King's legacy still cause of debate

King's legacy still cause of debate

There are 1090 comments on the USA Today story from Jan 19, 2014, titled King's legacy still cause of debate. In it, USA Today reports that:

It is a large legacy that looms over the past five decades, from the prophetic "I Have a Dream" speech delivered during the March on Washington to his last campaign taking a stand for underpaid black sanitation workers in Memphis, the city where he was slain.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#801 Mar 4, 2014
Timothy wrote:
<quoted text>
He never reject democratic socialism outright. In retrospect, he never publicly said that he wanted a total socialist solution for his plans. I will give you that. He still was not a reactionary.
MLK was far from being reactionary. I agree. But I think we need t.o avoid exaggerating the truth. MLK never gave a sermon on socialism. I do not think that he knew the solution. I think what he was doing was encouraging us, our generation to think about it and search for new ideas and possible solutions. But he never claimed any solutions. He was non-committal.

For example, I do not think MLK was a Pan-Africanist. He leaned closer towards Gandhianism than Africanism. Yet it is obvious that his emotional feelings towards Nkrumahism was much greater than his feeling about socialism. he gave a sermon on Ghana's independence. It was impossible for an African at that time to ignore what was going on in Africa.

There is nothing in his theology, philosophy, ideology or morality that made MLK a socialist. He had companions and associate who were socialist or became socialists later on. Kwame Ture, for example, became very socialist. Nkrumah was very socialist although not a Marxist. What MLK's thinking has done is make people like me study this issue and try to find answers. I have done my best to do that. And it has not been easy. I have proposed forms of cooperative and collectivist economics as a step in the right direction. But we have a long, long ways to go in as much the current CPP in North America is only about 20 people and not all of us seem to be on the same page. Obama has confused too many people which is what he is really all about. But we have 20 people where we need at least one thousand dues paying members. So we have made a very tiny step in the right direction. We have created a workable proposal to fill in where MLK lefty off.

But we are much more socialist than MLK ever was. Nkrumahism is socialistic, but Marxist. For example, I am proposing that we elect leaders at the local level who will use government to help solve economic problems in our community. That could mean things as simple as depositing government funds in a Credit Union account that is owned by Africans. African teachers and professors ought to be investing their retirement accounts in Africa and things like that.

In Africa, we have to start water bottling companies and dig irrigation holes. That is socialism. And we in the USA must link ourselves to those type of projects. Thus, we will be socialist in that sense. But America is a very backwards assss country on economics. The overall economy will take a long, long time to get close to socialism. But we as African have no other choice than to move in that direction because there no other solutions on the table right now. We must link to socialism in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Timothy

Norfolk, VA

#802 Mar 4, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
MLK was far from being reactionary. I agree. But I think we need t.o avoid exaggerating the truth. MLK never gave a sermon on socialism. I do not think that he knew the solution. I think what he was doing was encouraging us, our generation to think about it and search for new ideas and possible solutions. But he never claimed any solutions. He was non-committal.
For example, I do not think MLK was a Pan-Africanist. He leaned closer towards Gandhianism than Africanism. Yet it is obvious that his emotional feelings towards Nkrumahism was much greater than his feeling about socialism. he gave a sermon on Ghana's independence. It was impossible for an African at that time to ignore what was going on in Africa.
There is nothing in his theology, philosophy, ideology or morality that made MLK a socialist. He had companions and associate who were socialist or became socialists later on. Kwame Ture, for example, became very socialist. Nkrumah was very socialist although not a Marxist. What MLK's thinking has done is make people like me study this issue and try to find answers. I have done my best to do that. And it has not been easy. I have proposed forms of cooperative and collectivist economics as a step in the right direction. But we have a long, long ways to go in as much the current CPP in North America is only about 20 people and not all of us seem to be on the same page. Obama has confused too many people which is what he is really all about. But we have 20 people where we need at least one thousand dues paying members. So we have made a very tiny step in the right direction. We have created a workable proposal to fill in where MLK lefty off.
But we are much more socialist than MLK ever was. Nkrumahism is socialistic, but Marxist. For example, I am proposing that we elect leaders at the local level who will use government to help solve economic problems in our community. That could mean things as simple as depositing government funds in a Credit Union account that is owned by Africans. African teachers and professors ought to be investing their retirement accounts in Africa and things like that.
In Africa, we have to start water bottling companies and dig irrigation holes. That is socialism. And we in the USA must link ourselves to those type of projects. Thus, we will be socialist in that sense. But America is a very backwards assss country on economics. The overall economy will take a long, long time to get close to socialism. But we as African have no other choice than to move in that direction because there no other solutions on the table right now. We must link to socialism in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
He still believed in many socialist principles though. There is no refutation of that. You can type a million words and you can't refute that.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#803 Mar 4, 2014
Timothy wrote:
<quoted text>
He still believed in many socialist principles though. There is no refutation of that. You can type a million words and you can't refute that.
No. He never claimed any such beliefs. he was simply thinking new ideas to try to solve a problem and people were talking about socialism. He simply said "maybe". He was open minded to some very small degree. But his emotional attachment was much more towards Pan-Africanism. Look at this way: Pan-Africanism defined as the Total Liberation and Unification of Africa under scientific socialism. That is where MLK's heart was. He was not a Marxist. And socialism was secondary to him at best.
1 post removed

