The aspects of Dr. King's legacy liberals want to exclude.
4-6-2008
In regards to Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy, why isn't this major figure never mentioned by the left? The political pimping of the late Dr. Martin Luther King continued yesterday by the intolerant ideologs of the left. It never ceases to amaze me how absolute shallow and phony liberals are when it comes to the issue of race and class in America. It has already been established long ago that most liberals can’t even begin to embrace the ideological diversity by different races. In other words, liberals have a hard time accepting people of different races that don’t adhere to their way of thinking. I can bear witness to that personally. Yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. Seeing that there are blacks in the United States that have been stuck in a 40 year time warp, that day might as well have been like any other day. Blacks who aren’t blinded by self-imposed shackles realize that the era of the 1960’s is nothing like the certain era we live in today. While people in our country continuously evolve and move forward, they see this country for what it really is. They see America as country in which they can achieve anything if they put their minds too it, also they realize the only factor that can possibly hold them back is indeed themselves.. It’s like the old saying, when you associate with negative minded people, you will develop negative thinking. It’s really that simple. Back to the pimping of Dr. King, The Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain was criticized and booed by some blacks, because he didn’t vote in favor of making Dr. Martin Luther King a national holiday. Of course they never deemed it necessary to ask him why. Actually John McCain didn't have to say anything on the anniversity of Dr. King's death, but he would have been criticzed for not saying anything as well. So he was dammed for speaking out and would have been dammed if he didn't speak out. This is what I mean by the political pimping of Dr. King by liberals. I find it amazing that these self-righteous hypocrites even have the ordasity to speak. Every chance liberals get they makes sure to promote the fact that Lyndon Johnson signed into law the 1964 civil rights act, but they always leave out the fact that if it wasn’t for a Republican Senator from Illinois by the name of Everett Dirksen, the bill would have never made it to Johnson’s desk in the first place. As for the creation of the Dr. King Holiday, they failed to mention two important details about the King Bill. The first detail that liberals can never bring themselves to mention is that the late Strom Thurmond voted in support of the King Holiday. Notice I said SUPPORT and not against. Liberals have been trying to pass off revisionist history about Thurmond since he became a Republican many decades ago. The second detail that liberals can’t bring themselves to admit is that the late Ronald Wilson Reagan was the President who signed into law making Dr. Martin Luther King a National Holiday. Since I broke open the flood gates of history that the left can’t come to grips to mention, I figure why not one more little detail from the history archives. For all of Dr, King’s hard work, there was one Democrat who was silent on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination. That Democrat is a Senator from the state of West Virginia. His name is Robert Byrd. This is the same Robert Byrd just a few years ago used the N word on the Fox News Hannity and Colmes show. So some of you mainly liberals may be asking what does Robert Byrd have to do with Dr. King. During the height of the Civil Right’s movement Senator Robert Byrd referred to Dr. King as a “Negro Troublemaker”. To this date I don’t recall Byrd ever issuing an apology for his remark. The great thing about history is that it’s all out there for anyone to discover. Many Democrats I’m sure wish it was buried instead.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 5:37 PM
26 Comments:
That's because Senator Byrd has "grown" in office.
I have often wondered what would have happened if James Earl Ray had missed that fateful day. When I read your site -- which isn't often enough -- I see someone whose philosophy seems pretty similar to what Dr King preached, a philosophy which demands equal opportunity for black Americans, but holds that equal outcomes are the responsibility of the individuals, not the government, a philosophy which holds that black Americans cannot shirk the responsibilities that all people have.
But Dr King died forty years ago, and the civil rights movement of which he was so great a part has moved on, very far on, from where it was when Dr King died. The Voting Rights Act which he championed was passed, but blacks still vote in lower percentages than whites. Affirmative Action -- which he never championed -- was passed, but black teens, especially boys, drop out of school at tremendous rates, forever disabling them from being eligible for the kinds of things AA could have helped them to obtain.
Dr King provided the most dramatic voice to the move for legal equality for blacks in America, and that legal equality has been achieved, was achieved many years ago. We can't know how Dr King would have reacted to where the civil rights movement has gone in these intervening forty years, but I doubt he would have recognized it.
Tyrone,
I have similar debate with liberals here on that, since they want to claim Republicans and Christian conservatives are racists based on guilty by association with the past:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bookerista/2678513738308494496/?src=hsn
Notice those are the same ones who want to denigrate the memory of Wilberforce, by claiming he was never anti-slavery and that he had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery in the end (to which I retorted what person spent 40-50 ywars of his life crusading against something he was not again).
