I was introduced to racism by,ironically, minorities. For about a month or two I didn't understand that the term "white boy" was an insult to my creed. At first, I thought I was just abnormally white, in actuality though I am pretty dark as far as white people go (or was before I discovered computers). Over time I finally figured out that it wasn't my color that they were making fun of, but my ethnicity, which up until that point in my life I had never contemplated before. I had never identified myself as a white person. My only understanding of color was that some people were more tan than others.

In all these race arguments I feel like I am at a loss. It would seem that for most my formative years I lived the MLK dream of being color blind. This makes it really hard for me to understand racism; both at the source and at the recite. As such, I have a deep guttural reaction to both racism of hate and racism of reciprocity (affirmative action). For me, the goal is to be color blind, not color sensitive. As such, anything that makes more than a superficial distinction on color...no matter how noble in appearance it only works against that goal. Perhaps I am naive, but the trollish observations of "race-baiting and victimology" do have some significance. Racism still happens, and when it does it needs to be righted, but this constant heehawing about supposed acts of racism seems to just prolong the healing. Like that line in fight club, "it is like that sore on the top of your mouth that would heal if only you would stop tonguing it." Not to say that we should turn a blind eye to racism when it rears its ugly head, but for some, racism is a means to a life style. People like Al Sharpton contrasted against MLK highlight this difference in mind set. MLK was victim to all the out right ugliness of racism. But what you hear from him is nothing but the utmost strength and self determination. He was never a victim, he was always the triumphant gladiator ready to take on the next hurdle and take all the dignity owed him. He was a brave, courteous hero whom is worthy of emulation by our current generation.

There were blacks who defended slavery. There were blacks who fought for the confederacy. There were blacks who stood against MLK and Malcolm X. There were blacks who defended Bush's (in)action in Katrina and voted for his second term. But always 98-99% of black americans stand against self hate and ignorance, and 'populism' that goes against their self-interest.

So, I'm not surprised that you can find black people who feel comfortable in an overwhelmingly white, xenophobic crowd, and black men who call Uncle Tom a hero (3:10). There will always exist the mentally and emotionally weak who cannot break the bonds of mental slavery. But it should be noted that they are surrounded by a metropolitan area full of taxpaying black americans, including the residents of the White House, who strongly disagree.

^American schools get two weeks for Christm... er, winter break, one week for spring break, 2 days for Thanksgiving, 2 president's days, a memorial day and an mlk day. There is a set number of school days required by law, so getting rid of some of these holidays wouldn't result in more school days, just a longer summer - which wouldn't be such a bad thing.

They say Obama is a good public speaker...but JFK and MLK inspire me to no end.

Honestly, it is just a name. There is no REAL thing called a planet, just arguing about lines in the sand. It is like arguing if something is warm, lukewarm, or room temperature; a realm for analytic philosophers, not scientists.

I think his views on his "role" as a black man is one of the first real steps you get towards the ideal of color blindness as apposed to color sensitivity; the ideal that MLK would see as the better of the 2.

Nooooooo, he is a child who has been raised to love everyone, president or not. And yes, probably a christian.

I absolutely have no problem with the strain of christianity that preaches love for all. (edit: this is the type of christianity that MLK came out of when he preached love for all, not the right wing hate variety)

>> ^imstellar28:
I don't know anything about you but I'll just throw this out there....you must never have lived with a girl or been married if you are still talking about true love, first love, or the essence of love <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">


Based on your assumption why would that matter? Would you being saying i have no frame of reference (donny) or that i am inexperienced in Love. If by what the last posts are saying it is encoded within species to know exactly what is what is not Love. This conversation went the route of talking love between a man/women. Though that is one aspect but i was more interested in the Love of humanity. the single acts of kindess. The Ghandi or MLK jr. Love...

yes i am not married but that does not change that i have been in love....

this guy reminds me of MLK from The Boondocks" Return of the King episode:

