Most of us remember the essence of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech. It had (and still has) the capacity of pulling our minds and hearts up short and calling us all to check our motivations before acting, speaking, writing and...yes...even thinking. Today, a lot of people have apparently forgotten some things: First, that he was a "Reverend", a man of the cloth who was a devout Christian who reminded America...a nation founded on Christian mores and beliefs...of how we should live life; Second, that his message was one of inclusion, not separatism or divisiveness.
In the late 1950's he spoke at a church in Montgomery, Alabama, and part of what he said was, "How do you go about loving your enemies? Begin with yourself." And later he advised, "When the opportunity presents itself for you to defeat your enemy, that is the time when you must not do it." Further, he quoted from the Bible: "Love your enemies, bless them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you..." Matt. 5
During the year...and particularly on Martin Luther King's designated holiday...there are celebrations and coming together of various groups to allegedly celebrate not just his recognition, but his message. Yet so many of these groups clearly act, think and speak in manner that reveals that not only have they abandoned MLK's views, but now are clearly diametrically opposite in their goals and actions.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) actively chants for the killing of Police. BLM has never condemned or distanced itself from those who have murdered Police, usually calling for "understanding" of their motivation. Black leaders have spent more time pointing to anecdotal mistreatment and actions by a minority of Police Officers as a defense and only as a one sentence add-on said that killing was wrong.
LGBT folk have, upon getting equality in the secular world, used that position to enact vengeance on any people who, based on their religious convictions, declined to produce certain products. Once they no longer had to hide, they have taken that opportunity to "get even." That is absolutely contrary to MLK's admonitions and the goal of his movement. Unity and acceptance were his goals. Note that nowhere did the term "approval" come into the picture. I can argue that my neighbor should be free to do whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't physically harm others...but that doesn't require me to approve of everything the do, or create a legal right for them to require me to cheer for their actions.
If I go to church or synagogue, wear a dress shirt and tie with Bermuda shorts, they are not required to take a public position approving of my actions. Why should the reverse be considered "politically correct?" As a matter of fact, I consider the phrase "politically correct" an oxymoron anyway.
But...shouldn't the media or someone call out these people? BLM advocates murder, LGBT advocates vengeance, University Professors advocate elimination of the First Amendment, and University students advocate abandonment of integration and freedom of speech in favor of apartheid and controlled speech. Rev. King looks down on these people and actions and I am sure that tears flow down his cheeks...and it is sad. It is also despicable.
Honoring MLK's thoughts, beliefs and goals would have us ignoring physical differences, honoring each other, respecting ourselves and those around us by holding ourselves to our standards even as we allow others to chose differently. Wonder if it will ever be seen that way again...
Showing posts with label apartheid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apartheid. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2016
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Do Sharpton, Holder and Mr. Obama want to return to "separate but equal?"
It is tough to understand just what the most recent class of demonstrators really want. They shout for "justice" and for "dead policemen." But then the media says that they don't really want that. So...when will the demonstrators speak for themselves and say what they truly want?
Are we to accept that the triumvirate of President Obama, Al Sharpton, and Eric Holder...and their acolyte, Mayor deBlasio...speak for the group as a whole? I wonder. None of that group seems truly dedicated to the plight of black neighborhoods except as it fits and advances their own purposes. So...what, indeed, is the desire of the unhappy resident of a black community.
The one thing I have heard and read that repeats itself is that they want the police force to be "representative." In Ferguson that meant that almost all the police were white and didn't understand how to police a black neighborhood. That does sound reasonable. It certainly made sense to me. But then the question is raised just how to accomplish that. Because, if you do get the desired percentage of black officers, you would still have some percent of white officers continuing to police the black neighborhood.
Ah, I hear, but those white police can be trained to understand how to police the black community "properly." Oh, really?
I have had black acquaintances and friends tell be that it is impossible for any white person to understand the attitude of any black man or women; that without experiencing it, you just cannot know what it is like. Well, that sounds accurate too. Although I think we can all try a bit more to understand those who come from different backgrounds.
Consider the facts that underlie the recent minority (make that "black) deaths in conflict with the police: first, the (white) policeman in Ferguson was undeniably being attacked and the dead (black) teen would undeniably faced felony charges of attacking a police officer if he had survived; second, in NYC, the supervising police officer of that arrest was black and there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that there was any racially-based "misunderstanding" of the circumstances of the arrest. (And, let it be noted that there was in fact no actual "choke-hold"; that the deceased died because of the combination of being held down and his own respiratory issues.)
So each of these events were fact based...not racially oriented at all, except by those who wished to promote anarchy, violence, looting and burning. And those people were honored by comments by President Obama, and the additional gift of the presence of both Eric Holder and Al Sharpton, the President's "go-to guy" on racial issues (although, since he himself is black, one wonders why the President should have to have any assistance in understanding the black community and the nuances of their feelings and desires...but perhaps that is a subject for further discussion another day).
The recurring theme is "we want to be policed by black police officers because they will "understand."
That seems to suggest that they want to segregate the police force so that they can have justice. They will feel less "threatened" if they have black men in blue in their community.
Do any of you have any suspicions as to what the general populace, and the media in particular, might have to say about such a suggestion if it were made by people in a white community suggesting that they only wanted "white" police officers protecting their interests because only "white" officers "understood" them? Think that one would fly? Even get off the ground? Yet...that is what is the base of the desire of Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder and Mr. Sharpton (No one quite knows what Mayor deBlasio wants or thinks...and no expects to understand that anytime soon.) They don't use, of course, the phrase "separate but equal" but they refer to "representational" numbers of minority officers.
