Dr Guy Dr Guy

Betrayal of Martin Luther King

▼

Betrayal of Martin Luther King

from JoeUser Forums

Two Months ago, America validated Martin Luther King's vision.  Today, Liberals, the Mainstream Media and the vested racial animosity groups drove us back 45 years.

2 months ago, America elected a black man as president.  Disregarding his race as a factor in stating they wanted a change.  But for the past year, Liberals, Race Ambulance Chasers, the Mainstream Media have worked doggedly to destroy King's vision.  And to turn back the hands of time so that instead of being able to judge a man on the content of his character, they are forcing America to judge him based upon the color of his skin.

Many people marched with King back in 63.  Wanting to keep alive a dream that many of us shared, and still share.  And some of us want to see yet to come.  But it is not now.  Today, America turned a deaf ear to King and instead marched backwards to the days when the content of a man's character was secondary to the color of his skin.

For many of us who have fought long and hard to realize that dream it is indeed a dark day.  It is not the fault of Obama, for he is a man who ran for and was elected president.  It is the fault of the liberals and Mainstream media that must force us to think of him not as a man, but as a black man.  It is very frustrating to see 45 years of work swept away with the new racists of 21st century America.

It is indeed a sad day for America.  I only hope that we can rebuild from this set back that has beset us.  And one day, the man elected president will not be known as "the <insert qualifier here> President", but as the American President.

politics
306,699 views 113 replies
Reply #51 from Stardock Forums Top

Yesterday it was uttered over and over again that Obama is a "Black Man" and he is now a "Black President" rather than Obama is a "Man" who happens to be black or that he is "The President of the United States" who happens to be black.

What is so wrong with saying a Black man is President? Why does that bother you so much? Does it bother you to say a Texan was President (can't think of what you call someone from Illinois)? Does that make you a Texan supremasist?

Reply #52 from PolMach Forums Top

What is so wrong with saying a Black man is President? Why does that bother you so much?

Because it is racist.  Identifying him as a BLACK man is racist.  Obama is a "Man" NOT a "Black Man".  Identifying him by his race is racist.  Dr. King wished that we would reach a day when we would judge someone "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" but whenever Obama is identified as a "Black Man" they are doing the exact opposite of what Dr. King wanted.

Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top

DG, I think I understand part of where you are coming from but I think you have read a great deal into what has gone on in the past couple of days. This historic event is not historic if a Black man is not realized to be President. I don't recall anyone (other than some of the Black journalists I hear on the radio) refer to him as a Black President. He is not the President of only the Black part of this nation, I agree.

But to recognize he is Black does not trash Kings ideals. His ideals transcended race without ignoring it. It sounds like you would re-write the climax of his speech in Washington to read:

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,  men who happen to maybe be black and men who happen to be white, some religious people from some different places, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old  spiritual from certain people among us, "We are all together now. No big deal. It's as is should be. Anyone who deems otherwise is racist."

No. He acknowledges the differences in humanity and the superiority of mankind to recognize them without them being barriers to loving mankind. It reads:

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Please tell me you believe that is the ideal of King as well? Then how to trash that by acknowledging that Obams is in fact a black man?

Reply #54 from Stardock Forums Top

Because it is racist. Identifying him as a BLACK man is racist. Obama is a "Man" NOT a "Black Man". Identifying him by his race is racist. Dr. King wished that we would reach a day when we would judge someone "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" but whenever Obama is identified as a "Black Man" they are doing the exact opposite of what Dr. King wanted.

I totally disagree. You are racist for seeing a persons ethnicity. You are racist when when make decisions about a person based on race. THAT is what King wrote about and talked about. Read some of his work and you will see that.

Reply #55 from Stardock Forums Top

Racism works both ways.  Affirmative Action is legalized racism, just because it benefits a minority doesn't make it any less racist to treat one person different from another based on the color of their skin.  Based on my admitedly limited knowledge of Dr. King I would think that he would have been completely against Affirmative Action because you are judging someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

I think so as well but at the time we really didn't have a choice, the only other option would have been to make them all wards of the government. Now and perhaps for quite some time it's been counterproductive and I think Obama's the man to end it. 

But the media in particular has gone far beyond simply acknowledging that Obama is black. Yesterday it was uttered over and over again that Obama is a "Black Man" and he is now a "Black President" rather than Obama is a "Man" who happens to be black or that he is "The President of the United States" who happens to be black. They were emphasising the race issue above all else. They made it seem like it wasn't Obama's policies or his campaign rhetoric that got him the office, it was his race. That is blatant racism and for us to truly fulfill Dr. King's dreams we need to leave race out of it and just let Obama be the President that he is.

