Monday, January 17, 2011

Easton Community Organizers Honor MLK Day with "Sharing the Caring" to Benefit Third Street Alliance Today through January 25th

Do you have supplies you can donate?

Posted by: Noël Jones

To honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday this year, Easton Community Organizers (ECO) will lead a drive to collect items for “Sharing the Caring” at Third Street Alliance. Their wish list includes craft items, daily supplies, and appliances, detailed below.
Sharing the Caring serves clients from the Easton area as well as Warren County, New Jersey. Its goal is to provide a safe and stimulating environment to those older adults who are no longer able to stay home by themselves, while also giving
their families and caregivers time to work or take care of other responsibilities.

From now through Tuesday, January 25, you may drop off items from the Wish List at the following locations:
Makeda Fabulous Hair Boutique 2421 Butler St.
Third Street Alliance lobby 41 North 3rd St. Easton (make sure to label the donation from ECO)

QUESTIONS? Email Beth at, or Anne at larry2anne@verizon.netHere is the list of needed items. Let's do the best we can for them!

Terra cotta flower pots (any size)
color foam sheets
glue sticks
silk florals
card stock
cross stitch
frame hoops
picture frames
foam balls or other forms
wood projects
packaged craft projects
paint by number water color paper paint brushes
tacky glue

Disposable Forks and Spoons
Dish Soap
6 inch paper plates
Plastic cups
Latex free gloves

30 cup coffee maker
Boom Box w/CD player
Wii games (Fitness)
DVD Movies (Comedy, Romance, Adventure)
Music CD’s (Oldies 40’s, 50’s, 60’s- Country-Ethnic-Jazz)


David Caines said...

Since no one else has commented, I might as well. Personally I find MLK day a bit offensive. Particularly as we put this man on a par with our veterans and above both presidents Lincoln and Washington who have been blended into one day. Lincoln who made slavery go away and Washington who helped found a nation where the abolition of slavery of all colors would one day be able to be abolished. I'm sorry, but in comparison to such men MLK simply stands in the fifth row. Maybe if half the nation hadn't been stoned at the time, or if we weren't so terrified of Malcolm - X style Black Domestic terrorism...
Still, this day exists as little more than a hand out to placate a violent minority and is antithetic to true democracy.
Just my two cents, I'll assume others don't agree. I do understand that the man was a hero to a minority, but why that should matter to the rest of us is beyond me.

noel jones said...

"a violent minority"? what violent minority would that be?

and i don't think any minority that suffers under any kind of oppression, whether racist or otherwise, can be "placated" by one day of 365/year being set aside to honor a hero of peaceful protest.

honestly, David, i know you like to be a contrarian, but trying to link a pastor and civil rights leader who preached peace and passive resistance to violence is completely far-fetched, and one has to ask where the desire to fetch that far is coming from.

David Caines said...

I'll admit that I am baiting you here a bit just to stir up conversation.
I'm off to make lunch, so let's see if the pot gets stirred in my absence.
I do stand by the initial statement though. It irks myself and many others to see a holiday established to a man who was basically an apostrophe in the history of the world.
If we have to add another holiday, how about medal of honor winner's day? People who have done something for the whole of the nation?

David Caines said...

Since we have a moment, let me answer a few of your questions.
"a violent minority"? what violent minority would that be?
The blacks silly, Or have we just forgotten the list of fifty or so race riots that swept America in that time. Google it. It's an impressive list, rape, murder mass destruction of name it, fun, fun, fun.
Not a lot of history majors around here ehh?
---and i don't think any minority that suffers under any kind of oppression, whether racist or otherwise, can be "placated" by one day of 365/year being set aside to honor a hero of peaceful protest.--
Of course not, we had to give them Affirmative action, Force Change, billions of dollars and decades of positive discrimination all of which carries onto this day.
MLK day is just a reminder of what could happen again if we the majority chose not to give into minority violence.
Back to lunch.

noel jones said... mean as opposed to the violent majority? Do I really need to give you the history list of violence perpetrated by white people on minorities in this country? And what does any of that have to do with MLK, who preaches passive resistance and love and equality for all?

Come on, David, you're logic is disappointing me.

