What Did MLK Really Say About Personal Responsibility?

In his scramble to become Head Babysitter of the status quo in the United States, Barack Obama famously threw his minister, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, under the bus. There will be no “trouble-makers” on his bus, Mr. Obama wants to make clear.

But Reverend Wright is not the only victim of the Obama bus-toss routine. Another major victim has been none other than Martin Luther King, Jr.

As I noted here last month, on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination, Obama ended a generally picayune and misleading commemorative speech with this conclusion: “One of the forgotten aspects of Dr. King’s legacy is how he demanded personal responsibility as well as societal responsibility.”

This, of course, is standard code-talk for saying “Racism is over, so get off your asses, black people, and fuck you if you don’t.”

This is a blatantly wrong and anti-MLK thing to say, but, as my initial disgust wore off, I found myself wanting to return to the issue. What exactly did Dr. King have to say about personal responsibility?

To answer this question, you don’t have to look very hard. In fact, the topic didn’t just arise, but leaped up, in MLK’s very first major speech, which was about — dig it — BUSES!

Having just the night before been chosen to lead the newly-formed Montgomery Improvement Association, the 27-year-old MLK went to the Holt Street Church to explain to the overflow crowd of bus boycotters why Rosa Parks’ arrest a few days prior was a turning point.

King’s December 5, 1955 speech, as reported by Harvard Sitkoff in his marvelous new book, went like this:

Several hundred blacks crammed the sanctuary and the basement auditorium, while several thousand more lined the sidewalks surrounding the church, listening on loudspeakers to rousing renditions of “Onward, Christian Soldiers” and “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms,” to somber Scripture readings, and to pleas for financial support by numerous ministers.

Then an unassuming Martin King mounted the podium. Few in attendance had ever heard him speak, and the short, chubby preacher was hardly a commanding presence in the pulpit.

“We are here this evening for serious business,” he intoned slowly, “and we are determined to apply our citizenship to the fullness of its means.” In his rich, deep voice, he calmly recalled the history of bus segregation and asked the black community to protest the arrest of Rosa Parks, “not one of the finest Negro citizens, but one of the finest citizens in Montgomery.”

Having captured his listeners with his deliberate enunciation, King quickened his cadence and wagged an admonishing finger. “You know, my friends, there comes a time, there comes a time when people get tired-tired of being segregated and humiliated, tired of being trampled over by the iron feet of oppression.” Loud applause and shouts forced King to pause, then to pause further as the throng outside added a rising, clamorous approval.

The volume and pitch of the preacher’s words rose. “There comes a time, my friends, when people get tired of being thrown across the abyss of humiliation, where they experience the bleakness of nagging despair. There comes a time when people get tired of being pushed out of the glittering sunlight of life’s July and left standing amidst the piercing chill of an alpine November.” A wave of clapping hands and stomping feet shook the church and again made King wait.

“We had no alternative but to protest.” King pointed again for emphasis. “For many years, we have shown amazing patience. We have sometimes given our white brothers the feeling that we liked the way we were being treated. But we come here tonight to be saved from that patience that makes us patient with anything less than freedom and justice.”

King’s baritone resounded: “The great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” Looking down at his hands on the sides of the lectern, he contrasted that right with those “incarcerated behind the iron curtain of a communistic nation,” and with the violence and lawlessness of white supremacists who defied the Constitution, stirring more shouts of “Keep talking” that momentarily drowned him out.”If we are wrong,” King contended, “the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong!” Straining to be heard above the din, he thundered, “If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer and never came down to earth! If we are wrong, justice is a lie.”

The preacher waited. “And we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight, until justice runs down like water and righteousness as a mighty stream!” The rafters shook. To still the crescendo of cheers, King held both palms aloft and bowed his head. “If you will protest courageously and yet with dignity and Christian love”-his voice lowered-”when the history books are written in future generations, the historians will have to pause and say: ‘There lived a race of people, black people, fleecy locks and black complexion, of people who had the moral courage to stand up for their rights. And thereby they injected new meaning and dignity into the veins of civilization.’ [THAT’S RIGHT!] [YESSIR.] [SPEAK. SPEAK!]

“This is our challenge,” he concluded with his head aloft, “and our overwhelming responsibility.”

The rhythm of the words, the power of the rising and falling voice, the bold vision of triumphing over wrong stunned the crowd into sudden silence as King abruptly stepped away from the pulpit, trembling from his effort. Then, rising as one, the congregation shouted its resolve to continue the boycott.

As they say in kindergarten, the wheels of the bus go round and round. Alas, it’s always the wrong people who feel the kiss of the tread…

Michael Dawson is author of The Consumer Trap: Big Business Marketing in American Life (2004). He is the publisher of the blog The Consumer Trap, which aims to expose capitalism, marketing and market totalitarianism. Read other articles by Michael, or visit Michael's website.

79 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. evie said on May 15th, 2008 at 6:28am #

    “One of the forgotten aspects of Dr. King’s legacy is how he demanded personal responsibility as well as societal responsibility.”… “This, of course, is standard code-talk for saying “Racism is over, so get off your asses, black people, and fuck you if you don’t.”

    That’s quite a stretch of the code crappola.

    What do ya think Martin would say about 70% out of wedlock and fatherless children in our culture?

    What would he say about rappers bitchin’ and ho-in’, humpin’ and grindin’ and glorifying gangsta?

    What would he say to the crackheads and crack dealers?

    What would he say about black folk who think education/learning is actin’ white?

    Would he say the rich white men and the guvmint made you do it? Do you understand the meaning when King said of Parks “not one of the finest Negro citizens, but one of the finest citizens in Montgomery.”

    If you don’t want to feel the “kiss of the tread” folks, stop laying your ass down in the middle of the road.

  2. mindless buddha said on May 15th, 2008 at 6:59am #

    Yes, Evie – YES! I agree with the previous comment.

    “If you will protest courageously and yet with dignity and Christian love.” MLK not only spoke about responsibility, but also about how one should carry oneself through this experience. This article is a bit short and doesn’t really explore Dawson interpretation of what MLK is stating in this speech. There is much more in MLK words than meets the eye. Contrary to the writers opinion, you often have to look very hard to discover it or any other great thinker’s message. In fact, you should be most cautious when you think you’ve ‘got it.’

