Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:09 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,873

MLK's vision: Are we moving towards it or away from it?


MLK famously said that he hoped for a society in which people were assessed on the basis of their character rather than their skin color.

But half a century later, society seems to be just as hyper-focused on skin color. We seem to have made almost no progress at all towards disregarding color; indeed, the advent of identity politics is putting more and more emphasis on someone's characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) Notably, the rise of white identity politics arguably played a key role in Trump's 2016 win.
  #2  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:46 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
MLK famously said that he hoped for a society in which people were assessed on the basis of their character rather than their skin color.

But half a century later, society seems to be just as hyper-focused on skin color. We seem to have made almost no progress at all towards disregarding color; indeed, the advent of identity politics is putting more and more emphasis on someone's characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) Notably, the rise of white identity politics arguably played a key role in Trump's 2016 win.
Assessing the character of someone based on their skin color is certainly incorrect.

Assessing the difficulties that they may have encountered in their lives due to their skin color is not.
  #3  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:53 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
MLK famously said that he hoped for a society in which people were assessed on the basis of their character rather than their skin color.

But half a century later, society seems to be just as hyper-focused on skin color. We seem to have made almost no progress at all towards disregarding color; indeed, the advent of identity politics is putting more and more emphasis on someone's characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) Notably, the rise of white identity politics arguably played a key role in Trump's 2016 win.
Possibly a silly question, but... how much do you actually know about MLK? Like, have you spent any significant amount of time looking into what he's said, his writings, the background of his movement? Or did you go over "I have a dream" once in high school? Because I've found that people who complain about "identity politics" usually belong to the latter category:
The most significant issue to be addressed by this essay is how Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy has been misused in support of the colorblind thesis. As noted in the prologue, King dreamed that one day his "four little children [would] live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." This statement has been wrenched out of the social and political context in which King lived and died and has been misappropriated by some proponents of colorblindness who erroneously argue that "if colorblindness was good enough for Martin Luther King. . .then it ought to be good enough for a society that still aspires to the movement's goals of equality and fair treatment." This incorrect and ahistorical perversion of King's statement distorts his actual views and legacy, and illustrates the dangers of the misuse of "acontextual snippets."
It's not hard to figure this out, because the effect of colorblind ideology is never actually removing racism, but rather removing any tools we have to talk about racism. Most racism is subconscious - you can't just turn it off. (And if it is active, most of those people aren't interested in being colorblind.) For many of us, raised in a society that is deeply racist, surrounded by media that is deeply racist, those stereotypes and differences are ingrained in our subconscious. Ignoring them enables them.

(None of these are new or interesting critiques of "colorblindness", mind you. There really ought to be a rule that anyone who cites "I have a dream" in favor of colorblindness without reading his writings from the Birmingham jail about "white moderates" gets flogged on a plantation or something.)

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 08-11-2019 at 03:55 AM.
  #4  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:59 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,101
If we successfully overcome overt prejudice, then all racism would be as unimportant as black racism against white people is today, which most people would consider unimportant.
  #5  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:35 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
If we successfully overcome overt prejudice, then all racism would be as unimportant as black racism against white people is today, which most people would consider unimportant.
That doesn't really work because power relations are absolutely a thing. Assuming that black people have the same subconscious biases against white people (not sure that's the case), you don't have black people running almost every fortune 500 company, black people don't run most HR departments, black people don't overwhelmingly control the levers of power in society. Maybe if we overcome overt prejudice and completely redo the last 400 years of history, we could get there.
  #6  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:41 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,711
I think we were moving towards it, in something like a several steps forward a few steps backwards type of way. I think sometime in the middle of Obamaís second term, for a reason that till this day completely eludes me, some people here in the US and around the world started becoming more nationalistic and racist. Since then weíve been slowly losing ground. Now itís a few steps forward several steps back loss of progress. I have a few thoughts on what may have happened, but I have no idea if everyone of these things contributed some, if some didnít contribute at all, or which factors are more important in the recent increase of racism. Here are two of my thoughts, one specific to the US and one for the world as a whole.

1. We (American society in general) may have become too complacent and willing to tolerate hate speech from the far right. The thinking may have been, at least in part, that if a black man has become president, that means racism is over. Therefore what could be the harm of letting a few loonies spread there crazy theories. Now weíre finding out what the harm is.

