Countrybumpkin
Veteran Member
I was 4 years old when the whole MLK movement was going on, and those of you who lived before, during, and, of course, after the movement see any big changes to the country, right or wrong?
I was young also, but I can recall my dad noting that while MLK preached peace, he left riots in his wake.
That’s the way I remember itI was young also, but I can recall my dad noting that while MLK preached peace, he left riots in his wake.
Worthless, trouble making monkey. All he did was nail the lid shut on our nation's coffin. Once they got their freedom things have only gotten worse. Now we are living planet of the apes.
I most certainly would, you speak as someone who has never been forced to deal with them. Spare me the we are the same bullshit, because it is not true. Want proof? Take a nice moonlit walk through DC, Detroit, or any other monkey Hotspot, then you can speak with the almighty about it personally. Naive will get you dead, fast.I wonder if you would say that at the throne of our creator. One human race. The problems in this world are not a result of skin color, but of sin and culture.
I most certainly would, you speak as someone who has never been forced to deal with them. Spare me the we are the same bullshit, because it is not true. Want proof? Take a nice moonlit walk through DC, Detroit, or any other monkey Hotspot, then you can speak with the almighty about it personally. Naive will get you dead, fast.
Yes, in retrospect that is the way it appears.My dad always said he came and made a speech and then ran to a car and took off before the riots took place.
Yes, in retrospect that is the way it appears.
My only experience is in a more northern state (Missouri) growing up. As the blacks moved into my neighborhood, the whites moved out and the area made a downturn. I do remember on a vacation to Florida, my dad stopped at a gas station in Mississippi for gas. He always got out while the gas was being pumped (Stations had attendants back then to pump your gas.) Things were going pretty friendly until the people working there noticed the Missouri plates, then it became more ominous. He got out of there ASAP and put the pedal to the metal. My dad is white and both attendants were white. The only difference was where the car said we were from...a northern state. And after that, Dad started to carry a gun in the car.
Yes he did. The blacks felt very happy when they would overturn a cop car and set it ablaze. mlk left nothing but destruction and sometimes death every place he spoke. mlk and obama set black race relations back 100 years.
Mike
You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am. I spent 15yrs in LE and there are 2 groups that I had more trouble with than any others. First and foremost was chimps, second was white trash. My experience is real world, and earned. Not pie in the sky. As I said take a walk through chimp controlled territory at night and then tell me.how great they are afterwards. If you survive...Your position is bold, honest, jaded, and dangerous. And maybe justifiably so from a human perspective and personal experience.
But from Christ's perspective, we are in fact the same blood, progeny of Adam and Noah.
I know people of many racial backgrounds. No adverse encounter was a result of the color of their skin. Some may have more cultural baggage, bad manners, or contrary ideologies, the root of which is due to their upbringing or their faith (or lack thereof). Not their skin pigment.
I have brothers and sisters in Christ, as close as family, who are every flavor of non-white. So again, the problem is sin, not skin.
His real name is Mike King.........that MLK moniker is nothing but a show name...........like custom rims on a car for drawing attention to the pimp ride if you will......
........he has a suspect Phd (in theology of all things) in its originally....... and his speeches were written (like....I have a dream) by another person of a tribe out of NYC that shall remain nameless......
King's public claims....his people could never back up in mass in society...............judge by the contents of character not skin?
Yeah that goes over like a lead balloon with BLM Marxist today.................contents of character is too much a White thing for them.....skin is where its at today......my skin color is my cause and this society is bending all over to mythologize it for them........for BLM .....King is a roadblock to what they want.
The best remark I ever read was a person who said their father worked with a Black man during the 60s civil rights movement and the Black man said to his dad........."You know I don't know if my people are ready for full civil rights and the responsibilities that come with it in society"
King's hold on society is as overblown (and that is the result of the tireless efforts of White liberals more so than Blacks these days)......
........but what can you expect from a race where they would canonize a thug like George Floyd as a champion to a cause?
If you want to really know about "Doctor" King...........read what a man closest to him would know.
Check out what Ralph Abernathy (King's closest friend and advisor) said about him............
I can remember being a kid back in the very early 60's watching the civil rights marches and my parents talking about it all. I remember my father telling my mother that a black guy he worked with had told him "my people are not responsible enough to deal with freedom - they are not ready to be free"
On this day in 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower deploys troops from the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to enforce the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School. pic.twitter.com/Rj0FIM8z5M
— Military History Now (@MilHistNow) September 24, 2020
Thus the law must desegregate buses, hotels, and restaurants because they are required for a person to carry on life’s quotidian routine. With an apparently straight face, Arendt concluded “this does not apply to theaters and museums, where people obviously do not congregate for the purpose of associating with each other.”It has been said, I think again by [Southern novelist William] Faulkner, that enforced integration is no better than enforced segregation, and this is perfectly true. The only reason that the Supreme Court was able to address itself to the matter of desegregation in the first place was that segregation has been a legal, and not just a social, issue in the South for many generations. For the crucial point to remember is that it is not the social custom of segregation that is unconstitutional, but its legal enforcement.
