What did MLK mean when he spoke of "content of character" in the famous "I Have a Dream" speech? Fifty years after Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous speech, the question persists: should America be color-blind? Many conservatives, including this one, say yes. The constant focus on race only serves to highlight differences in skin color. Who cares? Americans should embrace their history and diversity, while recognizing that without equality of opportunity, true equality will always be elusive.
The phrase has been "controversial" because it seemingly conflicts with the ideas espoused by some to justify government programs like affirmative action. More recently, this oft-quoted part of King's speech conflicts with "disparate impact" laws, a concept that Paul Sperry of Invester's Business Daily describes as a "dubious legal theory that many argue is unconstitutional." Under these laws, the Obama administration has vowed to sue employers for discrimination, reminiscent of the types of lawsuits that led to the 2008 economic collapse.
Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
CBSNews asks, "As we mark the King holiday, what might he ask of us in a time when both the president and a disproportionate number of people in poverty are black?" The answer most likely does not lie in "identity politics," which will, as pointed by Roger Clegg from National Review, "inevitably cause friction, as do laws that divide up opportunities by race and ethnicity."
How would Martin Luther King, Jr. feel about programs that seek to protect black Americans? It is hard to say. He most likely would believe that while America has come a long way, there is still work to be done. America, and the world, can thank Martin Luther King, Jr. for his enduring legacy. Hopefully, the day will come when "content of character" truly is the only criteria for which a person is judged.
Photo Source: InspirationBoost
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 234 ( 1 removed by Renee Nal )
I feel strongly that when Dr. King used the phrase, "content of character" he was referring to the very foundation of the individual, the heart, the mind, and the soul. I cannot see any possible reference to the race or even the gender of the individual with that phrase. I wrote about him several years ago, and I presented the concept that he would be opposed to affirmative action, as it would imply that the evaluation, the chosen direction, and even the path that may be cleared because of affirmative action would remove that individual from his/her true foundation. When Dr. King spoke of equal rights, he spoke of equal rights for everyone, not a specific race. That was an admirable trait that seems to be quite lost with our current government and even a large portion of our American society.
So do not tarnish the name of Dr. King because you studied him. do not take a class on the american Negro and think you know that Fredrick Douglas would not approve of Obama, or that Paul L Dunbar would be ashamed of Niki Giovani. You dishonor not only Dr. King, but an entire race.
That is amazing about your relative. Whatever happened to him (or her)? Bull Connor, by the way - a member of the Democratic National Committee - was clearly a nasty racist.
Do you mean the Maori? Yes, I have quite a few Maori friends, thanks for asking. You are putting words in people's mouth's and then taking offense to your own assumptions <---- weird.
Perhaps you could have an honest discussion, Ron, without inserting your own prejudices (like what you said about white men having a "God complex").
It would be nice if Renee would include the rest of the story. The south was solidly Democratic until Lyndon Johnson led the charge for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This most significant protection of basic American rights was passed with strong Republican support and intense opposition from Democrats in the South.
Johnson remarked that Democrats would lose the South for a "generation". He was too optimistic. The "southern strategy" of Nixon was to pry southern racists into the Republican Party. A whole generation of GOP hate-mongers was raised to prominence by showing scenes of integrated couples and other scenes that the South considered "offensive".
The "nasty racists" tried to form their own party (the "Dixiecrats" of Strom Thurmond), but happily became Republicans within ten years.
Reagan solidified racism as a fundamental feature of Republican ideology to this day.
"States rights" was code used by the Dixiecrats, who left the Democrats, then returned to the party. As Malcolm X said, "A dixiecrat is nothing but a democrat in disguise." #RevisionistHistory
I love revisionist History!!!
He did this tithe surprise of H. L. Garission, Stove,and F. Douglas . Oh,and of I am a racist Renee you are far worst because you are in denial.
The failure of the FBI to link him as a communist is where people can find his Republican affiliations. He never promoted the Repub party, nor any candidates publicly, only the FBI tapes of him (they bugged every place MLK went) point to his affiliation.
The man truly believe that everyone had within them the chance to succeed. He fought race discrimination because skin tone could dictate how successful a person would be allowed.
Awesome contribution. Thank you!
Too many people only surface read and then they miss out on so much that is there if you know how to look it up.
The FBI pursuit of King is another example of the stupidity and pettiness of J. Edgar Hoover (and the lingering idiocy of the McCarthy obsession with "Communists"), but there was real fear that King would be successful in organizing the kind of mass protests that did, in fact, eventually end the Viet Nam debacle.