What can you possibly have against a PEACEFUL protester who helped usher in Civil Rights as we know it? An apostrophe? Really. You're trying to hard. And why? What motivates you to try so hard to suggest that either a) MLK was affiliated with violence, or b) that MLK isn't an important major figure in our history? Why is your desire so urgent?

David Caines said...

What does any of that have to do woth MLK?
Well, he would not have had the chance to rise as the black David Duke were it not for the race violence of the time. As to the rest, feel free. MLK was to the Black racist what Sinn Fien is to the IRA. The would have been no platform for him sans the violence of the black man at the time.
Or are we again going down the path that black racial violence was justified but not any other kind?
The logic is simple, Racial violence BAD, no exceptions.
Sans that, we just repeat the cycle, I have personally been prejudiced against by Blacks in business, daily life, the Army for that matter, and they are somehow justified for something my parents parents might have done to theirs. By the same brush am I not justified in racial violence?
Of course not, the wrong actions of another never justify the wrong actions of the self.
That being said, yes after decades of corrective racism, a surprising number of whites are getting pissed, hate group enrollment is soaring, and we're probably headed back into another round of racial hatred. I happen to think that the best way to circumvent such things is to tackle history head on. We all shagged up. Whether or not we wish to continue to is on us.
There are of course multiple layers to all of this, but the end result is if racism was justified for anyone, then it continues to be and always will be.

noel jones said...

This is the most bizarre player-hating I have ever heard...MLK, with a message of peace, love and understanding managed to inspire hundreds of thousands of people black, white and otherwise to PASSIVE resistance and you're actually trying to take credit away from the man...I really don't get it.

David Caines said...

I prefer to judge a man by his effect , not his words. The effect has been greater division, not lesser. What I find funny is that while we all accept that politicians lie, we refuse to open that door here. He accomplished nothing of lasting value (you can google it), shame really ( I honestly wish he had). But by way of comparison to others who hold a day on the calender. Nah...flash in the pan.
Well, if there is one great thing about this nation, in some future time true change will come and he will be forgotten.

David Caines said...

A side note for the easton area children suffering through "Black History month" AKA why it's all whitey's fault month. I'm going to correct a bit of math ebonics. The USA as a constitutional republic was established in 1787, the slaves (African only) were freed by executive order in 1863, a total of 76 years of slavery in the USA. They have been free for the last 138 years. How that equals 400 years of oppression is something only the Mathematicians of black racism can explain.

noel jones said...

David, you keep signing off with "blessings" but you are not blessing anyone when you post misinformation. First of all, the slave trade was alive and well on our soil for over 100 years before our government officially started, and everyone who had slaves before the Revolution kept them after the Revolution and built their wealth and power on the backs of slave labor. I can't believe you're actually trying to minimize the long-term affects of generational psychology where slavery is concerned by saying "we only had slavery for X years" as if any number would make that ok.

There was a small group of white abolitionists fighting slavery in our early history, but by and large the opinion of the white people that came to this land was that it was ok to kill American Natives and steal their land for their own own profit, and it was ok to kidnap Africans, bring them over on ships and force them to work as slaves to make them wealthy. Slave owners rose to power both in politics and commerce, and have handed that wealth and power down through the centuries. We still see the affects of this in the length of time it takes black farmers to get a loan in comparison to white farmers, in the quality of education, class size and building conditions in schools in poor neighborhoods where the percentage of black students is higher, in racial profiling by many police officers in certain states, in how fast someone is seated in a restaurant, in how quickly one can catch a cab in New York--and if it weren't for Affirmative Action, many employers in America wouldn't have given consideration to non-white applicants for jobs above a service position.

So yes, when opportunity is not equally available to all Americans, and certain people in this country have to bear up under racism on a daily basis no matter how they excel academically, professionally, or financially, then there is still systematic oppression happening, and to deny it, is simply the voice of privilege wanting deny the privilege enjoyed by growing up white in America. And to feel entitled to not encounter the oxymoron "reverse-racism" under the circumstances that have brought our country and its race relations to where we are today, is again, simply the voice of white privilege speaking.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was someone who preached love, understanding and equality between all races, and inspired Americans of all races to come together, and to want to minimize the work he lived and DIED for, is a sad testament to just how far we still have to go to heal race relations in this country.

