pudge's Journal: Martin Luther King

I am against the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. Also, the naming of a day in January after him.

I am not against the guy, or most of what he did. I admire him. I believe he was a great American. But I do not believe anyone is deserving of a national holiday or monument, except for maybe George Washington and Jesus (not necessarily in that order; and Jesus gets two holidays, but no monument!).

Seriously though, I greatly dislike it. I disagree strongly with the whole concept. If we wanted to have Civil Rights Day or a Civil Rights Memorial, I'm down with that. But to name it after a person has two problems.

First, you limit it too much. It's now about the man, and not the larger events that he was a part of. They become at best sideshows that are meaningful only in the context of the man, when it should be the other way around.

Second, and similarly, you are now also bound to the failings of the man. In this case, frankly, Martin Luther King had some extremely radical views (that we would even consider radical today), views that many would call downright un-American. Do we really want a monument to someone who said, "There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism"?

Maybe you will argue that King was right. I think you're crazy if you do, but that's not the point. The point is that the whole discussion is irrelevant to King's real contributions that we should be celebrating, and that they necessarily become part of the picture when you devote a day or a place to the man himself.

In a Civil Rights Day you don't have to care about the fact that Lincoln was a racist, or Jefferson owned slaves, or King was a socialist: you can celebrate their achievements for civil rights and ignore their failings. But in a Martin Luther King Day, his failings are part of the picture, and detract from what we should be celebrating.

I am not down with MLK Day, and I do not care at all for the monument being erected in his name.

ahhh comon...

[ellem]

Arizona came around so will you.

*Flesh this out to 600-800wds and send it to TNR or something.

two words

[stoolpigeon]

super bowl
 
that's how they swung it in AZ -- they gonna let pudge host a superbowl?

Are you kidding?

[nandorman]

Do we really want a monument to someone who said, "There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism"?

Of COURSE there are people who believe in both of those things. I get told that nearly every day by coworkers. They flat out say that they want higher taxes on the rich so that there can be a redistribution of wealth, and that they're happy the Dems took over in Congress because now we'll get socialized medicine. I'm surprised you'd ask the questi

Re:

[mgessner]

Do the "many, many people" constitute a majority? Somehow I don't think so.

This concept of "redistribution of wealth" is a whole lot of nonsense, and very dangerous. How can anyone seriously justify stealing from someone (at the point of a gun) who's worked hard to accumulate their wealth so that lazy people (and I know, they're not ALL lazy) can be paid to be lazy? Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the wealthy just disappeared (a la Atlas Shrugged).

(I'm not saying you're espousing these ideas your

Re:

[nandorman]

I don't care if it's a majority or not. Part of what Pudge said is that you'd have to be crazy to want those things. If you want to call many democrats crazy, be my guest.

Second, one can't truthfully call the idea of redistribution of wealth "nonsense." There are plenty of political philosophies out there that espouse just that, with sound arguments, I might add. Yes, Locke would disagree, as would someone like Nozick. But there are gaping holes in both of their philosophies, and neither one fixed th

Re:

[GMontag]

Second, one can't truthfully call the idea of redistribution of wealth "nonsense." There are plenty of political philosophies out there that espouse just that, with sound arguments, I might add.

For some strange reason, every single person I have met who embraces these philosophies fails the hypocrisy test as administered by me.

Like my commie buddy in Seattle (he is the best welder in the world, see future JE) who used to advocate price controls, until I used the example of selling his car and I wanted to s

Re:

[pudge]

I don't care if it's a majority or not. Part of what Pudge said is that you'd have to be crazy to want those things. If you want to call many democrats crazy, be my guest.

That is precisely what I was doing.

Second, one can't truthfully call the idea of redistribution of wealth "nonsense."

I absolutely can, and do.

There are plenty of political philosophies out there that espouse just that

Yes.

with sound arguments, I might add.