2. I think something changed in the world overall in the last 5 to 10 years or so that has encouraged the rise of nationalism. Iím not sure what triggered this. This isnít a problem limited to countries where the majority are people of European decent. Sure we have Trump, Boris Johnson, Viktor Orban, etc. But there are also Rodrigo Duterte, Narendra Modi, JaŪr Bolsonaro, and so on. Racism isnít limited to white people, and whatever is causing some white people to become more racist might be contributing to the same problem in non-European countries, the only difference being who the targets of discrimination are.
  #7  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:50 AM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I think we were moving towards it, in something like a several steps forward a few steps backwards type of way. I think sometime in the middle of Obamaís second term, for a reason that till this day completely eludes me, some people here in the US and around the world started becoming more nationalistic and racist. Since then weíve been slowly losing ground. Now itís a few steps forward several steps back loss of progress. I have a few thoughts on what may have happened, but I have no idea if everyone of these things contributed some, if some didnít contribute at all, or which factors are more important in the recent increase of racism. Here are two of my thoughts, one specific to the US and one for the world as a whole.

1. We (American society in general) may have become too complacent and willing to tolerate hate speech from the far right. The thinking may have been, at least in part, that if a black man has become president, that means racism is over. Therefore what could be the harm of letting a few loonies spread there crazy theories. Now weíre finding out what the harm is.

2. I think something changed in the world overall in the last 5 to 10 years or so that has encouraged the rise of nationalism. Iím not sure what triggered this. This isnít a problem limited to countries where the majority are people of European decent. Sure we have Trump, Boris Johnson, Viktor Orban, etc. But there are also Rodrigo Duterte, Narendra Modi, JaŪr Bolsonaro, and so on. Racism isnít limited to white people, and whatever is causing some white people to become more racist might be contributing to the same problem in non-European countries, the only difference being who the targets of discrimination are.
Bolding mine

I think Obama was the reason for the change. From the day he took office it felt like every [conservative / republican / right wing whatever] made it their mission to ensure he failed. He was supposed to be a one term president and serve as warning to majority white nations everywhere that this is what happens when you put one of "those people" in charge. When he managed to succeed despite all of the obstacles their inbred belief in white superiority came off the rails, they lost their shit and started to fight back using the same tactics their grandparents employed to great success.
  #8  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:14 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
It takes time and effort to judge based on character. This was true then and it is true now. Are individuals more willing to devote time and effort before judging someone? Probably not. Corporations and other large organizations on the other hand do devote time and effort to this judgement because it is profitable to do so. There is clearly some value in more accurately judging someone.
  #9  
Old 08-12-2019, 11:58 AM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 173
To answer the OP:

Once upon a time I used to think that we all at least tried to live up to the MLK ideal. But after the election of Trump, and resurgence or white nationalism and participating in several threads on the dope about why skin color is so super important in cosplay (or why Bond can't be black, or why Superman can't be black, or why Ariel MUST be white) I can no longer convince myself that white folks have ever judged any of us solely by the content of our characters. If we can't even do make believe without making skin color being a critical factor then what chance does reality have?

Yes, I am painting with a wide brush...#notallwhitepeople
  #10  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:41 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Assessing the character of someone based on their skin color is certainly incorrect.

Assessing the difficulties that they may have encountered in their lives due to their skin color is not.
And with one fell swoop, we have devolved into a nothingness argument because it is most assuredly false, just as the argument FOR any sort of racial divide is completely wrong. This applies to affirmative action as well

The world should be color blind.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 08-12-2019 at 12:43 PM.
  #11  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:54 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The world should be color blind.
Is it though?

Will simply wishing it, or expecting it to be that way make it so? If we all collectively pretend that it is, will that actually do anything?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 08-12-2019 at 12:55 PM.
  #12  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:56 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,598
It depends on the color of the skin. There used to be massive prejudice against Chinese, Japanese, Indians (from India) in the U.S. Now it has mostly disappeared.
  #13  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:07 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Assessing the character of someone based on their skin color is certainly incorrect.

Assessing the difficulties that they may have encountered in their lives due to their skin color is not.
Er, no, that's still race based discrimination (read: racism). Stop doing that if you care at all about MLK's teachings. He was NOT a fan of oppression olympics. They don't help anyone.
  #14  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:16 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
And with one fell swoop, we have devolved into a nothingness argument because it is most assuredly false, just as the argument FOR any sort of racial divide is completely wrong. This applies to affirmative action as well

The world should be color blind.
Congratulations, you've gotten your wish. The world is now completely colorblind! You literally cannot see skin color or any other phenotypical differences between black people and white people. The only way anyone can tell you're white is that you spend a whole lot of time on the internet being very happy that nobody can tell what race you are any more.

So how would you propose dealing with the massive wealth disparity that comes from one (no-longer-recognizable) group spending the last 300 years aggregating wealth and power, and the other (no-longer-recognizable) group spending almost all of the last 300 years de facto or de jure enslaved, discriminated against, and abused? Do we just accept these class differences and expect them to eventually sort themselves out, or what?

We have racial divides whether you like it or not. These divides come from centuries of racism. Slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow, redlining, blockbusting, the war on drugs, police brutality against black men, and much more. All acts of aggression by white people against black people that left deep wounds on countless communities. And now you want to say "forget all that" and pretend that we're even? Even if we assume that we can be colorblind (we aren't, as countless studies have shown, even close to that point), how does one ignore countless historical misdeeds and come out with justice?

