Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass were both dedicated to bringing about an America that was colorblind, Andre Archie says, but their work is being undermined.
Obviously, this is the height of foolishness, in my opinion.
“Colorblindness” is just reconciliation without the truth. It’s a project concerned with the comfort of white people.
You can’t just use cherry picked quotes to make dead men endorse stupid shit
-Jesus Christ
Colorblindness only works if nobody is racist. As long as there is racism, certain people will have different experiences and difficulties as a result. Failure to recognize these differences allows you the problems caused by racism to be perpetuated.
That’s not true. When race isn’t a central focus, then racism stands out even more, and is appalling and shocking. When I was in the Army we were about as blended of a group as you can get. Most of us didn’t think of each other as black, or white, or Mexican, or Asian. We thought of each other as our brothers in arms. When someone occasionally said something racist, every head would turn. You’d have a couple dozen guys of all ethnicities perk up and be like “WTF did you just say? No fucking cool, man”. You don’t need to make the central focus of every person’s identity their race to overcome racism. Honestly, that approach seems quite counterproductive to me since it separates and isolates people by the color of their skin, rather than building a community bonded by their humanity.
The army is a bit different as soldiers are indoctrinated to identify themselves as military above any other self-identity. That doesn’t exist in the civilian world
Color blindness isn’t literal blindness. It’s a choice to focus on the aspects of a person other than their race.
If a person is experiencing racism, you’re allowed to see that if you’re “color blind”. You’re just not allowed to perpetuate it.
That is fine on a personal level, but falls apart on the socio-political level. The government is expected to step in when people are discriminated against and that can’t happen if they are colorblind.
Anyone who thinks that Martin Luther King and the slave owning Founding Fathers had the same vision is pretty blind themselves.
Frederick Douglass was a former slave, not a slave owning founding father. You should definitely read about him, since he was an intelligent badass who spoke many truths applicable to this day. My favorite quote from him is:
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
I like to point out that he worked for political candidates at a time when he himself was unable to vote. Most of the people he worked for couldn’t promise to end slavery, but he understood that you have to take small steps.
Yes, he understood what a lot of people don’t these days, which is that you work with what you have. He could have raged and cried about the unfairness of the situation, but instead he chose to use the venues available to him, and carved his place in history as a result, heavily impacting society of his time and ours.
I wish we could, but people are too caught up in being racist to stop judging everyone based on race
Democrats can’t stop trying to put people into groups. My skin color is the least interesting thing about me.
I don’t know about that. I think it’s interesting that your grandparents spent time in a concentration camp because they were Japanese ; or some of your relatives had to undergo forced sterilization because they were Native Americans; or that they weren’t allowed to get married because they were of two different races.
That isn’t in our lifetime.
I am not aware of natives being sterilized but democrats did sterilize black women. Planned parent hood was started in racism.
You funny.
That didn’t happen in our life time AND a shout out to Margret Sanger. [born 1879]
You can’t keep your lines straight.
Huh? I didn’t claim Sanger was in our lifetime. Her legacy is still going
Who do you know who was in a Japanese camp?
Apparently, you didn’t read my comment, or your own reply. I think you just have a notebook full of stock phrases and throw them out when you think they might sound smart.
I read your comment and replied to it. I did the best I could but your response wasn’t coherent.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/FOAG2M5RVBHNXFUGTSYHWMCLEQ.jpg)
Yeah, the democrats…
Yes the democrats. I have no clue what point you are trying to make as usual. Have you ever thought about trying to make a point?
You said it’s the democrats that love putting people into groups (based on race). Yet conservatives celebrate the confederacy:
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/JQR46KOUDRGRRGOA6WHHD5OETY.jpg)
The point of the confederacy was to defend the institution of slavery, which is by definition a form of putting people into groups (and in the case of the confederaxy based on race). It is morally repugnant yet celebrated by conservatives today.
The flag you are showing is about rebellion and anti-authority. It isn’t about racism. That’s the battle flag. It’s not the confederate flag. lol. You’re such a troll
No, it’s a symbol of slavery.
No it’s not. lol. It’s a battle flag. And screw the adl.
While I do think there is some reactionary hate for members of privileged groups, and reactionary and unwelcome protectionism of minority groups (talking about white liberal savior complexes here, not substantive policy); this kind of bad faith comment blaming a group (Democrats) ensures that the divisions that perpetuate them aren’t going anywhere, anytime soon.
I am not blaming them. It’s their strategy and what they do. Democrats are racist.
Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.
https://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/
I always find it funny when conservatives think that Martin Luther King was on their side.
I get that it’s beyond your mental capability, but people are are nuanced, and can be respected for good ideas in spite of also having other, bad ideas
PrincessEli: Warning for violation of rule #1 and #3.
Don’t automatically assume something is beyond someone’s mental capability, and provide reasons for your disagreement.
(I’m gonna have to start putting names in my warning so I know how I’ve warned previously…)
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
I’m not assuming. I’m providing my opinion based on his continued participation here, where he has demonstrated exceptionally poor ability to discern nuanced situations
I always find it funny when conservatives think that Martin Luther King was on their side.
Dr. King very much was a conservative. Baffled you would think otherwise. He was a preacher in the South in the 1960s. If you had read any of his writings, he was very much a conservative man.
Now would he be on the side of the Republican party? Most likely not. His father was a proud Republican but King avoided association with any party. He wanted the ability to call out both sides.
Dr. King very much was a conservative.
https://mlkglobal.org/2017/11/23/martin-luther-king-on-capitalism-in-his-own-words/
And?
He was a socialist, and anti capitalist. Which is antithetical to conservativism, which licks the boot of capitalism.
He was not an anti-capitalist. lol. He clearly says he’s a social democracy. That’s a system based on capitalism that has a strong safety social net. Sweden is an example of a social democracy. It’s a capitalism.
And no once again you’re rambling about things you don’t understand. Conservatism and capitalism are different things. One is a political belief system and the other is an economic system.
You sound so silly when you talk about licking boots. It’s some weird fetish you commies have.
He was not an anti-capitalist. lol.
“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.”
Conservatism and capitalism are different things. One is a political belief system and the other is an economic system.
I am aware. However you don’t seem aware that conservatism specifies that capitalism is the only valid economic system.
You sound so silly when you talk
No sillier than you, someone who can’t even read basic quotes and understand their meaning.
A guy straight up calls capitalism evil and you say they aren’t anti capitalist.
It’s some weird fetish you commies have
I’m not a communist.
“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.”
Yet he says he supports capitalism. You know MLK wasn’t an economist, right? Just like you, he didn’t really understand what he was advocating for.
I am aware. However you don’t seem aware that conservatism specifies that capitalism is the only valid economic system.
Really you have a cite for that? News to me.
No sillier than you, someone who can’t even read basic quotes and understand their meaning.
Adults understand the context. I get you like everything in sound bites but it ignores the true intent of the speaker. MLK was advocating for a more just society. He wasn’t asking to end capitalism, but to make sure everyone was enjoying the American dream. More specifically he was advocating for black people who didn’t have the economic advantages of white people at the time. Dr. King was a religious man but he was not an economist. What he is describing is something more akin to Sweden which actually ranks more capitalist than America.
A guy straight up calls capitalism evil and you say they aren’t anti capitalist. Then right below that he talks about supporting it. This is why you don’t take economic advice from a preacher.
I’m not a communist. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Fucking finally! Yes please.
Removed by mod