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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you remember what do you think you heard the same piece?
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.
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.
don't surprise me a bit you'd claim lewis, bond, young and evers no different than simpson.
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:
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.
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).
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.
Awesome point and great story.
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?
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.
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.
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).
Thank you El-Duderino!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, like HIS executive orders that he has to ask his lawyer what's in it in front of the press?
LINK
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.
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".
Thank you!
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.
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.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