Why can't he be both a man and a black man? I didn't see any reporting on the inauguration suggest that that his race was a factor in his win. 

Doc Guy didn't do that at all. He merely applied the definition to "Institutional Racism" to what the media was doing all day yesterday when they kept referring to Obama as a "Black Man" insinuating that he got to the Presidency more because of his skin color than because of his campaigns message.

Again this is a non-sequitur. Just acknowledging that he is the first black president does not follow that his race was a factor in him becoming so.

Reply #56 from Stardock Forums Top

wow! how did this article get passed me? This is a very powerful article, short, sweet and right to the heart of the matter. Very good points made here DocG, Whew! re-reading it was just as power filled as the first read.

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

You have totally misquoted the NPR piece. I heard the same piece (I think). Nothing like that was said.

Do you remember what do you think you heard the same piece?

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am just going to bring up one more thing that I think gives proof toward what Doc is saying here: Prior to all of this hoopla over it being the first Black president and all of the references to race, my kids were blissfully blind to color as being an issue.  They are being raised in a VERY culturally diverse area.  They have friends of all colors and religions.  When they would describe a new friend, color was usually way down the list in the description (usually after things like "big head" or "has glasses").  They were forced to watch the inauguration at school and are force fed all of the "African American" issues.  They know more about "Black History" than any other part of history.  So I see that as a huge step backward in the goal in MLK's dream of color not being an issue.  Our kids were on the right track and they just got "schooled" on our American reality.

Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

i gonna put a bit more stock in what people like john lewis, julian bond, andrew young and charles evers propose than someone such as yourself.

Of course you will! Because you are a racist. You only see the color of a man's skin, not the content of his character.

or...because i'd expect those who knew and worked closely with king--as i would any other person's friends and associates--much more likely to accurately speculate as to his possible reaction to this election.

you are going to Trust an OJ Simpson, before you trust any white man.

don't surprise me a bit you'd claim lewis, bond, young and evers no different than simpson.

Racism is not logical, it is emotional, and so appeals to logic and facts do not work.

not logical, emotional and unaffected by appeals to logic and facts?  i can't think of anyone in ju who's been more frequently characterized in that manner--sometimes with those exact words--by more people than you yourself.  if you're gonna make this sorta claim:

many of us who have fought long and hard to realize that dream

why is it outta line for someone to prompt you for details.  you undercut your own credibility by accusing me of being a racist while proferring--instead of any sort of answer--an overly emotional, illogical rant totally devoid of fact.

can't think of a better message for you to deliver to your political allies with a penchant for referring to obama's new crib as 'the black house.'

MM had an article on the worst racist comments he has heard about our new President. And I see where they are coming from. The racists that call themselves liberals.

only mm himself attributed to republicans the remark he quoted before (very much to his credit) castigating them for having sunk so low.  when i suggested you consider doing something similar, you took it to the bizarro planet as usual and did exactly the opposite (tho not unexpected).

 

 

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

Our kids were on the right track and they just got "schooled" on our American reality.

Excellent summary!

When I was a young kid I thought black men were English because they spoke only English. I didn't realise that skin colour had a meaning in itself.

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 60



Our kids were on the right track and they just got "schooled" on our American reality.

Excellent summary!
When I was a young kid I thought black men were English because they spoke only English. I didn't realise that skin colour had a meaning in itself.

I was in the dentist office some years ago and there was a little girl about 5 with her mother sitting next to me. I talked with the mother and found out they had just moved to Florida from Iceland. The little girl seemed fascinated with a black woman sitting on the other side of the waiting room and she went over with her coloring book and asked the woman if she wanted to color with her. 

They colored together for some time then suddenly the little girl picked up the woman's hand turned the palm toward her mother and said "look mom she's not dark everywhere". Well I didn't think it was possible for her mother to get any paler but she did. The little girl went right back to coloring while her mother clambered to explain that they had just moved her from Iceland and that the woman was to her knowledge the first black person her child had ever seen.   

The moral to this story; we can acknowledge and even embrace the differences between races without judging them. The child clearly realized the woman was different from her all along and embraced it. Now eventually that child is going to learn American history, the good and the bad, (I hope neither of you is suggesting we teach our kids revisionist history), and hopefully she'll learn the right lesson from it but we're barely a generation out of that dark chapter. It's not ancient history and we can't simply ignore it.