For some reason, I have always thought that the laws of this country were not "nuanced" by the culture of those who broke a law; that if you were rich or poor, it was still wrong to steal, kill and hurt people. I believe(d) that one spoke civilly to others, obeyed directions given to you by an officer of the law and, if disturbed by it, argue the propriety about the order later...in a court of law. You didn't talk back to your parents, your boss or a policeman. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not recall any indication that those absolutes were colored ( no pun intended) by the race, nationality, skin pigment, or social position of either the policeman (or other person of authority) of the person being directed to behave in a certain way. Did I miss that? I don't think so.
Should be come to accept that black, and other minority communities should be policed by people of their own race, background and gender, it will not be long before those minorities will demand that their teachers by of the same race; that they have bankers of their own race; that all of their political representative be of their own race.
Will the occasional white resident in a black community then have the right to demonstrate, damage, hurt and burn down the community while demanding that a white person hear their grievance?
And I finish with the observation that a large portion of responsibility for the ongoing unrest lies with the media. They have allowed and helped to spread false claims and comments about the triggering events that only serve to artificially support those who make a living in the Race Industry, fomenting unrest and gaining notoriety for themselves. Even as they claim "with hands up" that they are only reporting the "news" they are remarkably selective in their reporting, so the claim of innocence rings hollow indeed.
If the black demonstrators get what they seem to be asking for, I suspect that in the end they will rue the day that they allowed some people to "lead" them down this path. They will not be better off for traveling that directions.
Are we to accept that the triumvirate of President Obama, Al Sharpton, and Eric Holder...and their acolyte, Mayor deBlasio...speak for the group as a whole? I wonder. None of that group seems truly dedicated to the plight of black neighborhoods except as it fits and advances their own purposes. So...what, indeed, is the desire of the unhappy resident of a black community.
The one thing I have heard and read that repeats itself is that they want the police force to be "representative." In Ferguson that meant that almost all the police were white and didn't understand how to police a black neighborhood. That does sound reasonable. It certainly made sense to me. But then the question is raised just how to accomplish that. Because, if you do get the desired percentage of black officers, you would still have some percent of white officers continuing to police the black neighborhood.
Ah, I hear, but those white police can be trained to understand how to police the black community "properly." Oh, really?
I have had black acquaintances and friends tell be that it is impossible for any white person to understand the attitude of any black man or women; that without experiencing it, you just cannot know what it is like. Well, that sounds accurate too. Although I think we can all try a bit more to understand those who come from different backgrounds.
Consider the facts that underlie the recent minority (make that "black) deaths in conflict with the police: first, the (white) policeman in Ferguson was undeniably being attacked and the dead (black) teen would undeniably faced felony charges of attacking a police officer if he had survived; second, in NYC, the supervising police officer of that arrest was black and there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that there was any racially-based "misunderstanding" of the circumstances of the arrest. (And, let it be noted that there was in fact no actual "choke-hold"; that the deceased died because of the combination of being held down and his own respiratory issues.)
So each of these events were fact based...not racially oriented at all, except by those who wished to promote anarchy, violence, looting and burning. And those people were honored by comments by President Obama, and the additional gift of the presence of both Eric Holder and Al Sharpton, the President's "go-to guy" on racial issues (although, since he himself is black, one wonders why the President should have to have any assistance in understanding the black community and the nuances of their feelings and desires...but perhaps that is a subject for further discussion another day).
The recurring theme is "we want to be policed by black police officers because they will "understand."
That seems to suggest that they want to segregate the police force so that they can have justice. They will feel less "threatened" if they have black men in blue in their community.
Do any of you have any suspicions as to what the general populace, and the media in particular, might have to say about such a suggestion if it were made by people in a white community suggesting that they only wanted "white" police officers protecting their interests because only "white" officers "understood" them? Think that one would fly? Even get off the ground? Yet...that is what is the base of the desire of Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder and Mr. Sharpton (No one quite knows what Mayor deBlasio wants or thinks...and no expects to understand that anytime soon.) They don't use, of course, the phrase "separate but equal" but they refer to "representational" numbers of minority officers.
For some reason, I have always thought that the laws of this country were not "nuanced" by the culture of those who broke a law; that if you were rich or poor, it was still wrong to steal, kill and hurt people. I believe(d) that one spoke civilly to others, obeyed directions given to you by an officer of the law and, if disturbed by it, argue the propriety about the order later...in a court of law. You didn't talk back to your parents, your boss or a policeman. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not recall any indication that those absolutes were colored ( no pun intended) by the race, nationality, skin pigment, or social position of either the policeman (or other person of authority) of the person being directed to behave in a certain way. Did I miss that? I don't think so.
Should be come to accept that black, and other minority communities should be policed by people of their own race, background and gender, it will not be long before those minorities will demand that their teachers by of the same race; that they have bankers of their own race; that all of their political representative be of their own race.
Will the occasional white resident in a black community then have the right to demonstrate, damage, hurt and burn down the community while demanding that a white person hear their grievance?
And I finish with the observation that a large portion of responsibility for the ongoing unrest lies with the media. They have allowed and helped to spread false claims and comments about the triggering events that only serve to artificially support those who make a living in the Race Industry, fomenting unrest and gaining notoriety for themselves. Even as they claim "with hands up" that they are only reporting the "news" they are remarkably selective in their reporting, so the claim of innocence rings hollow indeed.
If the black demonstrators get what they seem to be asking for, I suspect that in the end they will rue the day that they allowed some people to "lead" them down this path. They will not be better off for traveling that directions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)