No, not in my opinion. Sure, there are some good reasons to lead them to that philoso

Re:

[mgessner]

I'll have to do some research into some of "philosophers" you mentioned.

I still call it nonsense, but I suppose there might be underlying assumptions to the arguments you mention that I don't know.

My assumptions are: I earn $1,000,000 through my own hard work, and it's mine. Yes, the government takes its share for "the common good" but to take from me a higher percentage than they would take from another who earned less so that the wealth could be "redistributed" is nonsense.

Thanks for the names.

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

Then it depends on how you define "the common good." If the government takes money from you and spends it on a program that gets an unemployed person or drug junkie to stop breaking into people's houses or cars, many would say the general welfare has improved.

Re:

[GMontag]

How about if I am allowed to stop him from breaking into my stuff with a 12 Ga. pump or a .45 semi-auto?

The solutions are there, you just have to look for them.

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

That only works if you're home. Meanwhile these people are breaking into other people's homes and cars, or yours while you're not there.

Furthermore, your solution ends the life of someone who could be rehabilitated, made into a productive citizen, and be a parent to any children he or she has.

symbol

[stoolpigeon]

i think that MLKjr has become a symbol of civil rights. you see his picture on the news or in some kind of program and you know immediately that the subject will be civil rights. fewer and fewer people are aware of him as a man. that will continue. to me it's a lot like colombus day. a person has come to signify something much greater than themselves. so i'm cool with MLK day - the statue, etc.

when people go to visit and little kids say something like "Daddy, who's that?" the response will be
"

Re:

[pudge]

i think that MLKjr has become a symbol of civil rights. you see his picture on the news or in some kind of program and you know immediately that the subject will be civil rights.

Exactly. That's the problem.

i'm not disagreeing with all your points

You did not bring up any argument against anything I said. :-)

Re:

[dr_turgeon]

You did not bring up any argument against anything I said.
I think his point, in a condensed form, is made aptly thus: I see no harm, no need to make a big-deal out of this.

Personally, I think this is a big-deal to the extent that certain people may use this topic as a cover, for venting their hatred. Not you, Pudge. Not necessarily. You realize there are much bigger dangers to the American way of life--in action now--and you wouldn't wish to take your eyes of the ball in play...right?

Re:

[pudge]

I think his point, in a condensed form, is made aptly thus: I see no harm, no need to make a big-deal out of this.

I am not making a big deal. I merely voiced my opposition.

Plus, there obviously is harm. I cited two ways in which there is harm. First, it excludes (or diminishes) recognition of other people/events that are part of the larger issue (in this case, civil rights) by incorrectly making it seem like MLK "singlehandedly" (as one person said above) had a significant effect. Second, it risks furth

Re:

[dr_turgeon]

Are you saying that I, who am posting on, and working on, a site that gives us the latest news about Wii and Lord of the Rings movies, should not trouble myself with posting about unimportant matters like proper representation and recognition of important historical events?

Touché!

Thanks for a well reasoned reply. I can find no mentionable fault in it.

I pretty much agree

[GMontag]

I certainly agree from the aspect of national monuments should be about events (WW II Memorial, etc.) or about truly great *official* leaders like Washington, Jefferson, Reagan, etc.

Naming stuff like this after private individuals, no matter how highly visible they were, is not, in my opinion, a thing to do. Making holidays for them is just as bad, in my view. I will make an exception for Columbus.

Parks? Of course. Statues? Certainly, but not stuff on The Mall.

Speaking of this, I finally noticed Grace H [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[pudge]

A hell of a lot of people DO think of negative things when they think of MLK. But that's not the point.

But I am not in favor of naming things after people in general, and certainly not until many years after they are gone. Nor am I in favor of putting Reagan on the dime, at least, not for a long time.

Get over the foibles

[TopShelf]

By celebrating the man, it becomes largely about the ideals he stood for (i.e., the reason they named a holiday for him), not his shortcomings, which everyone has. MLK was one of the pivotal figures of 20th century America, and I have no problem with having that on the Mall. If anything, it's a celebration of a significant developmental point in our nation's history.