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#805 Mar 8, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Sister, you do not know what I have studied.
Your posts on King shows either than you've not studied King, or your study was superficial at best.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#806 Mar 8, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
How can that sissy be a philosopher based on all the lies she tells day in and day out? How can anyone think straight when all they do is lie and brag about being a big shot when the only thing big about them is their watermelon head. Sometimes I feel sorry for that sissy b!tch.
It is due to comments such as this that you are known to be a political hack, and not even a first rate hack, rather than a scholar.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#807 Mar 8, 2014
Timothy wrote:
<quoted text>
He still believed in many socialist principles though. There is no refutation of that. You can type a million words and you can't refute that.
Assdurratin knows NOTHING about King's philosophy or theology. In fact, he is philosophically illiterate. No big deal.
King DID claim socialism--democratic socialism. And I've not encountered King scholars who contest that point. Even in a letter to his fiancée Coretta he states OUTRIGHT that he is of a socialist persuasion. He states the need to move toward Democratic socialism in one of his later meetings (in Frogmore) of the SCLC. His autobiographical notes reveal his interest even in traditions of democratic socialism in Scandinavia
If Assdurratin simply wanted to say that KIng was not a MARXIST, I would not object. Dr. King WAS NOT a Marxist. Duh.....PERSONALISM, his basic philosophical position, is a form of IDEALISM, not Marxian dialectical materialism. But you don't have to be a Marxist to be a socialist or communist. Early Christians were often socialists and communists.(The Acts of the Apostles reveal as much). Many people involved in the German Peasant War were Christian socialists or communists.
Dr. KIng was a Christian, democratic socialists. Even his STUDENT diaries from the late 1940s--early 50s reveal as much.
It is true that given the right wing red baiting of King and the Movement, King was cautious about advertising his socialist convictions. Most Americans are too politically and philosophically uninformed to distinguish between the Christian and democratic socialism of King (and many others within the democratic left, both religious and secular) and the authoritarian dogma and practice of Marxism-Leninism. King didn't want to help the Right in discrediting and possibly destroying our Movement before our people had gained even BASIC civil liberties (let alone socialism). But socialist King clearly was, though also OPPOSED to Marxism.
1 post removed

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#809 Mar 9, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> Your posts on King shows either than you've not studied King, or your study was superficial at best.
I have more important things to do than to study King. He is not hard to figure out. So, it not necessary to study him. I have read his most important statements. So, I know enough to know that I do not need to know any more.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#810 Mar 9, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
It is due to comments such as this that you are known to be a political hack, and not even a first rate hack, rather than a scholar.
If feeling sorry for your sorry asss makes me a hack, then I am proud to be a hack.
Timothy

