Nor am I surprised that your first reaction to a characterization I made of you is to accuse me of bad faith, David. I actually thought it was a pretty fair reading, and your response only confirms my initial presumption.

Your article citation doesn’t help much. The evidence the author offers that King would support modern-day affirmative action is extraordinarily thin; four stunted quotations is hardly the definitive comeback to Rob’s assertions. It looks like this writer just cherry-picked his own set of quotations to create his article (after creating a straw-man by saying that the other side had only one quote to work with.)

Suppose for a moment, though, that King really would have supported affirmative action; all that does is create a tension between that position and the “content of character” rhetoric that has garnered near-universal agreement. Then he’d have to face the same question modern-day proponents have to face: when is enough enough, and do the benefits outweigh the continuing use of judging by skin color (part and parcel of the original problem)?

Of course, that requires that we treat him as a man and a thinker instead of an icon we can use to slam opponents on OUR issues, which is exactly what you and Willis and Myers are doing. Besides, if we conservatives cannot “claim” him, why demand we respect him with a holiday? Is it really about honoring someone whose contributions toward harmony and unity are held up as a example for ALL Americans, or is it about you making the other side admit it’s wrong?

For my part, I DO honor Dr. King, not least of which for his appeal to God’s law over human law and his Biblical justification for the renunciation of hatred in nonviolent protests. And I will also contend his rhetoric of “content of character” is universal and applicable today and that his scattered quotations about affirmative action-like programs is tactical and tied to a world that has changed drastically in 40 years. And I will finally say that if you insist on being the arbiter of what can and can’t be said and accuse me of bad faith when I disagree, then you can go to blazes!

Oliver says, “The fact that you guys are so dismissive of the ‘twice as hard’ is so telling to me.”

Because it’s simply your little anecdote that can’t be proven. How convenient for you.

Even black kids with decent backgrounds get judged on their skin and not their ability with stunning regularity.

Dude. Look in the mirror. You support this kind of thinking and behavior.

You guys can’t seriously claim such things have no impact nor are they not continuing mindsets that are an extension of segregation and other racial ills.

Huh? I’ve never seen forced segregation here in America in my lifetime. Lived in five different states, many different cities, and different types of neighborhoods. People my age (25) are only using this an an excuse for their own shortcomings. This might be somewhat of an excuse for the older generations…but even then I’d have to say, “grow up and move the hell on.”

I don’t think affirmative action is perfect, but simply throwing out any sort of program that addresses the race disparity in this nation is tantamount to saying to black America: ‘We’re going to pretend like everything is all better now. We’re going to tell you to work hard, keep your nose to the grindstone, and in the long run — pass you over. Enjoy!’

No it’s not! It’s tantimont to saying “we’re going to judge you based on merit, talent, skill, hard work, personality, etc.; NOT your skin color.”

Why is that so hard for you to accept or believe?

Damn Oliver. You seem so pre-occupied with skin color. Notice that no other racial group in America (with the exception of “Hispanics”) gets special treatment. You think the Asians don’t get spit on and discriminated against? And lo and behold!; they are some of the wealthiest and most successful Americans. Hmm…wonder why. Maybe it’s because they aren’t crying, “I’m a victim, I deserve this”. Maybe, just maybe, it’s because they just go out there and do it instead of crying.

“You will note the number of conservative blogs that link me, and that have offered plaudits to ISOU.” = “Look Mom, People like me!!!! I’m POPULAR.”

Sheesh…

Eh, apparently you missed the above, which any black person who supports [sic] Afirmative Action would take as racist and as an insult.

Well, I might have meant this as an insult, but not a racist one… But the point is, why would you support affirmative action, unless you think that people are not capable of competing on their own merit? That’s just the opposite of racist. Affirmative action is RACIST.

On a lighter note:
“Affirmative action” = “Minorities can’t achieve on their own.”

“Infirmative Action” = “Guys can’t get it up on their own”

Striking similarities!!! They make a little blue pill for one… there’s no good fix for the other.

Let’s remember that our Vice-President didn’t even think Martin Luther King Day should be a holiday.

‘Nuff said.

The fact that you guys are so dismissive of the “twice as hard” is so telling to me. Even black kids with decent backgrounds get judged on their skin and not their ability with stunning regularity. I see it with jobs I’ve applied for, since on the phone my voice would most likely be characterized as “white” then when they see me I can see the shock on their faces. I see it time and again when I’m the only black face in the IT department. I turn on TV and the faces are criminals, society’s underbelly. People like Mae Jamison and Robert Johnson are simply swept under the rug. You guys can’t seriously claim such things have no impact nor are they not continuing mindsets that are an extension of segregation and other racial ills.