(For anyone interested in how this sort of thing plays out in practice, Contrapoints did a deep dive into the way racist policies affected Freddie Gray, destroyed his life, and ultimately led to his death at the hands of the police. You can find it here - "Baltimore - Anatomy of an Uprising".)
  #15  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:17 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
Er, no, that's still race based discrimination (read: racism). Stop doing that if you care at all about MLK's teachings. He was NOT a fan of oppression olympics. They don't help anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Possibly a silly question, but... how much do you actually know about MLK? Like, have you spent any significant amount of time looking into what he's said, his writings, the background of his movement? Or did you go over "I have a dream" once in high school? Because I've found that people who complain about "identity politics" usually belong to the latter category
...But I repeat myself. If your definition of "racism" includes affirmative action, your definition of racism is pretty awful, and/or you don't actually know what affirmative action actually is.
  #16  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:23 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
Er, no, that's still race based discrimination (read: racism). Stop doing that if you care at all about MLK's teachings. He was NOT a fan of oppression olympics. They don't help anyone.
From an interview between Dr. King and author Alex Haley, in 1965, as reported here:

Quote:
In 1965 the writer Alex Haley interviewed King for an interview that ran in Playboy Magazine. Haley asks him about an employment program to help "20,000,000 Negroes." After expressing his approval for it, King estimates that such a program would cost $50 billion.

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

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."
So... sounds like you're kind of wrong about what ideas MLK supported and what ideas he opposed.
  #17  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:31 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So how would you propose dealing with the massive wealth disparity that comes from one (no-longer-recognizable) group spending the last 300 years aggregating wealth and power, and the other (no-longer-recognizable) group spending almost all of the last 300 years de facto or de jure enslaved, discriminated against, and abused?
The real problem facing most of the members of this group is poverty. It doesn't matter how anyone fell into poverty - and oh yes, the last 300 years definitely pushed a lot of black people into it - but there is no racial solution to poverty and attempting to approach it as a race problem doesn't actually lead to any viable solutions. Fight poverty and you eliminate the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Do we just accept these class differences and expect them to eventually sort themselves out, or what?
Our economic system is not designed to decrease class differences, it is designed to amplify and reinforce them. Counter-trend mechanisms must be put into place, or the mechanisms that cause this divergence must be softened. Measures like California trying to eliminate the fee-for-not-being-able-to-pay-fees loop, or eliminating bail. Medicare for All would also be a boon, as would an automatically inflation adjusted minimum wage... and these are just a few of the glaringly obvious, low hanging fruit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
We have racial divides whether you like it or not.
Race is a less significant factor than poverty in virtually any meaningful statistic. There certainly is racism, but class has vastly more influence than race, and this is reflected virtually across the board. Poverty is a nasty cycle, and the "divides" between races virtually vanish as soon as you control for poverty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
These divides come from centuries of racism. Slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow, redlining, blockbusting, the war on drugs, police brutality against black men, and much more. All acts of aggression by white people against black people that left deep wounds on countless communities. And now you want to say "forget all that" and pretend that we're even? Even if we assume that we can be colorblind (we aren't, as countless studies have shown, even close to that point), how does one ignore countless historical misdeeds and come out with justice?
No one is asking you to forget. I'm trying to get you to solve, rather than divide.
  #18  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:32 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 222
@Miller: Jesus, it's in the quote YOU provided, man:

Quote:
I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all race
  #19  
Old 08-12-2019, 02:00 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
@Miller: Jesus, it's in the quote YOU provided, man:
Yes, and...? Are you under the impression that only black people can benefit from Affirmative Action?
  #20  
Old 08-12-2019, 02:14 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,538
I think we are separating even more. Look at all the colleges which now have separate events for "students of color".
  #21  
Old 08-12-2019, 02:31 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Yes, and...? Are you under the impression that only black people can benefit from Affirmative Action?
For one, I haven't mentioned that, you have. And for two, I said oppression olympics are bad and contrary to MLK's teachings. Care to establish relevance? I mean, are you saying that affirmative action is an example of oppression olympics or something?
  #22  
Old 08-12-2019, 03:00 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
For one, I haven't mentioned that, you have. And for two, I said oppression olympics are bad and contrary to MLK's teachings. Care to establish relevance? I mean, are you saying that affirmative action is an example of oppression olympics or something?
Fair enough, you didn't say anything about AA, and it was a mistake for me to think that's what you were referring to.

