5 ms·

MLK was against what people today call colorblindness. Just because he said he wanted people to not judge his children by the color of their skin does not mean

by enkid 5y ago

MLK was against what people today call colorblindness. Just because he said he wanted people to not judge his children by the color of their skin does not mean he didn't recognize that modern society does and will continue to do so, so we need to put in place compensating measures. Using a dead person's words in the exact opposite way they were intended is bad. https://www.forbes.com/sites/colinseale/2020/01/20/mlks-i-have-a-dream-speech-and-rejecting-colorblindness-for-todays-children/?sh=52e380ad2708 https://www.forbes.com/sites/colinseale/2020/01/20/mlks-i-ha...

BitwiseFool 5y ago
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," People can be forgiven for thinking this quote by MLK Jr. advocates colorblindness because that's exactly what it seems to say. It is only when you apply a scholarly interpretation do you arrive at his words being used "in the exact opposite way they were intended". This strikes me of "Yes, well it says 'Defund the Police' but what it actually means is.."
- stickyricky 5y ago
  Appending on to what BitwiseFool said. There is "Martin Luther King Jr." the person and "Martin Luther King Jr." the public figure (or the icon, or the philosophy, or the doctrine, or the movement). MLK could have thought any number of great or terrible things. In some contexts it can be highly appropriate to mention them. In my opinion, when someone mentions MLK in the context of the "I have a dream" speech, its clear to me that the personhood of MLK or his beliefs are really not up for discussion. MLK is a piece of iconography, a historical reference point, for the color-blind, racially-neutral position. Any discussion of MLK's beliefs distract from the point being made and ultimately does not change minds.
  - enkid 5y ago
    And positions that are contrary to what MLK believed shouldn't be advocated by calling on his status as a public figure. Just because people are ignorant doesn't mean they get to say whatever they want. I don't see how this is even being discussed.
    - sieabah 5y ago
      > I don't see how this is even being discussed. It's because people disagree with your assumption that you are completely correct, but I know you're already not here to discuss but to "fact-check". There are reasons why specific pieces of history stick out and resonate. His "I have a dream" speech is what I remembered most because that is what ultimately, I believe, actually played a role in truly removing a lot of pervasive racism and discrimination that used to exist. It certainly helped me from a young age really have a worldview that people are who they advertise themselves as, not by the visual identity I associate them with. It's never been an issue until people like you popped up out of nowhere saying I'm the most racist person alive because I don't treat people differently because of their race.
- enkid 5y ago
  I don't know what you are saying. Are you saying we shouldn't consider context when looking at quotes? That's a bad idea. For example, BitwiseFool said "Defund the Police." We shouldn't be saying MLK advocated a position he clearly didn't, and I should be allowed to correct someone when they do.
  - sieabah 5y ago
    > I should be allowed to correct someone when they do. You're not a fact checker, this is a discussion board...?
- sieabah 5y ago