Btw I used my name Thuyen there.
RB says;"The political pimping of the late Dr. Martin Luther King continued yesterday by the intolerant ideologs of the left."
It is a complete fallacy that liberals or Democrats have "pimped" the legacy of Dr. King. That label falls squarely in the laps of Republicans and conservatives. Dr. Kings political and social views were far left of of conservatives of his day, and even further left of those today.
Many conservatives today paint a picture of Dr. King that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech.
RB states;"Back to the pimping of Dr. King, The Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain was criticized and booed by some blacks, because he didn’t vote in favor of making Dr. Martin Luther King a national holiday. Of course they never deemed it necessary to ask him why."
You're right, Mccain is pimping Dr. Kings legacy. Mccain had been against the King holiday since day one! He should be ashamed.
"In fact, in 1983 McCain did something not even Dick Cheney did: he voted in Congress against a federal holiday in honor of Dr. King, which President Reagan later signed into law. In 1987, McCain supported Arizona Governor Evan Mecham's action to rescind an executive order establishing a state holiday in Martin Luther King's honor. Even in 1989, when McCain finally came around and supported a state holiday, he said he was "still opposed to another federal holiday." As recently as 2000, McCain reportedly said he "resented it when people outside of Arizona got involved" in the issue.
-The Wall Street Journal, 04/03/08-
Mccain had almost 25 years to voice an apology. Yet, why would he give an apology if he was still against funding the MLK holiday commission as late as 1998? I find it awfully convenient that Mccain would offer an apology the same year he receives the Republican nomination for president...hmmmm???
RB says;"the late Ronald Wilson Reagan was the President who signed into law making Dr. Martin Luther King a National Holiday"
Ronald Reagan openly opposed the bill. It wasn't until the congress and the senate passed the virtually "veto-proof" bill did Reagan agree to sign it.
RB says;"the late Strom Thurmond voted in support of the King Holiday"
Republican Sen. Jesse Helms led a bitter opposition to the bill in the Senate. Calling Dr. King a Communist, Helms circulated propaganda and negative information in an effort to defeat the bill. The facts are that 71 percent of the voting Democrats voted for the bill, versus 53 percent of Republicans.
RB says;"Actually John McCain didn't have to say anything on the anniversity of Dr. King's death, but he would have been criticzed for not saying anything as well. So he was dammed for speaking out and would have been dammed if he didn't speak out. This is what I mean by the political pimping of Dr. King by liberals."
I have no idea where you're coming from on that one RB. If Mccain was damned if he did, and damned if he did not, yet chose to speak anyway, he's the one guilty of pimping the legacy? After all, it was he who voted against the bill.
King made several speeches condemning the U.S. Governments military, economic and social policies. He condemned Americas involvement in Viet Nam. He condemned capitalist practices. He was indeed a proponent for reparations.
"Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law."
-Dr. M.L. King,"Why We Cant Wait",1964-
It wouldn't be to far a stretch to say that Dr. King as "Pro-Choice" seeing that he accepted the Margret Sanger Award.
So, are liberals really pimping the Dr. King legacy?
That fact is that if Dr. King were alive today conservatives would view him, more or less, in the same light as an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
Dana misleads;"Affirmative Action -- which he never championed -- was passed,"
My question to you Dana is, "who told you that?" Why would you assume that is true? Are you "pimping" (as Tyrone puts it) Dr. Kings legacy?
Not only does Dr. King advocate "compensation" in his writing "Why We Can't Wait", Alex Haley documents Kings idea's on how much in U.S. dollars is owed to blacks in America.
I really enjoy reading your blog! Your posts are breaths of fresh air to me! I am 23 years old and I am so sick and tired of what the main stream media has to say. It is very hard to find the truth today or some one who cares to know and speak the truth!! Thank you!
Please keep up the great work! God bless you!
P Allen"It is a complete fallacy that liberals or Democrats have "pimped" the legacy of Dr. King. That label falls squarely in the laps of Republicans and conservatives. Dr. Kings political and social views were far left of of conservatives of his day, and even further left of those today.
Actually they weren't Allen. I know what you are going to say, and I am going to take your trump card and burn it right in front of you. Your going to say Dr. King was a liberal because he believed in non violence and was against war. Conservatives and Democrats don't own the patent to war Allen. Liberal freaks try to say otherwise. There are conservatives and Republicans who don't support us being in Iraq and they are liberals and Democrats who do support us being in Iraq. Joe Liberman isn't a conservative, and if I recall most of the Democrats in congress voted in support of the President using military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. So no political party can claim the "non violence" award Allen.
