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?
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?
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.
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.
The term arose long after MLK was dead, so there won’t be a direct quote.
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.
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.
Cool.
Where was the “competition” in k9bfriender’s post?
Right. And again, this is relevant to this thread because…
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?
What sort discrimination (“positive” or negative) was being advocated in the post you quoted?
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?
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?
Where have I said anything like that in this thread? Where has anyone said anything like that in this thread?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
Your inability to keep up in the debate has been noted.
If that guy got a bump over someone else simply for the color of his skin, YES.
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?
Okay, thank you for that random statement.
Were you actually going to answer the question I asked though?
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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!
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.
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.
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.