As for relevance, MLK was pretty explicit in feeling that the legacy of racism in the US justified some pretty sweeping government programs to be properly addressed. That attitude seems entirely in keeping with what k9befriender posted, which you called out as racist and "oppression olympics," and contrary to the values espoused by MLK. Can you support that assertion? Can you show where MLK ever called out "oppression olympics" (in those words, or others) as something to which he was opposed? You'll probably have to define "oppression olympics," while you're at it. Like, I don't think that white people face significant racial discrimination in this country. I do think that black people face significant racial discrimination in this country. Am I engaging in "oppression olympics" for stating that? Do you think MLK would have disagreed with me if he heard me expressing that opinion?
  #23  
Old 08-12-2019, 03:03 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
And with one fell swoop, we have devolved into a nothingness argument because it is most assuredly false, just as the argument FOR any sort of racial divide is completely wrong. This applies to affirmative action as well

The world should be color blind.
If a black person applies at 10 companies, and the first 9 pass him by for a white guy with equal qualification, you cannot call any of them racist, they all can say they just flipped a coin; but the tenth company sees the difficulty that person has had to overcome, and hires him over a slightly more qualified white guy, that last company is the racist one, correct?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 08-12-2019 at 03:08 PM.
  #24  
Old 08-12-2019, 03:28 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
As for relevance, MLK was pretty explicit in feeling that the legacy of racism in the US justified some pretty sweeping government programs to be properly addressed.
Yes but that has nothing to do with oppression olympics. Acknowledging oppression isn't competing over it.

For clarity, "oppression olympics" refers to one group trying to demonstrate greater oppression than another group, usually in the context of "I am more oppressed than you, therefore..." usually followed with "I deserve more sympathy/attention/care/relevance in dialogue." The problem is, this does nothing to help anyone and usually makes groups which are facing the exact same problem into enemies who are fighting each other over a meaningless prize. It has severe consequences, such as when it feeds into identity politics by turning poor whites against poor blacks. That's why we have a President Trump. Instead of focusing on fixing poverty, people focused dog-whistled on issues of race.

Like I said, MLK was not trying to win the oppression olympics. He said, in the very quote you provided, that Affirmative Action should be for all disadvantaged people. He was consistent with that across the board. Yes, he would highlight the specific oppression of the african american peoples, but it wasn't to "win" the most support for blacks, it was just to highlight an example of systemic oppression to support a general solution to the harms facing all disadvantaged people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
That attitude seems entirely in keeping with what k9befriender posted, which you called out as racist and "oppression olympics," and contrary to the values espoused by MLK. Can you support that assertion?
The part I quoted was an example of race based discriminatory behavior. That's racist. It may be well meant, but it's racist all the same. I can be a racist by supporting a positive or a negative thing if the grounds for my support of discriminatory treatment are based on race.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Can you show where MLK ever called out "oppression olympics" (in those words, or others) as something to which he was opposed?
The term arose long after MLK was dead, so there won't be a direct quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Like, I don't think that white people face significant racial discrimination in this country.
So what? It's not a contest. Your way of thinking is, whoever is most worse off deserves all of the attention. Do you believe that the "real problem" is that one particular group of people are the worst off of all people, or that decent human beings are being subjected to poverty regardless of membership of any particular group? Is what happened before more relevant than what's happening to children and families right now? I care about the current effects of poverty and the damage it causes to people. I believe that must be addressed. I don't care about the history, I care about the situation right now.
  #25  
Old 08-12-2019, 03:41 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I think we are separating even more. Look at all the colleges which now have separate events for "students of color".
As opposed to the good old days when there were almost no students of color attending major universities. But events were targeted at all the students who were enrolled, gosh darn it.
  #26  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:13 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
Yes but that has nothing to do with oppression olympics. Acknowledging oppression isn't competing over it.
Cool.

Where was the "competition" in k9bfriender's post?

Quote:
For clarity, "oppression olympics" refers to one group trying to demonstrate greater oppression than another group, usually in the context of "I am more oppressed than you, therefore..." usually followed with "I deserve more sympathy/attention/care/relevance in dialogue." The problem is, this does nothing to help anyone and usually makes groups which are facing the exact same problem into enemies who are fighting each other over a meaningless prize. It has severe consequences, such as when it feeds into identity politics by turning poor whites against poor blacks. That's why we have a President Trump. Instead of focusing on fixing poverty, people focused dog-whistled on issues of race.
Right. And again, this is relevant to this thread because...

Quote:
Like I said, MLK was not trying to win the oppression olympics. He said, in the very quote you provided, that Affirmative Action should be for all disadvantaged people. He was consistent with that across the board. Yes, he would highlight the specific oppression of the african american peoples, but it wasn't to "win" the most support for blacks, it was just to highlight an example of systemic oppression to support a general solution to the harms facing all disadvantaged people.
It seems like you're saying, here, that MLK was only incidentally focused on racism in the US. Is that an accurate read of your position?