P Allen"Many conservatives today paint a picture of Dr. King that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech"
Dr. King has done and supported many different things in his life, but he is "BEST KNOWN" for leading the civil rights movement Allen. The arguement is pretty lame Allen. Charleston Heston was known for many different aspects throughout his life, but he was BEST KNOWN for being a well established actor. Ronald Reagan was an actor and a Governor but he was BEST KNOWN for being the President of the United States. Do you see where I am going with this Allen? Everything thorughout Dr. King's life will be overshadowed by his envolvement in the 60's civil rights movement. I hope I cleared that up for you.
P Allen "You're right, Mccain is pimping Dr. Kings legacy. Mccain had been against the King holiday since day one! He should be ashamed"
He should be ashamed? Did anyone ever ask him "why" he didn't support the bill in the first place Allen, or it doesn't matter? Using your logic like most liberals have done, they labeled Barry Goldwater a "racist", because he DIDN'T VOTE IN FAVOR of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. On the surface that was enough to brand him, but very few people asked him why he voted against the bill. People who took two seconds to ask him found out that he believed in that the bill should have been an issue for the states. He didn't vote against the bill beacause he was a "racist", he voted against it on liberatarian views. Goldwater was a member of the Arizona chapter of the NAACP, but that didn't matter and still doesn't matter to the left. I wonder how many white racists are members of the NAACP? Thats why my mother always use to tell me "Ask questions first, then come to a conclusion based on the answer". Try it Allen.
P Allen" Republican Sen. Jesse Helms led a bitter opposition to the bill in the Senate. Calling Dr. King a Communist, Helms circulated propaganda and negative information in an effort to defeat the bill. The facts are that 71 percent of the voting Democrats voted for the bill, versus 53 percent of Republicans."
Actually you may have your revisoinst history a little bit backwards Allen. If I recall right Robert Byrd tried to fillabuster the 1964 bill, I'm sure you were going to mention that right Allen?;) As for the votes based along Party lines, your wrong again Allen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party As I said before, Allen liberals are good at presenting an incomplete picture and trying to pass it off as complete.
You mentioned Jesse Helmes believing Dr. King was a communist. Maybe he did believe it or not, I don't know, but you know if he did he wasn't the only one during that time who thought so. John F Kennedy ordered the FBI to do wiretaps on Dr. King believing he had communist ties. So once again Allen "present the whole picture".:-0
P Allen"he said he was "still opposed to another federal holiday." As recently as 2000, McCain reportedly said he "resented it when people outside of Arizona got involved" in the issue.
-The Wall Street Journal, 04/03/08-
"
Like I said before Alle, why would anyone care how McCain voted when Thurmond never got any credit at all for supporting the bill. Where was the thank you from the left Allen?Where was the thanks from the left to Reagan for signing the bill into law in the first place Allen? The whole thing now recks of using Dr. King for political grandstanding. Also like I said, if McCain would have said nothing he would have still been critcized. This is no different then when Democrats used Cloretta Kings's funneral as a political launching point against George Bush. That was ashameful and this is as well.
P Allen" have no idea where you're coming from on that one RB. If Mccain was damned if he did, and damned if he did not, yet chose to speak anyway, he's the one guilty of pimping the legacy? After all, it was he who voted against the bill.
He spoke on the life of Dr. King Allen. Thanks to your own link, you even proved that McCain didn't vote against the holiday based on Dr. King himself.
P Allen "King made several speeches condemning the U.S. Governments military, economic and social policies. He condemned Americas involvement in Viet Nam. He condemned capitalist practices. He was indeed a proponent for reparations."
And everything you mentioned once again is overshadowed by what people in this country knew King best for. Once again it was CIVIL RIGHTS Allen.
P Allen "That fact is that if Dr. King were alive today conservatives would view him, more or less, in the same light as an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson."
To say that conservatives would link Dr. King with the likes of Jesse and Al is too say that Jesse and Al are decent people to begin with. Your stereotype of conservatives is amusing Allen but not factual. Dr. King lived in a diffrent time then we do now.
marie"I really enjoy reading your blog! Your posts are breaths of fresh air to me! I am 23 years old and I am so sick and tired of what the main stream media has to say. It is very hard to find the truth today or some one who cares to know and speak the truth!! Thank you!Please keep up the great work! God bless you!"
