I’ve noticed in the recent “black” threads, there’s a habit of taking quotes of some the better know African-American Leaders. This quotes are then used to make the point that using ‘remedies’ to correct past ‘crimes’ against African-Americans are bad. They are bad, because some of the most famous and well respected African-American leaders, such as Dr. King or Fredrick Dougless wouldn’t have approved.
Clearly Dr. King wants an end to descrimination. However, the speech is titled, “I have a dream.” He knows this isn’t a reality, not yet. Even if that same day, all was well in the world, there was still a generation African-Americans whose only crime was being born “black”; would still be unable to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They would need help. Dr. King was a dreamer, but he was also a realist.
I’ll wait for comments before moving on to Fredrick Dougless.
So the question is, would Dr. King be opposed to Affirmative Action, has those who use this quote imply? The answer is no.
So, if the great believer of “race shouldn’t be an issue”, realizes that race, must be an issue until ALL Americans are on as close an even footing as possible factor, what excuse to you mere mortals have not to?
Well, I certainly disagree with Dr. King Jr.'s belief that black people should be compensated for past wrong doings.
I agree, however, that no person’s statements, dead or alive, should be twisted to fit another’s agenda. It happens all the time, though. It’s nothing new.
I share your irritation when certain posters, in order to support their case, resort to the hackneyed trick of pulling up quotes from black abolitionists and civil right activists, as if to say “Look, even <insert their favorite black person> is in agreement with me.” A lot of the time, these quotes are taken out of context, which is bad in and of itself. But more times than that, what is forgotten in their haste to provide “evidence” of the beliefs of long dead people is that the political climate of those days would have demanded them to soften their message in order to be listened to by the white masses. Be a little frank, be a little angry, and you will get branded a militant. Talk about things that make white people uncomfortable and get yourself labeled a trouble-making negro. Malcolm X knew all about gettin trouble for his candor. And the funny thing is, no one will ever quote him. They quote the people who targetted their message to the ears of sensitive white people.
It really is not very smart to point to a quote in a speech and claim that the speaker actually held that particular view point. Especially when the speaker came from the era of “black man better know his place or his ass will be strung from a magnolia”.
Well from the perspective of Dr. King we are in the future. The speech at the Lincolon memorial is his most famous oration and it summarizes what many feel the civil rights movement was about. Quoting the most famous part of the speech in support of color blind government policies is not taking the speech out of context unless he advocates discrimination in the same speech. He may have changed his mind or expressed sentiments that were different but that does not mean the speech is quoted out of context. Perhaps Dr. King would have supported affirmative action or maybe he would have supported race neutral policies, but unless you can come up with a quote that says he believes that the government should discriminate against whites and asians, it is all just speculation.
I don’t think holmes’ point was that they haven’t been compensated, John. I think his point was, in response to JuanitaTech’s post, asking whether they should have been compensated… basically, if it’s OK for them, why isn’t it OK for African-Americans to also be compensated?
Of course, there’s also the question of just what constitutes adequate compensation for decades of slavery and maltreatment (or attempted genocide, or wrongful imprisonment, etc). To me, the issue of whether people should be compensated for these sorts of past wrongdoings is somewhat moot, because I can’t think of anything that would compensate adequately for the wrongs that were done in the past. “Hey, we know that you (or your ancestors) were enslaved, raped, murdered, tortured, and generally treated very badly in the past. Here’s some money and a chance at a better job to make up for it.” Nope, doesn’t cut it. But I don’t know what would.
Well, “being alive” would be one of them. Compensating people who survived concentration camps (either the Japanese in the U.S. or the Jews in Europe) is a whole different thing from compensating the descendents of blacks who were enslaved.
Right, the problem with that argument is that after the “war” the Jews and Japanese were allowed to participate for the most part in all aspects of American society. Do you agree? I’m not saying that they weren’t descriminated against, but I don’t recall too many Jews or Japanese getting strung up for trying to vote.
Yes the States treated the Japanese horribly, but for how many years? The Africans, suffered not for one generation of for a decade or two, but hundreds of years. Whole “living” families, lived and died in slavery and then in segretation for what another 150 or so years?
This is not about “money”, but the theory of compensation in the abstract. Low interest GI bill loans, is a form a compensation, Student Loans…things that allow people a leg up. That’s what Dr. King was talking about.
You mention being alive as a criteria, okay. If I kill a person’s parents, should their children be compensated? Should they file a “wrongful” death suit or live and let live? What if it happened 50 years ago? How about 100 and it can be proved that by the death of their decendents, my ancestors and therefor me profited and am now millionaries and you are living not so well. Would you seek a judgement against my estate? Should you be allowed to? Would it be the ‘right’ thing to do?
Well, if King dreamed of the day when his children would not be judged on their skin color, and simultaneously supported affirmative action, he was contradicting himself. Affirmative action is judging a person worthy of special treatment (or not) based on their skin color. So quoting him when he speaks of a color-blind society is just choosing the better of his ideals, and rejecting the others.
Pretty much like hailing him as a great moral leader, and ignoring his various moral failings. You support the important stuff, and let the rest slide.
The whole “compensation” deal is another topic, and there have been threads on it. It’s simply unworkable. Who would get paid? From where would the money come? All black people? Only black people who can prove they are descended from slaves? Would, say, Oprah Winfrey get the same amount as a day-laborer from Michigan?
Eve, I’m not talking about handing out dollar bills to black folk, neither was Dr. King. The whole point of this thread is two fold, can one ‘honestly’ hold to the opinion that Dr. King was/would be against Affirmative Action and 2. did he believe some form of compensation was due to African Americans.
What the ‘compensation’ is to be, at this point is irrelevant. I would like to at least have some of you agree to points 1 and 2 or show why not.
Hold on one more second though, you mention that monetary compensation plan is unworkable, which I agree. However to you believe that African Americans should be/should’ve been compensated in some fashion?
But that’s slavery. What about the state-sanctioned sequela to slavery: Jim Crow? People overlook segregation and tend to focus on slavery, when Jim Crow was wreaking signficant havoc only until recently. There are a lot of people alive who clearly remember the days when it was taboo for a black person to vote, live where they wanted to, go to a state university, run for political office, etc. Jim Crow was what King et al were probably talking about when they were talking about compensation, not slavery.
Also remember that King was alive when there were a good number of folks who had parents and grandparents who were slaves. So the notion of reparations for slavery was not exactly ridiculous when you had people walking around carrying around second-hand memories of the “event”.
At the risk of this degrading into another AA fiasco (which, being Canadian, I am very weary of : there are black people outside of America, and there are many ways of addressing “diversity”), I need to point out that AA is NOT happening in a context when his children are not judged on their skin colour. There may be no place for AA in such a situation of true racial equity, but we (North American society) are nowhere near that place.
And, at the risk of continuing the ‘compensation’ hijack, I want to add some food for thought:
How does the situation of African Americans today compare with the situation of Black Africans (as a group, if you can call them a ‘group’)? It could be argued that the descendants of those Africans who were enslaved ended up better off than the descendants of those who weren’t. Who gets compensated, then?
(Note that I’m not saying African Americans are better off than Africans. Strong arguments could be made either way but must be included in any discussion of compensation.)
I agree with this part. Whether the compensation is considered in dollar figures or in some other form is just window-dressing; the point is that no amount of compensation is really adequate, or even appropriate, to make up for hundreds of years of slavery and oppression.
To me, it’s like trying to put a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Nice thought, but really useless in the end.