    Dignity is a MAJOR part of MLK message.

    The fact that Dawson felt disgust speaks far louder than anything else in this unclear statement. When we can not listen to the opinions of others without feeling disgust, we can not hear what they are saying. Most of the subsequent thought patterns are shaped by the initial reaction of disgust. This is not understanding – this is simply reactionary. I believe that MLK was about understanding and acting appropriately – not reactionary politicking.

    I’m curious; did MLK ever use the word ‘fuck’ in a public forum?

    dignity….

  3. Max Shields said on May 15th, 2008 at 8:24am #

    I actually think MLK had come to recognize the “problem” as class based with roots in socio-economic system which has always been about a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Nothing earth-shaking about that, but it remains at the core. I don’t think we have a “race problem”. The one MLK spoke to; and the other is a legacy of slavery. Stuggle to address the first is within out grasp. The latter is as they say history which can at best be acknowledged.

    It is vital to realize that the system whether manifested in the likes of an Obama or some other image is all about undermining change – the kind of change that MLK talked about.

    Whether one reads code into it or some other mechanism, is irrelevant.

  4. bozhidar balkas said on May 15th, 2008 at 8:26am #

    the wider the vista, the wiser one is. when blaming/complaining, finding faults, or even praising, cast the widest look possible.
    look at history, economics, structure of governance, whether, sciense, religion, sport, armed services, education, media reports, transportation, political discourse, plutocrats, slavery, lynching, two-tier heath care, two-tier jurisprudence, drugs, agriculture, etc.
    examine the role of each aspects of one reality. and still, hold off one’s judgements.
    get others involved in the study of each of these aspects and their respective affects and effects. and still not blaming.
    but suggestions what to do to correct ills.
    why aren’t the causes of warfare/poverty studied? my answer is, because there are causative actors/factors for shunning these studies. and there are causes for shunning the study of causes of warfare/poverty, and so on.
    a politico has many mini, medi, maxi skirts (avoidances) in her bag and that it is not studied either. thank u.

  5. hp said on May 15th, 2008 at 9:37am #

    “Alas, it’s always the wrong people who feel the kiss of the tread.”
    That also sounds like something one would hear in kindergarten.

    Is revenge what MLK had on his mind, in his heart?

  6. hp said on May 15th, 2008 at 9:44am #

    You know what else sounds like something one would hear in kindergarten?
    “Alas, it’s always the wrong people who feel the kiss of the tread.”
    Is revenge what MLK had on his mind, in his heart?
    Sounds more like Malcolm X.

  7. evie said on May 15th, 2008 at 9:54am #

    mindless b.
    Right you are – dignity.

  8. Jerry D. Rose said on May 15th, 2008 at 10:25am #

    I really rather regret that Michael Dawson’s article framed the relationship between Obama and King in terms of Obama’s claim of an identity of their views on the issue of “personal responsibility.” I agree that King insisted on “dignity” as an element of effective protest and I agree that he never used the word “fuck” in public whatever J.E. Hoover’s description of him as a “tom cat” in his personal life. The stirring speech that he gave at Montgomery at age 27 was not, however, about personal responsibility except maybe in the responsibility of African Americans to act courageously in the face of their oppression in the society. The two aren’t really mutually exclusive. As the “well-behaved” Obama and most of his white and black supporters will show, good behavior is no guarantee of courage in standing against the oppression against the race. This is precisely where he threw MLK under the bus along with Wright. To confuse the issue of commitment to justice with that of propriety of behavior just opens the way for the EVIEs of this world (one of the posters here) to throw out those “rhetorical” questions about what MLK would think about unmarried mothers, gangsta rap etc. etc. I don’t know what he would think, but it’s really beside the point of the radical contrast between an MLK who roused black Americans with a litany of grievances of many generations and a BO who would make his false but white folks-soothing statement that black Americans are 90% of the way toward racial equality.

  9. Michael Dawson said on May 15th, 2008 at 10:52am #

    Sad to see all the racist, moronic crap in this thread. Apparently, basic reading and thinking is beyond Evie and hp and their ilk.

    Of course, MLK wanted people to have dignity. But that’s a tertiary point in his story, unless you’re looking to dismiss him. The question is whether degrading conditions rob people of dignified lives. You racist victim-blamers never acknowledge that question.

    And P.S. MLK is NOT just about black people. He spent the final years of his life preparing to struggle for “a radical redistribution of economic resources.”

  10. Max Shields said on May 15th, 2008 at 11:20am #

    Jerry, you got it. Framing this around personal responsibility has nothing to do with the problem which MLK rightly defined.

    American history is based on empire extensionism which is the colonization of the North American Continent. While slavery, one of the two original sins (the other was the genocide of the indigenous people) served an economic empire imperative, it is only a thread in a multifaceted story. The economics of hegemony creates a colonial power relationship between the state, the power elite (corporate capitalism among others) and the colonies that are managed.

    This hegemony is not based per se on race. It is based on pure unadulterated power over resources, as has been the case since time immemorial. Race is purely incidental, and a term that has kept us looking for the means to untie the Gordian knot of slave history. That knot is for now and ever more securely tied because it is history.

    Neo-colonialism that is our urban centers, ever magnified by New Orleans, but hardly an exception, is the problem. It is what MLK grew to understand and expose. And Mr. Dawson, you are correct in your last post, MLK is “NOT just about black people.” What we’ve done in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan and the world over has always existed here. America has within her the very shackles that have been applied the world over. America is its colonies.

    And personal responsibility (while important) is hardly the answer to the problem of an overclass and the massive colonized underclass. These are deep problems. The solutions cannot come from the existing system which perpetuates it, nor the personal responsiblity of African American youth. Those are symptoms of the problem not the cause. And it is a red herring to even introduce it.

    Obama is simply an image as are all American political candidates. The voice and face OF the system. That image, the dialog of empire which is spoken in debates, on the corporate media sustain the problem. These dialogs have nothing to do with on the ground reality. That the media has launched campaigns and candidates as rock stars is a blatant example of disdain they have for the people they call voters.

  11. evie said on May 15th, 2008 at 11:37am #

    Jerry,
    I do not believe King was a “tom cat” that’s propaganda, but thanks for mentioning it.

    So we’re not to judge someone by the content of their character, as commitment to self, community, and family proves nothing?

    Courage, pride, dignity, tenacity, fortitude, resolution will come from the thugs, the hoochie mamas, the guys and gals jonesing on the corner and leaving the babies alone while at the club. Who’d da thunk it.

    Obama is playing the political game. He is not and never will be a black leader, as you say he “… makes his false but white folks-soothing statement”… about equality, is that a way of saying Uncle Tom or what? Nor is Wright a leader – he channeled anger to the collection plate, and to Chicago’s corrupt pols, like Obama.

    Martin Delany, Marcus Garvey and later, American Muslims, always placed a strong emphasis on morality and self-help. So did King.

    White pseudo-intellectuals – always encouraging black America to fixate on our victimhood – will destroy us yet.

    As Frederick Douglass once commanded : Crusading whites! stop interfering in the affairs of our race; we do not need your paternalism.

    Blaming black America’s problems on imperialism is not an option.

  12. evie said on May 15th, 2008 at 11:46am #

    Michael,
    “The question is whether degrading conditions rob people of dignified lives. ”

    I have worked in too many third world countries where conditions are much worse than any here in the US and the people kept their dignity. Sometimes dignity was all they had.

    Stop regurgitating liberal excuses. It only perpetuates the mentality of failure. Or perhaps that’s the goal?

  13. Max Shields said on May 15th, 2008 at 12:04pm #

    evie said: “Blaming black America’s problems on imperialism is not an option.”

    Black American problems ARE America’s problems.

    Certainly not every problem is based on one central cause. Nor are black American problems simply BLACK.

  14. Max Shields said on May 15th, 2008 at 12:07pm #

    evie said: “Blaming black America’s problems on imperialism is not an option.”

    What is a Black American problem?

  15. evie said on May 15th, 2008 at 12:10pm #

    Also Michael,
    King said “radical redistribution of economic power” was needed. This was King’s second phase of the movement – Poor People’s Campaign – and inclusive of all. He called to confront congress with an Economic Bill of Rights – specifically guaranteeing employment with living wages and benefits for all able-bodied men and women.

    He didn’t mean we sit on our junky trunks and let Big Daddy government distribute puny checks while we disrespect everything and everyone.

    Max,
    Black America has problems that are ours alone. We just haven’t told white folks about ’em.

  16. evie said on May 15th, 2008 at 12:18pm #

    Max,
    Don’t have a lot of time right now. One of the problems I see here in the ‘hood is the master/slave mentality – it’s debilitating. White America, no matter how poor and disadvantaged, have to deal with that emotional mindset. It’s the little black children in the video choosing the white doll as the “good” doll and the black doll as the “bad” one.

  17. evie said on May 15th, 2008 at 12:23pm #

    Sorry,
    Clarify that – White America, no matter how poor and disadvantaged, does not have to deal with that emotional mindset.

  18. Hue Longer said on May 15th, 2008 at 5:06pm #

    Hello Evie,

    Maybe he would have said something like this…

    “…My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years — especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent…”

  19. evie said on May 15th, 2008 at 7:19pm #

    Hue,
    Regarding the Vietnam speech King could give that speech today for Iraq.

    Actually I think we need another MX as he exposed the false appointed leaders of Black America and demonstrated the traits and reason of leadership, i.e., honesty, intelligence, a respect for logic, self-sacrifice, brotherhood and uncompromising morality. And we don’t have to wait for utopian world or a fair government to strive for those things within ourselves.

    We need to live and demonstrate the traits these men preached, but sadly, King and MX are usually only referenced briefly every February, and/or when white liberals think a quote or two somehow validates their talking point for the moment.

  20. Hue Longer said on May 16th, 2008 at 1:51am #

    Evie,
    oh, I agree with all of that…but was commenting on where blame should be directed

  21. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 4:26am #

    Hue,
    I agree – the US government is a violent cabal, all governments are to some degree. But a great deal of what I see going on culturally/socially – we the people have only ourselves to blame.

  22. Max Shields said on May 16th, 2008 at 5:44am #

    Excerpts from Martin Luther King’s Speech Against the Vietnam War

    “Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

    “This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls “enemy,” for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

    “And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.”

    Thus in a way exceptional for an American, and for any social critic or prophet, King moved beyond a protest within his country to a work of conscience he knew must cross all national boundaries.

    As Jesus Christ spoke from a care for what was done to “the least of these,” King looks to a subject neglected by Americans: the history of suffering by the Vietnamese people.

    “They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945, after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its re-conquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.”

    “Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

    “So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

    “What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?”

  23. Max Shields said on May 16th, 2008 at 5:55am #

    evie said: “It’s the little black children in the video choosing the white doll as the “good” doll and the black doll as the “bad” one.”

    What a perversion to ask a child which doll is “good”, which is “bad”!!!

    And what did the white children answer?

    Where the grand inquisitors white or black?

  24. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 6:49am #

    Max
    I’m surprised you don’t seem to know of the famous doll test.

    During the 1940s, psychologists Kenneth Bancroft Clark and his wife, Mamie Phipps Clark designed a test to study the psychological effects of segregation on black children. In 1950 Kenneth Clark wrote a paper for the White House Mid-Century Conference on Children and Youth summarizing this research and related work that attracted the attention of Robert Carter of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.”

    Kiri Davis, recreated the experiment. As have others over the years.

  25. bozhidar balkas said on May 16th, 2008 at 6:54am #

    evie,
    in regions where everyone or nearly everone is of simialr or equal econo-political status, dignity/pride/hope may remain
    in US, where there are so many rich, very rich, or super rich people, poor people cannot gladhand own poverty and shame resulting from it. rich people say/feel, I’m better than u.
    thanx

  26. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 7:17am #

    boz
    People in those regions are not as focused on materialism, more on literal survival. Americans are not sending their 6 year olds out to sell Chicklets or helote to help feed the family – we send them to sell crack, or shoplift, etc.

    If those in say Central America, living in such poverty, can hang on to dignity and pride knowing their status/station in life has little chance of changing – then we in America, where there is still a chance of lifting ourselves up – should be at least making the attempt, not pulling excuses out at every opportunity.

    Regardless where anyone lives – there is a pecking order.

    One of the biggest problems I see in the US is most folks have no shame, but a lot of false pride.

  27. Max Shields said on May 16th, 2008 at 8:53am #

    Bill Cosby said….I mean, evie: “One of the biggest problems I see in the US is most folks have no shame, but a lot of false pride.”

    Is this a US issue? Seems pretty universal and really, once again, seems to get us no where.

    I’m not excusing “false pride”, but it doesn’t seem to be the fundamental issue.

    What does “holding on to dignity” look like? Does it look like – George W. Bush? Does it look like Chris Mathews? Does it look like Barack Obama? How about Hillary Clinton? Or John “bomb bomb Iran” McCain.

    Last I knew no Central American country has waged an aggessive war against some distant (or near) nation and it’s people in the horrific way this unipower has. Maybe that speaks to the semblence of “dignity” the poor hold onto in Central America?

  28. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 9:22am #

    What does “holding on to dignity” look like?

    It looks like the old wizened face of my sharecropper dad who never lied, stole, or cheated anyone and died at age 80 on his tractor. It looks like the face of my mother, old before her time who worked sunup to sundown in the fields and cleaning white folks homes in the winters and weekends.

    It’s the face of my 90 year old friend who lives in the same ramshackled house he built himself 60 years ago on piece of land he bought through the GI bill, where he and his wife raised 6 kids by hard work and sacrifice.

    It’s the faces of my children who I have seen rise above racial slights, often from people too ignorant to even know it’s racism.

    (Historically Central American countries have waged war on one another.)

    I posted you a comment at 6 something this morning Max about the dolls but it says the comment is being held for moderation.

  29. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 9:29am #

    P.S.
    If your dignity depends on your government – you’ve already lost.

  30. Michael Dawson said on May 16th, 2008 at 10:11am #

    For Evie and all the other victims of the mainstream “culture of poverty” propaganda, I strongly recommend you read Chapter 9 of Ha-Joon Chang’s book, _Bad Samaritans_. It explains how the rich have always claimed culture is the problem, when, in fact, the evidence is overwhelming that culture follows economic conditions WAY more than it leads them. Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and a host of others have been dismissed as culturally hopeless in the recent past.

    MLK knew this very well, and talked about it all the time, especially near the end. The fact that people like Evie are so ignorant of that at this late date is sad and scary. We are the most heavily indoctrinated society in human history.

  31. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 11:44am #

    Wow, and yet somehow Mike escaped any kind of indoctrination from any quarter.

    Chang – living, teaching, writing and serving on foundations for decades in one of those Bad Samaritans country. Chang said the US was a Good Samaritan between 1947 and 1973. Around the time the US was infusing billions of investment dollars into the countries the US had just waged war on, or installed puppet governments in.

    Damn good thing Germans, Chinese, Indians, and Koreans are not hopeless, and I suppose more fair to their poor? Their ruling classes are so much better than ours.

    Let me see if I understand this. Poverty creates thugs and criminals, little to nothing to do with home and hearth and culture? And as BushCo, Clintons, multinational corporations, etc. are thugs, then wealth creates thugs too?

    So… to be economically fair, poor thugs should have as much as rich thugs, and your momma can’t teach you any better than that.

    Don’t worry folks -with help from the “left” you’re gonna get that new one world economic order.

  32. hp said on May 16th, 2008 at 12:01pm #

    Ha Ha! These phony baloneys are ten times richer than you and I evie. They no doubt never lacked anything in their whole unvictimized lives. I’d bet they both went to good schools, have health insurance, good income, nice housing, clean sheets, plenty to eat and drink, a nice car and connections to sundry other good life ‘freebies’ and ‘perks.’ But we’re the ones to BLAME, evie, you and me, because we have a bad attitude, don’t care for dregs and criminals who use and abuse and literally kill and maim others for sport or out of plain meanness. Who do nothing but add to the misery by the day.
    And don’t mention honor or dignity or decency or patience. These are their exclusive virtues, because they care so much, don’t you know.

  33. Michael Dawson said on May 16th, 2008 at 12:11pm #

    Evie plainly can’t think, as revealed by the whirling hissy fit of illogic and irrelevance the facts send her into.

    Hp at least he admits he “do[es]n’t care for dregs and criminals.”

    There’s the brains and the morals of “conservatives” for you.

  34. hp said on May 16th, 2008 at 12:26pm #

    Well, mike, maybe you’ll see the light one day, when they’re cutting out your liver..

    Who in their right mind would admit they like dregs and criminals?
    Oh, that’s right, I forgot. There is no such thing.
    No black racists either.

  35. Michael Dawson said on May 16th, 2008 at 12:44pm #

    What purported ethical being — and one how loves to fulminate about the unethical behavior of others, at that — uses the words “dregs” to denote other human beings?

  36. Max Shields said on May 16th, 2008 at 1:08pm #

    Chapter 9 of Ha-Joon Chang’s book, _Bad Samaritans_.

    Great book!

    hp you’re little game of hard luck is really a bore.

    evie, if my point was too subtle, I apologize. I didn’t think I’d have to knock someone with your astuteness over the head. No, of course, I don’t think the government SHOULD be our model. But harking back to sharecropper days isn’t exactly a model either.

    Ok, so there is gansta rap and hip-hop pols and that garbage, but is that what New Orleans as we see it today is all about? I mean is that the result of people with “false pride”?

    That’s not how I see it. My use of pols (Bush, Obama, McCain, et al) who are considered (along with umpteen million other Americans) leaders is what we’ve got in front of us. If you read a little of the MLK speech (I’m sure you’ve heard it before) I posted you’ll gather this aint exactly Disney Land we’re talking about.

    No, excuse, stand up straight, nice pressed white shirt and tie, don’t look in the man’s eyes when he talks to you…make everything ALL RIGHT….is that what you’re saying, evie? It sure as hell sounds like it. My apologies if I got you’re point entirely wrong; but please do clarify.

  37. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 1:34pm #

    Max,
    I’d be the first to kick ass if someone wrongs me or mine. And I sure as hell don’t/won’t go back to sharecropper days.

    I think you’d be real surprised at what the blacks down here in the lower class ‘hood really think of white paternalizing do-gooders. The majority just wants to get over on you dumbass two-faced honkies. But who’s going to tell you that.

    Now that Obama and Wright have “opened” the door to “honest” racial issues – let’s get it started.

  38. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 2:04pm #

    Mike,
    I may be somewhat conservative morally but not with corporate America.

    If I had my way – guys like Gates and Waltons would not be billionaires. More of their “profits” would go to the workers – from designers to janitors.

    Education would be free to anyone who can pass entrance, all the way to Phd.

    Pols would be limited to one 6 year term and then go home and get a job like the rest of us. Lobbyists would be outlawed.

    Big Pharma would make less profit as drug prices would be set.

    And any oil drilled and pumped on US soil or shore would belong to we the people.

    Etc. etc.

  39. hp said on May 16th, 2008 at 3:21pm #

    Mike, what kind of person? You tell me.
    I’ve been called a lot worse names than dreg. By you.

    Max, hard luck? Moi?
    Even if, am I whining? Au contraire.
    And it’s hardly boring.
    I rather like being way below the poverty line.
    It keeps me honest.
    a little humble, even.
    You ought to try it sometime.

  40. Hue Longer said on May 16th, 2008 at 4:26pm #

    I love you Evie but you keep slipping from the statement you made about what MLK would have said by bringing up other things. MLK would NOT have given a Bill Cosby speech…It’s ALL I was pointing out by showing something he WOULD have said.

  41. Michael Dawson said on May 16th, 2008 at 4:45pm #

    It’s quite amazing that Bill Cosby even comes into the same framework of mind as MLK. Anybody who knows MLK knows how wrong that is.

    Cosby’s model of progress was for everybody to watch his show and then adopt the culture/attitudes that (he obviously believes) lead to wealth.

    You could fit 1,000 Bill Cosbies onto MLK’s little toenail…

  42. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 5:42pm #

    Hue,
    MLK would not have condoned self-degradation and the criminality either.

    Cosby, untalented and unfunny in my opinion, spend decades building his celebrityhood and benefitting from the conditions secured by others, then feels he has the right to be a moral lord and spokesperson. I don’t think so homey.

    Not to say I’m a spokesperson – but I’m proud of what my family and I have accomplished in our lifetimes and we didn’t kiss ass or commit crime to do it.

  43. Max Shields said on May 16th, 2008 at 6:32pm #

    evie, you may not think Bill Cosby is talented, that’s you’re opinion.

    I raised the Cosby persona because you’re posts here sound very much like the Cosby line.

    Basically you’re saying there are the good blacks and bad blacks. The bad blacks are the ones that are outside your family narrative.

    So, again, do you think New Orleans represents a bunch of no nothing blacks who were too lazy to leave the city, etc. , etc.?

    But your: “I think you’d be real surprised at what the blacks down here in the lower class ‘hood really think of white paternalizing do-gooders. ” was a real laugh.

    I haven’t seen one of those “white parternalizing do-gooders” in ages. Kind of nostaligic….evie, one less strawman to beat up on I guess.

  44. Max Shields said on May 16th, 2008 at 6:32pm #

    evie, you may not think Bill Cosby is talented, that’s you’re opinion.

    I raised the Cosby persona because you’re posts here sound very much like the Cosby line.

    Basically you’re saying there are the good blacks and bad blacks. The bad blacks are the ones that are outside your family narrative.

    So, again, do you think New Orleans represents a bunch of no nothing blacks who were too lazy to leave the city, etc. , etc.?

    But your: “I think you’d be real surprised at what the blacks down here in the lower class ‘hood really think of white paternalizing do-gooders. ” was a real laugh.

    I haven’t seen one of those “white parternalizing do-gooders” in ages. Kind of nostalgic….evie, one less strawman to beat up on I guess.

  45. evie said on May 16th, 2008 at 7:48pm #

    There are good and bad and lazy in all races. I have some real bad cousins and extended family members.

    I think many in NO were stranded through no fault of their own. And I think it sad that just after Katrina the black men of New Orleans could not organize themselves better for the sake of the women and children.

    I think had NO been predominantly poor white folks we would have still seen the same governmental mess.

    Sometimes I think there is more class discrimination than race. The color green buys a lot of toadies, whatever color you are.

    Around my neck of the woods those white do-gooders run social service departments, administer the grants for “youth programs,” run the Xmas toy and food baskets – in cahoots with Rev. Leroy who picks out quite a bit of food for his personal basket. And the ladies from the county who give out carseats and cribs.

    But actually I was referring more to those whites who will defend just about everything blacks do, usually to prove they’re “open-minded.”

    A few years ago we came back to where I was born. I was gone for 35 years and only came back to visit but the cost of living and real estate was so good we decided to stay/semi retire here. We bought a 100 year old home on the “wrong side of town” and renovated, once a fine home, then used by local slumlords as section 8 apartments, now a home again. This side is known as Sunset, the old sunset laws. My sons were baffled and said everyone else is fighting to get out of the ghetto and I fought to get back in.

    I am not a Cosbyite, or any of the other adjectives used on me here, and those accusations don’t bother me much b/c I understand where they’re coming from. It does sort of remind me of a black woman I know who is always telling me I had it easier b/c I was light-skinned. She just erases the years I worked 40 hours a week and carried a full class schedule at UCD and no social life, and the years I put in the military, and the years I spent in and out of the country, sometimes away from family, and a dozen other sacrifices I made. Yep – it was easy for me b/c I was light skinned and had good hair.

  46. Michael Dawson said on May 16th, 2008 at 8:05pm #

    Evie, of course class is now the main problem. That’s exactly, precisely what MLK said. So why are you so hostile to his argument? It’s either racially-shaped class or “personal responsibility” that explains why poor people are poor. You seem a bit schizo on the topic…

  47. Hue Longer said on May 17th, 2008 at 1:00am #

    Evie, you continue to go for the slip

    YOU asked,

    “What do ya think Martin would say about 70% out of wedlock and fatherless children in our culture?

    What would he say about rappers bitchin’ and ho-in’, humpin’ and grindin’ and glorifying gangsta?

    What would he say to the crackheads and crack dealers?

    What would he say about black folk who think education/learning is actin’ white”?

    I pointed out that he directed his aim much higher then than you assume he would now.

    (what is good hair?)

  48. evie said on May 17th, 2008 at 5:59am #

    Hue,
    What would he say. He would say no. Everyone predicts he would say no to Iraq, no to BushCo, no to poverty, etc. but imply he would not address or would excuse immorality. Allthough had he lived I don’t think I would see what I see going in the ‘hood.

    We all aimed higher at his age. Age and experience changes our aim to some degree.

    (Good hair is not so nappy.)

  49. evie said on May 17th, 2008 at 6:37am #

    Mike,
    Maybe you should define poverty for me.

    In my neighborhood folks think you’re poor if you buy your clothes at Walmart. You’re poor if you don’t have a set of rims. You’re poor and a fool if you work a low wage job when you could be selling drugs and driving an SUV with a TV.

    People are “poor” for a lot of reasons. Loss of manufacturing base – not our fault. Corrupted capitalism – maybe a little our fault as we did not hold politicians accountable.

    No respect for education – who’s fault is that. Having 3, 4, 5 kids w/o the means or maturity to provide for them – who’s fault is that? Selling drugs for the man b/c the hours are good and it pays better, until you go to prison – who’s fault is that?

    Some of the same applies to poor whites. Making meth is easier, dropping out of school to eventually live off the old lady or mama. Or get a check for that bad back or knee, or the favorite here in Podunk is what they call a “crazy check” – it’s a bigger check. Thank god for Jerry Springer.

    You can only blame a certain amount on the government/economic system. There’s some personal responsibility in there somewhere, and as long as you don’t take any responsibility for your lot in life – the guvmint loves you b/c you’re definitely not a threat to anyone but yourself. Nothing schizo about it.

  50. hp said on May 17th, 2008 at 6:56am #

    I’ll have two ‘crazy checks’ and a side of it’s not my fault I stuck a knife in my neighbors ribs and stole his eight dollars.

  51. Max Shields said on May 17th, 2008 at 10:42am #

    evie said: “Some of the same applies to poor whites. Making meth is easier, dropping out of school to eventually live off the old lady or mama.” And then: “You can only blame a certain amount on the government/economic system.”

    The conversation here is really a kind of micro/macro. The micro is what evie sees happening on the ground, day to day (or as represented on the insane Jerry Springer show). No denying it exists.

    The other is the macro view which is an attempt to take a larger picture and understand it as it plays out across the landscape and where there is a concentration of systemic problems, a collective behavior, action and reaction.

    What causes what evie describes? Is it all bad? Is it the result of a lot of irresponsibility? Why is it concentrated here, but not there? What does race have to do with any of it?

    Those are the questions (and more) that need to be addressed. Pounding one’s fist in the air, and yelling these “damn fools are doing this to themselves. It’s time to stop blaming someone else” may make some feel like they’ve made the final prouncement, but it persists. So, now what?

    I think it is fair to look at the maco, at the socioeconomics that trend (as best we can tell) to the conditions which create these behaviors. It’s not the entire story. And I don’t think that the days of yore had less of what we see.

    evie is right, in my estimation, that poverty is not one dimensional. It is about meeting needs. Those needs are finite and dynamic over a person’s life. On the other hand, needs can be perverted, as with our over-consumptive economics has demonstrated (Mr. Dawson, I believe has written a book on this topic).

    So, poverty is not simply about income. Subsistance must be met first, but then it is a great play of several other universal human needs which demand fulfillment and have nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the obscene GDP! It is those human needs which define for each person “poverty”.

  52. Max Shields said on May 17th, 2008 at 10:54am #

    evie said: “Some of the same applies to poor whites. Making meth is easier, dropping out of school to eventually live off the old lady or mama.” And then: “You can only blame a certain amount on the government/economic system.”

    The conversation here is really a kind of micro/macro. The micro is what evie sees happening on the ground, day to day (or as represented on the insane Jerry Springer show). No denying it exists.

    The other is the macro view which is an attempt to take a larger picture and understand it as it plays out across the landscape and where there is a concentration of systemic problems, a collective behavior, action and reaction.

    What causes what evie describes? Is it all bad? Is it the result of a lot of irresponsibility? Why is it concentrated here, but not there? What does race have to do with any of it?

    Those are the questions (and more) that need to be addressed. Pounding one’s fist in the air, and yelling these “damn fools are doing this to themselves. It’s time to stop blaming someone else” may make some feel like they’ve made the final prouncement, but it persists. So, now what?

    I think it is fair to look at the maco, at the socioeconomics that trend (as best we can tell) to the conditions which create these behaviors. It’s not the entire story. And I don’t think that the days of yore had less of what we see.

    evie is right, in my estimation, that poverty is not one dimensional. It is about meeting needs. Those needs are finite and dynamic over a person’s life. On the other hand, needs can be perverted, as with our over-consumptive economics has demonstrated (Mr. Dawson, I believe has written a book on this topic).

    So, poverty is not simply about income. Subsistance must be met first, but then it is a great play of several other universal human needs which demand fulfillment and have nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the obscene GDP! The “needs” you mention, evie, are not human needs, that are the perversion of the self-identify through an economic system which repeats over and over the manta of value through material “wellbeing”. Again, those are not human needs and therefore have nothing to do with poverty.

    It is human needs such as subsistance, protection, affection, understanding, participation, recreation, creation, identidy, freedom which define our state of “poverty” at any point in time.

  53. Max Shields said on May 17th, 2008 at 10:56am #

    Sorry for the partial repeat. Last post is complete.
    Max

  54. Hue Longer said on May 17th, 2008 at 3:09pm #

    So MLK would have matured into a guy who and had nerves pop out of his head as he yelled at young black men for drinking 40’s?

    “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government”.

    Thanks evie…I never realized how immature this was!

  55. evie said on May 17th, 2008 at 5:20pm #

    The violence in the ghetto of the 1960s was miniscule compared to what’s going on in the ghetto today and you know it.

    If King would ignore the violence in the ghetto today then he would make a piss poor role model. But as I said earlier – I prefer Malcolm X.

    MX came from a northern ghetto – MLK from the Christian south. As MX once said, “While Dr. King was having a dream, the rest of us negroes were having a nightmare.”

    MX called for black pride and self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency, self-sufficiency. What part of that word do you not understand?

    MLK preached integration, political lucre for pols and preachers, “social programs.” The ghost of King, is kept alive by white liberals and self-proclaimed black leaders and black “scholars” groomed by the same white imperialists they rail against. Hand in hand they’re responsible for the continued support of oppressive social problems which have made eunuchs of black men.

    There’s an old joke : One day a farmer, after spending years with his mule plowing hard, unyielding soil in the hot sun for long hours every day, decided he had had enough of such labor. One day he put down his plow and looked to the sky and proclaimed, “Oh, God, this sun is so hot, and this ground is so hard, I do believe this Negro is called to preach.”

    Every wonder why current black “leaders” are preachers? Whites approve of black men who put down the plow and do nothing, except ask for mo’ money.

    Without strong families and moral priniciples we will never compete economically in white America. But then, that’s why white folks love to invoke King’s speeches and not Malcolm, isn’t it?

    I guess I’ll pop your big MLK bubble. King was a faithful follower of the agenda set by white liberals. And look where we are today. We can vote and piss in the same toilet as whitey – big effin’ whoop dee doo.

    Yes, the paragraph you quoted is immature as it addresses only one method of violence (war). But it’s the type of phrase folks having brain farts will quote over and over and over, while accomplishing nothing and the situation worsens.

    Deride my opinions if you want and keep approving black “voluntary masochism” disguised as sympathy, “understanding” – it certainly has kept most blacks enslaved in America. But then, that was the agenda of the ruling class, wasn’t it.

  56. Garrett said on May 17th, 2008 at 5:32pm #

    evie wrote: “Some of the same applies to poor whites.”

    Some of the same applies to rich folk.

    Are there not irresponsible millionaires and billionaires, including those running the government (into the ground)? Is it not irresponsible to kill millions, spend trillions, and further erode a nation’s moral standing in the world? Is it not irresponsible to claim that you’re conducting a “war on terror” when war *is* terror? Is it not irresponsible to harm the environment, ignore disparities between urban/rural and suburban schools, discriminate based on sexual orientation, export jobs so as to increase already enormous profits, import/exploit cheap labor and then stir up xenophobia for political gain, write tax policy that greatly benefits the wealthy, and show more concern for making money than providing health care for the most vulnerable?

    Too often these discussions turn into debates about which “race” of people display more personal irresponsibility. What’s that you say, people should be responsible? No s**t. But how do we define “responsibility?” That’s a discussion worth having. I’m sick and tired of this red herring BS.

  57. Michael Dawson said on May 17th, 2008 at 6:06pm #

    Evie, you are stunningly, astoundingly uninformed about both MLK and Malcolm X. The latter was moving in MLK’s position in the last months of his life, by the way. That position was socialist, not liberal.

    And speaking of parroting the establishment, have you ever compared your call for “self-reliance” and adopting better attitudes with the long-running mainstream prescriptions on race and class? What would the difference be?

    Are you trying to be funny, or are you really this obtuse?

  58. evie said on May 17th, 2008 at 6:15pm #

    Garrett
    Somewhere above I said “poverty” and “wealth” created thugs.

    Half the things you listed are red herrings.

    – “a nation’s moral standing in the world.” The ruling class around the world love those oil profits as much as the US profiteers. Even Hugo needs high oil prices to fund his new age socialism – no matter how much he disses Bush. If oil dropped to $30 a barrel Chavez would wet his pants. He has stated he needs oil at $50/bl to maintain his programs.

    – Yes war is terror. Reagan in Granada and Central America, Poppy Bush in Panama and Gulf I, and Clinton in Haiti/Kosovo should have had their balls handed to them for their aggression, but folks yawned. Not enough dead I guess.

    – Most of the disparity in schools is equipment and gleam – b/c rich and poor learn little more than propaganda to support the State. Join a home school co-op.

    – Import cheap labor/export jobs for cheap labor, and then sing kumbahyah. Hell no, tell folks to go home and straighten out their own ruling class oppressors. They sure aren’t going to go against ours b/c they want those visas and residency cards.

    – Employers should provide health care – government provide everyone who is unable to work.

    – Most working class/middle class receive rebates/refunds, EIC very good refunds. They’re not going to do anything about taxation as long as the refund check is in the mail.

    We have tough choices ahead and if “dissidents” don’t make them, then nothing will be done, other than what is done to us. It all boils down to shit or get off the pot. Make that a pity pot.

    Responsibility is doing the right thing. I think most of us know what that is.

  59. evie said on May 17th, 2008 at 6:16pm #

    You drank the Kool-aid Michael.

  60. evie said on May 17th, 2008 at 6:23pm #

    “The latter was moving in MLK’s position in the last months of his life, by the way.”

    Lol. After the Kool-aid you watched Oliver Stone’s X depicting MX as becoming more King-ish.

    Truth is King was becoming more militant like MX – which is one reason he was murdered. King was veering off the agenda the ruling class had agreed on.

  61. Hue Longer said on May 17th, 2008 at 8:26pm #

    Evie, I only quoted that to show that your statement about what King would say is total BS. Now you want it both ways?

    He was immature for saying that then but would make a Bill Cosby stand now?

    Again I agree with some of what you say, but so much of it isn’t the point and begs a defense before clearing up your past mistakes…stay focused

  62. evie said on May 18th, 2008 at 4:03am #

    Hue,
    You’re too focused on proving me “wrong” for some reason yelling Cosby at me. What has Cosby said that so upsets you?

    I suppose everyone but me knows “what King would say.” I’ll just take my opinions and go home.

  63. Hue Longer said on May 18th, 2008 at 5:55am #

    Evie,
    Cosby doesn’t upset me…and though you hadn’t brought him up, your assertion of what MLK (remember the article? it was about MLK’s position on responsibility) would have said about what you see as cause and effect all rolled into one caused another poster to point out how similar that was to Bill Cosby’s sentiments.

    I really haven’t laid out what I see, but was just telling you that MLK indicated already what he would have said and it’s way different than what you said he would have (I like MX better too and remember what he said about the capitulation King made to squash the revolution in DC). It shouldn’t have taken this long to get to where we are now, but I’m not focused on making you “”wrong”” for the fuck of it.

    And please don’t go home…I like your stuff

  64. evie said on May 18th, 2008 at 3:14pm #

    Hue,
    I think it’s insanity for those who cannot save their own families, neighborhoods, cities, or country – to think they can save the world; those who cannot unite their own families, neighborhoods, cities or country – yet plan to unite the world, into some economic utopia of equality. But it sells.

    I’ll be back, I just think this particular topic has reached a stalemate.

  65. Michael Dawson said on May 18th, 2008 at 10:21pm #

    Evie, what’s your theory of social change? That everybody must make a nice house or neighborhood before they can fight for large-scale changes? That’s both historically wrong and hopeless.

    And, yes, MLK “sells,” once people see him in full view, and despite the efforts of both the establishment (Obama included) and addled, solipsistic folks like you to trash him. That fact gives me some hope.

    You are right, though, that this thread is pretty long by now.

  66. evie said on May 19th, 2008 at 9:09am #

    Lol. Thanks Mike for using more sophisticated language here to describe folks like me, addled solipsistic, instead of those plain and simpler words you used in your e-mails.

  67. Max Shields said on May 20th, 2008 at 5:46am #

    “Responsibility is doing the right thing. I think most of us know what that is.”

    Spike Lee, right?

  68. Michael Dawson said on May 20th, 2008 at 10:18am #

    Spike Lee’s movie on the topic is horrible, a huge insult to Dr. King and the whole Civil Rights movement. I suspect it’s also a big part of what fuels the notion that MLK was somehow what Evie thinks he was:

    “MLK preached integration, political lucre for pols and preachers, “social programs.” The ghost of King, is kept alive by white liberals and self-proclaimed black leaders and black “scholars” groomed by the same white imperialists they rail against. Hand in hand they’re responsible for the continued support of oppressive social problems which have made eunuchs of black men.”

    There is no evidence of this in King’s life or anywhere else. It’s 100 percent Nation of Islam propaganda, based on the idea that wearing a suit, constantly congratulating yourself for your “self-respect,” or throwing a garbage can through a window are somehow radical acts, instead of farcical inversions of mainstream victim-blame.

    And the bit about black men being “eunuchs” is pretty interesting in its own right. 1950s super-sexist “breadwinner” ideology is alive and well in the Nation.

  69. evie said on May 21st, 2008 at 6:16am #

    I did not see the movie Max. Watch very little of the boob tube.

    I am not into NOI Mike. Do I detect a bit of bigotry toward Islam?

    Black men have lost their power in their own families and communities – why is that?

    Sit back on your big butt and proselytize about victimhood – see how far that gets us.

  70. Michael Dawson said on May 21st, 2008 at 8:37am #

    Not liking the NOI has nothing to do with being Islamophobic.

    And I was saying you yourself are NOI, Evie. I’m just saying that’s one of the main sources of the views you hold — that King was a white-pleaser who dwelled on victimhood.

    Meanwhile, your own formulation bites you harder than it does we King followers: “Sit back on on your big butt and proselytize about dignity, self-respect, and self-sufficiency — see how far that gets us.”

    As MLK, our problems are collective and political, and interconnected/social. Proper personal behavior is less than half the battle.

  71. Michael Dawson said on May 21st, 2008 at 8:44am #

    Oops: Left out the word “not” above. I was NOT saying Evie is NOI herself.

    P.S. White people didn’t get their (very unequally held) advantages through dignity, self-sufficiency, or good culture. Quite the contrary. They got them through a combination of sheer luck, timing (being first), and the most massive government programs in human history. Check out Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs & Steel) and Ha-Joon Chang (Bad Samaritans) on that topic…

  72. evie said on May 21st, 2008 at 12:44pm #

    Mike,
    We are active in our community, and occasionally enjoy seeing we have made a positive impact on someone’s life, especially youth. We not inclined to proselytizing about blame, victimhood, or getting something for nothing, too busy.

    You say – “White people didn’t get their (very unequally held) advantages through dignity, self-sufficiency, or good culture.” – And you claim I’m spouting NOI views? Lol.

    So we should emulate the culturally poor but privileged and lucky white folk and get massive government programs and special advantages?

  73. Michael Dawson said on May 21st, 2008 at 6:28pm #

    I’m not saying white people are inherently evil. I’m just pointing out that no group in human history has ever achieved economic comfort and social prestige through self-sufficiency. That is a fairy tale sold by whites (and other rich people) to avoid acknowledging the rotten basis and bad effects of their own privileges.

    After the Watts riots, MLK concluded that the USA needed a “social revolution” to create “basic structural changes in the architecture of American society.” Imagine would could have happened if X hadn’t been killed just before that…

  74. evie said on May 21st, 2008 at 8:25pm #

    Self-sufficiency, or providing for one’s own needs is very possible, happens all the time. Needs being needs and not “wants.”

    Here in small town Redneckville opportunity is still somewhat limited so we encourage folks to be self-employed if at all possible. There are now more black owned daycare centers, barber shops, auto detailing, landscape/maintenance, moving and hauling, a menswear shop, and a caterer that makes the best ribs so he’s booked into next year.

    But let me know when the revolution starts.

  75. Michael Dawson said on May 22nd, 2008 at 7:20am #

    Evie, we’re talking about groups, not individuals.

    Meanwhile, are you for or against the revolution? It isn’t clear.

  76. evie said on May 23rd, 2008 at 11:03am #

    I cannot say “for” or “against” until I know what the “revolution” entails. Everyone seems to “talk” about a “social revolution” of some sort but never give any concrete details.

    It’s easy to claim there will be “social justice” – have heard that for years, but I never hear the steps that will be taken to accomplish this goal.

  77. Michael Dawson said on May 24th, 2008 at 10:59am #

    Assuming its possible to make things much more democratic and egalitarian, economically and ideologically, are you in favor of that? Or do you think capitalism is the way to go?

  78. evie said on June 22nd, 2008 at 6:55am #

    Capitalism, like other “isms” has been corrupted. I support capitalism as private ownership, free market, etc. – not the corporate dictatorships we see today which control entire nations and the political and social puppets they purchase.

  79. evie said on June 22nd, 2008 at 8:32am #

    P.S.
    As for “ideology” I believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When you can arrange for 6 billion or so to agree on the definition of happiness and the “pursuit” to achieve same – let me know. One man’s pursuit may be the next man’s perish.

    I have no problem with any “ism” taking some of my hard earned funds to help the less fortunate. I have a big problem with any “ism” that takes my hard earned money to fund the slugs from both the underclass and overclass who feel entitled simply b/c they’re here. There is nothing egalitarian in such a method of “redistribution” which “progressives” seem to incessantly harp on.