Thank you marie. The mainstream media is getting weaker by the day. Eventually one day they will be completely irrelevant. I hope that day comes sooner rather then later.
thuyen tran" have similar debate with liberals here on that, since they want to claim Republicans and Christian conservatives are racists based on guilty by association with the past:
Booker Rising use to be a great site for moderates and conservatives thuyen. Sad to say its been hijacked by a lot of dumbed down and intellectually inept black and white liberal whinners. I'm surprised Shay hasn't clean house. Good luck trying to use facts on that crowd. It's like a woodpecker trying to peck a steel telephone pole. I'll stop over there and post just to get them foaming at the mouth like I normally can make them do, and I do it so well. lol
President Eisenhower, a Republican, introduced a Civil Rights Bills to Congress and the Dems shot them down. However, the Dems with their racist past have fooled Blacks into thinkg they were the pioneers of Civil Rights, when it was them who started the Klan and Jim Crow laws. Whenever you bring that up, they bury their head in the sand.
RB says;"Your going to say Dr. King was a liberal because he believed in non violence and was against war."
No...I said Dr. King had nothing POLITICALLY OR SOCIALLY in common with conservatives then, and if he were alive, would have nothing POLITICALLY OR SOCIALLY in common with them now.
I don't know if King was against war, or armed conflict in general, but he was "definitely" against the war in Viet Nam! King openly advised young men to become "conscientious objectors" and refuse to FIGHT AND DIE FOR AMERICA in the Viet Nam conflict. Is that a conservative point of view????
In my previous post I outlined some of Dr. Kings controversial political views. Controversial in the sense that conservatives would find them contrary to their beliefs. You're either, one, intentionally ignoring, or two, just don't understand what I'm trying to say here.
It is a "FACT" that Dr. King's political, economic and social views are in direct conflict with today's conservative views. Conservatives have taken "one" piece, a tiny clip, a sound byte of the man's ideas, and use it to further a political agenda.
Allow me to use Dana's post as an example. First off, we can pretty much conclude that Dana has "mostly conservative" political views. Dana wrote;
"Affirmative Action -- which he never championed -- was passed, but black teens, ect...
Anyone who is familiar with Dr. Kings work, let alone what he himself had spoke of and wrote, would know that it's blatantly untrue! That statement "reeks" of a type of subtle indoctrination of an idea. An idea that would promote a political agenda. An idea that puts more emphasis on political expediency than on principle.
A clear example of republican/conservative "pimping" the legacy of MLK...
http://video.washingtonpost.com/media/politics/ads/2006_nbra_king.mp3
Dr. King never claimed any political party!! So why would this "conservative republican" group advertise and publicise that he was?
I will concede to you that there are some on the left that distort, commercialize and even attempt to exploit the message and gallant efforts of Dr. King. However, it is "blatantly evident" through his writings, speeches, memoirs, biographies and chronicles that Dr. King had very little, if anything, in common with conservatives.
RB says;"Using your logic like most liberals have done, they labeled Barry Goldwater a "racist", because he DIDN'T VOTE IN FAVOR of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill."
Puh-leeezzz...
I never thought Goldwater was a racist for not voting in favor of the Civil Rights Act. In fact he favored the 1957 which established the CRC and the 1960 Act which prevented his lawyer friend, William Rehnquist, from challenging Arizona minorities with his "poll watching" activities.
Don't forget that Goldwater was running for president in 1964. As a result of his vote against the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater picked up the support of the "Dixiecrats" (ie. Democrats who eventually switched to the Republican party) and he won Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, along with his home state of Arizona.
RB still believes;"However, the Dems with their racist past have fooled Blacks into thinking they were the pioneers of Civil Rights, when it was them who started the Klan and Jim Crow laws."
Blacks have not been fooled by Democrats nor Republicans. Black people have fooled themselves. Blacks are the ones that should adhere to and following the teaching and legacy of Dr. King. Again, if you take a honest look at what he was attempting to accomplish, you would see that all King one of King's major goals was to prevent the divide, the societal breakdowns and social tragedies we see among to many Blacks today.
dana"That's because Senator Byrd has "grown" in office"
lol dana, I wonder did Byrd's growth in race started after he called Dr. King a "trouble maker" forty three years ago or did it start after his N word outburst five years ago?The civil rights movement of forty years ago has become the "civil rights industry" instead.
P Allen"Goldwater picked up the support of the "Dixiecrats" (ie. Democrats who eventually switched to the Republican party) and he won Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, along with his home state of Arizona. "
Name these dixiecrats who went through a poltical conversion Allen and became Republicans Allen. I know Strom Thurmond is used as some sort of poster child by the left for the dixiecrat switch. As usual, they always seem to leave the "important DETAILS" out. Thuromd ran for President as a dixiecrat and after he lost he went back to being a democrat before he became a Republican. The reason why I hate Democrat myths is because people who don't do research will be dumb enough to accept the myth as fact.