It took a tremendous amount of bravery to do what he did--he knew that he had a target on him each time he organized a march and spoke. He did it anyway. And just like anyone in the military or on the police force, who voluntarily risks being killed for the sake of other Americans on a daily basis, he deserves our respect and appreciation. But unlike the average soldier or police officer, he inspired Americans by the hundreds of thousands and helped change policy and shaped history and that is why he is honored with a holiday.

It's very telling that you would rather see Lincoln have his own holiday--a white president who freed the slaves--but have a problem with a holiday for a black preacher who inspired black Americans to use their own power to make America more just for all.

Julie Zando-Dennis said...

If you're going to have an opinion, you should back it up with verifiable facts, otherwise your opinion just relies on misinformation, fear and hate. While these may have clouded your judgment, I'd suggest that others take a moment this week to reflect on and/or research the peaceful message and heroic contributions that Martin Luther King, Jr. gave to this country.

David Caines said...

The conclusion of the historian David Brion Davis’s most recent book, “Inhuman Bondage,” traces the significance of the United States Civil War in the ending of slavery elsewhere. It implicitly poses the question: What if the Confederacy had won recognition from Britain in 1862 and had survived the war? Our rather frightening answer is that the three great centers of slavery in the Americas, the United States South, Cuba and Brazil — plus the smaller plantation economy of Dutch Suriname — would not have abolished slavery when they did.-
NYT -January 13, 2011, 9:00 pm
The Transatlantic Slave Trade and the Civil War

Modern Slavery

Slavery has long been tolerated in Niger, although the government outlawed the practice in 2003. Antislavery organizations estimate that 43,000 people are enslaved in Niger, where nomadic tribes like the Tuareg and Toubou have for centuries held members of other ethnic groups as slaves.

In 2008, a West African regional court ruled that the government had failed to protect a young woman sold into slavery at the age of 12. The landmark ruling ordered the government to pay about $19,000 in damages to the woman.
NYT- World > Countries and Territories > Niger

Updated: April 26, 2010
I could really just flood you with these, but that's not really very nice.

David Caines said...

Well, since my earlier comment went missing, nicely done (dirty pool though- a comment deleted would have been nice)...that lets put the quotes in context. The argument in short is that there is a clear double standard here of holding white Americans responsible for Black slavery while holding no one else to the same standard. If anything by comparison to the world in which we currently live, whites are much farther ahead of the curve than other nations and ended slavery , years, decades, in some cases centuries before the black man stopped enslaving himself, which still goes on. If there is no shame in blacks enslaving blacks, what possible justification can there be for holding slavery against those of European descent? Other than racism?
If you support blaming the White man you are a racist, simply because you hold to a double standard based soley upon the color of one's skin. (I'm told that is the definition of the term).
Blessings, (you may find no blessing in it...but others will)

noel jones said...

David, thanks for the specific references. That always improves a discussion on line.

I believe I posted the Wikipedia definition of racism the last time we had an exchange on this topic, but here it goes again:

'Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] Racism's effects are called "racial discrimination." In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment.'

So you see, the term "reverse-racism" is an misnomer, because you are talking about an oppressed population disliking the population doing the oppressing via racism. There is no such thing as reverse-racism. It is a made up term meant to alleviate the guilt about the privilege of growing up white in a white-dominated society, and also to alleviate the guilt of holding racist feelings toward minorities. No matter how poor a white person is in this society, or how much CLASSISM they may endure, they grow up with the luxury of not enduring RACISM on daily basis, which not only consistently closes many doors of opportunity, but takes a great emotional and psychological toll on a human soul as well.

And for Pete's sake--two wrongs to do not make a right. I discuss racism and slavery in America because I am American. I do not live in Africa, or Haiti, or Asia, where there are slaves to the current day. The fact that they are still perpetrating this atrocity on humanity in their own societies does not diminish the detrimental effect that slavery has had on our own society. We still reap the financial, emotional and psychological damage compounded generation after generation of this sin against humanity that largely built the wealth that our country has thrived on for over a century.

A passion to defend racism in all its forms is a symptom of privilege and racism and a desire to not feel guilty about it. This is my beef about the language--that the term "racism" has become perverted in our society to mean the equivalent of "bad person" and so anyone accused of racism tends to fight tooth and nail to prove that it doesn't exist, and that they are a good person, rather than taking a moment to self-reflect.

tunsie said...

i yuv noel a whole lotta bunches,,,aonymous

David Caines said...

