Monday, January 21, 2008

What Would MLK , Jr. have Thought?

An interesting article at PJM: Identity Politics: Not What Martin Luther King Was About:

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. have thought of today’s “sorry national burlesque in which ovaries and melanin are all but exit poll determinants?” Michael Weiss doesn’t think the great exemplar of universalism would be too impressed.

Go take a look.


Blogger Danny said...

I think he would have been sick to his stomach if he saw what modern day proponents of identity politics have turned civil right into. I think he particularly would have hated the academics who populate various African-American Studies, American Culture, Sociology departments in all the major univs today.

9:00 AM, January 21, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

Danny, I agree with you, but funny enough, I had a great African-America studies professor! More than one actually.

When I took those courses, in the earliest 80s, the focus was on the triumph of human strength, ingenuity, and spirituality that kept oppressed slaves and then Blacks fighting and surviving through slavery and Jim Crow.

The focus was on strength, community, self-help, and integrity. It was very cool for me, cause I had no idea of the American history I had not been taught. And I was welcome as a student (I was the only white guy in a lot of the classes) by all the teachers and the vast majority of the students.

I understand things changed, and the department fell in lock step with dependency politics, and that is a shame, because it is not how or what I was taught.


1:24 PM, January 21, 2008  
Blogger Thor's Dad said...

Isn't it rather sad that Condi Rice who does fit the two major identity groups - African-American and female - who is intelligent - a Ph.D., Provost of Stanford, first African-American, female Sec of State among her list of accomplishments but you would think, by the treatment she receives in the media and the promoters of identity politics, that she was an overweight, balding, middle-aged, horned-rimmed glasses-wearing, bible-thumping, evangelical Christian who thinks the Dark Ages was a Golden Age, all because she is a conservative Republican!!!

1:27 PM, January 21, 2008  
Blogger Danny said...

tmink- I think what is being taught in American universities nowadays, is very different from what the wonderful professors taught you when you were in college.
I think thataccounts for the difference in yur and my views.
I did have a wonderful African-American gentleman who was my Sociology prof. He taught a classin Urban Sociology. It was one of thebest classes I ever took. But, he was ill-treated by other black faculty,and the official black student leader types, becasue he did not indulge in fear mongering, or in teaching students that blacks were perpetual victims.

2:37 PM, January 21, 2008  
Blogger Helen said...

Danny and Trey.

I took black studies in college and our professor spent much of the time telling the whites students in class what a bunch of racists they were as they could never understand what blacks went through. This was in the 1980's and one thing that was really terrific was that many students argued back with her and she never took it personally, we never felt that we would get a lower grade, or that the discussion would be used against us. It made for some good critical discussion. Today, I think students are afraid they would get a lower grade or be harmed in some way and do not feel as free to argue back in the way that our class did. Or maybe I was just lucky that we had a professor who was not threatened by a lively discussion!

Thor's Dad,

I would vote for Condi in a heartbeat, mainly because, as you mentioned, she is competent and I agree with much of her stance on policy etc. I think she is too sane to run for anything, however.

2:40 PM, January 21, 2008  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

King specifically rejected the view that blacks should evaluate public policy with one criterion in mind --ie, " Is it good for blacks ?". Since others' interests and needs are subordinated to your own groups', such a criterion is inherently immoral. He wanted ( typically) a place at the table with everyone else-- demanding a place of privilege or special treatment would contradict the moral basis for the entire movement.

Feminism explicitly adopts one criterion for evaluating all public policy -- " Is it good for women ?".
How any policy, practice ,law , more,or regulation impacts men and boys is irrelevant. Their interests and needs are irrelevant. If they are unaffected, fine. If harmed, no matter. Its only the ladies that matter. ( hence , continue working past 62 for the sole reason that I, as your widow, can enjoy a better lifestyle after you are interred, as I am going to outlive you, my worker. The narcissism and gynocentrism in that is simply mind-boggling. But its just another news day...

" The central mission of feminist activism is to put the needs of women first. Its single criterion for appraising a political iniative is 'Will it help women.' " --
------------ Professing Feminism, Patai and Koertege, p 90, 2003... and innumerable other citations

This is an immoral position on its face, as the interests of women/girls are no more important than men/boys' and public policy should be based on respecting everyone's interests and needs and forging the best compromise possible, respecting inviolate Rights, individual dignity, while pursuing the Good in its broadest terms, not constrained by the self-serving lens of the special interest group.

Women constitute the most dangerous special interest group for many reasons-- not least of which,is that they combine a claimed interest in "equal rights/treatment" with a desire to perpetuate and extend special priveleges for women in every arena of society.
The contradiction is always obvious to the non-deluded , but it escapes or is ignored by virtually all women. They desire to have it both ways, and morality, fairness, justice, and rational consistency are all mere ballast to be dismissed on the road to satisying their own needs and interests- no matter what the harm to men and boys.