Norfolk, VA

#811 Mar 9, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> Assdurratin knows NOTHING about King's philosophy or theology. In fact, he is philosophically illiterate. No big deal.
King DID claim socialism--democratic socialism. And I've not encountered King scholars who contest that point. Even in a letter to his fiancée Coretta he states OUTRIGHT that he is of a socialist persuasion. He states the need to move toward Democratic socialism in one of his later meetings (in Frogmore) of the SCLC. His autobiographical notes reveal his interest even in traditions of democratic socialism in Scandinavia
If Assdurratin simply wanted to say that KIng was not a MARXIST, I would not object. Dr. King WAS NOT a Marxist. Duh.....PERSONALISM, his basic philosophical position, is a form of IDEALISM, not Marxian dialectical materialism. But you don't have to be a Marxist to be a socialist or communist. Early Christians were often socialists and communists.(The Acts of the Apostles reveal as much). Many people involved in the German Peasant War were Christian socialists or communists.
Dr. KIng was a Christian, democratic socialists. Even his STUDENT diaries from the late 1940s--early 50s reveal as much.
It is true that given the right wing red baiting of King and the Movement, King was cautious about advertising his socialist convictions. Most Americans are too politically and philosophically uninformed to distinguish between the Christian and democratic socialism of King (and many others within the democratic left, both religious and secular) and the authoritarian dogma and practice of Marxism-Leninism. King didn't want to help the Right in discrediting and possibly destroying our Movement before our people had gained even BASIC civil liberties (let alone socialism). But socialist King clearly was, though also OPPOSED to Marxism.
It is very obvious that Dr. Martin Luther King respected democratic socialism. That is not a debate anymore. Your points on Personalism are accurate since I read the outline literature that you advised me to read. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with revolutionary Brothers and Sisters fighting for truth and criticizing the established order that seeks to exploit not massively benefit the masses of the people. Historically, there have been religious and non-religious socialists and communists. You are right on that issue completely.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#812 Mar 9, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> Assdurratin knows NOTHING about King's philosophy or theology. In fact, he is philosophically illiterate. No big deal.
King DID claim socialism--democratic socialism. And I've not encountered King scholars who contest that point. Even in a letter to his fiancée Coretta he states OUTRIGHT that he is of a socialist persuasion. He states the need to move toward Democratic socialism in one of his later meetings (in Frogmore) of the SCLC. His autobiographical notes reveal his interest even in traditions of democratic socialism in Scandinavia
If Assdurratin simply wanted to say that KIng was not a MARXIST, I would not object. Dr. King WAS NOT a Marxist. Duh.....PERSONALISM, his basic philosophical position, is a form of IDEALISM, not Marxian dialectical materialism. But you don't have to be a Marxist to be a socialist or communist. Early Christians were often socialists and communists.(The Acts of the Apostles reveal as much). Many people involved in the German Peasant War were Christian socialists or communists.
Dr. KIng was a Christian, democratic socialists. Even his STUDENT diaries from the late 1940s--early 50s reveal as much.
It is true that given the right wing red baiting of King and the Movement, King was cautious about advertising his socialist convictions. Most Americans are too politically and philosophically uninformed to distinguish between the Christian and democratic socialism of King (and many others within the democratic left, both religious and secular) and the authoritarian dogma and practice of Marxism-Leninism. King didn't want to help the Right in discrediting and possibly destroying our Movement before our people had gained even BASIC civil liberties (let alone socialism). But socialist King clearly was, though also OPPOSED to Marxism.
Of coursed MLK was an idealist. But what we need is a heavy dose of realism, not idealism.
1 post removed

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#814 Mar 9, 2014
The African Church was the foundation and network through which the Underground Rail Road ran. They would hide the runaway slaves in the basements of the churches until it was safe to move closer to freedom. This is one way the African Church served the needs of the community.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#815 Mar 9, 2014
Savant has a very serious character defect: when he cannot win an argue through logic, rationality and basic human decency, he attempts to win by character assassination of his opponent. As a result the net effect is a negative in which the community is also the ultimate loser. We could live without his constant negativity.
1 post removed

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#817 Mar 10, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
I have more important things to do than to study King. He is not hard to figure out. So, it not necessary to study him. I have read his most important statements. So, I know enough to know that I do not need to know any more.
If you've no time to study King, then stop pontificating about him. And if you've not studied him, how do you even know what his most important statements were?
Ah, but I see that for you "ignorance is bliss." Assdurratin mottos is "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the FACTS." LOL!