Gandhi is the actual architect of social justice and OWS. MLK was a pacifist and followed Gandhi's example. Another Snope inaccuracy.
The Democratic administration allowed the FBI to hound MLK. The Democratic administration saw MLK as a threat.
Please feel free to attack Lori. I love it when you go guttural. It is so you!
Renee have you read Lori's Douchebag Hall of Fame?
The count of those who have lived a Life of Character are uncountable; we might consider those, rather than to lament on those without. The Reverends statement, BY ITS' OWN ADMISSION, proved that King knew of TWO kinds of People; the Decent, and the Indecent; those of Character, and those without.
There are no two Persons the same. There are no two Characters the same. There are not two strands of Hair the same. There are no two Fingerprints the same...nor Snowflakes that Fall from Heaven. "diversity" is and only is. "diversity" has no Character. "diversity" is devoid of Value.
The Rev. Martin Luther King would have nothing to do with such a discrimination, for its' importance has nothing to do with Character; and those that place import upon it lack Character...for it is segregating on its' face, because "diversity" has no Value...nor does the Colour of ones' Skin. Therefore, it is used to segregate, just as the Colour of ones' Skin is used to segregate. To charge that one is not "diverse" is antithetical to everything one Reverend Martin Luther King had stood for, as its' purpose is merely to segregate.
"diversity" means nothing. And I submit that the Reverend Martin Luther King would agree.
There are no two Persons the same. There are no two Characters the same. There are not two strands of Hair the same. There are no two Fingerprints the same...nor Snowflakes that Fall from Heaven. "diversity" is and only is. "diversity" has no Character. "diversity" is devoid of Value.
Hmmm, diversity void of value ... Yes ... of course it is ... especially "diversity" based on outward appearances.
This failed attempt to blame Affirmative Action is wrong or that Dr. Martin Luther King would be against this institution it is crazy. You might wish it were so but your point is ridiculous as always. The thought or notion of maintaining an American past status-quo of equal rights in America; which has never existed is absurd.
What diversity exist and is seen today is a war of ideas and its enforcement continues by progressives and liberals and the civil-rights movement.
This did not happen without government enforcement of legal laws, rules and regulations, and a grass-roots movement of people that put their life on the line. Diversity in American continues today by the effort of many and remains under the watchful eyes of persons of good will.
As Frederick Douglass said,
"It is a frequent and favorite device of an indefensible cause to misstate and pervert the views of those who advocate a good cause."
and this!
Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
The civil rights guarantee by laws of locale, state and Federal authorities have come under the assault by extreme right-wing Republican agenda attempting to turn back the voter's rights and workers rights pass by the late President L. B. Johnson. But then you folks don't know American history any way.
Rev. Martin Luther King was a rebel and on the F.B.I. list and hounded by J. Edgar Hoover. He broke the laws and was arrested many times for his non-violent protest. And you have the nerve to tell me you think he would be against affirmative action, please give me a break.
Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King supported, unions, fought for better wages and working conditions, voters rights, housing, healthcare, protested against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam the war, supported boycott. I would continue but you folks lack even the basis understanding of American Civil Rights history to have any kind of enlighten conversation. I will let your ignorance speak for it self.
King was instrumental in planning the Poor People's Campaign, but was assassinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis before the protestors began arriving in Washington in May, 1968.
We are speaking of what a great man that Dr. King was, and somehow, you feel the need to argue.
That's how I always perceived his words. And affirmative action is not that.
Vic Damico Jan 22, 2013, 5:07pm EST
Richard, I will repeat what I said in my earlier comment. "Your understanding of Dr. King seems quite shallow." Affirmative action is not equal rights; it is special rights for a specific group of our society. Dr. King spoke of equal rights, not special rights, not even for himself. And again, it is sad that you do not see that.
We are speaking of what a great man that Dr. King was, and somehow, you feel the need to argue.
I have a dream...Dr. Martin Luther King
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Wow! Good words well spoken from the heart.
The delivery is astounding...the Content, extraordinary.
Ron, I am not sure who that was directed to, but it was a little uncalled for. People are not seeing the speech for the first time. There is a reason that it was spoken of on this day, just as many of us are speaking of what Dr. King stood for with his life. This is not a post that division of any kind should even be a consideration. And no one took all of these years to read that speech.
MKL should be an example to bring us together instead of tearing us apart.
Ms. Spunky, weird, isn't it? ;-)
Very weird indeed.
