Thanks for raising the profile of this wonderful sister,Ida B.Wells,our beloved heroine.She saved many lives & showed us how to resist.
Well sister ida b wells was definitely one of our most beloved sister warriors in our time,but this discussion was about the lynching that took place on December 3rd,2010 to the young brother frederick jermaine carter, and the queen here in this show made sure to wrap around this discussion, the heroine acts and courage of our brothers and sisters of the past during even worse conditions, and tie it into why our people of today arent awake enough to realize it ain't no different
Strange then, that whites have rallied to "heroes" like Andrew Jackson, Napoleon, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Ronald Reagan, and even celluloid images of Rambo (Sly Stallone) and various John Wayne creations.
The difference between blacks and everyone else is everyone else doesn't need heroes. We get it done on our own without marching or protesting about things we can't do. We get to work and do it. Blacks sit back and complain until somebody throws them a govt. check to shut them up.
Right now Repubicans are still squabbling over who their next hero will be--who can occupy the shoes of Ronald Reagan, the grand dumbo hero of the 1980s.
No one with even a passing familiarity with the history of white societies believes they whites are distinguished by not need heroes.
Also, no one but a moron are unaware that MILLIONS of people of all colors are impoverished by capitalism to the point that they may be forced to take a "government check" or food stamps.
Interestingly enough, no one complains when wealthy white capitalists--at avaricious 1%--get their government checks.
Government money to the rich are called subsidies. It's call welfare when the poor receive a mere pittance compared to the corporate elite.
Yet all this is beyond the comprehension of the Captain Obtuse.
Really? I grew up in the ghettoes of east Baltimore, and I'm the great grandson of slaves. I seem to have made more of my life than you. I'm certainly more educated and more intelligent than you. Any intelligent person comparing both our posts can see that immediately.
It's too bad blacks can't make it on their own. I don't see anyone else complaining.
Yet with all your white privilege, you come here complaining about Black people.
At least we have a REASON to complain. You don't, unless you're complaining against the 1%.
But I've not seen any complaints from you in THAT direction. Perhaps you enjoy kissing corporate ass. If so, you've got no business complaining about the failures of others.
that's just it,whites want us to sit back and be quite about injustice and bias system.They want it to be like before when blacks took it and never fought back,they hate us because we voice our opinion and truth of the injustice system whites established for themselves.
A lot of people don't complain because they CAN'T. The illegal immigrants you brought over here for cheap labor wouldn't risk deportation. Asians generally don't complain, but don't think for a minute they haven't taken note of prejudiced white people. They've certainly spoken to me. You should be happy that black people have been willing to remind you about the system that has always been biased.
If it were biased against you would you just sit there and be quiet?
blacks are hated for standing up to wrong,they call it whining to belittle truth
Abortion is a even more serious issue in our community and is one of the numerous methods these demons are using to try to get rid of us.They are using abortion,promotion of race mixing set traps on us to get us incarcerated and numerous other methods to get rid of us.
This call for moral consistency is commendable, and not easy to adhere to. Even among we progressives it is tempting to drop our humanism and tolerance when it comes to some group we don't particularly like. With emperorjohn, the disliked group seems to be Latins, or at least "illegal aliens." Dr. King would have extended a hand of solidarity to those aliens; and like the Hebrew God who called for kindness and justice to the stranger, King would remind his people "Remember that YOU have been strangers and bondsmen in the land of Egypt." However, I would also like to remind you that Dr. King would extend the hand of solidarity also to the Arab and the Muslim. You would NEVER hear him refer to Muslims as "Muzscum " or "Musrats ". For he would be cognizant that this is also how the Nazis referred to the Jews, and French colonizers referred to Algerians. And he would be well aware of how often his own people, we Blacks, are likened to beasts by racists. To be sure, he would regard Muslims--or anyone else--who engaged in terrorist activities as evil. But he wouldn't regard Muslims, nor perhaps Islam AS A WHOLE, as evil. We experienced white racist Christian terrorism in Alabama, Georgia and numerous other regions in America. Bombings of Black homes and churches by WHITE CHRISTIAN racists were so common that Birmingham came to be called BOMBINGHAM. Yet King regarded THOSE WHITES and THOSE CHRISTIANS (who incinerate synagogues on occasion as well) as evil. Still he exntended his hand of solidarity to all whites of GOOD WILL. In some of his later speeches and writings he called upon religious leaders of the world--Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist---to return to those universal life-affirming values to be found in every religious tradition, values which affirm the value of life and justice. He even extended his hand to atheists with whom he could never agree; and Marxists were also welcome in this Poor Peoples Campsign. If we are to create a more humane America and world, our solidaiity must be as inclusive as possible of the entire human family. This is what the Occupy Movement must be about.