Quote:
The part I quoted was an example of race based discriminatory behavior. That's racist. It may be well meant, but it's racist all the same. I can be a racist by supporting a positive or a negative thing if the grounds for my support of discriminatory treatment are based on race.
What sort discrimination ("positive" or negative) was being advocated in the post you quoted?

Quote:
The term arose long after MLK was dead, so there won't be a direct quote.
Yes, thanks, I'm aware. I included the bit about "in those words, or others," to try to forestall exactly this sort of response. So, let's try again.

You've been very emphatic in claiming that MLK opposed "oppression olympics," and that the concept behind "oppression olympics" was anathema to his value system

Cite?

Quote:
So what? It's not a contest.
I never said that it was. I asked, "Do you think MLK would object to someone saying that white people do not face as much racial discrimination in this country as black people?"

Well? Do you?

Quote:
Your way of thinking is, whoever is most worse off deserves all of the attention.
Where have I said anything like that in this thread? Where has anyone said anything like that in this thread?

Quote:
Do you believe that the "real problem" is that one particular group of people are the worst off of all people, or that decent human beings are being subjected to poverty regardless of membership of any particular group?
False dilemma. I do not have to believe that one group of people is inherently worse than all other groups of people, to believe that both systematic and personal racism remain serious problems in this country that are directly related to outcome disparities for minority groups. Likewise, I can believe that poverty is a serious problem that affects people from all ethnic and racial groups, while also recognizing that the effects of poverty fall disproportionately on certain minority groups, and also understand that for much of our nation's history - and well into living memory - that disparity was a deliberate and purposeful result of American domestic economic policies.

Quote:
Is what happened before more relevant than what's happening to children and families right now?
Also a false dilemma. Both of those factors can be relevant. The possibility that one is more relevant does not imply that the other is irrelevant. And, of course, talking about the less relevant aspect does not preclude talking (and, of course, acting) on the more relevant aspect.

As you pointed out yourself, it's not a contest.

Quote:
I care about the current effects of poverty and the damage it causes to people. I believe that must be addressed. I don't care about the history, I care about the situation right now.
Yeah, when I think about the ethos and values espoused by Martin Luther King, the first thing that comes to mind is, "I don't care about history." Right after that, "Don't know much biology," and "Don't know much about a science book."

Wait, fuck, sorry. That's Sam Cooke, not Dr. King. I always get those two mixed up. Sam Cooke was the guy who wrote catchy music. Dr. King was the tireless advocate for racial justice who spoke extensively about the importance of understanding and addressing the history of racial intolerance in this country as a necessary step in the process of healing the racial divide.

Pretty sure neither one of them would be signing on to your argument here, though.
  #27  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:13 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Is it though?

Will simply wishing it, or expecting it to be that way make it so? If we all collectively pretend that it is, will that actually do anything?
Yes actually , it will. Before too long , all of our genetic make up will be so muddied that colors of skin tone won't matter one iota.
  #28  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:17 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 222
@Miller: You're so far off the mark it's not worth discussing with you. You're either intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying, or just so fixated in your beliefs that you can't understand me. Either way, there's no point in trying to continue.
  #29  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:22 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Congratulations, you've gotten your wish. The world is now completely colorblind! You literally cannot see skin color or any other phenotypical differences between black people and white people. The only way anyone can tell you're white is that you spend a whole lot of time on the internet being very happy that nobody can tell what race you are any more.

So how would you propose dealing with the massive wealth disparity that comes from one (no-longer-recognizable) group spending the last 300 years aggregating wealth and power, and the other (no-longer-recognizable) group spending almost all of the last 300 years de facto or de jure enslaved, discriminated against, and abused? Do we just accept these class differences and expect them to eventually sort themselves out, or what?

We have racial divides whether you like it or not. These divides come from centuries of racism. Slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow, redlining, blockbusting, the war on drugs, police brutality against black men, and much more. All acts of aggression by white people against black people that left deep wounds on countless communities. And now you want to say "forget all that" and pretend that we're even? Even if we assume that we can be colorblind (we aren't, as countless studies have shown, even close to that point), how does one ignore countless historical misdeeds and come out with justice?

(For anyone interested in how this sort of thing plays out in practice, Contrapoints did a deep dive into the way racist policies affected Freddie Gray, destroyed his life, and ultimately led to his death at the hands of the police. You can find it here - "Baltimore - Anatomy of an Uprising".)

So the world is colorblind , except those who feel wronged, them, they still are pissed at "those others"

This is where personal responsibility steps in. You go to school. You learn. You don't have kids out of wedlock. You get a job. You make money. You live. By continuing your tirade against those "others", the ones whom you think have been aggregating power, money and prestige, you are encouraging racism (or something eerily like it) from those who would have maybe never experienced it. Trying to unite one demographic, DIVIDES them from others. When we should all be trying to be one.