P Allen"Blacks have not been fooled by Democrats nor Republicans"
Oh really Allen? Up until the time Barack Obama appeared on the scene, the Clintons especiallly Bill was considered GOD in the black community. Bill could go into any black church in America and start using his preacher swagger voice, and blacks would trip up over themselves clapping for him. If another black person was to diss Clinton in their presence, that person would be verbally broadsided. Blacks in Harlem actually thought that Clinton built his Presidental Library in Harlem, because he wanted to be close to "his people". Blacks gave so much praise to Bill Clinton, yet how much did they know about him? How many of his black supporters knew his mentor was a white segregationt? NOW 15 years later, blacks don't TRUST Bill and Hillary Clinton. When Bill was playing that saxsaphone, blacks didn't have no problem trusting him. When his LYING was exposed and affair with Monica was uncovered, blacks were his most loyal defenders. NOW, they don't trust hime?The Democrat Party can tell any blatten lie right in the face of most blacks, and they will accept it as truth no questions asked. The era of Bill Clinton proved that.
I will NEVER forget when Clinton ran for president in 1992 with Al Gore. First of all they will willing to get rid of affirmative action. No one seems to remember this. Jesse Jackson said that he would tell the blacks to stay home if he did not stop it. He did an immediately about face. It happened so quick that probably very few people know about that one. I'm in OK so we heard a whole lot about Clinton since he was right next door. I knew then that he was no real friend of blacks. I knew that he had suckered blacks into thinking that he was on their side. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the time when I brought this up my friends had a conflict. They knew I would not make that up. At the same time they could not bring themselves to say that he was not for them. Blacks were so suckered when it came to the Clintons.
At the time I would sincerely check out all candidates and where they stood. When Al Gore ran for president in 1988 he ran as a social conservative and emphasized his Christian faith. He was not given any support from the Democratic party. When he became the VP candidate with Clinton he did an about face. That was pretty discouraging to me at the time. I realize now that the Democrats at this point will never promote anyone that is a social conservative. I really saw that during the airing of the Democratic party convention where they picked Howard Dean to lead the party. They slammed down anyone that dared to suggest that they should be more tolerant of people that were against abortion and other things. They were squashed like a bug.
Watching that party in recent years I have come to the conclusion that they could care less about anyone but themselves. It is more and more evident that their programs only benefit them, not the American public. I have not read a lot of Dr. King's writings so I cannot vouch for what anyone says about them. However from what I remember I seriously doubt that he would support a lot of the social anarchy that we have in our nation. We will never know unfortunately.
Amen!..Keep up the good fight!
RB says;"Name these dixiecrats who went through a poltical conversion Allen and became Republicans Allen. I know Strom Thurmond is used as some sort of poster child by the left for the dixiecrat switch. As usual, they always seem to leave the "important DETAILS" out. Thuromd ran for President as a dixiecrat and after he lost he went back to being a democrat before he became a Republican."
Did'nt you read what you wrote? Thurmond ran for president as a "Dixiecrat". He won Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, receiving almost 1.2 million votes. Thurmond was a key figure in the 1964 Republican nominees (Goldwater) race for president. As a result of Thurmonds endorcement, Goldwater won the same states (including his home state of Arizona) that the Dixiecrat Thurmond carried in the 1948 election.
Afterwards, what was once a "solid" Democratic voting south, bolted to the Republican party when choosing a president. After jumping parties, Thurmond did not miss a beat nor vote during his election campaigns. From 1964 until his retirement in 2003, his "new found" republican base (former DEMOCRATS) sent him to washington as their representative in the senate.
RB says;"The reason why I hate Democrat myths is because people who don't do research will be dumb enough to accept the myth as fact."
Historically, prior to FDR's new deal, blacks that were able to vote, voted Republican. I can remember my parents telling me how many blacks voted for Eisenhower in the 50's. The fact is blacks never believed in voting for the party that bolstered segragationist.
The question you need to answer is why was the term "conservative" used to discribe the politics of the racist Democrats and Dixiecrats of that period.
RB says;"The reason why I hate Democrat myths is because people who don't do research will be dumb enough to accept the myth as fact."
And what "myth" might that be?
Every knows (or should know) that after the Civil War and reconstruction, Southern Democrats hated blacks just as much they despised the Republican government and army that defeated them.