Greetings, my Indian sister. The youths and their teacher arrested at the prison on MLK Day have been released. And they are full of spirit.This RACIST whites have tendency to cause problems between the group. Somehow, black assumes that the problems is Mexicans and Mexican assume vice versa. So far people didn't see the REAL greed of corporations.
I also see that, when they speak about Asians, they'll say you are just better than these two groups but behind the back, they'll discriminate Asians too. Even poor whites are into believing they are better than all other group, but probably one of the worst(in their mind). Do you see how many poor whites committed suicide around Christmas ?
I feel people should join hands with anyone, irrespective of their color. We cannot achieve real success until everyone is included. I feel dismayed when I hear searches in schools and kids living in constant fear. Seems some Mexican kids aren't even going to school in some areas. We've been ruthless to kids, who have no say about where you stay or how did you come. Are we any logical thinking people ?
If you are a illegal from east Europe, you'll have bad accent, may be you don't even speak English but still you wouldn't be discriminated. All Mexican haters should tell me when did they see a white person working in farms in CA ? I don't even see anyone other than browns.
I chose not to speak at Occupy Baltimore on MLK Day because I felt inspired seeing so many young people--inner city kids--courageously finding their voices.
I did address Occupy Baltimore several hours ago. We were Black, white, Latin, Muslim, jew, Christian and probably atheist (since two persons I saw there I know to be Marxists).
The name of a certain Yancy emitted from the mouths of one of the Black college students, and I emailed Yancy to let him know this. I even heard referenced a few published words of my own.
Our movement is on the move. And if anyone seeks to divide us, he or she is an enemy of the Movement.
These special actions which kicked on Martin Luther King Day will continue through January 21. On Friday, the 99% Movement will descend upon the courts here in Bmore, and some in Washington where black hooded idiots and sycophants of corporate power have decided to confer "personhood" on corporations, and to give big money unlimited sway in the influencing and corrupting of American political life. We can beat the plutocracy.
Down with the plutocracy! Victory to the 99%!
Note by Me: Regardless of what you think about this issue (you have the right to believe in what you want on this issue), all Americans should be given the same rights as found in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
I do recall that Coretta Scott King spoke out in defense of the rights of gays even though that issue was not even a blip on the radar screen when Dr. King was with us. Coretta also restrained one of her daughters, I believe Bernice, who tried to use her father's name in right wing anti-gay movements. Coretta made it clear that she could not use her father's name in any "hate the gays" campaign. Coretta pointed out that Dr. King never ostracized anybody. Would he have developed sympathy for the gay Movement? Who knows? Probably he would favor equal rights for gays, though I'm not sure whether he could go as far as gay marriage. He would certainly be a voice of protest against anti-gay discrimination and anti-gay violence. And he would probably point out, as do many PROGRESSIVE ministers do now, that even the Bible has more denunciations of oppression of the poor than denunciations of gay activity. And King would certainly call out those Black ministers who are full of self-righteous outrage over gays, but are silent when it comes to social justice for their own community. He would call out those Negro preachers who are always railing about personal moral infractions, but not about massive social injustice. He would call out those ministers in Baltimore who are silent about the prison facilities being constructed for our youth, and the shutting down of our schools or the outsourcing of our jobs. He would call out those those who wax eloquent about some golden paradise in the great beyond, while ignoring the hellish conditions of social misery in this life. And he would probably counsel his fellow minister to come from behind the stain glass security of their churches, and join the admittedly dangerous and difficult struggle of real human beings which is advancing forward through the bold resistance of the Occupy Movement.
I've progressive white--or Jewish--colleague in Philosophy who's also in the Occupy Movement. Like me, he's a democratic socialist. LIke Wat, he's an atheist. He's very much into Buddhism, as well as sharing my interest in existential philosophy and phenomenology. I am beginning to study eastern philosophy, but have a long way to go. Dr. King had begun engaging some Buddhist revolutionary leaders in Vietnam as he increased his own involvement in opposition to the war. I mentioned to you earlier that while King was deeply rooted in Christianity, he also called upon people of all religions--Christi an, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu--to re-commit to those life affirming values which are universal to all major religions, and which affirm the dignity of human life. A little known part of King's thinking was to encourage an ECUMENICAL religious (as well as religious/secular) alliance and movement for peace. That is what I have in mind at this time. Also, Erich Fromm--of Dr. King's favorite thinkers in Psychology--also advocated for the resurgence of humanistic values found in common both religious and secular humanists. Though an atheist of Marxian and Freudian orientation, Fromm emphasized liberatory humanistic values. As a Marxist, he was most interesting in the philosophical humanism of the early Marx. But he also argued for a NONVIOLENT Movement to achieve a humanistic, decnetralized socialism, Some have described him as a "religious atheist." LOL! Of course, Dr. King sees quite a bit of the Hebrew prophet in Marx.