And you, a white chick from New Zealand (if you're even from there, which is highly debatable) dares to ask this question~your true racist colors shine thru once again~WTG Nal!
Is that seriously "racist" to you?
You know who you are. I know you aren't the racist some wish to paint you. August Lady is calling you racist to shut you up, deny you your freedom to speak.
Some people get stuck and see nothing but racism where there is none. They get so stuck that they allow their friends to call people "Uncle Tom's" missing the racial slur. Blind to true racism and pointing at shadows while crying racism.
Another point is that the labeling of racist has made people numb. More and more people look at someone calling someone a racist and say "Who cares? According to the news, everyone is a racist."
And again, I have to respond, "And you, a white chick from New Zealand (if you're even from there, which is highly debatable) dares to ask this question"~like you're likely to know what MLK believes~puh-leeese! I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but had 2nd thoughts...calling you out is more important...
@ Spunky Spanky, I'm doing nothing of the sort, & you as another white chick have no idea what you're talking about, "They get so stuck that they allow their friends to call people "Uncle Tom's" missing the racial slur." WTH that means?!!?
Well, you can throw out that excuse all you want, but I don't use the term lightly, & only recall 2 other members that I've labeled that.
You called me a racist yesterday because I dared to list racist Democrat quotes - in response to a list of (very weak) conservative "racist" transgressions. I invite anyone to see the comments for themselves and they can judge whether I was being "racist."
Sadly, I have had some very interesting conversations with you, which makes the knee-jerk name calling that much more disappointing.
If I was a different person, I would bring up certain things you have said on my posts before about certain classes of people. I think you may want to look to your own prejudices before pointing fingers.
That's just it Renee, I don't deny my prejudices (both b & w, being both b & w) & that's why I say we all have a touch of racism in us~it's ingrained in our culture & really difficult to escape from. And, you didn't have to tell me you were white, you've left enough clues out there.
No good deed ever goes unpunished...
..as Jesus can surely attest.
As Frederick Douglass said,
"It is a frequent and favorite device of an indefensible cause to misstate and pervert the views of those who advocate a good cause."
Guess I should address this...I'm well aware that at the root of racism lies ignorance, but that doesn't mean only stupid people can be racists, & intelligent people are immune. Awareness of & interaction with minorities, esp. AA, goes a long way in developing people's perceptions. I know white people who've had one(1) bad experience with a black person, & ultimately hated all black people (black hatred of whites is bred from history). But, my kids constantly remind me, "Mom, things are different now!" I still tell them, some things aren't, but I thank a higher power that they can believe that!
"And, you didn't have to tell me you were white, you've left enough clues out there."
You might have learned from that the folly of assuming that assuming is not a good thing, but you didn't. Now you say, "Like Native Americans understand the Black Experience~if that wasn't so pathetic, I'd be ROF!"
You're assuming you have to be Black to understand bigotry. Sure, every individual's experience is unique. If you happen to be Black it doesn't mean that you understand the exact experience of Rosa Parks because you probably never had to sit on the back of a bus, but you probably have some idea of the feelings she had if you have experienced bigotry.
This use of a quote implying that the Obama administration, "has vowed to sue employers for discrimination" and that this is, " reminiscent of the types of lawsuits that led to the 2008 economic collapse."
This Wall St. right-wing propaganda crap is a ball face lie. And manipulative of this article submitted by you Renee. This slant in your piece does not go unnoticed.
The economic collapse of 2008, unbelievable but that conservative manipulation. Affirmative Action and worker's discrimination legal action was the cause of capitalism near fall. What B.S.
And, for someone to accuse me of ASSuming, you've done quite a bit of it yourself...First, being a bigot does not necessarily make one racist, & I'm not doing your HW for you, Google the dif; Second, I, in no uncertain terms, said that which I highlighted; Third, "I'm...tired," that's always a fallback & proof you should've said nothing at all!
Uh, Richard...you might try some remedial classes yourself, and...oh, never mind.
August Lady Jan 22, 2013, 12:37am EST
I'm out~I can only handle so much ignorance...
I see you're still the expert.
Yes I am white, most of my family is not. For clarification purposes: you see racism where and when you want. When your friends use racial slurs against others, you turn a blind eye to it.
Well, for one thing you don't know me, which means you would know I don't turn a blind eye toward ANYthing! In addition, to say my "friends use racial slurs against others," you better be able to back that up, or show evidence of such, & I'm pretty sure you can't. Lastly, I will repeat, you "have no idea what you're talking about!"