We agree, Reverse racism is simply racism, period. I like the longer definition, but clearly in using it, you must see the inherent racism of the left in which you share. The only reason not to hold that black man, yellow man, etc... to the same standard of guilt as we hold the white man is because they are unequal and somehow genetically predisposed to less than white attitudes and actions.
This underlies most of your arguments and most of the arguments of the left on the whole.
The poor pathetic non-white is just somehow less and it's all our fault somehow. Though it would be rude to say so publicly.
If you'd like to disprove my assumption here, by all means do so.
"I Noel Jones, disapprove of slavery by any people at any time and knowing all people are actually capable of being equal hold all people regardless of color equally responsible for the tragedies of the past and the horrors of the present excepting no person of any race, color or creed.."
I don't think you'll do it, for your racism like most in the left is far more incipient than that of the right. Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly normal and I'm not about to shun you or anything, but we are either equal or we are not.
Publicly accept that and deal with what that may mean to your often seriously confused beliefs or carry on as you have. A side note, the extended "oppression" of the black man in America implies that the black man in his native land was, is and shall remain somehow inherently less than the white man, that somehow thousands of years of evolution just somehow skipped people of that color leaving them pray to the mean ole' white man one of which you are BTW.
At least if we share blame and complicity we don't get to go around laughing under our sleeve about how clearly less everyone else is while the words of equality pour from our lips.

noel jones said...

David, you are not making sense. You said:

"We agree, Reverse racism is simply racism, period. "

We do NOT agree. I said reverse racism is a misnomer and doesn't exist in light of the definition of racism posted in my earlier comment.

You are doing some interesting philosophical gymnastics here, but you're not landing any of your jumps.

I hold all slave owners of the world accountable for the pain they cause and the residual pain that is handed down for generations after this crime against humanity. But the acts of people in Africa have nothing to do with black Americans. We are talking about slavery in America here, and we are talking about white privilege and institutional racism. It makes no sense to suggest that because African enslave other Africans that black Americans shouldn't be upset about institutional racism in America.

This part is also bizarre--you said:

"the extended "oppression" of the black man in America implies that the black man in his native land was, is and shall remain somehow inherently less than the white man"

No it does not. What it does imply is that any human being put through the constant stress of racism in his/her society has a much more challenging path to success in life than someone privileged to be born white in a country where the majority of management positions in our economy are held by white males. Yours is a intriguingly intricate rational to assuage the guilt of the privileged, on par with double-agentry and such--the idea that you're actually doing black Americans a favor by denying that the institutional racism they contend with daily exists at all. How big of you.

You have made it clear where you stand on the issue.

David Caines said...

This may come as a shock , but of course minorities are in fewer positions of power, the are minorities, the have fewer numbers and in a democracy that matters. In a communist or other society where all are assumed equal regardless this also holds true but simply isn't admitted. This is a failing of the left. The right has it's own . But to insist that a smaller group of people have the same economic position as the larger is just asinine. To demand that they have the same political voice is dictatorship. We had that in south Africa, where a minority had the greater voice, we called it apartheid. TO demand that the Black or any other minority have the same political power as the 73% of the American citizenry that is White is to demand that their vote carry twice the weight of another. That is not equal, democratic, or even realistic. ?I agree hands down that we should have equality under law, but in any other aspect looking to put a minority on par with the majority is just , well, I'm at a loss for words as to how unrealistic that is. Of course the minorities have less. Discounting their own self destructive creations like "Ghetto Culture", even in a perfect world, they would by sheer definition of having smaller numbers have less wealth and less political power and that is democracy. What I think you find as "White Privilege" is simply your own failed conceptions of what "Equality" actually means in a democratic society and in the end it means equality under law, all persons regardless of color or creed held to the same standard. Anything else is demanding for the smallest of groups something that they simply can't achieve within a democratic environment. At least until the minorities become the majority they will by sheer numbers alone lack the ability to hold the same power politically and economically as the majority and that is the way things should be, the reverse would show some clear advantage to the minority.
I 'll posit here that what you and those like you demand is little short of a communist style of "Equality" that has no place in a democratic nation.
It's always fun chatting with you...
Frustrating, but fun.

David Caines said...