My cite is the world today.

You know who gains from that? Politicians and those you are trying to stop.

If things are bad, legislate them to be bad for everyone. Make it so the enforcing of them is color blind (which it would be in a color blind world. You know what it wouldn't do? It wouldn't fix classism, but then again, nothing will fix classism.

Poor people all over, red, blue, white, black, they would still be hard up against the rock and left without things that the wealthy or better to do are.

But it fixes racism.
  #30  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:22 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
@Miller: You're so far off the mark it's not worth discussing with you. You're either intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying, or just so fixated in your beliefs that you can't understand me. Either way, there's no point in trying to continue.
Your inability to keep up in the debate has been noted.
  #31  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:23 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If a black person applies at 10 companies, and the first 9 pass him by for a white guy with equal qualification, you cannot call any of them racist, they all can say they just flipped a coin; but the tenth company sees the difficulty that person has had to overcome, and hires him over a slightly more qualified white guy, that last company is the racist one, correct?
If that guy got a bump over someone else simply for the color of his skin, YES.
  #32  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:26 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Your inability to keep up in the debate has been noted.
Nice try, but you're the one who lacks enough reading comprehension to tell the difference between "I believe" and "MLK said." I was very explicit in differentiating the two, and you were too emotional to see the massive difference. So declare smug victory, take your self-awarded internet points, and have done with it: nothing can possibly convince you you're wrong about anything, so why not pat yourself on the back?
  #33  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:37 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
If that guy got a bump over someone else simply for the color of his skin, YES.
Okay, thank you for that random statement.

Were you actually going to answer the question I asked though?
  #34  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:58 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
Nice try, but you're the one who lacks enough reading comprehension to tell the difference between "I believe" and "MLK said." I was very explicit in differentiating the two...
Can you point out where this explicit differentiation took place? Because I'm not seeing it. You go from claiming that MLK agreed with you about "oppression olympics," to explaining why "oppression olympics" are a bad thing, but I'm not see a part where you go, "Now, Dr. King probably wouldn't agree with this part, but..." You invoke his support for your argument at the beginning, and then continue to make the same argument for the rest of the post. At what point is a reader supposed to understand that you're being explicit in differentiating the two?

Quote:
...and you were too emotional to see the massive difference. So declare smug victory, take your self-awarded internet points, and have done with it: nothing can possibly convince you you're wrong about anything, so why not pat yourself on the back?
I admitted that I was wrong twice in this thread already - first, when I mistook your position as anti-Affirmative Action, and a second time, when I realized I had once again confused a Motown Great for America's Racial Conscience. So I think I'm pretty solid on admitting error.

As for me being too emotional, all I can say is, I'm not the guy who's rage quit this conversation twice in the space of two posts.
  #35  
Old 08-12-2019, 05:18 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 222
Look man, I attributed to MLK's words exactly one thing, a quote you provided. I also said he was not for oppression olympics. I never said he implied, said, or agreed with anything else. That was all you reading from your imagination.

I haven't ragequit anything. I said you are not worth discussing with, because you aren't actually listening. If casual indifference is "rage" to you, then you have a very warped sense of reality. And so long as you're acting the way you are, there's no reason to re-engage with you. So leave it be. I have.
  #36  
Old 08-12-2019, 05:20 PM
amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 9,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
MLK famously said that he hoped for a society in which people were assessed on the basis of their character rather than their skin color.
Why is that the only line that some people seem to have latched on to? And why is that considered the whole of his vision? There were lots of other portions of his vision in that speech and many other speeches and writings that more fully explained the entirety of his vision.

Taking that line out of context is not a good way to understand his ideas.
  #37  
Old 08-12-2019, 06:16 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
Look man, I attributed to MLK's words exactly one thing, a quote you provided. I also said he was not for oppression olympics. I never said he implied, said, or agreed with anything else. That was all you reading from your imagination.
"I attributed to MLK's word exactly one thing! And also this other thing!"

Dude. You responded to someone saying that you can make a pretty good guess if someone's suffered racial discrimination by looking at their race, by calling them a racist and saying that Martin Luther King would not have agreed with them. That's the only topic I've been discussing in here. If I've erroneously assumed that some other point you were making was part of that discussion, may I humbly suggest either clearly labeling when you're making a topic change, or leaving the extraneous bullshit out of your posts? Because from where I'm sitting, everything you've posted seems to be about that topic, and that makes it very frustrating to try to talk to you when you keep berating me for missing these invisible topic shifts you've been salting your posts with.

Quote:
I haven't ragequit anything. I said you are not worth discussing with, because you aren't actually listening.
I've read every post you've made. I've tried to respond to you in detail. You keep throwing around ad hominems and not responding to pretty simple requests for elaboration. You've characterized the people you've disagreed with as racist, lacking in reading comprehension, intentional dishonesty, overly emotional, and delusional.