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#818 Mar 10, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
Savant has a very serious character defect: when he cannot win an argue through logic, rationality and basic human decency, he attempts to win by character assassination of his opponent. As a result the net effect is a negative in which the community is also the ultimate loser. We could live without his constant negativity.
LOL! This is a case of Assdurratin resorting to the psychological mechanism of "projection."
Whether I'm talking about King, black nationalism, social philosophy or whatever, I always offer arguments and often state sources--BOOKS, articles, not links. And when i disagree, I offer COUNTERARGUMENTS.
Now what does Assdurratin do? When he can't refute you he shouts "Liar! Hypcrite! "Pervert!". Or he simply calls you "lesbian" or "gay", as if these gutter level ad Hominems constitute an arguments.
In another thread--BLACK REVOLUTIONARY FILMS--when I mentioned the FREE ANGELA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS film--all he could think of (as he hadn't seen the film nor read much of Angela Davis) was simply to scream that she was a LESBIAN, and to rant about "Communist Party lesbianism".(Anyone with a cursory knowledge of CP ideology knows how conservative and anti-gay that Party was before and while Angela Davis was a member). Of course, he hadn't READ her works on the "prison industrial complex," and couldn't refute her there. So he screams "Pervert!" "Lesbian."
Granted, I may answer his insults and disrespect with contempt of my own.
But I DO NOT answer ARGUMENTS with PERSONAL INVECTIVES, though I may answer invectives with invectives.
I've read much of the King papers, though I don't deem myself a King scholar. I've even read parts of is student diary (wher his socialist commitments are already evident). I've read letters between him and Coretta from before theyh were married (and which reveal that BOTH leanded toward Democratic Socialism) I teach philosophy. And I can get at things in King's thinking that many people miss. After all, King studied Philosophy and Theology. I also have read .
Does Assdurratin know PERSONALISM from perfume? Does he understand the philosophical underpinnings both of King's critique of capitalism AND of Marxist Leninist Communism? Does he even know what the social gospel was about? Does he know that many of the Social Gospel theologians and Personalist philosophers under whom Dr. King studied at Morehouse College, Crozer Seminary and Boston University were socialists even thought not Marxists? Has Assdurratin READ any KING SCHOLARS at all?
And since he hasn't then why can't he simply HUMBLY acknowledge that at least on this issue, he has not done his homework,and that I have? Why does he keep screaming "Pervert" or "Sister savant"--apparently, also unaware that attempting to insult a man by referring to the feminine is also a misogynistic display of sexism?
Then this fool has the never to insist that it is I who resort to character assassination rather than logic? If you swallow his shallow shit I've got a couple of square circles I'd like to sell you.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#819 Mar 10, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! This is a case of Assdurratin resorting to the psychological mechanism of "projection."
Whether I'm talking about King, black nationalism, social philosophy or whatever, I always offer arguments and often state sources--BOOKS, articles, not links. And when i disagree, I offer COUNTERARGUMENTS.
Now what does Assdurratin do? When he can't refute you he shouts "Liar! Hypcrite! "Pervert!". Or he simply calls you "lesbian" or "gay", as if these gutter level ad Hominems constitute an arguments.
In another thread--BLACK REVOLUTIONARY FILMS--when I mentioned the FREE ANGELA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS film--all he could think of (as he hadn't seen the film nor read much of Angela Davis) was simply to scream that she was a LESBIAN, and to rant about "Communist Party lesbianism".(Anyone with a cursory knowledge of CP ideology knows how conservative and anti-gay that Party was before and while Angela Davis was a member). Of course, he hadn't READ her works on the "prison industrial complex," and couldn't refute her there. So he screams "Pervert!" "Lesbian."
Granted, I may answer his insults and disrespect with contempt of my own.
But I DO NOT answer ARGUMENTS with PERSONAL INVECTIVES, though I may answer invectives with invectives.
I've read much of the King papers, though I don't deem myself a King scholar. I've even read parts of is student diary (wher his socialist commitments are already evident). I've read letters between him and Coretta from before theyh were married (and which reveal that BOTH leanded toward Democratic Socialism) I teach philosophy. And I can get at things in King's thinking that many people miss. After all, King studied Philosophy and Theology. I also have read .
Does Assdurratin know PERSONALISM from perfume? Does he understand the philosophical underpinnings both of King's critique of capitalism AND of Marxist Leninist Communism? Does he even know what the social gospel was about? Does he know that many of the Social Gospel theologians and Personalist philosophers under whom Dr. King studied at Morehouse College, Crozer Seminary and Boston University were socialists even thought not Marxists? Has Assdurratin READ any KING SCHOLARS at all?
And since he hasn't then why can't he simply HUMBLY acknowledge that at least on this issue, he has not done his homework,and that I have? Why does he keep screaming "Pervert" or "Sister savant"--apparently, also unaware that attempting to insult a man by referring to the feminine is also a misogynistic display of sexism?
Then this fool has the never to insist that it is I who resort to character assassination rather than logic? If you swallow his shallow shit I've got a couple of square circles I'd like to sell you.
Get lost.
1 post removed

