OT/MISC Did MLK really do anything for blacks, and America?

SSTemplar

Veteran Member
It depends on where you live. The answer is yes here in the South. Not so much in the states above the Mason-Dixon line. I don‘t have to drink out of a whites only fountain anymore.Stay out of predominantly black neighborhoods and everyone is civil to each other. That is all I ask. Treating each other civilly on the street or in the store is the only equality one can expect.
 

Bubble Head

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Yes and no. His words did change wrongs but it has now been erased by the current commie movement especially coming from many blacks. I blame the loss on LBJ great society and massive destruction of the Black family. When MLK was marching the Black family was a unit. Now they are fatherless and want to be gangsters.
I never lived in the South and first encountered racism from blacks at Great Lakes boot camp. Never really looked at color until then. We are reaping what was sown in the 60’s.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
I heard Owner on his telephone the other day - he was talking with a friend, someone he has worked for in previous years.

I think the friend called hoping Owner was still "available." There was some questions about work that Owner had done at friend's house.

But the conversation turned and Owner pulled up his "Johnny Carson Joke" about "Prune nog." (The Christmas gift that keeps on giving...)

Both lamented the loss of Johnny Carson - an erudite mind for sure. Friend commented that he had the DVD showing some of Carson's more hilarious routines.

His words "Today such a routine would be immediately critiqued in woke aversion."

Owner agreed - times, or at least social mores have changed.

My thought - times have changed - but not necessarily for the better.

Think of the Carol Burnett routine with Tim Allen - the "Little Old Man." Today such a routine on public venue would IMMEDIATELY be considered "insensitive" and "demeaning" to the elderly. Below RT 11.55

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-QqmJimv_U


And this is too bad. One the hallmarks (certificate of admission) of comedy is the "universality" of the subject matter: who has NOT met such a human and had empathy for those who deal with them. This empathy can be source of humor and delight?

Without it life becomes "humorless" and un-funny. And it gets harder to take pleasure in life?

Maybe THAT is the real objective of wokeness? To dominate you and deny you any small pleasure you may take from others?

If you humans can't laugh at yourselves - who can you laugh at?

I don't appreciate the sniggles from those who see my tail go up. But I am but me. And even I have to "go" - and I full understand the lack of toilet facilities.

Dobbin
 
Last edited:

Terrwyn

Veteran Member
Well when I visited my birth Dad in Memphis in 1962 a black man stepped off the sidewalk to let us pass.
While here in CA I rode the bus with black people, shopped in Huntington Park etc. Neighborhoods out here were still segregated though. Blacks lived West of HP and Schools were still segregated.
 

Trouble

Veteran Member
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.
 

db cooper

Resident Secret Squirrel
Before our recent commie surge that wants to erase MLK, the written history has it that MLK did wonders with peaceful marches. But as a kid I do remember the riots. And I recall the FBI had a very serious file on the guy. Interestingly, he was a Republican, as I think he was smart enough to know where all the prejudice was coming from.

So in answer to the title question, did he really do anything for Blacks? Yes. The legislation of the early 60's led to IMO the best racial coexistence we ever had, which was around the mid-90's. Once the dems got back in charge, it's been a decline, more rapid of a decline with obama. The rats want division, thus there is no room today for MLK's legacy, even if it was made up.
 

kyrsyan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
MLK did wonders. The folks that were using him... not so much. Unfortunately, for all of us, they lived and he died.
 

LibertyInNH

Senior Member
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 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.
 

Trouble

Veteran Member
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.
 

dvo

Veteran Member
Hey...MLK has a street named for him in most cities of any size. He must have accomplished something! If you are melanin challenged, you don’t ever want to be caught driving on that street. His message of peace and harmony.
 
Last edited:

LibertyInNH

Senior Member
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.

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.
 

Josie

Has No Life - Lives on TB
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.
 

Tripod

Veteran Member
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
 

Mprepared

Veteran Member
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.

I understand that. I lived in the south where there still was water fountains for 2 colors and I never understood it because I was young and really nobody every taught me to hate blacks and I lived around Indians and they were our friends and my best friend in high school was Mexican, but the one thing I heard over and over my whole life was YANKEES. The whole north and south was strong even in the 1950s and 1960s. My grandmother told a story of going on a train to see her grandfather. Her mother dressed her in a new blue dress and when he saw her he ripped the dress off my grandmother and told her mother to never dress anybody in our family in BLUE ever again.
 

Trouble

Veteran Member
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.
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...
 

PghPanther

Has No Life - Lives on TB
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............
 

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
why 'course he did . . . you'da not hab dis hea potan hollyday ta loafer roun' on wifout Marchin' Lootin' wudja?
 

To-late

Membership Revoked
What MLK did for the blacks, was make them feel less than.
So much so, that they still,,, think they ‘ain’t as good’ as others.
else they would raise themselves up in society. And I’m not referring to ghetto society.
 

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
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............

that was my post (9.7.17) here it is and I remember the events quite well.

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"

ETA: I've thought about ^^^this^^^ since I quoted my earlier post. the man's name my father spoke about was Tony Sanders and he worked with my father as a warehouse man. in fact, Tony was my fathers foreman - for a major food distributor in the NE. they were very good friends and we often went rabbit hunting together. my father liked him for several reasons; Tony NEVER missed work; Tony was very strict with his kids they were respectful and they were never in trouble at school. Tony had come from what's unfortunately become the EXCEPTION in black America - an intact family with a strong respectable father figure . . . Tony was going to be certain his kids had that because EVEN THEN the intact black family had begun to unravel. LBJ stuck a fork in it in back in 1964 with the FAILED WAR on POVERTY and creation of the welfare sow system of ghetto life complete with the accepted occupation of "baby daddy"
 
Last edited:

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
He rode from Selma to Montgomery when the cameras were turned off. While the "marchers" walked.

====

Integration Has Failed. Now What? | Articles | VDARE.com




VDARE-mlk-3_1_.jpg

Integration Has Failed. Now What?
default-author-d4208ec6b76b19eac93568d71a25b1dd53bd246123516bb7f2087aa088f56817.jpg

Eugene Gant
01/15/2022

Coming up to the 38th Martin Luther King Day, it is obvious to everyone that integration has failed. The Floyd and Black Lives Matter Hoax riots last year, the ridiculous debate over Critical Race Theory, invites a question no one, least of all the worthies who run Conservatism, Inc., wants to ask: Now what? And that question occasions a look back at two remarkably honest essays, one from Hannah Arendt, Reflections on Little Rock [Dissent, Winter 1959 (PDF)], and the other from Norman Podhoretz, My Negro Problem—And Ours for Commentary [February 1963 (PDF)]. Both tacitly suggested that black-white racial problems were insoluble.

Arendt originally wrote her piece for Commentary, but the editors spiked it because her views “were at variance with the magazine’s stand on matters of discrimination and segregation.” That was rich given the atom bomb Podhoretz dropped four years later. Arendt wrote that federal intervention to desegregate Southern schools was a dangerously stupid idea, particularly President Eisenhower’s deployment of the fabled 101st Airborne to Little Rock, AR to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court’s post–Brown v. Board ruling to desegregate schools with “all deliberate speed.”

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

Though “things had quieted down temporarily,” she wrote, “[r]ecent developments have convinced me that such hopes are futile and that the routine repetition of liberal cliches may be even more dangerous than l thought a year ago.”

“The achievement of social, economic, and educational equality for the Negro may sharpen the color problem in this country instead of assuaging it,” Arendt wrote, and although this didn’t necessarily have to happen “it would be only natural if it did, and it would be very surprising if it did not.”

By “equality,” Arendt meant forced desegregation and integration. Predicting they would cause more racial trouble did not mean one opposed them, she wrote, but such foreknowledge should “commit one to advocating that government intervention be guided by caution and moderation rather than by impatience and ill-advised measures.”

The federal government must proceed cautiously:
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.
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.”
They don’t?!

Then Arendt pushed the gas pedal. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 that inspired the Southern Manifesto “did not go far enough” to abolish “unconstitutional [state] legislation,” she wrote:
[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.
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.
That aside, Arendt lamented that Leftists were conscripting children to serve as human shields, and that forced integration meant parents would lose the right of free association:
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. ...
[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.
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.

An amusing note about Arendt’s piece, versus Podhoretz’s, is how she introduced it. “Like most people of European origin I have difficulty in understanding, let alone sharing the common prejudices of Americans in this area,” she wrote:
[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.
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.

Podhoretz was mystified. Why do blacks hate Jews with the same ferocity they hate all other whites? he wondered.
“To me, at the age of twelve, it seemed very clear that Negroes were better off than Jews—indeed, than all whites” [in his neighborhood] he wrote. This was despite his older, radical sister’s claim that blacks were oppressed:
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.

No one could blame him. The beatings were brutal, on par with attempted murder. He received a bat across the head for answering a question correctly in class that a black thug had missed. A track team that cheated and lost a meet against Podhoretz’s high school assaulted him and his teammates. The blacks wanted to steal the medals. And so on. Podhoretz learned early the wisdom encapsulated in the late Colin Flaherty’s book title: “Don’t make the black kids angry.”

Podhoretz bluntly noted that that blacks are low IQ academic underachievers, then tried to explain why “the Negro-white conflict had—and no doubt still has—a special intensity and was conducted with a ferocity unmatched by intramural white battling.”

Wrote Podhoretz:
[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?
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.

Yet he was still “troubled and puzzled”:
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?
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].
wypMfeZ.jpg

The opening paragraphs indicted Jews by stereotyping them as unscrupulous, moneygrubbing landlords, grocers, and merchants who kept blacks in debt:
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.

But in the end, that exploitation didn’t matter. White Christians were Baldwin’s real enemy:
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.
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.
Fast forward 50 years.

Blacks are angry and unhappy despite being among the most powerful politicians and wealthiest athletes, doctors, lawyers, entertainers, professors, and public intellectuals in the world. Blacks are angry and unhappy 30 years after the federal government canonized rapist Martin Luther King. Blacks are angry and unhappy 13 years after Americans elected a black president, then elected him again.

Almost 70 years after Brown, almost 60 years after the Civil and Voting Rights acts, decades after Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, and Barack Hussein Obama became household names—the farther away we go from Jim Crow and segregation—the angrier and unhappier blacks become.
Podhoretz could think of only one solution, an early blueprint of The Great Replacement. A black man’s color must “disappear as a fact of consciousness,” Podhoretz wrote:
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. …

[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.
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.
As Joe Sobran once quipped, college gives white Leftists all the right attitudes about minorities…and the education and income to move as far away from them as possible.
They have good reason. Even Leftists know, to rephrase Rodney King, that we just can’t get along.

When will we admit it?

Eugene Gant [email him] no longer lives in Baltimore.
 
Last edited:

artichoke

Greetings from near tropical NYC!
I was watching football last night (son was watching) and they showed the Rams quarterback Matthew Stafford (a white country boy) answering the question "what do you think of MLK?" Obviously a PC-sounding answer was required, and so he said

"I think he led by example."

Perfect.
 
Top