This, btw, in response to being characterized as "not all that familiar with the works of Martin Luther King, Jr." Because you're totally not the person getting overly emotional in here!

Quote:
If casual indifference is "rage" to you, then you have a very warped sense of reality. And so long as you're acting the way you are, there's no reason to re-engage with you. So leave it be. I have.
Yeah, I don't really buy these posts as being made with "casual indifference." Sorry, that's just not at all the tone that's coming through. Maybe its the way you keep responding to me to let me know that you're not interested in responding to me? The stuff I'm casually indifferent to, I generally don't much engage with. Because of the whole indifference thing, ya know?

Likewise, continually pointing out that you've let something go is sort of the opposite of demonstrating that you've actually let something go.

Last edited by Miller; 08-12-2019 at 06:16 PM.
  #38  
Old 08-12-2019, 06:42 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarinth View Post
Why is that the only line that some people seem to have latched on to? And why is that considered the whole of his vision? There were lots of other portions of his vision in that speech and many other speeches and writings that more fully explained the entirety of his vision.

Posting the whole speech, or even a big summary of it, gets TL'DR syndrome.
  #39  
Old 08-12-2019, 06:58 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Posting the whole speech, or even a big summary of it, gets TL'DR syndrome.
That speech was, admittedly, the single best speech ever given in the English language, and possibly in any language. However, it's only a small part of King's work.

And its most famous line is so famous because it's a great thing to teach in elementary school, partly because it's so unobjectionable to everyone but white separatists; and King's stuff that's more controversial doesn't get taught.

You gotta go out and look it up yourself.
  #40  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:46 PM
amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 9,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Posting the whole speech, or even a big summary of it, gets TL'DR syndrome.
But that sentence isn't really even the essence of that speech; it's just one of the more quotable lines. So when someone (for example the title and OP) implies that it is, it makes it easy to infer that that person hasn't read or heard beyond that line.
  #41  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:53 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Likewise, continually pointing out that you've let something go is sort of the opposite of demonstrating that you've actually let something go.
This is comical.

You don't get that I wont engage with you on the topic because of your extremely toxic behavior, but I'm happy to engage enough to point out your toxicity.

Quote:
That speech was, admittedly, the single best speech ever given in the English language, and possibly in any language.
Much as I am enthralled by the words therein, I do think this is a hyperbolic description of his speech.

It's most remembered, I think, because it fundamentally strikes a chord with people. It speaks to a base truth that people recognize. It's highlights an ideal that most people want to be true of themselves.

How can I put it: I don't know anyone who wants to be an asshole, but I know plenty of assholes. None of them believe they are or aspire to be so, though.

And the desire for something to be true is often the catalyst for people believing that it is true, even when it objectively isn't. I know enough people who believe they judge by character, but then talk about "that thug" on the news who later turns out to be dead, black, and innocent. But they swear by MLK...
  #42  
Old 08-13-2019, 06:27 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,538
So how the heck would anyone REALLY know what King thought? I cant say I've ever really studied anything he wrote. DID he really write alot about major issues?

How would his views have changed? Wasnt it Abbey Hoffman who said years ago "dont trust anyone over 30" and later on said "dont trust anyone UNDER 30". People and views change with experience.

Remember the man was only 39 when he was killed.

How would he have reacted to school de-segregation of the 70's? I was of the impression he actually LIKED segregated schools because he didnt trust whites to run the education of black children.

How would he have reacted to the breakdown of the black family which was partially from government programs?

Basically I just dont think you can judge a man from just one speech.
  #43  
Old 08-13-2019, 06:31 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
So how the heck would anyone REALLY know what King thought? I cant say I've ever really studied anything he wrote. DID he really write alot about major issues?

How would his views have changed? Wasnt it Abbey Hoffman who said years ago "dont trust anyone over 30" and later on said "dont trust anyone UNDER 30". People and views change with experience.

Remember the man was only 39 when he was killed.

How would he have reacted to school de-segregation of the 70's? I was of the impression he actually LIKED segregated schools because he didnt trust whites to run the education of black children.

How would he have reacted to the breakdown of the black family which was partially from government programs?

Basically I just dont think you can judge a man from just one speech.
I think this may just be one of my favorite posts I've ever seen on this forum.
  #44  
Old 08-13-2019, 08:23 AM
Springtime for Spacers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
So how the heck would anyone REALLY know what King thought? I cant say I've ever really studied anything he wrote. DID he really write alot about major issues?

Bolding mine.

Basically I just dont think you can judge a man from just one speech.
I just used this nifty tool called Google and came up with this. You might try it some time.