Myth??
From 1876 to 1948 "Yaller-Dog" Democrats pledged that they would vote for a yellow dog before casting a vote for a Republican. In 1948 Strom Thurmond and his Southern Democratic constituency split from the national Democratic party to form the segregationist Dixiecrat's. These Southern Democrats were angry with some in the party (particularly Northern Democrats) that were speaking out against the segregationist practices of the South.
Myth???
From 1950 to 1976, the once solid Democratic south voted solid Republican in the presidential race. In 1976 it was Jimmy Carters Southern Baptist roots, his pro-life stance along with the "undeniable" gaffe of Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon and Watergate, that carried Carter to the White house.
Myth????
Since 1980 the once solid Democratic South has voted Republican in presidential elections.
Myth??????
Tyrone: Sad to say its been hijacked by a lot of dumbed down and intellectually inept black and white liberal whinners.
Me: Get this, once I rebutted their claims about Wilberforce not being against slavery, but against the slave trade and only after what happened in Haiti made him see slavery as less prosperous for England, according to them anyways (I pointed out Wilberforce was already involved in abolition movements BEFORE the rebellion in Haiti occurred and also pointed out, he had written at least one tract later on in life calling for complete end of slavery and made that his life mission after the slave trade ended in 1807, not to mention the two great influences on his worldview on slavery were both anti-slavery Christian ministers, John Newton, and John Wesley), they went about bashing him that he didn't pay the slaves for all the work they did, but paid the slaveowners to set them free, as in "one rich white man to other rich white men" (ignoring the country England, not Wilberforce, paid the slaveowners, or otherwise slavery might not have been abolished in 1833, at the same time Wilberforce). They also whined about how come Wilberforce did not work for their rights after they were freed (as if he could pay them or get them rights after he was already DEAD).
It is just boggles my mind the level of hatred they had even for white evangelical abolitionists (not just Wilberforce),on grounds many were not for equal rights or saw blacks as inferior (not the case with Wilberforce, but it seems too much to ask them to get over their own bias against white evangelicals). I quoted black abolitionist Douglass (who unlike them, actually was a slave) to them (I think that part might have shut them up, since Douglass had far more gratitude and he lived in that time though not in England as Wilberforce, than did these ingrates showed). His quotes:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/grac-m02.shtml
“When Wilberforce came forward, public attention became directed to the matter. Ten times did he introduce a bill for the abolition of the slave-trade, and ten times was it doomed to defeat—Parliament sometimes laying the matter on the table, and at other times giving it an indefinite postponement. Convinced that justice, that humanity, that all nature was on his side, believing that by perseverance he would succeed, he went on with his good work. And what do we see take place within half a century? We see the slave-trade, which was sanctioned by all Christians, is now nearly regarded as not only improper, but as piracy, and the men caught at it are hung up at the yard-arm.”
I found the link that threw every slander (including charges he frequented brothels filled with black slave ladies) it can think of at Wilberforce (it looks like that is the source the liberals used to attack a great evangelical who gave almost 50 years of his to a cause for freedom):
http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/news_letters_others/100_blackmen_london/abolition_of_the_slavetrade_special_edition.htm
I quoted Wilberforce's tract against slavery (and not just the slave trade which had already ended when he wrote the tract):
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=kBAUAAAAIAAJ&dq=Appeal+on+Behalf+of+The+Negro+Slaves.&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=f9plmN8n7a&sig=cVmIeuise3dfvHbd0wEo1nA3AXY#PPA1,M1
"To all the inhabitants of the British Empire, who value the favour of God, or are alive to the interests or honour of their country — to all
who have any respect for justice, or any feelings of humanity, I would solemnly address myself. I call upon them, as they shall hereafter answer,
in the great day of account, for the use they shall have made of any power or influence with which Providence may have entrusted them, to employ their best endeavours, by all lawful and constitutional means, to mitigate, and, as soon as it may be safely done, to terminate the
Negro Slavery of the British Colonies; a system of the grossest injustice, of the most heathenish
irreligion and immorality, of the most unprecedented degradation, and unrelenting cruelty."
I sent a bad link (that trashed Wilberforce).
Here is the actual link:
http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/news_letters_others/100_blackmen_london
I read some other stuff online claiming religion had nothing to do with Wilberforce and slavery in order to malign him as against the slave trade for profit not for moral or religious reasons (a look at his writings with those who influenced him, the evangelical leaders John Newton and Wesley, rebut that).