And for you, thang, "you better be able to back that up, or show evidence of such" - perhaps you can do the same for your repeated, silly claim that I am racist.
Renee, Ms Spunky Spanky weighed in with as true a statement as I've ever read.
You are not the racist (or bigot) some hope to make you out to be.
It's also true the epithet is used to try to shut you up or to keep others from hearing your message (even better since all who use the epithet always claim loyalty to your right to speak freely even though they hate it when you do). In any case, you are doing something so correct apparently you must be marginalized at any cost.
Ms Spunky Spanky ~ Live Free or Die Jan 21, 2013, 11:19pm EST
Renee,
You know who you are. I know you aren't the racist some wish to paint you. August Lady is calling you racist to shut you up, deny you your freedom to speak.
Some people get stuck and see nothing but racism where there is none. They get so stuck that they allow their friends to call people "Uncle Tom's" missing the racial slur. Blind to true racism and pointing at shadows while crying racism.
Another point is that the labeling of racist has made people numb. More and more people look at someone calling someone a racist and say "Who cares? According to the news, everyone is a racist."
Ms Spunky Spanky ~ Live Free or Die Jan 21, 2013, 11:19pm EST
..."Some people get stuck and see nothing but racism where there is none. They get so stuck that they allow their friends to call people "Uncle Tom's" missing the racial slur. Blind to true racism and pointing at shadows while crying racism..."
BTW...in a sane world, Affirmative Action would be:
1. Unconstitutional in that it clearly violates the 5th and 14th Amendment;
2. Clearly perceived as unhealthy for all concerned;
3. Designed to perpetuate "identity politics";
4. Devisive;
5. Racist; and
6. Ultimately designed to keep the black people down in this society. "Massa" is now the federal gov't but the result is the same. Throw in some welfare and you have the plantation mentality at the highest level of gov't.
Have you ever noticed that any position taken that is contrary to the crap issued by "Liberal Central" is racist??? Yes, an interesting phenomenon, isn't it?
Let me give you a hint #AffirmativeAction
#AffirmativeAction.
The fact that you mention nothing about the racism in your own country tell me you care nothing about the Maori. Which makes me. Ask are all new Zealand racist like you?????
She is NOT a racist.
I see Ron is confusing the Maori with Super Mario now LOL
There was a case in the UK a couple of years ago in which a Maori teacher who was working over here teaching literature was sacked because he refused to teach a book that dealt with homosexual relationships.
His defence was "In my culture this would not be tolerated."
There's the reason why some (not all) face problems with employment etc. They simply cannot adapt to mainstream culture in NZ.
Funny to see that Ron and the other left wing racists in this thread are taking up the cause of a group that supports homophobia too. What hypocrites, but we already knew that. I highlighted their support for terrorist groups in Africa and the middle east that use rape as a weapon of war a few days ago.
That moral high ground they like to stand on is turning into quicksand.
And I would laugh my head of at Ronny boys comment about the Maori being an oppressed people only I cant because I know of one other country that has oppressed murdered and wanted to exterminate its native inhabitants and still to this day oppresses them. Does the good old U.S of A spring to mind Ron that country that you live in? The country that had to be dragged into the modern world after many of the more sophisticated and not so sophisticated country's in the world decided that keeping slaves was just not cricket and was evil a country that even in the early 70s parts of your country would not let blacks or whites ride on bus together or drink from the same water fountains or even shop in the same shops together.
Your country is a disgrace to the modern world when it comes down to racism and you come on here as if butter would not melt in your mouth and try to lecture the rest of the world on racism!!! Hell will freeze over before I let an American lecture the world on racism now on your bike son sunshine.
Moral high ground Ian these hypocrites have never had the moral high ground its always been quicksand and always will be.
NEW LEFTIST CODE WORDS ALERT!
Watch for it!
What rubbish.
The character of the past FOUR administrations!
"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." This actually from Leviticus 25:10
President Barack H. Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America, again. And it feels so good too!
I love that you have tried to be positive. I am beyond puzzled by the anger expressed by some here. I do understand how some weren't taught history accurately. Schools are still failing in that respect and far to many sites omit information that would help people who do want to understand history.
So have a (((hug))).
I should correct that to read: I love that you have been positive.
Furthermore, Renee free speech is always welcome by me, whether we agree or disagree, I love the debate.
Kiss your moms with those mouths?
The fact that Renee is not an American citizen does not go un-notice by me and many others
No kidding. Well, there's a statement to nearly cause a minor effort to barely give a sh@t.