But at least Arendt added a proviso. SCOTUS, which eventually banned anti-miscegenation laws in Loving V. Virginia, never would “have felt compelled to encourage, let alone enforce, mixed marriages.” Yet it did feel compelled to force integration.[F]or it left untouched the most outrageous law of Southern states—the law which makes mixed marriage a criminal offense. The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which “the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race” are minor indeed.
It certainly did not require too much imagination to see that this was to burden children, black and white, with the working out of a problem which adults for generations have confessed themselves unable to solve. ... [D]o we intend to have our political battles fought in the school yards? ...
To force parents to send their children to an integrated school against their will means to deprive them of rights which clearly belong to them in all free societies—the private right over their children and the social right to free association. ...
It seems impossible to believe that a public intellectual, particularly a Jewish one, could or would write that public education is a “domain where no basic human and no basic political right is at stake.” Then again, that’s one obvious reason Commentary rejected Arendt’s piece.[G]overnment intervention, even at its best, will always be rather controversial. Hence it seems highly questionable whether it was wise to begin enforcement of civil rights in a domain where no basic human and no basic political right is at stake, and where other rights—social and private—whose protection is no less vital, can so easily be hurt.
Of course. Like most Europeans at that time, Arendt had no direct experience with blacks. This was in dramatic contrast to Norman Podhoretz, who very frankly reported that, during his Brooklyn childhood, black kids beat him to a pulp on his way home from school.[A]s a Jew I take my sympathy for the cause of the Negroes as for all oppressed or underprivileged peoples for granted and should appreciate it if the reader did likewise.
n my world it was the whites, the Italians and Jews, who feared the Negroes, not the other way around. The Negroes were tougher than we were, more ruthless, and on the whole they were better athletes. What could it mean, then, to say that they were badly off and that we were more fortunate? Yet my sister’s opinions, like print, were sacred, and when she told me about exploitation and economic forces I believed her. I believed her, but I was still afraid of Negroes. And I still hated them with all my heart.
Leftist homosexual James Baldwin “describe[d] the sense of entrapment that poisons the soul of the Negro with hatred for the white man whom he knows to be his jailer,” Podhoretz observed.[A] good deal of animosity existed between the Italian kids (most of whose parents were immigrants from Sicily) and the Jewish kids (who came largely from East European immigrant families). Yet everyone had friends, sometimes close friends, in the other “camp,” and we often visited one another’s strange-smelling houses, if not for meals, then for glasses of milk, and occasionally for some special event like a wedding or a wake. If it happened that we divided into warring factions and did battle, it would invariably be half-hearted and soon patched up. Our parents, to be sure, had nothing to do with one another and were mutually suspicious and hostile. But we, the kids, who all spoke Yiddish or Italian at home, were Americans, or New Yorkers, or Brooklyn boys: we shared a culture, the culture of the street, and at least for a while this culture proved to be more powerful than the opposing cultures of the home.
Why, why should it have been so different as between the Negroes and us?
Baldwin himself answered that question four years later in the New York Times under this refreshingly frank headline: Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They’re Anti-White [April 9, 1967].How could the Negroes in my neighborhood have regarded the whites across the street and around the corner as jailers? On the whole, the whites were not so poor as the Negroes, but they were quite poor enough, and the years were years of Depression. As for white hatred of the Negro, how could guilt have had anything to do with it? What share had these Italian and Jewish immigrants in the enslavement of the Negro? What share had they—downtrodden people themselves breaking their own necks to eke out a living—in the exploitation of the Negro?
The butcher was a Jew and, yes, we certainly paid more for bad cuts of meat than other New York citizens, and we very often carried insults home, along with the meat. We bought our clothes from a Jew and, sometimes, our secondhand shoes, and the pawnbroker was a Jew—perhaps we hated him most of all. The merchants along 125th Street were Jewish—at least many of them were; I don't know if Grant's or Woolworth's are Jewish names—and I well remember that it was only after the Harlem riot of 1935 that Negroes were allowed to earn a little money in some of the stores where they spent so much.
Baldwin certainly knew not to rile the people who bankrolled and provided legal and intellectual firepower to the Civil Rights movement that got blacks everything they demanded and more, not least anti-white discrimination.The crisis taking place in the world, and in the minds and hearts of black men everywhere, is not produced by the star of David, but by the old, rugged Roman cross on which Christendom’s most celebrated Jew was murdered. And not by Jews.
t will ever be realized unless color does in fact disappear: and that means not integration, it means assimilation, it means—let the brutal word come out—miscegenation. …
If eliminating the white race is the only solution to Podhoretz’s “Negro problem and ours,” then it may never be solved. Most whites won’t go along, including Leftists whose zeal for black liberation, Podhoretz confessed, did not match their desire not to live anywhere near or put their kids in school with blacks.[T]the wholesale merging of the two races is the most desirable alternative for everyone concerned. … [T]he Negro problem can be solved in this country in no other way.