I don’t think affirmative action is perfect, but simply throwing out any sort of program that addresses the race disparity in this nation is tantamount to saying to black America: “We’re going to pretend like everything is all better now. We’re going to tell you to work hard, keep your nose to the grindstone, and in the long run — pass you over. Enjoy!”

Oliver says, “I believe Dr. King would have been in favor of some form of AA because those who oppose it cling to the myth that all the racial problems have been solved when we’re still a far way from ‘The Dream’.”

Not true at all Oliver. I oppose “affirmative” action because I don’t see the sense in fighting racism with government mandated racism. Most of the other people I’ve talked to who agree with my assessment hold no illusions that racism has been solved. It will never be solved, and that’s not reason enough to support a government enforced racist policy.

See the difference?

And when do you think “the dream” will happen? Absolutely never if we go with your ideas of “affirmative” action. Think about it. I’m a young white guy, and I’ve seen black people get hand outs and hand ups all of my life, so can I use “affirmative” action to level the “playing field”? Using your logic, I should be able to claim racial damages.

With “affirmative” action, it’s a never ending cycle. So what are you solving?

You twisted what I said to somehow be some level of support for Sharpton/Jackson. I believe Dr. King would have been in favor of some form of AA because those who oppose it cling to the myth that all the racial problems have been solved when we’re still a far way from “The Dream”.

There you go again. Characterizing the view concessions afforded to some black Americans as so much handout candy is nonsense.

I’m not blaming you guys personally, because I assume you just can’t see it coming where you’re coming from. It’s hard enough for people to move up in America, let alone if you are black (and other races as well, like latino). We live in a culture in which the popularized notion of black Americans is one of savage brutes, focused more on knocking over a store for malt liquor and “hoes” than the relatively positive images of whites that populate the media sphere. I’m not saying much of black America’s wounds aren’t self-inflicted (something I’ve been pilloried for from the left), but that the majority of it comes from a racist legacy that continues to this day. I had a relatively lower-middle class upbringing and I can see this as a black American, let alone a kid coming from the poorest situations.

I don’t believe that affirmative action is a solve-all, but its plainly clear that telling a black kid “work harder” when he’s already had to be twice as good to be considered average is just laughable, yet this is the world we inhabit. It isn’t government mandated racism, it is the government doing something to ensure the founder’s promise of all men being created equal.

No need to continue this conversation, like most I get involved in over here, they simply get more and more assinine.
Think as you will. I obviously have not learned from my past dealings with you, and likely wont. I will delete your trackbacks from now on, they are not welcome on my site, any more than Trackbacks from David Duke would be welcome, comment as you will. As for the other idiot who just posted calling me a racist. Whatever.

Dr. King would be disgusted with Sharpton/Jackson, as I am. But you twist words to your own benefit, again.

David Anderson says, “I think I have much more cred in the blogsphere for being open to oppossing points of view than you or Seth.”

Except when you don’t understand your opponent’s position, instead of taking the time to understand it, you call names. Like a third grader.

I have a problem with stupid, racist people who are too stupid to realize they are racist.

Well you must have a serious problem with yourself then. I suggest you go into therapy to work on your self loathing.

Now buzz off.

David Anderson spits out, “Well Gee Seth, Now I am concerned that you see something as Racist, since I have no doubt that you are one of the most blatant racist in the blogsphere.”

Let me get this straight… Seth is racist according to you because he’s against “affirmative” action?!?? So it’s now racist to not take into account someone’s skin color?!?? Thanks for clearing that up David! Wow…I had it completely backwards.

Having said that, I could care less, the arguments presented here for making Dr. King some sort of conservative icon are as disingenuous as they are they are idiotic.

They are? You better present an argument that uses logic to support that statement. Good luck.

I have read enough of your ignorant drivel, including this post, to know that you are not only racist, but stupid.

How dare you claim those things about Seth. You don’t know the guy and you’re totally off base. I would say the exact same thing about you, however. You support racist policies and can’t see it. Therefore, YOU are the racist and stupid one. Too stupid to know that you support racist policies.

Read my bio on my blog, and hope that when you are 45 you have accomplished half as much, and I say that without knowing squat about you.

David Anderson: buzz off. You do nothing but cause anger with your stupidity laden posts. Go home.

LOL! If you’re a 43 year old Black man who sees my comments as the most RACIST in the blogsphere, then you’ve either lived an extraordinarily sheltered life, or EVERYTHING is racist to you.