  You're just arguing that only a subset of people can correctly interpret what people truly mean. I'm not sure that is consistent or valid? Taking things at face value is a valid interpretation because that is what is literally said. Excluding tone, but a quick search returns the literal interpretation backed by congresswoman AOC. > 'I believe the path toward justice is a long arc. Safety is not just an officer with a badge and a gun,' AOC said. 'Our [police budget] is too high,' she added, citing a $6 billion figure for New York's department. [src](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aoc-defends-defund-the-police-in-the-face-of-democratic-criticism/ar-BB1aYDrN https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aoc-defends-defund-t...) This is also backed by multiple cities literally cutting police funding. [LA](https://abc7.com/defund-the-police-lapd-los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti/6289037/ https://abc7.com/defund-the-police-lapd-los-angeles-mayor-er...) [NYC](https://www.policemag.com/562124/new-york-city-cuts-police-budget-by-1-billion https://www.policemag.com/562124/new-york-city-cuts-police-b...) Did the budget drop? Then it was defunded, which is accurate. It can be defunded and reallocated and still be accurately stated by "defund the police". You're arguing that what people say isn't what they really mean to say. Almost insinuating that it always requires an "expert" or "scholarly" opinion in order to truly interpret the true meaning of what someone says. "The sky is blue" "Well he meant to say the sky is clear, but it's the reflection of light from the water in the air that makes it appear blue, but it's not actually blue" Meanwhile if you look outside observe you notice the sky is blue, validating the original statement. There wasn't any depth to the statement other than "The sky is blue"
sieabah 5y ago
I would like you to personally explain why you believe that article to be convincing that colorblindness isn't a positive way to treat people. What do you actually propose with how to treat people that is an overall improvement over colorblindness? Let's say you start to treat people based on the supposed presumption that all blacks are oppressed and poor. All. Not some, all. I'm not talking about a rough life in a rough neighborhood, I'm talking systemtic oppression at all levels everywhere that everyone does to blacks. As that's the premise of that article, you must repair the relations of the past in order to move forward? Instead why not take the individual and judge them by who they are, not the color you see through your eyes and assume them to be. You end up properly enacting how people should be treated in general, regardless of race. Unless of course you propose and truly believe a race is somehow indicative of a persons' entire identity and personal history. It's delusional and dishonest if you think seeing color is the ultimate message. You can wish to not be judged for color and wish for reparations to repair relations _at the time_. Certainly the way you're championing this article as somehow irrefutable account of MLKs true intent behind his speech is also disingenuous to nuance. The article isn't even conclusive as it would require you to follow the sources of: - Standford (Univeristy) - Brookings (Public Policy Nonprofit) - WashingtonPost (Media) - the74million (Media) - The Atlantic (Media) - Ibram X. Kendi ("How to be anti-racist" book author) - SPLC (Law firm) - ASCD (Educators community?) - TNTP (Educators community?) Not to mention all the standford links are behind a login panel which cannot be verified. This is horribly sourced to be considered _concrete_ in itself. I feel the article takes MLK's speech as if he said it yesterday instead of taking into account improvements that occurred between then and now. Trying to say that the blacks have had a total degradation of rights and life since then is an insult to the blacks who actually suffered during that time. I'll continue to treat everyone the same regardless of race because I feel that trying to apologize or cater to someone for the color of their skin without having spoken a word to them would be pretty presumptuous to assume they come from that background or even from a country where they were oppressed in the first place. I'm not sure what your goal is?
- enkid 5y ago
  Holy strawmans Batman. Stop putting words into people's mouths. I don't think we should treat all black people like they are oppressed and poor. I think we should recognize our society has historically oppressed and impoverished the majority of black people. Colorblindness does not allow that. Beyond that, I owe you no explanation.