It seems those measures have been defeated. The fight isn't over, but at least that threat to our first amendment rights has been pushed back. This happened because of POPULAR PRESSURE. People power forced the Congress to back down. To his credit, Obama also opposed SOPA & PIPA, although he initially remained quiet. Whither Obama? Yes, the corporate powers worry that freedom of expression will make the internet a instrument of popular democratic movement. We've already seen it here with the Occupy Movement which has first swept America, and then the world. We've seen it with the Arab Spring. The corporate plutocracy has reason to fear socially oonscious people armed with the internet and with freedom of expression.
Its a disgusting movie, that i've told my fam not to go near, i'm especially making sure the young sisters in my family don't go near that garbage....
These devils are slick in their way of "appealing" their poison to negroes...they attempt to show feel good images of smiling sell outs to the masses, to make it seem like its a happy and fun thing to be near or layed up with a sun defect, which then reverberates around....be careful.
MegaMalik30 1 week ago
There are some of us who are still trying to advance freedom and social justice in this world. Dr. King, who was certainly inspired by the teachings of Jesus, was committed to social justice as well.Dr. MARTIN L. KING'S LEGACY & the OCCUPY MOVEMENT: Would KING Support the 99%?
What would MLK do? Who cares, maybe you should all be asking what Jesus Christ the Lord would do, not some mere man. Get your eyes on Christ Jesus not MLK.
He has been an inspirations to millions around the world.
So, the thread and theme of the thread in this era of rising popular struggle, of the Occupy Movement, is one of vital importance.
If the legacy of King and the fight for social justice is not important to you, then I'm sure you can find or create a thread in which the theme is that of the afterlife, or Jesus and the second coming.
Here the issue is the legacy of King and the Occupy Movement. Who cares? MILLIONS of people, which is why even TIMES described "The Protestor" as the PERSON OF THE YEAR for 2011.
And 2011 was just for starters. Long live the revolutionary legacy of Dr. Martin L. King! Victory to the 99%!
Dr, King came from a MIDDLE CLASS black family, and was hardly part of the 1%. In fact, in THOSE DAYS it was nearly impossible for a Black person to belong to the 1%.
Do you have any citation to justify your claim? I thought Reverend Martin Luther King never endorsed anyone.
His discipline and success tells me, he understood why some people make far more than others. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was the 1%.
Dr. Martin Luther King NEVER supported any particular politician, but he did OPPOSE certain politicians like Barry Goldwater.
Take a look at Chapter 23 of THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR, pp. 247--248. King's comments on Goldwater and Republican conservatism is too lengthy to quote.
But King thought of Goldwater, and Goldwater's conservatism, as out of touch with reality(p.247). On matters of race King thought of Goldwater (an oppoent of civil rights act of 1964) what I thought of Ron Paul (before learning of his racist articles):
"While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand." (p247)
King noted at THAT TIME, while the trend was in its EARLY STAGES, the flocking of KKK and segregationist white supremacist Dixiecrats to the banner of Barry Goldwater.
We see the same economic philosophy in Republican party today, and we see much of the same racism, though CODED to suit the sensibilities of our post-1960s era. Juan Williams, a black conservative got a taste of that recently.
But just read the AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR for yourself.
This is typical rightwing duplicity on the part of racist poseur Zaius.
Who really cares what MLK would have thought? He is dead and speculation is the equivalent of mental masturbation.
Damn him and those evil, hypocritical, republican control freaks.
The next thing you know they will want to ban the murder of infants over 150 weeks and sexual relations with livestock.
First, in post #900 Zaius agrees with Brian's erroneous view that Dr. King would side with rightwing Republican Santorum.
But when confronted with Timothy's somewhat detailed and CORRECT description of Dr. King's PROGRESSIVE stance on civil rights and economic justice, Zaius in post #901 retorts "Who cares what MLK would have thought!"
Reactionaries DENOUNCED KING as a commie, a subversive and as every imaginable evil one can think of while King lived.
Now that he is recognized WORLDWIDE as one of the great champions of human rights and brotherhood, rightists either try to dishonestly depict him as a conservative or, when that doesn't work, simply go back to denouncing King, or at least belittling his historic importance.
