bringing in all your baggage from other threads. The only issue here is where MLK stood on the issue. So, if MLK believed in race-based discrimination... sobeit. You got a problem with it? Take it up with him. Maybe he'll be receptive to your
"GET OFF YOUR AZZ" speech. I'm sure that applies to him (Colin Powell and others) too, right?

And, really... I'm trying to figure out if you even know what you're trying to argue. Exactly what about this information re: MLK do you think is suppose to be "evidence" selectively chosen to further the pro-AA argument?

How is MLK's views "evidence"?? EXPLAIN THAT... then get to discussing what you know about MLK's views on AA type ideas - i.e. the TOPIC here.
Oh but in all your claims, let's see if you will ever present actual facts (not conjecture, not dictionary references... FACTS) regarding AA causing racial discrimination; FACTS that show how it was, indeed, the race-based application of AA (not to be confused with the GENDER BASED application which, by the Washington State *EVIDENCE* was the PRINCIPAL, most consequential AA application) that EXCLUDED a specific race (or someone from a specific race) from an actual opportunity.

Do that then reconcile THE FACTS you come up with... with your curious little lecture which dismiss RACIAL DISCRIMINATION:

Asians are discriminated against based on their IQ scores and intelligence. That doesn't seem to stop them from making more money and graduating from school more often then whites...

Hmmm.... So I guess racial discrimination isn't a big deal then. Hey, if it doesn't stop you then... [fill in the blanks]

Funny how you're not on this board trying champion the cause of Asian Americans who are, as you acknowledged, being racially discriminated against. Funny how that works and there's no historical and present-day inequality issue in the White/Asian case like there is in the Black/White scenario. Hmmm...

Take a read

Reverse racism, or how the pot got to call the kettle black New Crisis, The - Find Articles

In America "whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others," the author writes. "Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others. Isn't one 'bad as the other? The answer is no."

*

Xibit · #5 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

You still haven't proven your claim that AA is not race based discrimination..

That's irrelevant here. And your take on whether I have proven my claim or not is irrelevant too. You had your own TV stuff blow up in your face. So your statement means nothing.

But once again... THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THAT.

Quote:

pointing out that MLK was for AA does not change its definition.

And??? YOUR POINT???

Thread Title: MLK and AA type preferences

Thread Commentary: It is, indeed, a national tragedy that so many people are willfully ignorant of what MLK proposed
and [how they] actually portray MLK and his beliefs in a way that's completely at odds with what he believed and proposed...

STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO FIND AND GET ON THE SUBJECT!

Quote:

I do not have to prove your cherry picking because you have yet to prove that AA isn't race based.

Excuses... excuses... You act like you can't understand what the word PRINCIPAL means.

Quote:

Your refusal to prove that it isn't now that your "but white women benefit too" argument is dead proves that you are cherry picking.

My argument must have died for chronic laughter...

You sure didn't do a damn thing to kill it. The fact is: YOU'RE DEAD! You've run out of ammo. You have no hops and you just can't compete. That's why you're still getting POSTERIZED and SLAM DUNKED on.

QUESTION: How is MLK's views "evidence"??

I'll repeat as many times as it takes you to answer it; honestly.

*

emptypepsi · #6 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 04:38 PM

Rodog, this is not a thread about the justice/injustice of AA. Xibit has made it clear that he is posting this thread as a means to discuss the intentions and wishes of MLK, and how he feels they are misrepresented today. I suggest starting a new thread or using an existing one in the forum to continue that aspect of the issue.

In any case, the tone in this thread from both sides needs to be brought down. There is no need to get hostile with one another over this. Let's keep this civil.

Xibit · #7 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

In any case, the tone in this thread from both sides needs to be brought down. There is no need to get hostile with one another over this. Let's keep this civil.

Sorry, I have to disagree. I am being very civil. I shouldn't have to state over and over again the reason why I made a thread. I especially shouldn't have to do that when, in the other thread, RODOG himself wanted to complain (without a basis) about me bringing up stuff from old threads.

I expect people to stop assigning alterior motives to me that I do not have and to also practice what they want to preach to me. I also expect people to stop trying to act like AA or any other issue that has to do with race can only be discussed in one way or can't be treated like other issues where people hardly object to multiple thread topics discussing various aspects of the issue.

I've never heard someone object to, for example, Iraq war threads or even something like abortion.

Xibit · #8 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 04:58 PM

To clarify, there really is no reason for me to use MLK as "evidence" because I, for one, do not necessarily agree with everything MLK did/said. So it would be hypocritical of me to present MLK as "evidence" and act as if he's someone no one can disagree with because I most certainly reserve my right to disagree with MLK.

EP, perhaps you can encourage RODOG to explain his... well, his accusation and/or why he's so bothered by me posting this thread. Seriously, if people need me to post the comments which inspired me to make this thread, to combat the alarming ignorance that's out there... I will upon request.

Anyway... EP? Did I answer your question? And, if so, do you have any other questions or comments on the topic here?

*

emptypepsi · #9 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xibit

To clarify, there really is no reason for me to use MLK as "evidence" because I, for one, do not necessarily agree with everything MLK did/said. So it would be hypocritical of me to present MLK as "evidence" and act as if he's someone no one can disagree with because I most certainly reserve my right to disagree with MLK.

EP, perhaps you can encourage RODOG to explain his... well, his accusation and/or why he's so bothered by me posting this thread. Seriously, if people need me to post the comments which inspired me to make this thread, to combat the alarming ignorance that's out there... I will upon request.

Anyway... EP? Did I answer your question? And, if so, do you have any other questions or comments on the topic here?

*

Yes, your post addressed to me answered my question.

In regards to the tone of the thread, that is fine if you don't feel the need to defend yourself against his AA comments. I would agree with you: simply don't. But it is certainly not appropriate to go and make comments like this:

Quote:

My argument must have died for chronic laughter... You sure didn't do a damn thing to kill it. The fact is: YOU'RE DEAD! You've run out of ammo. You have no hops and you just can compete. That's why you're still getting POSTERIZED and SLAM DUNKED on.

This is just allowing the off-topic nature of it to continue. We should want to keep the topic that you posted alive and not let the thread deteriorate. Just ignore any further off-topic baiting, and I assure you that since it has been identified by a mod (myself), any further off-topic baiting will be handled.

Xibit · #10 (**permalink**) 08-05-2007, 05:10 PM

Okay. Thank you. I'll try to control myself. I usually handle off-topic stuff myself. But since you're going to do it... Cool!