by enkid 5y ago

BitwiseFool 5y ago

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," People can be forgiven for thinking this quote by MLK Jr. advocates colorblindness because that's exactly what it seems to say. It is only when you apply a scholarly interpretation do you arrive at his words being used "in the exact opposite way they were intended". This strikes me of "Yes, well it says 'Defund the Police' but what it actually means is.."

stickyricky 5y ago
Appending on to what BitwiseFool said. There is "Martin Luther King Jr." the person and "Martin Luther King Jr." the public figure (or the icon, or the philosophy, or the doctrine, or the movement). MLK could have thought any number of great or terrible things. In some contexts it can be highly appropriate to mention them. In my opinion, when someone mentions MLK in the context of the "I have a dream" speech, its clear to me that the personhood of MLK or his beliefs are really not up for discussion. MLK is a piece of iconography, a historical reference point, for the color-blind, racially-neutral position. Any discussion of MLK's beliefs distract from the point being made and ultimately does not change minds.
- enkid 5y ago
  And positions that are contrary to what MLK believed shouldn't be advocated by calling on his status as a public figure. Just because people are ignorant doesn't mean they get to say whatever they want. I don't see how this is even being discussed.
  - sieabah 5y ago
    > I don't see how this is even being discussed. It's because people disagree with your assumption that you are completely correct, but I know you're already not here to discuss but to "fact-check". There are reasons why specific pieces of history stick out and resonate. His "I have a dream" speech is what I remembered most because that is what ultimately, I believe, actually played a role in truly removing a lot of pervasive racism and discrimination that used to exist. It certainly helped me from a young age really have a worldview that people are who they advertise themselves as, not by the visual identity I associate them with. It's never been an issue until people like you popped up out of nowhere saying I'm the most racist person alive because I don't treat people differently because of their race.
enkid 5y ago
I don't know what you are saying. Are you saying we shouldn't consider context when looking at quotes? That's a bad idea. For example, BitwiseFool said "Defund the Police." We shouldn't be saying MLK advocated a position he clearly didn't, and I should be allowed to correct someone when they do.
- sieabah 5y ago
  > I should be allowed to correct someone when they do. You're not a fact checker, this is a discussion board...?
sieabah 5y ago
You're just arguing that only a subset of people can correctly interpret what people truly mean. I'm not sure that is consistent or valid? Taking things at face value is a valid interpretation because that is what is literally said. Excluding tone, but a quick search returns the literal interpretation backed by congresswoman AOC. > 'I believe the path toward justice is a long arc. Safety is not just an officer with a badge and a gun,' AOC said. 'Our [police budget] is too high,' she added, citing a $6 billion figure for New York's department. [src](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aoc-defends-defund-the-police-in-the-face-of-democratic-criticism/ar-BB1aYDrN https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aoc-defends-defund-t...) This is also backed by multiple cities literally cutting police funding. [LA](https://abc7.com/defund-the-police-lapd-los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti/6289037/ https://abc7.com/defund-the-police-lapd-los-angeles-mayor-er...) [NYC](https://www.policemag.com/562124/new-york-city-cuts-police-budget-by-1-billion https://www.policemag.com/562124/new-york-city-cuts-police-b...) Did the budget drop? Then it was defunded, which is accurate. It can be defunded and reallocated and still be accurately stated by "defund the police". You're arguing that what people say isn't what they really mean to say. Almost insinuating that it always requires an "expert" or "scholarly" opinion in order to truly interpret the true meaning of what someone says. "The sky is blue" "Well he meant to say the sky is clear, but it's the reflection of light from the water in the air that makes it appear blue, but it's not actually blue" Meanwhile if you look outside observe you notice the sky is blue, validating the original statement. There wasn't any depth to the statement other than "The sky is blue"

sieabah 5y ago

I would like you to personally explain why you believe that article to be convincing that colorblindness isn't a positive way to treat people. What do you actually propose with how to treat people that is an overall improvement over colorblindness? Let's say you start to treat people based on the supposed presumption that all blacks are oppressed and poor. All. Not some, all. I'm not talking about a rough life in a rough neighborhood, I'm talking systemtic oppression at all levels everywhere that everyone does to blacks. As that's the premise of that article, you must repair the relations of the past in order to move forward? Instead why not take the individual and judge them by who they are, not the color you see through your eyes and assume them to be. You end up properly enacting how people should be treated in general, regardless of race. Unless of course you propose and truly believe a race is somehow indicative of a persons' entire identity and personal history. It's delusional and dishonest if you think seeing color is the ultimate message. You can wish to not be judged for color and wish for reparations to repair relations _at the time_. Certainly the way you're championing this article as somehow irrefutable account of MLKs true intent behind his speech is also disingenuous to nuance. The article isn't even conclusive as it would require you to follow the sources of: - Standford (Univeristy) - Brookings (Public Policy Nonprofit) - WashingtonPost (Media) - the74million (Media) - The Atlantic (Media) - Ibram X. Kendi ("How to be anti-racist" book author) - SPLC (Law firm) - ASCD (Educators community?) - TNTP (Educators community?) Not to mention all the standford links are behind a login panel which cannot be verified. This is horribly sourced to be considered _concrete_ in itself. I feel the article takes MLK's speech as if he said it yesterday instead of taking into account improvements that occurred between then and now. Trying to say that the blacks have had a total degradation of rights and life since then is an insult to the blacks who actually suffered during that time. I'll continue to treat everyone the same regardless of race because I feel that trying to apologize or cater to someone for the color of their skin without having spoken a word to them would be pretty presumptuous to assume they come from that background or even from a country where they were oppressed in the first place. I'm not sure what your goal is?

enkid 5y ago
Holy strawmans Batman. Stop putting words into people's mouths. I don't think we should treat all black people like they are oppressed and poor. I think we should recognize our society has historically oppressed and impoverished the majority of black people. Colorblindness does not allow that. Beyond that, I owe you no explanation.