Notice too that Zaius states that even speculating what King might have thought now is equivalent to "mental masturbation." But this is immediately after HE, Zaius, speculated (in agreement with Brian)what King would have thought--and tried to imagine King's thinking as RIGHT WING in character. So, I guess that in post# 900, Zaius was engaging in mental masturbation
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a PROGRESSIVE and a REVOLUTIONARY. Sorry to disappoint some of you right wing pretenders
Obama married a BLACK WOMAN, but he "ain't gettin in" either with all these negroz on the net supporting Ron Paul. So check this out... isn't it strange that Black people ain't gettin' in to white world, which is cool, but if a white person wants to "get in" to the Black community, why is it that all they have to do is quote Martin Luther King, go to a Black church, change their lingo & quote Rev. James Cleveland, etc., and all of a sudden, "they're 'Black'"?
Its all good bro....its the universal mission of every alkebulan inside and outside of the mother continent, to detangle from this devil.....
MegaMalik30 1 week ago
I agree 100% Herein lies the problem. Coporations put profits before all else and they're the reason the country is in decline and our elected politicians being in their pockets. Both parties!the former USSR , Cuba, North Korea=nations that used policies that violate human civil liberties. This doesn't refute the notion of legitimate social democratic principles of being key to enhance our standard of living at all. You can have the government to exist, civil liberties, and private & public services to exist at the same time in one country.
It's not about big or small government. It's about effecient government that is free from corporate control. Our government is controlled heavily by corporate influence. This is one reason why some parts of the US government has gone haywire.
US is known as land of opportunity just because our govt "used" to spend a lot in new emergent technologies. Also, getting funding from venture capitalist/banks was easier before for people with right skills. I believe govt should invest in green tech. Who will promote new ideas which made US great?
I believe oil companies are trying to KILL all new ideas. Every documentary on discovery channel shows that we don't have unlimited oil. I think some of this retards might be mouthpiece for this oil companies and might be earning a penny for every word they type.
Your are nearly 100% right in your exposition of Dr. King's political outlook and values. Anyone who wishes to depict King as a conservative--even after the libertarian pattern of Ron Paul, much less Santorum--is either misinformed or disingenuous. And I have been doing some research, involving both King's own works and that of King scholars. NEVER, not once, have I heard anyone describe King as a conservative. Liberal? Yes. Even social democrat of democratic socialist (King's own favorite expression). But conservative? Only right wing political hacks say that.
I think Dr. King would support the 100 percent as he said that all people are created equal. Yet, Dr. King would believe that the 1 percent has the responsibility to pay fair taxes and not continue their agenda of oligarchy. Dr. Martin Luther King believed in compensatory treatment given unto the poor and minorities just before he died. Therefore, he agreed with some sense of reparations, an economic bill of rights, and proclaiming housing as a human right. This is expressed in his interviews and speeches. He always denounced the philosophy of "getting up by your own bootstraps," because the poor regularly witness globalization, discrimination, scapegoating, massive cuts to their own services that they have worked for, and other problems in the world. These problems caused the poor to lack opportunities to allow them to radically get out of poverty. Therefore, Dr. King said that he wanted billions of dollars to be spent in order for that money to help the poor (including the radical redistribution of economic and political power. The ending of the militarist Empire is one method to achieve that goal along with other solutions like massive anti-poverty programs). So, King said that he desired individual and collective solutions in order to solve our complications. He desired a coalition of human beings among numerous backgrounds in order for a world revolution to transpire. Senator Santorum's views would be opposed by Dr. King since Dr. King wanted an active federal government to enhance the standard of living economically inside of American society. Santorum doesn't want the federal government to massive perserve the social safety net federally to maintain social justice. Yet, he hypocritically wants the federal government to massively intervene in people's sexual & personal business. Regardless of what you think about these controversial social issues, Santorum is acting like a hypocrite here.
It's 2012, so people are realizing the truth.
You are the famous comedian again Zaius. We’ve been down this road before. Just because theoretically that poverty can never be brought down to 0 percent, that doesn’t mean we should do nothing to fight it. Our poverty rate can radically come down from over 8 percent unemployment.
Poverty will always be with us, until someone invents a pill which can raise IQ levels......!
Knowing that poverty can never be eliminated I choose to go with a system that has uplifted more people from poverty and vastly improved the lives of millions upon millions of people than any other system ever created by man.
Free market capitalism, which works best without governmental bureaucratic intervention.
Please read this: http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-r...
Truly amazing, eh? The power of free market capitalism UNLEASHED!
You are making the same mistake they made in the former USSR , Cuba, North Korea and every other nation which has embraced socialism as a cure to societies ills. The federal government is not about compassion. It is about control and political power for a modern day ruling class.