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#821 Mar 11, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
Get lost.
Man, you ARE lost. But I guess "Get lost!" is a refreshing (tnough empty) departure from your usual "hypocrite!", "Pervert!" and "Lesbian!"

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#822 Mar 12, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
Man, you ARE lost. But I guess "Get lost!" is a refreshing (tnough empty) departure from your usual "hypocrite!", "Pervert!" and "Lesbian!"
How am I lost, lesbian?

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#823 Mar 13, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I lost, lesbian?
There you go again
This post by you shows one of the ways you're lost. Frankly, your obsessive homophobia suggests that you're a closet queen yourself. Your impotent hatreds have eroded your reason.
Hence you cannot intelligently discuss the legacy of King just as you could not intelligently discuss the theme of "revolutionary black films." You don't even seem to have much of a grasp of the philosophical underpinnings of Nkrumahism even though you claim to be an adherent.
You have destoryed your reason by mens of your hatreds. Name calling like a preadolescent child instead of rationally debating like an adult.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#824 Mar 13, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> There you go again
This post by you shows one of the ways you're lost. Frankly, your obsessive homophobia suggests that you're a closet queen yourself. Your impotent hatreds have eroded your reason.
Hence you cannot intelligently discuss the legacy of King just as you could not intelligently discuss the theme of "revolutionary black films." You don't even seem to have much of a grasp of the philosophical underpinnings of Nkrumahism even though you claim to be an adherent.
You have destoryed your reason by mens of your hatreds. Name calling like a preadolescent child instead of rationally debating like an adult.
B-word,l you have no idea what Nkrumahism is in the abstract. Obviously you have never done nothing more than shoot off hot air. We in the Convention People's Party have lived and breathed Nkrumahism since 1948. For us, it is not an abstraction.

Of course, Osagyefo would probably not call your a b!tch. But he did not have to deal with low life scum like you. There was no internet for you to troll on back in his day.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#825 Mar 13, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
B-word,l you have no idea what Nkrumahism is in the abstract. Obviously you have never done nothing more than shoot off hot air. We in the Convention People's Party have lived and breathed Nkrumahism since 1948. For us, it is not an abstraction.
Of course, Osagyefo would probably not call your a b!tch. But he did not have to deal with low life scum like you. There was no internet for you to troll on back in his day.
No, Nkrumah had to deal with lowlife scum such as yourself.
You have the mentality of a religious fundamentalist, a mindset that is anti-rational, anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. Nkrumahism is simply your hackneyed political creed or religion. At least Nkrumah was a thinker. You're not.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News One dead after car plows into group of proteste... 1 min Galt 240
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Yeah 1,582,076
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min Dwight Dickum 26,389
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min Science 222,250
News Dems risk culture war fight in Charlottesville ... 3 min Dee Dee Dee 59
News Monument madness a leftist cover to crumble Ame... 10 min RustyS 13
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 11 min Katrina 1,447
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 15 min ImPeach 287,603
More from around the web