Martin Luther King:
Is this it?
This is what I got all those ass-whoopings for?
I had a dream once.
It was a dream that little black boys and little black girls would drink from the river of prosperity, freed from the thirst of oppression.
But lo and behold, some four decades later, what have I found but a bunch of trifling, shiftless, good-for-nothing niggers?
And I know some of you don't want to hear me say that word.
It's the ugliest word in the English language, but that's what I see now: niggers.
And you don't want to be a nigger, 'cause niggers are living contradictions!
Niggers are full of unfulfilled ambitions!
Niggers wax and wane, niggers love to complain!
Niggers love to hear themselves talk but hate to explain!
Niggers love being another man's judge and jury!
Niggers procrastinate until it's time to worry!
Niggers love to be late, niggers hate to hurry!
Black Entertainment Television is the worst thing I've ever seen in my life!
Usher, "Michael Jackson" is *not* a genre of music!
And now I'd like to talk about "Soul Plane".
I've seen what's around the corner, I've seen what's over the horizon, and I promise you, you niggers won't have nothing to celebrate.
And no, I won't get there with you.
I'm going to Canada.

Man, MLK's words always get me emotional.. the fact that someone could kill a man like him is a really sad reflection of the world.. but I am very glad to see people today, like Dr. Ron Paul, fighting to keep the dream alive.

I'm not superstitious, but still I've always found it eerie that MLK's last public speech, 'I've Been To The Mountaintop', which he gave the very night before his death, seemed to foreshadow his imminent demise:

And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

Sorry you didn't make it, brother.

Ron Paul is naive.

'Compulsory' is a scary way of saying taxes. If you can't admit that, then you are just being stubborn. If I were to call libertarianism 'naiveism' I'd be guilty of the same thing, which is why I won't.

You know what? I'm willing to admit that I might be completely wrong and that you and Ron Paul are completely right. I srsly doubt it, but it's possible. Just tossing out ideas.

Why do libertarians seem to take things so much more personally than liberals? Is it because they have little political power? Is it that their political beliefs are somewhat based on faith? I get the feeling this paragraph will piss you off, but shouldn't I be able to open up and speak my mind? I've got tremendous respeck for you regardless of your politics, but when I open up and give you the straight dope, I feel like I'm being an asshole. Am I? I don't mean to be.

I get your need for individualism as far as politics go, but you are also part of a community. No matter how bad ass a libertarian you may be, you'd be nowhere without the help of others.

As much as you'd like to paint me a Marxist, I'm actually pretty much in the center. I don't mirror your views on the opposite side of the political-economic spectrum, as I have no more desire to live in a purely socialist system as I would a purely capitalist system. I'd like an even blend.


Anyway, I'm gonna have MLK play me out on this one...

^Amen, sister.

The sad thing is that we're making this country worse and worse as time rolls on. We're making in more difficult for our children.

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

Thomas Jefferson

If the gov't became TOO large and began to impose upon my privacy and the way I raise my family, if they tried to take my gun away and no longer allowed me to defend myself, if they raise income tax to more than 35% of my income, if they take away my right to free speech, if they centralize more power to one branch of the government, if they continue to create laws and policies that depress economic growth, if my vote no longer counted, if the government failed (once again) to keep our borders secure, if the government interfered in the practice of my religion, etc...

If the government continues to flirt with revocation of our God given freedoms, we might have to do something. Does that make me a dangerous "right wing extremist?"

Nope. Not even close. I'm a conservative ...and I remember who has the power.

"In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

-MLK

^Why must you lower the level of discourse, rougy? Name calling and labeling are a bit childish, don't you think.

You're being outclassed and out-debated by a university student in her early 20's (and everyone else involved in this thread) while you, a self proclaimed "smart person," lament the fact that you haven't yet left the most wonderful country in world. As far as I can tell, the reason you feel you should leave is because people exist in America with views that oppose your own. I don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless so, I'll just site MLK on Socrates: "Socrates felt that it is necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal."