Ten to one the other troll you bounced gave the flag. Last gasp of a starving parasite.
"Renee is a paid troll in my opinion."
While that is not true, the statement speaks of you more that of Renee. You troll without being paid. On a post structured by the "content of character" you have proceeded without either that content of character or being payed for your presence. That leaves only trolling. Good job!
That's what I'm thinking.
I didn't think winners were suppose to be bitter about it.
Then move and play activist there.
I keep thinking about SNL's Roseanne Roseannadanna. Maybe it's because I'm pretty sick right now, but this whole article seems very convoluted to me. The lawsuit you're referring to, Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, was brought in 1995, a full 13 years before the 2008 crash. It involved Citibank's discrimination against African-American families who were in the same income bracket, & could provide proof as such, being denied home loans that their white counterparts were granted, mainly because they lived in "undesirable" locations {i.e. black neighborhoods}--in other words, real discrimination. I remember when that issue came to the forefront--it wasn't just banks practicing geographic discrimination. It was exclusively about equality. You didn't say Obama was responsible for the suit, but it should be pointed out that he was merely an associate in the law firm at the time, not the principle attorney.
Although some of the homeowners given legitimate loans as a result of the suit defaulted, their number is completely insignificant in comparison to the literal millions of bogus loans that did cause the 2008 economic crash years later.
Those loans given under false pretenses had everything to do with corporate greed, & absolutely nothing to do with Affirmative Action.
If your goal is to examine how MLK would feel about Affirmative Action--or "programs that seek to protect black Americans"--I don't understand why you mentioned the suit at all. I really don't understand the implication that enforcing such programs did, or can in the future, cause an economic crash.
The first time I took notice of Obama, it was because he said he didn't feel that his daughters, who are clearly well off enough to have opportunities their peers don't, shouldn't benefit from Affirmative Action--that it should be reserved for those who need it.
It's just my opinion, but it seems pretty apparent to me that your dissenters are upset because you seem to be promoting the eventual achievement of the "content of character" ideal, while simultaneously implying that attempts to implement protections, that will aid in reaching that goal, in the interim are wrong, & ultimately harmful to the economy. It's hard to understand why some people aren't seeing the obvious disparity in your statements.
In the 1995 suit, "as few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings and about half have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices."
And yes, the case was filed by Obama's employer, however, Obama was the lead attorney in that case. His lead client, Selma Buycks-Roberson, declared bankruptcy in 2001 — and again in 2008.
I am not sure how you can justify my "lead dissenters" calling me racist. Or how you can say that there is "an obvious disparity" in my comments. I do not believe that the "protections" you speak of "will aid in reaching" the goal of full equality. I have been consistent with that and say in my first paragraph above, "Americans should embrace their history and diversity, while recognizing that without equality of opportunity, true equality will always be elusive." I resent that this position somehow is painted to be anti-minority.
"Those loans given under false pretenses had everything to do with corporate greed, & absolutely nothing to do with Affirmative Action." - Becky
Not True. Those loans given under false pretenses had nothing to do with "corporate greed," but everything to do with Government overreach and control. They were merely COMPLYING with affirmative-action fools and their Gov regulations...at the peril of prosecution for non-compliance.
The Reverend Martin Luther King, I submit, would NOT have condoned being made a part of a 'special interest group.'
That is completely antithetical to his message...and Renee is correct in pointing that out.
I'm trying to point out that it was NOT the Leftists favourite demon, "corporate greed." It was a concerted scam to steal and redistribute Wealth...and perpetrated by the Elites; the Banks, and the Gov, who regulated and then backed those bundles...with the dime of the Middle Class.
"Political correctness" is invented to control the narrative...the People complied.
"diversity" is actually given a definition by the Left (diversity, I contend, simply is), in order to label as "bigotry," those with whom they disagree...the People complied.
The Constitution is trampled by one who's promised to "fundamentally-transform" America...the People comply.
Homosexuality is being "normalised"...and the People comply.
Truth is told as falsehood, and falsehood is presented as "truth"...and the People comply.
We are now told that Women are as capable as Men in physical and Mortal endeavours, and yet, for them to succeed, the Standards must be changed...and the People comply.
Now, Women are to be allowed at the tip of the spear, in Mortal Combat, and asked to Kill or be Killed...and we will comply.
...therefore, a massive "turn of events" has changed responsible Middle-Class Homeowners into holders of worthless Paper. And not a question is asked???
Trust me...we have complied.