Quote:
A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King

An exhaustive collection of the speeches, writings, and interviews with the Nobel Prize-winning activist.
It appears to be a big book.
  #45  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:05 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If a black person applies at 10 companies, and the first 9 pass him by for a white guy with equal qualification, you cannot call any of them racist, they all can say they just flipped a coin; but the tenth company sees the difficulty that person has had to overcome, and hires him over a slightly more qualified white guy, that last company is the racist one, correct?
I did answer this question, with a resounding yes.

If a slightly more qualified candidate gets rejected due to the color of his skin, that is racist.

Clearly you disagree, because difficulty something something.
  #46  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:33 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I did answer this question, with a resounding yes.

If a slightly more qualified candidate gets rejected due to the color of his skin, that is racist.
It's not about hating or discriminating against the white guy because of the color of his skin.

It's about recognizing that racism has made life harder for the black guy at every step of the way, and that that necessarily must play into their evaluation.

And of course, there's absolutely nothing racist about the other companies going for the equally qualified white guy all those other times. That's just a thing that happens. Totally normal. That's never a racist thing.

Remember, folks, the only real racism is when someone explicitly does something based on skin color (regardless of why, and especially if it's making up for racial biases), and never when subconscious biases lead to discrimination based on race.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 08-13-2019 at 10:34 AM.
  #47  
Old 08-13-2019, 11:01 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
It's not about hating or discriminating against the white guy because of the color of his skin.

It's about recognizing that racism has made life harder for the black guy at every step of the way, and that that necessarily must play into their evaluation.

And of course, there's absolutely nothing racist about the other companies going for the equally qualified white guy all those other times. That's just a thing that happens. Totally normal. That's never a racist thing.

Remember, folks, the only real racism is when someone explicitly does something based on skin color (regardless of why, and especially if it's making up for racial biases), and never when subconscious biases lead to discrimination based on race.
See, I think this is where talks about equality go off the rails. You can either be equal or you can be biased. Bias by nature is not equal.
Trying to legislate equality by giving advantages to people (who may very well be needful of them) is by definition not equal.

This is why I do not see a way to legislate away racial disparity in regards to what you WANT to see. We CAN legislate away racial disparity with what we DO SEE.
You will never ever know the person's mind or motivations. All of those white folks that got hired, all of them could or could NOT have been racially motivated. But you'd rather err on the side of calling everything racist (and you are far from the only one) than to just let things work themselves out by actually granting EVERYONE equality. (of opportunity anyway, because we all know that some folks want equality of outcomes to be the goal)

Last edited by Kearsen1; 08-13-2019 at 11:02 AM.
  #48  
Old 08-13-2019, 11:21 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Congratulations, you've gotten your wish. The world is now completely colorblind! You literally cannot see skin color or any other phenotypical differences between black people and white people. The only way anyone can tell you're white is that you spend a whole lot of time on the internet being very happy that nobody can tell what race you are any more.

So how would you propose dealing with the massive wealth disparity that comes from one (no-longer-recognizable) group spending the last 300 years aggregating wealth and power, and the other (no-longer-recognizable) group spending almost all of the last 300 years de facto or de jure enslaved, discriminated against, and abused? Do we just accept these class differences and expect them to eventually sort themselves out, or what?

We have racial divides whether you like it or not. These divides come from centuries of racism. Slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow, redlining, blockbusting, the war on drugs, police brutality against black men, and much more. All acts of aggression by white people against black people that left deep wounds on countless communities. And now you want to say "forget all that" and pretend that we're even? Even if we assume that we can be colorblind (we aren't, as countless studies have shown, even close to that point), how does one ignore countless historical misdeeds and come out with justice?

(For anyone interested in how this sort of thing plays out in practice, Contrapoints did a deep dive into the way racist policies affected Freddie Gray, destroyed his life, and ultimately led to his death at the hands of the police. You can find it here - "Baltimore - Anatomy of an Uprising".)
White people as a group have not spent 300 years aggregating wealth and power. Almost all the wealth a person accumulates over their lifetime is spent during their lifetimes. According to this study 75% of white people receive no inheritance at all.
The highest earning ethnic group in the US are Indians and most of those came in the last 20 years.
The history of the US is a history of persecuted groups coming to the US, and achieving huge gains in wealth with little or no help from the government.
  #49  
Old 08-13-2019, 11:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The history of the US is a history of persecuted groups coming to the US, and achieving huge gains in wealth with little or no help from the government.
Somehow this history is different for the groups that were either brought against their will, or who already lived here when the Europeans arrived. I wonder if that history could have something to do with the difference in statistical outcomes?
  #50  
Old 08-13-2019, 11:26 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
Much as I am enthralled by the words therein, I do think this is a hyperbolic description of his speech.
Okay. What speech in English is better-known around the world than the "I Have a Dream" speech? What speech is better, both in context and delivery? What speech in any language fits these criteria?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017