In short, debate is good for you, rougy!


MOVING ON...

To me, one of the most important things to remember in regard to civil disobedience is that authority is given to all to make the world the place that we want it to be. We are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Remember that Socrates, Gandhi, and MLK had no formal authority. They were able to impact the world through MORAL authority.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws...

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

St. Thomas Aquinas said, "An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." He also said, "An unjust law is no law at all."


While we may have cushy jobs that we don't want to risk losing at the moment, it is OUR responsibility to keep our government in check. When the time for action comes, not a job nor jail time will dissuade me from "nonviolent direct action." Our governments continue to pass legislation that slowly whittles away at our self reliance and personal freedoms, and if we keep on this path we will one day wake up to a nation in shambles.

Two things come to mind when talk of real "change" or discussion of a "revolution" comes up: 1.) There has been a trend away from self-reliance in this country and increasing dependency on social programs. Are the social programs the cure for the dependency or are they the cause? As the citizens become more and more dependent on the government, they become less and less motivated to defend the common good. We are ever more selfish (hence the rise in mental disorders and depression, in my opinion) and 2.) Living in America (or in the affluent nations across the world) is becoming a spectator sport. We feel it is inconvenient to have to: research something for ourselves, become self-reliant, read a book, get out of debt, study history, engage in thoughtful discourse, be a good neighbor, take responsibility for our own actions and situation, etc. We are so "connected" to television, the internet, MP3 players, and mobile phones that we are becoming increasingly disconnected from each other.

What am I getting at?

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were willing to give their lives for religious freedom. Socrates gave his life for the law. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. devoted their whole being (and ultimately their lives) for the cause of freedom and equality. Change takes a lot of hard work and dedication. I mean, it takes EVERYTHING from at least one man. If we want policy change, we write letters to the editor, we start a website, we knock on doors, and so on. When it really matters (such as what the world protested against in2003, civil disobedience is in order. Anything worth civil disobedience is absolutely worth our cushy jobs. But, we'll need moral justification and moral leadership. I don't think that we're past that as some have said. I DO, however, think that wading through opposing propaganda would be more difficult today than it has historically been, but I digress.

The question I have is, "Which modern day issues/hypothetical scenarios would require civil disobedience to be solved?"


>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.
Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.
It's just not worth it any more, to me.
But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.
Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week.
Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.
It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.
Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.

I know that these guys are either hot or cold here on the sift, but I pretty much enjoy everything these guys churn out.

Well done!

But not as good as what they did with MLK:
http://www.videosift.com/video/I-Have-a-Dream-in-Auto-Tune

>> ^thepinky:Nevertheless, civil disobeyers occassionally clogged the machine despite the war being overseas.

The protests of the Iraq war, before it even began, where the largest most wide spread anti-war protests in world history. The day the war broke out many citys, including San Francisco, where I was living at the time, were shut down by protesters "clogging the machine". The war machine did not skip a beat.

If your premise is that it might work if we can do better than MK Gandhi and MLK combined, then I submit that we have, and it didn't even register, because the game has changed.

The power structures of the united states have restructured in the last fifty years, in no small part to counteract the threat of domestic CD. This restructuring has been massive, and pervasive, and it has, in effect inoculated the country from the effects of these sorts of actions.

Certainly committing massive fraud in the name of CD, such as in the story mentioned above, is still an option, but one which will simply require a rule change to dispense with.

When the people taking to the street has no power, when the prisons are run for profit, constitutional rights are dispensed with when traffic is interrupted, and being able to drive to work swiftly is more important to 98% of the population than the right to assemble, then you have been forced, by those in power to choose a new tactic, or to flail around uselessly.

CD is not a goal, CD is a tactic, even MK Gandhi agreed that in some extreme cases an armed revolution is justified when CD would be ineffective.

I agree with and have lived the ideal, I understand the argument, but the means do not justify the end.