Couldn’t be said better
Kathy writes:
Oddly enough, today those who claim to be his ‘inheritors’ are those who demand we judge people by the color of their skins, not the content of their character.
Werd!
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 29th, 2003 at 11:57 am
Is she referring to affirmative action programs? Because if she is, Dr. King actually supported those:
If she’s referring to reparations for slavery, I don’t think Dr. King ever weighed in on that subject.
August 29th, 2003 at 12:02 pm
I dunno, but the quote above goes against his content of character remark. She could also be referring to reparations, bogus allegations from the rainbow/push gestapo, enititlement, or any number of other things that aren’t based the content of character.
August 29th, 2003 at 3:48 pm
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Dr. King, or believe he was being consistent, you cannot accuse affirmative action supporters of doing things that Dr. King wouldn’t support; which is essentially what she’s doing.
Yes, there are groups and organizations that go too far. Yes, demands for reparations are ill-founded. Yes, Jackson and Sharpton talk out of their butts as often as their mouths. That doesn’t marginalize the entire minority, nor does it mean that there aren’t legitimate inequities in need of repair.
Then again, since Kathy didn’t really say what her point was supposed to be, we’re left to speculate, as I have done.
August 29th, 2003 at 3:51 pm
No one marginalized an entire minority. She marginalized those who claim to be his ‘inheritors’.
I tend to think her statement was directed towards the current state of race relations in general.
August 30th, 2003 at 12:46 pm
But even then she’s made a sweeping generalziation about a group. It would be as if I said “all conservatives are selfish” or some such.
She has used one speech by Dr. King selectively. That’s my beef. It’s like people who cite the Bible out of context to make their point.
September 1st, 2003 at 2:29 am
What “couldn’t be said better?” That cliched, tired old claim that those who “dream of a society that judges by the content of one’s character” are hypocritical if they also support certain forms of affirmative action? SayUncle, you disappoint me.
The whole rationale for affirmative action was (and is) that there was (and is) not acceptable equality of opportunity for an underprivileged, long-suppressed minority. And this was BECAUSE a substantial segment of society was unwilling to “judge by the content of one’s character,” but instead by the color of the skin. Irony does not equal inconsistency.
You may or may not care how much of 2003 American society is actually willing to judge a black person by the content of their character. You may or may not agree that various forms of affirmative action are the appropriate way to deal with any inequities. But don’t try to say that those who see the continuing need for forms of affirmative action are hostile to the goal of a society that judges by character and not skin color. They simply realize that dreaming about it doesn’t make it so, and that we’re much closer to that day now than we would be without attempts to level the playing field.
It’s a shallow, baseless, and inflammatory accusation typically made by people of the same description.
(Undoubtedly, this comment COULD have been said better, but hey, it’s 2:30am.)
September 1st, 2003 at 8:31 am
That cliched, tired old claim that those who “dream of a society that judges by the content of one’s character” are hypocritical if they also support certain forms of affirmative action?
Cliched? And true.
I think her statement was more general in nature. But i do oppose AA and other quota systems.