{{ Caveat-- women care about boys until they reach the age of maturity, as inseminators or workers or soldiers-- when they are able to affect female self interest AND are far away from the ambient of maternal concern.
This is a corollary to the rule that women have no empathy for men unless their suffering affects a woman and causes HER to suffer. Now thats a problem ! Hence women have no problem with single men paying unjustly high alimony/support, but they will condemn it IF AND ONLY IF his new wife complains that it is hurting the family.
For women to show concern about harm done to men or male suffering-- one must produce a woman they can identify with , who is also hurt by the injury the man has suffered. Without another woman to have empathy with, woman have no concern with the suffering of men--ie, if the homeless were not mainly men, much more would be done to address this important concern. If reports highlight the relatively few women who are homeless, women will rush to help... but if its the typical verity of the shattered lone male in tattered, ill fitting clothes, sifting through the dumpster, women will merely ring the police to roust the miscreant.

For many , many years women have shown themselves to be incapable of applying moral brakes to their galloping self-interest and total absorption with all things female. There seems no limit to the harm they will inflict on men and boys. Its not a matter of attitude or animus-- just watch what women do

----- the latest obviously guilty woman who kills her husband --let off,
--- the female teacher who claims she is really the victim of the boy she raped and kidnapped,
---the latest 'temporary insanity" plea, this time to strangling your 3 year old autistic child to death... because she felt guilty the child was autistic ( watch-- she will get off )
--- the "I wonder what he did to make her do that to him ?" howler justication of every female misdeed,it being a metaphysical impossiblity for women to do anything wrong because they chose to... hence the more heinous the act, the more innocent the woman is, incredibly !
....the article about a widow relating how much better off she is emotionally and FINANCIALLY since her 30 year old husband died.. joining other older widows who relate their happiness at their husband's death, as now they have his money and don't have to cook anymore.. oh Joy !...

... the latest "Missing White Woman" for women to obssess about-- esp if she is pregnant, while legions of men go missing everyday to nary a wimper of interest

... focusing on violence against women with unconstitional pogroms ,when women are the safest people in our society.. its gynocentrism. Women are almost exclusively concerned with themselves.

... Discrimination against men who are mentally ill-- thrown in jail awaiting hospitalization or tossed to the streets after their time is up, while the ladies get special access and special treatment

... the instances pile up like proverbial cordwood...

It is useless to point out the relevant facts... to point out erors in reasoning... to make appeals to moral codes or legal rights or abstract notions of justice and fairness-- women know their self-interest and they will not be deterred from implementing it. Unless men STOP THE MADNESS. How men can do this, consistent with democratic principles, is difficult to say.

caveat-- "Women" means "the vast majority" or " most"


3:46 PM, January 21, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I recall having some interesting discussions about race as far back as high school. I get the feeling there's more of a "party line" that must be adhered to in academics now. How that came about I don't know. College career politics, I guess.

4:59 PM, January 21, 2008  
Blogger Danny said...

Helen- I took a class in the Sociology Dept at Michigan, taugh by a afro-Amer lady. She had dreadlocks and all. Told us that she w as a "militant radical" anyone who dared to disagree with her theses ought to leave the class right away. And she implied anyone who did not agree with her 100% would fail. Ileft the class cuz I had better things to do.
At Michigan, this kind of tings ahppen even now. remember the other Dr Helen? Last I heard, she was known to have stated that if any ex-military people, or ROTC cadets registered for her class, that would be failed automatically. Became a minor scandal here,but, she still has her job.

11:46 AM, January 22, 2008  
Blogger Helen said...


These professors should not be allowed to teach if they make threats like that. At least the one professor warned you up front. I am surprised no one filed a complaint against her.

12:29 PM, January 22, 2008  
Blogger pockosmum said...

"the "I wonder what he did to make her do that to him ?" howler justication of every female misdeed"

Expose the double you watch TV with friends or family, when news of a woman's murder comes on, mumble 'Hmmmm...wonder what she did to make someone mad enough to kill her?' and watch the fur fly!

6:51 PM, January 22, 2008  
Blogger Serket said...

Thanks for posting this. I was thinking about this on the holiday and I imagine King would be upset about the Democratic Party's treatment of minorities.

I am glad he mentioned this quote from King: "Nourished by the Negro’s frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible “devil.”"

Helen - Don't you feel that Rice's policy towards Israel is poor?

2:33 PM, January 25, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

5:45 AM, May 20, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home