That wasn't a reference to Affirmative Action loans. It was about the billions in loans given to unqualified buyers that eventually did cause the 2008 crash. Loans that it would not have been legal to issue if there hadn't been intentional, systematic deregulation of Government systems designed to prevent it. Affirmative Action had nothing to do with the economic crash as Renee, & now you, have implied.
I find it disgusting that anyone would try to blame the economic crisis on the blatantly false idea that African-Americans forced banks to give them loans they were not qualified to have solely based on the color of their skin, & then defaulted on them.
Please, feel free to try to explain, if Renee is right about the number of clients, how 167 people defaulting on loans issued 13 years before the market crash brought down an entire world economy.
I agree, but he also would have probably been extremely hurt by the implication that decent, hardworking people, who were denied loans for which they were qualified, would use the color of their skin to get what they wanted. That suit wasn't about "special interests" it was entirely about achieving equality in the face of discriminatory practices.
Exactly! Mark-John didn't clarify anything. This was my point. Given that you know the issue was caused by deregulation & greed, why mention the 1995 suit unless it was intended to cast Affirmative Action, & Obama in a bad light?
Obama was not the lead attorney. He was an associate, first on an alphabetical list, & not even in the loop to be notified of actions taken by the opposing attorneys, or the court.
"I am not sure how you can justify my "lead dissenters" calling me racist."
I didn't say anything about anyone calling you racist, much less justify it. I gave my interpretation of your statements, & asked you if you could see how others might interpret it the same way I did.
"...Or how you can say that there is "an obvious disparity" in my comments."
Your statements are clearly opposed to one another. You say above that you know the causes of the economic crisis. But, you continue to defend the implication that a decades old housing equality suit is responsible for it.
"I do not believe that the "protections" you speak of "will aid in reaching" the goal of full equality."
I didn't call them "protections" you did. Discrimination is against the law. You say you support equality, but made statements opposed to enforcing it. No distinction was made between equality & "special interests."
"'Americans should embrace their history and diversity, while recognizing that without equality of opportunity, true equality will always be elusive.' I resent that this position somehow is painted to be anti-minority."
That position isn't, & I didn't say you were anti-minority. I said you made inaccurate claims.
You stated that lawsuits enforcing equality in the workplace are "reminiscent of the types of lawsuits that led to the 2008 economic collapse." You referenced a lawsuit that has everything to do with enforcing equality. Yet, you completely left out the fact that the suit was absolutely justified, & implied that future actions to ensure equality is upheld will have drastically adverse effects on the economy.
It's really beyond me why you can't see that your statements in support of equality are completely negated by the comments you made about MLK's ideology being used to "justify programs like Affirmative Action", & the false claims regarding its enforcement causing the economic collapse.
You left the door wide open for people to interpret your statements to mean that people are using MLK's ideology to take whatever they want without having to work for it.
As writers, we're tasked with the responsibility to be accurate because our work influences the thoughts & actions of others--even if it's only to a minor degree. Personally, although readers can be harsh sometimes, I appreciate dissenting comments because it gives me the opportunity to understand where I may have failed to clarify my position, & it helps me to improve. I asked you if you could understand why people were interpreting your work negatively because I know you take your writing seriously.
I am not sure how you could possibly interpret my statements the way that you have.
I never said that "167 people defaulting on loans issued 13 years before the market crash brought down an entire world economy." From my post, "Under these laws, the Obama administration has vowed to sue employers for discrimination, reminiscent of the types of lawsuits that led to the 2008 economic collapse." I should not have said lawsuits - as it was policy - the compounding of these types of policies that encouraged banks (through assurances that Fannie / Freddie would guarantee the loans) to give loans to people who could not afford them.
These policies did not start with Obama, they started in 1977 - this was a process that took years.
Additionally, when you say, "I find it disgusting that anyone would try to blame the economic crisis on the blatantly false idea that African-Americans forced banks to give them loans they were not qualified to have solely based on the color of their skin, & then defaulted on them." That is actually quite a sickening representation of my words. I do not fault the people who got the loans - I fault the government for meddling with the loan process, period. I additionally fault the government for creating the conditions that made it so easy for the banks to give loans to people who could not afford them. And I blame the banks for taking advantage of the situation - giving loans to people who could not afford them, knowing that the taxpayers would bail them out when people went into default. I never, ever made a statement remotely close to your wholly wrong interpretation.
Sorry, Becky, as I have your seen your comments on other posts that are basically "Renee Nal" bashing sessions, it is hard for me to think that you are really trying to have an honest conversation.