The smaller the government is, the better off the people are.
Surrendering your liberty for the promise of a government utopia, where everything is 'fair' and 'equal' is a shortcut to enslavement AKA North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and on and on.
The political ruling class would just as happily beat you for not picking as much rice as the next guy as they would be happy to put you in jail for growing a plant on your private property.
Now, you claim that free market capitalism was the strongest instrument that brought down poverty more than any instrument known to man. That is of course very false, because never in American history (or world history) that we have a financial system free from all government intervention. President George Washington supported federals funds for canals. Eisenhower used federal dollars to build up our interstate highway system and President Kennedy used government money to fund NASA, pro-union policies, and foreign aid. That is antithetical to the totally laissez faire capitalist system. What works is a mixed economy (that promotes private enterprise, legitimate regulations, and public services too). That works. You list certain nations, which is slick my fellow. The government can’t solve every problem, but the government can be used as an instrument for improvements. Humans can show compassion without the state, but that doesn’t mean the government is left out of the equation. Not to mention that labor rights, civil rights, environmental protection, and other benefits in our land aren’t representative of free market capitalism at all.
Although, you conveniently omit the pro-social democratic nations of Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, etc. that have strong public resources to help their citizens out. They aren’t following Austrian economics. Much of their health, education, GDP, and human development index are better than America's indicators of its standard of living. It was the federal government spending money to end the Great Depression. It was federal involvement that contributed to the decline of the poverty rate in the USA in half from 1960 to 1970 as well. Smaller government doesn’t work in every case to help a kid to pay for student loans or to solve interstate issues. I believe that the government shouldn’t control every aspect of society. I believe the government should protect our liberties. I just believe that the government should promote the general welfare of the people. Your pro-oligarchy positions are really about socialism for the rich and cartel-capitalism for the poor.
You believe that corporations alone or private interests alone can solve poverty. I don't. I believe in both private and public avenues to solve poverty. You reject any form of federal program to assist human beings living in poverty. I don't. That's a big difference between me and you. The rest of your arguments are hypotheticals that doesn't refute the fact of Santorum being a hypocrite on the role of the federal government at all. Also, poverty has increased on the middle class while the abortion rates have remained the same over the course of 10 years. Therefore, regressive, austerity measures contributed to the higher poverty rate in America not abortion policies alone. When the middle class is being poorer, the issue is bigger than abortion. I don't believe in slavery. Slavery deals with immoral control over a human being (with that human being being tortured, abused, and sometimes killed without payment or just compensation). Slavery has nothing to do with the issue of Santorum's hypocrispy at all. I don't agree with dead beat dads running out of their responsibilities. I don't believe in imprisoning women, so you are putting words in my mouth. We have differences than every aminal since we can deduce complex language, we travel into space, and we have higher cognitive thinking. Therefore, laws should be fair and not reactionary. Moral absolutes existed throughout human history.
You either support them murder of infants or you don't. Frankly I find it hypocritical that we do not allow mothers that have fallen on hard times to abort their child whenever it is convenient.
Imagine how that would help with the massive poverty this nation is facing! 46 million folks and rising! We need to give them the tools to deal with this situation! It is about compassion, like the early term abortions that are allowed now.
The fathers have run off and left the women to care for a child they can't afford and many times do not even want. You just want to control a woman like this was the 1500's and imprison her if she doesn't live up to your standards of what is right and wrong.
Animals kill their offspring all the time. If they are defective or not really viable, some animal mothers will actually eat their children to lessen the burden on her more viable offspring! It is really along the same lines how we compare animals that seemingly display homosexual tendencies with humans that make a choice to be gay.
It is all about being fair, and forcing a woman to care for a child she doesn't want or has no time for is pure evil and no different than slavery.
You don't support slavery, do you?
You believe in a regressive foreign policy that has led to the killings of millions of human beings in the past 10 years. I don't. You believe in supporting a party that scapegoats the poor and accepts Ayn Rand's tired Objectivist philosophy. I don't. I believe in compassion since compassion means caring for babies after they are born and believing that welfare for those that need it isn't a curse at all. Also, I believe that just because a child is in a poor environment, doesn't mean that they lack value. They have as much value as any human. Many people from a poor environment have made a huge success via affirmative action programs, anti-poverty programs, and other public policy solutions.
I never written that the federal government should regulate all matters. You are putting words in my mouth again. You believe that the federal government should bomb sovereign nations under a false pretext and that the federal government should activate austerity to harm poor citizens.
The tools to solve poverty include investments, a jobs program, help for poor citizens, the rejection of austeriy, better education, better health, mentorships, and other common sense actions.