I thought I'd add a few quick words about all of this mess from Blacks who oppose affirmative action and other racial preference based "Protections"
From - NPR-
Joseph Phillips, an actor and syndicated columnist, says: "Affirmative action is no longer about nondiscrimination; it's about racial preferences. … The question is: Are racial preferences an effective means to combat racism? And the answer is simply no. ... What we do know is that racial preferences tend to enhance and firm up negative stereotypes, particularly as it pertains to black intellectual capacity and academic capabilities. ... There are thousands ... who cannot enter our nation's college campuses boldly and confidently. They enter, again, dripping with the stigma of racial preferences. And I'm here to tell you tonight, that that is not good for America." (In support of the arguement "It is time to end affirmative action"
The debate took place at the Asia Society and Museum in New York City. It was moderated by Robert Siegel, senior host of National Public Radio's All Things Considered and the radio host of the Intelligence Squared series.
John McWhorter, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says: "It's often said that diversity has been proven to make for a better-quality education. Has it? How? ... The people who try to prove it with studies, and none of them are conservatives, find again and again that, as I think we all knew, diversity does not really have anything to do with giving you a more beneficial experience in terms of how much knowledge you have in your head or how much moral wisdom you have in your head after you come from college.

"There was a poll of University of Michigan minority law school grads from 1970 to 1996. To them, being called on as a diverse person in class was at the very bottom of what they valued most about their experience, as was the diversity."
Just to make a point that what you clearly see as racist views from myself are held and shared by a growing number of minorities who are tired of being "Protected" and are seeking actual equality.

noel jones said...

David, you're obfuscating. in a few different ways:

First of all, you keep referring to crimes committed in Africa, which have nothing to do with racism in America, and sadly, you seem to do this to be an apologist for racists in America.

Secondly, whether or not to continue Affirmative Action is a separate debate from whether or not it was necessary in the first place. It may be that it has already served its purpose and is no longer needed--or--it may be that the black Americans don't all agree with each other as they are not a monolith any more than white Americans are. Either way, a guest on NPR does not speak for all black people, and Affirmative Action has little to do with the barrage of both personal and institutionalized racism that black Americans encounter on a daily basis, in job interviews, in banks, in restaurants, in school settings, on the street, in the media, etc.

Thirdly, you are obfuscating when you suggest that to say that America is riddled with institutional racism is somehow the same thing as saying a minority should have equal political control with a majority in a democracy. This is not about politics, it's about people being treated with equal consideration in all arenas of society. And the interesting trick is that you use the ridiculous idea of a minority controlling a majority in a democracy to suggest that institutional racism either a) doesn't exist, or that b) it's ok if it does exist.

People know what's in their hearts, despite all the excuses they might make. An employer knows what he's doing when he turns down a qualified black applicant because he would rather have white people working with him. A banker knows what he's doing when he goes to the waiting room and chooses to approach a white couple waiting to get a loan and ignores a black couple who has been waiting longer. A parent knows what he/she is doing when he/she says, "not with my daughter/son." A cab driver knows what he's doing when he passes up a black person trying to hail a cab to pick up a white passenger instead. A newspaper editor knows what he is doing when he chooses to only post photos of criminals when they are black. And a restaurant host knows what he's doing when he gives white couples the best tables and seats them the most quickly.

None of this has anything to do with a minority having equal political power with a majority as you suggest, to try to refute the reality of institutional racism in America.

tunsie said...

I yuv yuv yuv yuv yuv yuv yuv yuv yuv yuv yuv yuv yuv noel....anonymous

David Caines said...

Well, like most things in blog format, this has gone all over the place. A large part of the problem for me is the many forms and areas of equality you seem to group into one word. I sometimes do the same. So lets get to specifics.
-First of all, you keep referring to crimes committed in Africa, which have nothing to do with racism in America,-
This due to your wording and well the nature of slavery is valid. folks like yourself tend to bind all American whites and all whites on the whole into a monolith. If we're going to do so then we have to do the same with blacks and everyone else for that matter. If there is something to be said about slavery in America , then I don't feel that it can be separated from the issue of slavery on the whole. An issue that still exists in the world and is a socially accepted phenomena in much of the rest of the world.
I feel no need to apologize for slavery as my people and my nation have at least outlawed the practice and done so at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives for no greater reason than that they came to believe it was wrong. A state of mind as yet not completely agreed upon by other nations or cultures. If anything thanks are due to those people who made that decision. Had the average American Black child of January 2011 been born in one of the African nations, slavery is an issue he would have to worry about, here and now. In this moment, in this time.
Thanks only to a bunch of White people who were morally prepared to question thousands of years of accepted practice, the Blacks of America and Europe have freedom.
As to the other stuff...I'm running out of room. But as far as relevance goes, Blacks in America are free because the majority of whites in America at the time of the civil war fought to make them so. Period.
I find nothing to apologize for in that.
Hell, a thank you might be nice.