I additionally resent the condescending "lesson" about Gather writers. I check and re-check everything I write, and I DO appreciate dissenting comments. I do not allow two people on my posts, because after numerous attempts to have conversations with them, they rarely (if ever) discuss the content of the posts, not that you are entitled to an explanation.
In fact, they take away from any meaningful conversation. On this post, I removed one comment. There are over 200 comments and they are not all kind, to put it mildly. I did not delete them, because believe it or not, it takes alot for me to delete anything. There are two sides to every story, Becky.
I submit that you follow your own advice.
In your opinion.
Correcting "lawsuits" to policies changes the meaning. Originally, I didn't say you said those things, I said that's how it comes across--after I asked you about it, you maintained that you meant what you said.
Every one of your links points squarely at Obama--that his having pushed his supposed agenda to restructure society in favor of blacks as the reason for the economic crash.
From your article "Obama Expands Racial Divide; Continues Practices that Led to 2008 Recession":
"It is a clear case of social engineering through "administrative" changes and bureaucracy."
From your links:
"...the evidence is overwhelming that the CRA played a significant role in creating lax lending standards that fueled the housing bubble."
"President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices."
And another from your article:
"By pressuring banks to lend to those who did not initially qualify for a loan, Obama and his ilk were using unfair intimidation tactics."
Clearly, in this article you implied that the 1995 lawsuit was intended to pressure lenders into giving loans to people who were not qualified--that isn't true. Those of us who lived through that period know banks, insurance companies, etc. were blatantly discriminating against blacks based on their highly prejudiced belief that blacks were less responsible, & that black neighborhoods were a bad investment.
If you look at Ron's comment directly below, you'll see that I'm not the only one that interpreted your statements to mean that you implied the loans weren't justified, & that they caused the economic crash.
If your intent was to say that you believe Affirmative Action is being used in ways that are contrary to what MLK would agree with, why not just say that? Believe it or not, I object to Affirmative Action being used to give people anything they haven't worked for based solely on the color of their skin.
I don't care who you choose to allow on your posts, or whether you delete their comments. I haven't defended anyone's statements.
My point, & the point I said I think others are trying to make, is that, rather than to use legitimate examples, you appear to have used MLK's legacy to bash Obama, & Affirmative Action without clarifying that you were talking about abuse. And, you implied that the example you used was abusive of the principles of Affirmative Action when it wasn't.
I asked you why you can't see that some would interpret your accusations that Obama is pushing a black agenda, to the detriment of the country, & making statements about his actions that aren't true, is prejudicial.
"Correcting "lawsuits" to policies changes the meaning. " You are absolutely right and I am glad you gave me the opportunity to clarify.
I don't care who you choose to allow on your posts, or whether you delete their comments. I was responding to "Personally, although readers can be harsh sometimes, I appreciate dissenting comments because it gives me the opportunity to understand where I may have failed to clarify my position, & it helps me to improve," and the post I mention above...
you appear to have used MLK's legacy to bash Obama, & Affirmative Action without clarifying that you were talking about abuse. I do think that Obama's policies are abusive to America, and I make no bones about that.
your accusations that Obama is pushing a black agenda I never said that and frankly, I have no idea what that means. I think Obama's policies are bad for ALL Americans.
As far as any attempt to lecture, I was actually talking about being a writer in general, it had nothing to do with Gather. This conversation got really out of hand, & I received emails from both your friends & mine expressing how upsetting it was. One of them said she was on the verge of tears because she's friends with many of those commenting.
It bothers me when people misinterpret my writing. It's hard not to have a knee-jerk reaction. I wasn't trying to defend anyone. Normally, you're very clear about where you stand. I could see why both sides were interpreting your statements the way they were.
It wasn't my place, but I was hoping that by offering my interpretation, & asking you to clarify it would make things easier for everyone. Right now, I'm dealing with pneumonia, so I'm not very articulate.
Dr . King was a firm beleiver in affrimative action and would be now. Though justice Thomas sees it as a pit fall (only after he used it) some see it as a balancing act. I am of the opinion that if it works it works. If it does not end it. The argument is does it work or not. , not how giving a miniorty a hand is racist or discriminatory in itself. Providing equal education to all citizens is affrimative action is it not? Who knows what Dr. King would approve of now. He's dead and has been so for many years. We can assure ourselves he would not agree with some of Joe Bidens comments or Linsey Grahams. We also know he was for social justice, the working man and woman, and he died as a result of a man with a gun. While helping union workers. No one knows for sure what Dr. King would approve of now any more than we know if today Lincoln would have thought he made the right move when he freed the slaves.