Reply #62 from Stardock Forums Top

The moral to this story; we can acknowledge and even embrace the differences between races without judging them. The child clearly realized the woman was different from her all along and embraced it. Now eventually that child is going to learn American history, the good and the bad, (I hope neither of you is suggesting we teach our kids revisionist history), and hopefully she'll learn the right lesson from it but we're barely a generation out of that dark chapter. It's not ancient history and we can't simply ignore it.

Awesome point and great story.

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

They are being raised in a VERY culturally diverse area.

You actually contradict you point that we don't need to talk about culture. If we are one America, how you be in a diverse neighborhood? You actually make the point for us. Our diversity in this country does not need to contribute to our division.

I am sorry if learning about African-American's contributions to history offend you. But it is a part of American history. It is, at times, a dark chapter in our history. Does that make you uncomfortable?

Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top

When I was a young kid I thought black men were English because they spoke only English. I didn't realise that skin colour had a meaning in itself.

Skin color has nothing to do with the issue. That is a very myopic way to look at it. I have the same skin color as a Nigerian and we would culturally have very little in common. That is a mere physical expression of the difference in culture. But there are different cultures (or perhaps more appropriately subcultures) in this country. They are different, not better than each other. North is different from South. California is different from New York. And yes, black is different from white. It would seem that to recognize that latter makes you a racist. That is a fundamental problem with relations in this country.

Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

You actually contradict you point that we don't need to talk about culture. If we are one America, how you be in a diverse neighborhood? You actually make the point for us. Our diversity in this country does not need to contribute to our division.

You are confusing "culturally diverse" with skin colour.

 

Skin color has nothing to do with the issue. That is a very myopic way to look at it.

Tell that to anybody who voted for Obama because it was time for a black President, not to me. I would have voted for Hillary, more likely for McCain, or for Rice if she had run.

 

Reply #66 from PolMach Forums Top

I am sorry if learning about African-American's contributions to history offend you. But it is a part of American history. It is, at times, a dark chapter in our history. Does that make you uncomfortable?

I can't speak for JillUser but I can say that I am not offended by learning about African-American contributions to our history, it is an extremely important aspect of our history.  What I do have a problem with is when it is emphasized rather than just made part of learning about our nation's history.  There was certainly a time when it was needed to be emphasized because the history classes barely mentioned a word about African-American contributions, however much like Affirmative Action I think it's necessity has past and we should be teach about our nation's history as a whole with no emphasis on race at all.  Naturally classes need to discuss slavery, the civil war, MLK, George Washington Carver, etc. but it should simply be part of the curriculum not emphasized at one particular time of the year.  There should be U.S history, not history based on race (whether it be white, black, or purple).

Reply #67 from Stardock Forums Top

I am sorry if learning about African-American's contributions to history offend you. But it is a part of American history. It is, at times, a dark chapter in our history. Does that make you uncomfortable?
It neither offends nor makes me uncomfortable.  I'm just fed up with the disproportionate amount of attention given to it.  I'm sick to death of white people feeling like they need to apologize for something neither they nor their parents nor their grandparents did to people who never experienced it themselves.  I have never in my life treated anyone differently because of their skin color.  I certainly got treated differently because of mine when I lived in an almost completely African American dorm in college.  I was absolutely shocked because that sort of thing never occured to me.  I got a real lesson on how blacks can dismiss you because you aren't a "sista" but if you acted the same way toward them, well then you're a racist.  We have a long way to go and I feel we aren't on the right track at all.

Thank you El-Duderino!

Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top

In what way have people emphasised race? I'm sorry I simply don't agree. What I was impressed with was that the campaign actually became one that was based on who was the best for the job and NOT that he was black. You yourself have said that people voted with their wallets.

Yes to your second part!  And hence my statement of the validation of King on November 4.  As to how they emphasize race - by every utterance by the tingly legged bozos in the media.  We are not to judge him as a man, we are not to judge what he says, does or does not do based upon him as a man, but as a BLACK man.  The media is awash in its sickening quota system that we have to judge him not by the measure of a Washington or Roosevelt, but as a BLACK man who is president.  And that is what saddens me.