So it looks like liberals not only want to steal King's legacy only for themselves, but they want to trash others' legacy, too.
Sad, is it not?
Please delete the previous post. I keep getting wrong link. Here is the actual link to site that denigrated Wilberforce:
http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/news_letters_others/100_blackmen_london/abolition_of_the_slavetrade_special_edition.htm
Liberals have one thing in common it seems: 1) claim King's legacy for themselves, 2) denigrate Christian evangelicals of the past
Here is the contents of the article I was referring to:
http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/news_letters_others/100_blackmen_london/abolition_of_the_slavetrade_special_edition.htm
Let me make this clear, it would be completely wrong, a mockery of justice and humanity to emancipate these slaves, to give them freedom now in their present unhappy condition would be to ensure not only their masters ruin but their own.” - William Wilberforce. The movie Amazing Grace purports to tell the story of the single white man who 'saved' poor passive Africans from the vicious degradations the British were inflicting upon them. Africans themselves play little part in this movie. Olaudah Equiano who was kidnapped at the age of 10, forced into slavery, freed himself, fought for the British, wrote a best-selling autobiography and tirelessly campaigned against slavery, and in many ways was the father of the modern trade unionist movement in his bringing together the industrial working class and urban artisans of the time, gets a meagre four minutes on screen.
There are however a number of key facts that have been entirely left out of Mr Wilberforce's 'official' story, or mis-presented.
Wilberforce was not a life- long activist. He only became involved in the anti- slavery movement when sent in by Prime Minister William Pitt. William Pitt was engaged in the buying of Africans for forced recruitment into the West India Regiment, which was then used to suppress African uprisings, after which the soldiers were released back to Africa to engage in further wars against other Africans. (Ref: First Black Britons 2006)
Wilberforce opposed the Haitian revolution. Toussaint L'Ouverture (pictured above) and tens of thousands of Africans fought for their freedom from 1791-1804, but Wilberforce did not approve of Africans establishing their own freedom and actually voted to send British troops to put down the rebellion and maintain slavery. (Ref: Hart 1998.p33) The Haitians ultimately emerged victorious to become the first independent black nation in the 'New World'. (For more information on the Haitian revolution, see the next article in the newsletter).
Wilberforce was not against cruelty to Black people. He suggested that blacks should only be whipped at night, as this was better for production. He was also an advocate for Black men being put to work in breeding farms. Slave breeding farms became more popular after the slave trade abolition (1807), which meant an increase in rapes of African girls and women and more forced pregnancies and abortions. (Ref: Hochschild 2005 p.314)
Wilberforce was a drug addict (opium) and a frequent user of brothels. At this time, many African women were forced to work in brothels in England as the English pimps could make more money from them. (Ref:Howarth 1974 p456,7,562)
Wilberforce was against women’s movements to end the slave trade. In 1824 when Elisabeth Heyrich published a pamphlet calling for immediate freedom, rather than welcoming her support, Wilberforce denounced her “as such things were not the concern of women”. He also did not wish women to have the vote. (Ref: Williams 1997 p.182)
Wilberforce did not want immediate freedom for African people but thought it should be phased in over decades. Hence his comments - “If we can prevent the planter buying more slaves the only way he will be able to increase his stock is with the sons and daughters of the slaves he already has. (REF: Martin 1993 p73,74,Ferguson 1999 p 149)
Wilberforce practiced racial discrimination "When members and friends of the African and Asian Society dined at a tavern in 1816,with Wilberforce in the chair, the token Africans and Asians invited to the gathering were separated from the other guests by a screen set across one end of the room" (Fryer 1984 p.234)
Wilberforce promoted missionary work When he retired from his campaigning, Wilberforce became heavily involved in training missionaries. The Christian faith was heavily involved in the slave trade, which prompted the recent apology by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
One of the keys to the success of the Haitian revolution was the Africans' spiritual beliefs, which served as a unifying factor. These systems of spirituality and respect for nature had sustained the enslaved Africans' sense of self- esteem and identity throughout centuries of slavery. As a result of the revolution, and as a means of suppressing the future use of such spirituality for such communal empowerment purposes, there was a concerted effort by missionaries to denigrate African spiritual beliefs, an attitude which endures till today. (see 'Did you know' section below)
Not surprisingly, the sanitized version of Mr Wilberforce's life in Amazing Grace will not be touching on these facts. For more information on Wilberforce and the slave trade, see our Further Information section below.
"From 1950 to 1976, the once solid Democratic south voted solid Republican in the presidential race. In 1976 it was Jimmy Carters Southern Baptist roots, his pro-life stance along with the "undeniable" gaffe of Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon and Watergate, that carried Carter to the White house."
