How do you reconcile MLK's anti-gay beliefs? Should we hold MLK to today's social standards or should we recognize that he was from a different time?
Silent Sam Toppled by Protestors
- Thread starter uncboy10
- Start date
How do you reconcile MLK's anti-gay beliefs? Should we hold MLK to today's social standards or should we recognize that he was from a different time?
All of our founding fathers took up arms in a treasonous act.
I don't like that argument.
No, I'm not saying that there haven't been protests and vandalism over the years but that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an effort to legally remove it. A bill was introduced in the legislature back in the spring to do just that. I don't know what happened with it (I suspect it died) but how many bills were introduced in the past? I doubt any were introduced in the 60's.
Look, I'm not arguing anything except there is a much better way to go about achieving goals than criminal destruction and make no mistake, that is exactly what happened.
I’m aware of the mindset back then. If Lincoln failed to hold the Union, we become fractured and much like Europe. Still doesn’t change that they chose to secede and fight over slavery.
Wake me up when proof comes out that MLK armed the Black Panthers and tried to eradicate Chuck and Larry.
Of course we were treasonous. Sometimes treason is justified. We fought an oppressive tyrant. The South fought to maintain their tyrannical rule.
Hahaha sorry man. I LOVE Chapel Hill, but UVA is like a freaking outdoor museum.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh. You're giving ole King George a little too much credit there. We fought a government that spent billions defending our land a decade earlier that just wanted their money back for it.
I would prefer this have been done legally, but it wasn’t going to happen. The GA saw to it. The University basically allowed the protestors to get them out of a pickle.
You ask how many bills were introduced before and I can’t answer that. My guess is a few. But this was a popular statue in a state where those wanting it gone were in the minority. They’ve been fighting a battle for a long time.
Let me be clear, I don’t approve of vandalism and lawlessness, but I see why it happened.
You lack empathy. That much is clear.
The South believed they were fighting an oppressive tyrant- Lincoln. All armies and wars have that main theme in common.
You're pinning what is "right" or "wrong" based on who can kill the most people and survive the carnage. That is another one of the human race's many handicaps. Might makes right is some fukked-up shit.
In an Ebony article in 1958, he answered a young gay boy's letter stating he was gay by recommending he see a psychiatrist. He also referred to homosexuality as a "habit" and explained that a doctor could "cure" him. Furthermore, he stated that his "condition" was "culturally acquired".
Now, that's not hate speech but it's certainly no endorsement of homosexuality.
Genius play by the Left though, you have to admit. Ease into it by taking down statues of unnamed people, the judge that was responsible for the Dred Scott decision, maybe a CSA general here or there. Claim racism if there's any opposition, but there really wouldn't be a ton cuz who really cares about those guys.
If anyone alludes to how this can be extended to more prominent figures, claim that the "slippery slope" argument is garbage and it'll never get to that. Lull everyone to sleep for a few years. Then pounce and take out all references to Washington, Jefferson, etc. and laugh at everyone for buying that the slippery slope argument didn't apply.
The left created the most ironclad tactic in the history of politics during the Obama administration years. Whenever there is pushback on a liberal idea, cry racism and eventually win the argument as the opposition will leave the discussion for fear of blowback. It was indeed genius and will be the road map for the left for decades to come. The left said "to hell with harmony".
True. The only thing that kept the South from winning is they lacked the infrastructure of the North because history says they were as good, if not better fighters that the North. And had the South won then slavery would have ended just the same. Protecting one's homeland is of upmost importance. That's why those men fought. Also interesting how the North has had more race issues than the South in modern times. Jmo
How can any of us truly empathize with what people of that time faced? Sympathy perhaps. Not empathy.
Lincoln did not invade their homeland. They violated the constitution when they seceded. I’m not talking right or wrong. I’m stating that Southerners took up arms against the United States and lost. They were treasonous.
Guess what, so too were Washington and others when they did the same. They rebelled against their country. They just happened to win. If they had lost, I wouldn’t have expected George to allow colonies to erect statues commemorating Washington and Hamilton.
Also, the South was wrong. History backs that up.
That’s his perogative. I have friends who don’t condone the homosex. So long as they don’t wage wars on it, I’m ok.
Hey, I live in SC and it took a long time for them to remove the confederate battle flag but it got done. It took a terrible catalyst to speed things along but in the end it was done legally. It did require patience though.
Yeah I get that, it's only been 153 and a half years since the end of the Civil War. Anything under 200 years is just people being too damn anxious.
I understand what you mean about thinking with the information we have that has occurred since then, and sorted-out the morality for us presently. But, empathy is still possible. Simply understand that they were caught between a rock and a hard place at a very pivotal time in our history. And, the war itself was an unprecedented experience that changed the nation forever. It still lingers now.
A southerner had this to deal with: "My family, and my church, my community, my neighbor, my friends, and my state are seceding. I feel an allegiance to them before a central government in Washington, DC." Some of the reasons for secession were probably of little importance to most people, just like every other war. You tell them that their home, way of life, and loved ones are threatened, and they rally to the call.
Of course, it's easy to say, NOW, that they were wrong. But, it was not that simple then. I don't personally understand how the Founders created a constitution where people were still property... but, they did. The negro was subhuman. WOMEN were still property!
History has only proven right or wrong, using your measure, by who is winning wars. That's a pretty pathetic use of our higher thinking ability. Who can slaughter one another, wholesale, and manage to hold it together the best, the longest, before one "side" can no longer field an army and keep shooting back. Then, whoever surrenders, is subject to whatever the leaders of the conquerors decide. I can only hope the our better nature, as a species, is operating on a higher level, through the help of a higher power, to keep us intact and finally learn to treat one another in kind. I'm just tired of seeing people resorting to killing each other to prove they are right.
I understand everything you are saying, but they were still on the wrong side of history. And many Southerners did abstain from the war and knew what was going on.
To me, there's just History. There's what has happened. Then, there are interpretations of what happened. Then, there are also reactions to what happened. And, on and on.
I guess I never understood these so-called "sides" of History. I can understand how we look back and say "That was a bad idea." We say that with the benefit of hindsight. And, of course, we'd like to think, or hope, that we're leading personal lives that are moral and ethical. But, I'm sure we all have regrets and things we wish we did differently. But, I never feel like I'm on any side of history.
You're right. There is history, objectively, and then our analysis of it. But there are still a finite number of plausible interpretations.
Also agree about the psychology of ethics. Most people convince themselves that they are acting morally, or ethically, however there are exceptions (socio/psychopaths). But more importantly there is a spectrum of experiences that have to be justified. Some are more justifiable than others. Sometimes, a person has to be completely deluded to believe they are acting in a way that is just.
dadika, people in general are not able to handle a frank, honest discussion of differences any more. The world we live in now is if you do not agree with me you are wrong and no truthful discussion is even allowed. This is manufactured anger and it's purpose is to divide us and if people do not stand up to it real soon it will destroy the greatest nation in the history of this rock we live on. I can disagree with others, geez, I disagree with you a lot but I don't hate you because we do not agree.
Yeah... history has shown that a few of those have come and gone.
I've studied and studied the Civil War my whole life. I've had people who claimed they were "psychics", or whatever, tell me "You were a soldier in the Civil War in a former life." Psychic(s) plural. It is something I was drawn toward when I was 4 or 5 years old. When I lived in Charlotte, I was a member of the SCV for a short period of time. My perception and interpretation has evolved over the years. It's such a complex event and the ramifications are immeasurable.
Shelby Foote, in Ken Burns Civil War PBS documentary, said "Any understanding of this nation has to be based and I mean really based on the understanding of Civil War. I believe that firmly, it defined us. The revolution did what it did. Our involvement in European wars began with the first World War did what it did, but the Civil War defined us as what we are and it opened us to being what we became — good and bad things.
And it is very necessary if you’re going to understand the American character in the 20th Century, to learn about this enormous catastrophe in the mid-19th Century. It was the crossroads of our being and it was a hell of a crossroads."
Thing is you can not justify tearing down a stature that represents something you do not like because that action you did not like remains. Did the tearing down of Sam make any of the history of slavery any better, did it solve the problem, did it erase slavery?
No, it was simply an act of provocation, take an extreme action and dare anyone to respond negatively about it. So much of this now days is about nothing more than trying to provoke someone else to act just so their reaction can be pointed to as an aggressive act? To explain, this is as if someone slaps you and you turn around and nail them, they point to you as being violent?
Are you the sole decision maker on what constitutes “poor ethical/moral decisions” or will others be consulted?
When the police power of the state is used to prevent needed and desired social change, change will come other ways.
The NC legislature blocked the better approach to change. So this happened. This was pretty tame, which is nice. Could have been bad.
Pretty much the whole world except people traffickers have already decided.
It's not over, though.
As I stated earlier in the thread; This will help the conservative legislature in the state. If you're trying to shift the majority to a Democratic/Liberal side, then this was a bad idea. The GOP will use this to get more votes. People who disrespect the rule of law, take into their own hands, mobs destroying monuments and property... that won't appeal to constituents, I don't think. In Chapel Hill, it will be fine.
Well, your non basketball post are normally judgemental, arrogant and use personal insults. I don't have a problem with that, but those are things that Jesus wouldn't do. That makes it funny to me.
Calm down there sporty spice. I already posted that I don’t want to be the arbiter.
Straw man for 500 Alex
If South Carolina could be persuaded to haul down that flag, then I'm sure the NC legislature could be convinced to remove the statue.
Similar threads