What really cracks me up is that I have NEVER disclosed my race to you… you don’t know if I am black, white, brown, pink, purple, yellow or orange… you make assumptions based upon *YOUR* hypersensitivity to the topic of race. You want to assume that your skin color makes a difference to me. You’re wrong. I don’t care what color skin yours is, you will get the same treatment from me… AND THAT IS THE POINT!!! Businesses and schools should not make accommodations for people based upon SKIN COLOR one way or the OTHER!

I want to live my life because of MY success! Not because someone took pity on me because my skin is colored. I guess you like the free meal just because you look like your ancient ancestry originated in Africa. How sad!

Oliver, When you said “…the right’s rollback of human rights and its championing of the destruction of economic mobility.” I started to wonder… what rights have been rolled back???? I can’t recall ever being stopped from doing anything that wasn’t illegal before 9/11. I have never been stopped trying to go anywhere… I have never been stopped from doing anything that doesn’t violate another person’s rights… What Exactly has been taken away from us? Before you get in a tizzy… I am DEAD serious… If there is a right that I’m now missing, I really WOULD like to know!

King would certainly be against torture, indefinate incarceration, and for-profit warmongering.

Shame on you, Rob, shame on you…

Eh, I dont think I said any of that. But I am not surprised you would make that distortion Slarrow. However, if either of you are interested in knowing the truth, rather than trying to Hijack King’s legacy to make a political point that he would have repugnant. I would suggest your read this.

http://www.fair.org/extra/9505/king-affirmative-action.html

Setting the record straight

The exploitation of King’s name, the distortion of his teachings for political gain, is an ugly development. The term “affirmative action” did not come into currency until after King’s death–but it was King himself, as chair of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who initiated the first successful national affirmative action campaign: “Operation Breadbasket.”

In Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities, King staffers gathered data on the hiring patterns of corporations doing business in black communities, and called on companies to rectify disparities. “At present, SCLC has Operation Breadbasket functioning in some 12 cities, and the results have been remarkable,” King wrote (quoted in Testament of Hope, James Washington, ed.), boasting of “800 new and upgraded jobs [and] several covenants with major industries.”

King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can’t Wait: “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.”

King supported affirmative action-type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro” to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).

In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action-style policies to the GI Bill: “Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs…. And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war.”

In King’s teachings, affirmative action approaches were not “reverse discrimination” or “racial preference.” King promoted affirmative action not as preference for race over race (or gender over gender), but as a preference for inclusion, for equal oportunity, for real democracy. Nor was King’s integration punitive: For him, integration benefited all Americans, male and female, white and non-white alike. And contrary to Gingrich, King insisted that, along with individual efforts, collective problems require collective solutions.

Like Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, King viewed affirmative action as a means to achieving a truly egalitarian and color-blind society. To destroy the means, the gradual process by which equality is achieved, destroys the dream itself. And the use of King’s name in this enterprise only adds derision to destruction.

Let’s remember that our Vice-President didn’t even think Martin Luther King Day should be a holiday.

Dick Cheney’s position on the MLK holiday implies…what exactly? That MLK would have supported affirmative action?

I’m not seeing your logic here.

Thank you for your response, Oliver. This hasn’t been the most civil of discussions to this point, but maybe we can pull a decent back-and-forth out of it.

the majority of it comes from a racist legacy that continues to this day.

I’d agree with that. In the context of history, slavery wasn’t really all that long ago. It takes time for a culture to pull itself out of something like that regardless of whether we’re talking about the people who were the slaves or the people who were the slave-owners.

And you’ve probably got a point that I can’t see it from where I’m coming from. My family history is one of Scandanavian immigrants settling in the midwest around the turn of the century. My ancestors didn’t have a dog in the slavery fight. We weren’t slaves or slave owners, so maybe that has something to do with my “Why can’t we just get past this” stance.

But I do have a couple of points to make:

I don’t believe that affirmative action is a solve-all, but its plainly clear that telling a black kid “”work harder” when he’s already had to be twice as good to be considered average is just laughable

But in instances where affirmative action comes into play the minority kid isn’t working twice as hard. The kid is being given a break because of the color of his/her skin.

And by supporting affirmative action, aren’t you sending these kids the wrong message by saying they’re entitled to something based on the color of their skin?

Dr. King would be disgusted with Sharpton/Jackson, as I am. But you twist words to your own benefit, again.

Ok then, lets discuss this. Lets hash it out because I am interested in understanding your stance on this.

What words did I twist around? Are you saying I twisted Dr. King’s words around to fit my purpose? And if so, why do you feel he would have supported affirmative action?