For the most part, I dont think most Americans who voted for him or most Americans period are looking at him as a BLACK man who is president, but a PRESIDENT that is also black.  I still have a lot of hope for America, because most of the population is not as stupid and racist as the tingly legged media or the closet racists of the left.  Unfortunately, the one side has a lot of air time to try to push their agenda (as sickening as it is) and the other has the seats of power right now to push it.  And that is what saddens me.

However, I do think it would be ridiculous to expect no one to make something of a deal of him being the first black President to be inaugurated.

No one, not even this blog, is asking that.  What this blog is about is not saying "There goes the President!  Hey Ma!  He is also black!".  What it is saying is that we cannot compare him to Jefferson or Washington because after all, they were white (or whatever other qualifier you put on there).

America has come far, but unfortunately parts still remain mired in a closet racism that is going to be harder to root out than the overt racism of sheet wearing clowns.

Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top

In that same way the media constantly referring to Obama as a "Black Man" reaching the presidency rather than a "Man" reaching the presidency who happens to be black is against Dr. King's message.

Exactly!  Obama is Black!  What a shock.  But he is our president, and as such I will judge him based upon what he does and says, not what he does or says except to excuse him for being black.

Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top

You seem to forget who created this racial devide? You seem to forget that just one drop of black blood means you're black period.

We should never forget who did, nor should we accept the responsibility for what they did.  I am not my father.  If I perpetuate the divide, then I am sinning.  But if I choose to look beyond it, then I am not perpetuating it just because my father did.  Or even worse (as it is racist but apparently acceptable today) because some clown in a white sheet who is white is perpetuating it.

Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top

Exactly! Obama is Black! What a shock. But he is our president, and as such I will judge him based upon what he does and says, not what he does or says except to excuse him for being black.

Yes, like HIS executive orders that he has to ask his lawyer what's in it in front of the press?

LINK

Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top

But it is about Obama Doc, you said that the people of this country, including the media are betraying Dr. King's dream? Where is the racism in this celebration when so many came from far and wide to be a part of it? The fact that the media keep saying he's a "black man" the "first black president"? It is what it is, and it is what is always done. Perhaps in time they will get beyond those borders.

No, it is not about Obama.  If I write about the founding of AMerica, that does not mean I am writing Washington's biography.  They are linked, that is sure, just as day into night is linked, but they are not the same.  And this is not about Celebrating Obama's election or inaugeration.  Again, people read, but do not understand.  This is about how we are told we must judge him differently. We must judge his acceptance speech differently.  We must judge his actions differently.  And I have to ask all who claim we have to, in all seriousness, why?  He is one of 44, not one of one.

Doc, how am I not getting past it? Because I don't see your point or I dont' see yours? It is quite obvious that everyone did in November, that everyone saw more than just the color of his skin, which is truly wonderful! What I don't understand is your article seems to be condemming those very same people who voted for the choice they wanted. Who are celebrating what is an historic occasion because no one thought it would happen, and it has. This is a moment to find awesome and say, yes, we have stepped further, progressed with a purpose than what it used to be.

No, again you are missing it.  Do you see a BLACK President?  Or a President who is BLACK?  That is not the litmus test, but it is an indication.  King said "judge by the content of his character" as the first thing, not the last, or middle.  We are to judge Obama on the content of his character without a qualifier of what color he is.  No one is slamming anyone for celebrating his inaugeration.  What I AM slamming are those that stop me from saying "Now, Carter (or any previous president) did this that way......."

It really matters not what color, creed or race Obama is.  It really matters not if he is the smartest or the dumbest.  It matters when we are not allowed to think of him, praise him, or criticize him without first genuflecting at the alter of liberalism and adding the qualifier "for a black man".

Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just because they are referring to him as a "black man" in a positive light doesn't make it less racist. Racism is not always negative, it can be both positive and negative.

Thank you!

Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top

It seems that race is always going to be an issue.

Not as long as good honest people continue to work against it.  America has overcome (and minimized) overt racism.  Now we have to work on the closet racists.

Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top

The other day they said "that the (52%) majority of the US population accepted a black man as president but it's sad that the rest still aren't there." (not directly quoted but my best retelling).

This is a racially charged manipulating accusation.

Yes it is, and a perfect example of what I am talking about.  NO president in the history of this nation has gotten 100% of any ethnic block because he is a member of that block.  But Liberals have to phrase it all in that manner because that is the way they think!  Those people condemning you for not voting for Obama are the same ones that voted FOR him because they wanted to show everyone they were not racist - when in reality they are the worst kind.