That does not help your argument really. The vast majority of Republicans voted for the civil right bill that President Johnson signed into law. Not only that, but earlier in the 1950s President Eisenhower was REPUBLICAN and he enforced the 1954 Supreme Court to integrate the schools.
Not only that, but President Richard Nixon while his stance before he got elected was that while forced segregation was wrong, forced integretation is equally wrong, once he became President, he strongly enforced integregation.
And then since you want to bring up Strom Thurmond, he became Republican, to be sure in the mid-1960s still a segregationist racist. But here's the deal- he changed his views or at least his actions displaying what his views were on the outside by becoming an integregationist. And he did support the extension of the voting rights act. People can change their views and their ways (by the grace of God).
You are assuming the southern Democrats who became Republicans all did so out of racism and segregation/integregation issue. You might like to check the demographics of those Southern whites who switched parties. How many were middle class and how many were poor? And which one voted for which party? Economics can trump racism even in those days.
Tran says;"That does not help your argument really"
Who's arguing? Those are just facts...
Tran says;"The vast majority of Republicans voted for the civil right bill that President Johnson signed into law.
Let me show you something Tran...Read very carefully...
Your statement is TRUE! It is correct to say that the vast majority of Republicans voted in favor of the act. You are right!Now...You see how easy that was?
Yet your statement does not conclude that those who were in opposition to the bill, (and civil rights in general), moved away from the Democratic party because the party was becoming "to liberal" in accepting and politicking for the "Negroes" civil rights.
I think you're purposely overlooking something I've tried to put forth this entire conversation. Although racial prejudices could be found almost anywhere during that period, laws depriving Blacks of basic civil rights were prevalent in the "SOUTH"!
Here's the breakdown of how both parties voted, North and South.
The original House version:
South Democrats:7-87 (7%-93%)
South Republicans:0-10(0%-100%)
North Democrats:145-9 (94%-6%)
North Republicans:138-24(85%-15%)
The Senate version:
South Democrats:1-20(5%-95%)
South Republicans:0-1(0%-100%)
North Democrats:45-1(98%-2%)
North Republicans:27-5(84%-16%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
If you tally all the votes for the individual parties, you'll see that the Republican vote total (although the "vast" majority was in favor)was roughly 12% less than the Democrat total in favor of the bill. Furthermore, "not ONE" single Southern Republican voted in favor of the bill whereas at least 8 Southern Democrats did.
Tran asks?"You are assuming the southern Democrats who became Republicans all did so out of racism and segregation/integregation issue. You might like to check the demographics of those Southern whites who switched parties."
Check the demographics? For what?
Rich, poor, middle-class, they all vote in an election. I would assume that a cross-section of the demographic spectrum voted for Thumond, after all he did repeatedly win his senate seat
"Who's arguing? Those are just facts..."
Selective use of them at best. Again, see the fact that Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon enforced integregation thoroughly, especially Nixon. That sure did not cost them votes among Southerners.
You are assuming Southern mindset has not changed, which is not necessarily true.
Case in point. Thurmond, who became an integregationist.
Heck, even George Wallace became an integregationist and later in life apologized to the black churches.
Tran says;"You are assuming Southern mindset has not changed, which is not necessarily true."
That's "not" what I'm saying, you're still missing it...
I said that a once solid voting block of Southern Democrats, (those racist Democrats that we both agreed existed)now vote solid Republican. If you don't believe it, you're going to need to re-write thousands, possibly tens of thousands of history books, memoirs, newspapers, government documents in addition to "brain-washing" those who lived through it.
You will first need to brainwash former campaign manager for George W. Bush, turned RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman. In 2006 he admitted to using the "Southern Strategy" during Bush's re-election campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html
The Wikipedia entry citing the Southern Strategy is a "rare" one. It is one of the few historic entries that Wikipedia does not cite as requiring a "clean-up" or "quality standards". The article list's more than 20 magazine, newspaper, book and personal writer sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Fact is, whether you believe or not in the Southern Strategy, the fact are the facts. The same year the Voting Rights Act was passed, 1964, was the same year the "solid" South completely broke ranks with the Democratic party.
From 1964 to 1976 the South voted solid republican in the presidential campaigns. IT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT it was the entry of George Wallace in the race that brought many Southern Democrats back to cast a vote for a Democratic candidate. Wallace's further endorcement of Carter helped him sweep the Southern States in the general election.
Post a Comment
<< Home