David Caines said...

A side note here would be that the concepts of Black separatism and black nationalism of the ante bellum era and before, that would eventually grow to become the segregationist practices and laws of the south and to a lesser degree the north after the civil war began as early as 1770 and were based not in White thought, but in black thought.
Blacks demanded a separate identity and often established separatist black communities in the west avoiding whites and other wherever possible. This preference and demand for a separate place in the nation would become the segregationist laws that they would violently oppose 100 years latter. This is not to say that any people were wholly free of wrong in that time , but to point out flaws in your basic conceptions of history . To be fair this sort of stuff takes some digging to find, Frederick Douglass in his day stood against Black separatism to be fair, but his was by no means the loudest voice of the times.
While I give no apology for slavery, I do feel that in the years after it's fall we all screwed the pooch. Failing to heed some wise words from a man perhaps a bit ahead of his times.

"We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future."
Frederick Douglass
We can focus on the "wrongs" of the South, or we can focus on the "Right" of the north.
We can focus on that minority of whites who owned Americas then 4 million slaves (the maximum estimated number at the hieght of slavery in America), or we can focus on the tens of millions of Americans who didn't.
We can continue to blame the past and mine it for hatred, or we can attempt to move forward in someway that doesn't cripple the nation.

noel jones said...

David, you're projecting. I stated in my comment earlier that black Americans are no more a monolith than white Americans--then you replied with:

"folks like yourself tend to bind all American whites and all whites on the whole into a monolith"

It's like you're having a conversation with someone else.

I also referred to in my earlier comments to white abolitionists who fought slavery. You replied as if I am unaware that there were always white people against slavery. Who are you talking to?

Nothing that you have said refutes the reality of institutionalized racism in this country. That does not mean all white people in power are racists, it just means that a sufficient number are, so that the result is reduced opportunity in many arenas for black Americans, so that they have work even harder than the average white person to have access to that opportunity.

A perfect example of institutionalized racism happening right now is that in this economy, the percentage of black Americans that have been laid off is way out of proportion to the percentage of our population that are black Americans. Another example is that black farmers are lobbying congress to investigate why black farmers take 10 times as long to get loans as white farmers.

Where we disagree is that you think that the playing field is already level for all Americans. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

David Caines said...

Where we disagree is that you think that the playing field is already level for all Americans. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.-
Actually I think just the opposite, clearly the playing field is not level. But the question of racial preference has come to have different colors in different locales. All of this of course is rooted in deep misunderstanding of our combined past, a willingness to trade on those misunderstandings and even deepen them for no other reason than easy profit. Regardless of the rationalizations provided in the end racism works and people of all colors profit from it.
And yes, you have mentioned Good whites, in nearly the same way that a nazi mentions Intelligent blacks to make himself seem more open minded. It may simply be nothing other than that this is a blog, but clearly you have a deep hatred of Whites and white society...which seems truly mind boggling as you are the first and benefit from the second. I'll admit I find it indicative of deep racial self hatred to find a White person with a deep need to rant on about an outside evil that they have never themselves experienced and never will.
When I do feel the need to investigate these things, I read authors from that culture. I'm more than prepared to hope that we can share enough human emotion and understanding that a bridge might be made, but I don't claim to have the first idea of what it means to be anything but White in America and I don't see that anyone born my color would, yourself included no matter how deeply they may have immersed themselves in other cultures.
So in the end, it is your representing the black man that makes me question. Some deep personal need to represent a people whom we do not understand. I assume at least some local blacks have computers and could post here in their own defense if they wished to. Clearly they do not see the need. Or perhaps they are incapable and yet again need us to speak for them?
I really don't believe that, but clearly you do.
I made a statement at the start of this that I don't believe MLK to be worthy of a day on the calender if judged equally against the others who are on it.
We've gone a lot of places from there, but I stand by the statement. If you could name three things he accomplished that equal the founding of a nation or the freeing of the slaves and the fighting and winning of our first civil war by all means inform me. I've read MLK, Carmicheal, X, and the rest, so I think it unlikely.
still, goodnight.
If it is by the way just some odd need to put a black man on the calendar, I suggest Fredrick Douglass or George Washington Carver..still not quite equal to their competition, but at least they have some merit.
Though i would oppose Martin Delany

noel jones said...

