Source is reliable, data may be a cpl years old. Looks like WRMEA may have gone out of biz? MEI/MEIOnline was for yrs one of the best but seems to have gone under.

Everybody: keep socking it to Obummer, expose expose expose. Send anything good you find to the San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper, attn Mary Ratcliff. BV reaches a, maybe THE? key demographic.

Here is John Pilger’s review of Obama’s first 100 days in which he describes the big sell.

Obama’s 100 days – the mad men did well
30 Apr 2009

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes the power of advertising – from the effects of smoking to politics – as he reaches behind the facade of of the first 100 days President Barack Obama.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=530

Obama is simply the antithesis of this. And so it is important to let it be known, that Obama is NOT the outcome of the struggle, but a twisted marginalization and coopting of it.

Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’
Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’
Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’
But, Conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’

And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”

As David Kendell said, King was a man of action and movements since has tried to emulate the Civil Right movement. King legacy is his conscience and the fact that he helped to change racial attitudes in the U.S. Which is HUGE when you consider its history.

You cannot expect King to resolve the class and race problems that still exist in the U.S. My point is that King help push society in the direction of justice. I respect everyone who engages in the battle against injustice whether they are “men of action” or “intellectuals”. The aggregation of their effects are vital. Ideas are needed just as much as action. Because in the end it is not one man or woman but the movement of the masses and getting the masses in action and awareness of their common interest is not a job that can be achieved by any one individual.

MLK embodies the deep sense of tragedy that gives birth to those rare moments. It is not about greatness. It is about the human spirit.

I also agree with David Kendall’s point that Marx, and this can be said of others, was not a man of “action”. He offered a brilliant analysis of the relationship between our social and economic world.

I think you’ve painted yourself into a corner, bozh.

I concur. Max has made some excellent arguments. King alone could not alter the fundemental aspects of government since the Civil Right movement itself suffered several contradictions. However the issue of Jim Crow Racism had to be dealt with. Actually IMO the Black Panther address the structure of government much more. King did work through establishment channel until he came out forcefully against the VietNam War and spoke about the next stage of the movement. Like Malcolm X, he was assassinated just as he reassessed his political positions to focus on the systemic oppression of the system.

I agree with much of Max’s argument. King had a tremendous impact and left a huge legacy. I would argue that Marx and even Max’s favorite Henry George all left behind ideas that address the unfairness and injustices of the system.

(Were we differ are on solution and how to proceed but we definately have to celebrate and respect those who spoke out).

We are the beneficiaries of their collective wisdom and ideas and it is a testiment of the mis-education of workers that they are unfamilar with the men and women who struggled throughout history against injustice.

the structure of governance just about everywhere, in spite of jesus or king, remains the same; i.e., there is aniron grip on power by a minority of people.
in US, the ruling minority might consist of just a few mn people; in qatar, the ruling class may consist of just a few thousands; while in jordan the ruling class may consist of 100T people.
proportionately speaking, % might be the same or similar. But even the ruling class may be stratified in excutionary power.

in any case [and as far as i can see] only cosmetic changes are allowed, which also or mostly benefit the rulers regardless who is an actor/factor in any change.
centuries ago only priest cld read and write. Only patricians were allowed into priestly ranks. Schools were for a long time restricted only to people with money.
however, ruling classes espied that they were misssing great tools for enslavement/enserfment; thus, peasants cld be priests and peasant children had to attend school.
as s’mone had already said, The more things change, the more they stay the same. I cld add that for some people they change even for worse, by the hand of a mad/sad country like US and israel. tnx

Even though great science comes from a milieu of what could be referred to as a community of practice, breakthrough theoretical science is not what we should expect occurring on a social level.

For human communities change doesn’t happen because a single human does something. Social change usually comes out of social trauma. Life in the latter part of the 20th century in the US did not provide that level of trauma. Even the tumultuousness of the 60s did not provide the basis for change. The system was able to adapt and incorporte and marginalize through mass media marketing. Today’s depression is not experienced in the same way as was the 1930s version.

In a word it is not fair to compare a social change agent with a great theortical scientist. Changes on the social level are happening, if imperceptibly throughout the world. Some of these changes will lay the ground work for deep adaptive transformation when a collapse or trauma occurs.

This is how the human species (and all others, whether plant or animal) emerge and change.

Ghandi, Lenin, King, Mao, Guevara, Bolivar, and many others symbolize and are a voices of change, but deep social change occurs on another level. Structural change doesn’t happen because a law is passed or a black man is elected president.

And again, the point of this post was not to debate MLK’s “objective” value. His value emerges because of these and thousands of other references to his legacy. He is what he is. And I think it’s appropriate to reflect on what his life’s work means in today’s context.

many people i have enumerated may have been asocialistic and at least one, Teller, was demented with hatred for USSR. And to praise him for invention of hydrogen bomb is out of the question.

i have never said that King had to be inventor/scientist before one lauds him or credits him with social change.
are you sure you’re reading my posts carefully? What is to you “fundamental change” that King helped bring about? I ask you this, because you may have not read the change i spoke of: that basic structure of governance had not changed at all and thus most basic human rights in US are still violated.
even the right to live, a most basic human right, is not accorded to soldiers who enlisted in order to defend their homeland.
mandela and mns of people have brought important change. How much? I don’t know! One just can’t study everything! tnx

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, on the other hand, was a man of action — not just words or criticism. He was a man who not only identified and understood the glaring social injustice all around him, or merely devised potential solutions, or delegated others to implement those possible solutions. Dr. King personally jumped head-long into the middle of those problems in an active attempt to resolve them. He was also his own greatest critic in terms of what went right, what went wrong, and what was yet to be done with regard to those struggles. In fact, this is what his last book was all about.

But Max is correct. King would doubtlessly find Obama’s agendas reprehensible. Recent claims that the election of Barack Obama is the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream is a dangerous and childish fantasy. It is in fact racist propaganda advanced by a financial elite, who clearly understand Dr. King’s “dream”, in their effort to placate the millions of angry Americans who obviously do not. Beyond the mere abolishment of racial segregation — which he achieved to some great extent — King’s ultimate aim was racial equality to be achieved through the eradication of poverty. His attempt to organize labor in this regard, combined with his powerful talent for mass organization and his mere suggestion of a Basic Income Guarantee seem the most likely reasons Dr. King was assassinated by his own government.

What does this tell us about our system? our “governance”? What does this tell us about Dr. King’s approach? Does King’s assassination suggest his ideology and approach was generally effective, or should we abandon all that now and start breaking windows?

On the other hand, Bozh is correct. Civil rights has not changed the basic structure of governance. It has not changed our system. Legalized voting privileges for blacks, women and workers has not changed the nature of our democratic process. This was, in fact, Dr. King’s greatest criticism of the civil rights movement, of his own work and of the system itself. This was also the next step in his pursuit of eradicating poverty, it was the main reason he was murdered, and it will be a main topic of future installments in this article series.

Thanks very much for your comments and discussion.

First, King played a pivotal role. The man was arrested numerous times and dedicated himself to fundamental change. If we look at S. Africa today, did Mandela achieve fundamental change?

I’m not sure why you insist that he leave behind ideas about physics. Einstein, while a brilliant thinker and pacifist, provide a link to the A-bomb. Decartes, I would submit, has actually been detrimental to our world view, as his view persists in daily life, which has fueled empire (a topic I won’t elaborate on here).

Your “argument” about Mendal seems out of place given the same can be said about each of the examples you give of people who DID leave something “behind”.

I think you’ve painted yourself into a corner, bozh.

If we are to reel this back and ask what is human, individual, greatness, I would say, “Did the world change at all because that person was amongst us?” In varying degrees the answer is affirmative for all of us.

But this is beyond the point of the posted essay. If you tear down MLK, then the lesson provided is diminished. I see no point to that.

the ruling class saw it as a valuable tool to further their ends. After all, that is why, think i, ‘schooling’ is a must.

i have often said that nothing nor any person stands in a vacuum; i.e., in total isolation of all that goes on.

yes, gregor mendel was a monk and he indeed left us valuable knowledge.
but had he left us anything behind to help us end the wars/poverty/child abuse/wife beating, etc? i do not know!

but it is not possible to mention everybody who left us s’mthing. I cld have included newton, copernicus, galileo, pavlov, decartes, et al. But i didn’t because it wasn’t a must; having, i thought, made a point.
tnx for your input. tnx to the readers.

Do you think Lenin or Einstein functioned in a vacuum? If Planck is your idea of a person who did something; than what about the Austrian Monk Gregor Mendel?

If Lenin gave so much, than where is his legacy today?

Lasting transformations take more than a single person. What King DID is what matters. Not what he did NOT do. If his words can speak to our times, he has in fact DONE something. I worked to build an urban free clinic back in the 60s. It was one of many great Black Panther programs. Bits exist, but today, there is little of the energy which has not be thoroughly coopted by the same system that provokes endless, needless war.

max, i beg to differ about king or you, me, or deabeat not being a politician. We all are, except people with brain malfunction.

for the reason that politics [or even non-politics] is just a facet of reality [one and the only; we don't have two] among many.
and you and i part of that reality.

not being political is just about the worst politics. Once, a woman angrilly demanded that her husband and i stop talking about politics.
actually, we had not talked much about politics. However, she did not realize that by objecting to our talk, she engaged in politics but one of the worst kind.
in no way i condemn king; he said what he thought was best for all americans.
i shld have said to forget about quoting people who are often raised to a savior class of people.

some people have spoken well but also have done s’mthing. Lenin, nader, pasteur, einstein, faraday, tesla, edison, planck, bohr and numerous others, left us not just words/ideas but also deeds.

priests as a rule leave nothing of value whatsoever; as a matter of fact most priests retard human understading and brotherhood. tnx

Platform? He wasn’t a politician. I agree that he didn’t build a new nation; but how can you deny his impact. He inspired David Kendall to post here.

King was what he was. Should he have been someone else? Who? Something else? What?

Think of the people, the “leaders” we celebrate who are celebrated because they sent young men and women off to be killed. They had platforms, legacies, and more..perhaps they even created a party, started doctrines that haunt us to this day – think Monroe.