In a few years, I plan on taking my kids to Washington, when they're old enough to appreciate it, and the monuments are a great way to talk a

Re:

[FortKnox]

As often as I agree with pudge, I'm with TopShelf, here. The man single handedly created (IMHO) the largest change in America without a shed of violence. That says a lot. He should be celebrated as the man behind the civil rights movement, and a monument to him is a monument to the movement.

Re:

[pudge]

The man single handedly created (IMHO) the largest change in America without a shed of violence. That says a lot.

Except that it is not true. He did *nothing* singlehandedly. That's a big part of why I said focusing on MLK himself is so wrong, because it ignores the contributions of others, which were just as important.

He should be celebrated as the man behind the civil rights movement, and a monument to him is a monument to the movement.

If that were true, then people like you would have a better understan

Re:

[jamie]

people like you would have a better understanding of the movement

Wow. Are you seriously presuming to lecture people on their lack of understanding of the black struggle for justice and equality in America?

I'm going to suggest, pudge, that maybe much of your problem with MLK is that you are exactly the kind of person he was fighting against. As he wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail [almaz.com], April 16, 1963:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess

Re:

[pudge]

people like you would have a better understanding of the movement

Wow. Are you seriously presuming to lecture people on their lack of understanding of the black struggle for justice and equality in America?

No. I am just stating a fact. He said MLK singlehandedly created change in America. It's not true.

I'm going to suggest, pudge, that maybe much of your problem with MLK is that you are exactly the kind of person he was fighting against.

Um. I have no problem with MLK. I have a problem with recognizing him over the movement. Can you not read?

And no, he was not against anything about me. However, it is quite typical of a liberal to say something so nonsensical, to make a discussion about how best to recognize history into a personal attack.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you believe that:

1. "law and order" (as Nixon called it) is more important than justice (i.e. it is more important that the law be upheld than that there be justice for the citizens it is there to protect, or, you might phrase this as maybe saying something crazy like law and justice are the same thing, I don't know);

2. you agree with MLK's goals but disagreed with at least some of his methods;

3. movements to force social change before society is "ready" for that change are misguided.

One and two, I do not agree with, no. I don't know where you got those stupid ideas about me. It c

Re:

[jamie]

So when law-and-order and justice are in conflict, you think there are times when justice should prevail? Can you offer any (possibly hypothetical) examples?

Re:

[pudge]

So when law-and-order and justice are in conflict, you think there are times when justice should prevail? Can you offer any (possibly hypothetical) examples?

Again, it's not about law-and-order and justice being in conflict for me. That doesn't bother me. Sure, you have to weigh them: I am more prone to consider law-and-justice of greater precedence if, for example, we are under attack at the moment. But generally speaking, conflict between the two simply doesn't bother me. To take an obvious example for the given context, I generally have no problem with civil disobedience acts like sit-ins, or sitting in the front of the bus.

Re:

[pudge]

By celebrating the man, it becomes largely about the ideals he stood for (i.e., the reason they named a holiday for him), not his shortcomings, which everyone has.

Yes, the ideals he stood for, like wealth redistribution. I didn't mention his adultery, you may notice, I mentioned only what he stood for.

MLK was one of the pivotal figures of 20th century America, and I have no problem with having that on the Mall. If anything, it's a celebration of a significant developmental point in our nation's history.

And

There's also...

[Bill Dog]

...Cesar Chavez. In addition to streets, parks, libraries, and schools [wikipedia.org], statues, postage stamps, bowling alleys, and whole communities, in commie California there's also a paid govt. holiday [jewishworldreview.com]. We already have a Labor Day, but we also apparently need a Cesar Chavez day. While George and Abe evidently aren't esteemed enough to have their own days anymore, so for them it's President's Day. Hmm.