Ron, I believe with my whole heart that if America goes, so will the rest of the world, resulting in a period like the dark ages after Rome fell. New Zealand, and everywhere, has a vested interest in assuring that America prospers.
As far as the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. I invite you to read (and consider, with an open mind and heart) the linked article - I believe it presents a compelling case. If you do not agree still, I would very much like to know what you think happened.
I do not think you intend to slam me, I think you really believe that I am something that I am not - insincere - I believe what I say - and yes, I am very happy to agree to disagree.
"I am also 59 year old veteran who served proudly and who loves this country and for the life of me could never be concerned about another country more than the UNITED STATES." and I thank you, as I have in the past, for your service. And as I explained, prosperity in the United States translates to prosperity around the globe. I am not sure why this is such a major bone of contention with you, and others. I am sincere in this belief. I explained that I believe that if the United States is destroyed, it is my belief that like the fall of Rome, a dark time will follow. What question did I not answer?
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. You should be helping the Maroi, and the Asians of New Zealand. They are catching hell. I think nyou may mean well , but I remember when Hugo Chavez said some nasty things about president Bush , and a black democrat came to the defense of Bush. he said I may not agree with this president but he is my president and you will not insult him. (Charles Rangel) Well Renee, good intentions (?) or not. Like the Curtis Mayfield song said. THIS IS MY COUNTRY!!!!!!Take care and get involved ,because all politics are local. Save your country and save the Maroi.
agree. I am particularly worried about why the msm does not report some blatant abuses, such as the horrific way women are being abused in Egypt, Christians in Nigeria (and all over the world), and homosexuals in Iraq, for example.
You should be helping the Maroi, and the Asians of New Zealand. Respectfully, Ron - you have no idea what I am doing.
I am fully entitled to care about America, and I do, and will continue to do what I do, because I am driven to do it - where I live should make no difference - again, some people in your party on Gather make all kinds of assumptions about me - but mostly, they are incorrect. Oftentimes the most curious are also my biggest critics, so forgive me if I don't jump to provide more personal information.
Beleive me Renee, I do not care about your feelings for my country, and i am not looking for personal information. I may disagree with what you say , but i will defend to the death your right to say it. I also say that befor one critizes the race relations of anopther country they should at least be open to discuss the atrocites of their country. That said , I have not been a fan of J. Jackson since the adultry incident. Nothing to do with race relations. i just hold prechers to a higher standard. Thanks for your response.
Glad to know you don't need info on me - unlike many on this site (wink, wink). Your criticisms of me seem to have little to do with the info in my posts, and more to do with what you think I should be writing about. I must say, I appreciate your input, but I will write about the news of the day that seems important to me, particularly since the msm does not seem to be doing their jobs. I have written several articles about the real "war on women" in Egypt, I have written about how homosexuals are murdered in Iraq just for the perception that they might be gay, and I have written about how Christians are being murdered in Nigeria. All of those things are important, and are not reported as they should be.
I have always had friends who all welcomed me into their homes.... I don't understand how anyone could not have all kinds of friends... otherwise how do we learn about other people. I can say I have had eggrolls made like they are in Bejing... because I have a friend who grew up in Bejing. I can say I have had fried plantains like they are made in Puerto Rico, because I have friend who is from Puerto Rico...
It goes beyond black/white.... racism is racism... and it is so narrow minded for anyone to judge an entire race by one individual...
Sometimes people think I am dumb... and it is so strange to me... because it seems so simple to me that we all have the same blood running through our veins and we can save each other's lives when we donate blood ... and that blood is red. How the heck can other people not see this?
My husband thinks it's funny people think I am dumb and thinks I should tell them off... but I try to deal with it with humor.
Not everyone is going to like everyone else.. I understand that... at the same time, I have always had friends all different, but to me they are all the same...inside... and that is what counts and what God sees, our hearts.
Maybe I am better off not understanding.
You are a Child of God. :)
Yes...she does.
If any of us were in some kind of trouble we wouldn't care who came to help, like having someone to come pull us "out" of the water and keep us from drowning or our children from drowning... and that can be anyone who happens to hear our cries or our children's cries... and anyone of us can be needing or giving help, so at that moment, we wouldn't care... and we would want to hug and thank the person, wouldn't we?
When someone is in trouble, we just react.. and help them... as we would want to be helped.
You know when I fill out forms and they ask for race... I fill in the word Human. After all, that is what I am.