Again, David, you are projecting. I have no idea whom you're talking to--to suggest that I hate white people just because I recognize that institutional racism exists is ridiculous. It's like you're having an imaginary conversation with someone from your past.

And it's pretty pompous to assume that you've read more than anyone else on this blog. The blog enjoys a pretty informed readership. You don't know me well enough to know what I've read or what life experience I've had (or any other commenter has read or had, for that matter).

And I've read enough Bell Hooks to know better than to "represent the black man" as you put it, which is also ridiculous. I represent no one but myself on this blog. At this point you are just throwing out personal insults because your logic is failing.

Per your request, three major accomplishments of MLK that make him deserving of a national holiday in his honor:

1. preaching love and peace and understanding in a way that brought Americans of all races together peacefully for the common good during a violent time in our country's history.

2. Inspiring hundreds of thousands of Americans to ACTION that led to the eventual end of segregation and civil rights legislation so that all Americans would be treated equally under the law.

3. being brave enough to do all this under the pressure of constant death threats from racists and knowing that he was likely to have to lay down his life for the cause--which he did.

I'm sorry that's not good enough for you.

You keep mentioning Malcolm X, whose philosophy was diametrically opposed to King. Please stay on topic. This post is not about Malcolm X, or slavery in Africa. These are distractions that you are tossing out when your logic fails.

If you want to keep this thread going, fine, but I think we both know where we, and each other, stand and it begins to get redundant at some point.

David Caines said...

I was afraid those would be your three points of achievement. First, Frederick Douglas did all of them ,as did thousands of Blacks and Whites long before MLK,, and Douglas was an escaped slave.
2cnd, I make no claims to have read more than everyone, but it's clear that I've read more than you or you wouldn't / couldn't hold the views you do.
3rd, I've never said I didn't like the man, just that he doesn't measure up. Mostly he paraphrased the arguments of Black authors decades before him.
And fourth not a single one of those things is an accomplishment.
He managed a PHD in religion, that is an accomplishment, it's not earth shaking as their are millions of them, but it's an accomplishment. He managed to become a priest / pastor, that's an accomplishment...again not earth shaking, hells even I'm ordained, but it is an accomplishment.
The people already on the calender did things that changed the world and lived long past them. MLK rode on the wave of the times and the shoulders of giants, black giants to be sure, but still. He was not particularly original, nor was he in anyway revolutionary. And sadly he left no lasting change in either the minority he claimed as his people nor the society on the whole. Hells, the Beatles accomplished more, The Who, the Rolling's a sad comparison, but it's apt.

Last, what you put forward in your arguments is stuff anyone who's graduated the 8th grade had beaten into them , it's not new, its not unknown, and a lot of it is based in Hollywood history. sadly that just makes you normal. There isn't an American left who isn't aware of the "Black Man's" Plight, hasn't been in years as it's used to justify everything from Affirmative Action to Speeding tickets. And as it's only a sort of does get a bit old.
Anyhow, I need coffee.

noel jones said...

Save me the hypocrisy of hurling personal insults and then signing off with "Blessings". It is beyond disingenuous.

Frederick Douglass was also a tremendous man in American history, and I would love it if a holiday were named after him. That does not diminished the accomplishments of King, who continued his fight.

As I said before, you have made your feelings clear and yet you persist. I don't think there is a single reader reading this who is unsure of where you stand on institutional racism in America.

Save your fake blessings for someone else who buys it. They are wasted here.

As I have said many times on this blog, this is not a forum for personal attacks when a commenter's points of logic begin to fail. If you continue, you will be deleted (and no doubt cry "censorship"--c'est la vie).

David Caines said...

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation."