5 ms·
MLK’s problem with white moderates was not being a middle ground, it was that they urged delay and inaction. > I have been gravely disappointed with the white
by afarrell 5y ago
MLK’s problem with white moderates was not being a middle ground, it was that they urged delay and inaction.
> I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
Indeed, he himself was charting a middle ground between inaction and violence:
> You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
- diordiderot 5y agoI have been gravely disappointed with the climate moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the planets great stumbling block in his stride toward salvation is not the Oil Industry or the Coal Barrons, but the political pragmatist, who is more devoted to "order" than to climate justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action(Roadblocks etc)"; who arrogently believes he can set the timetable for preventing ecosystem collapse; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the wildlife to wait for "better economic conditions." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. The middle ground between inaction and violence (blowing up a pipelines & boardrooms) is not classifying gaseous hydrocarbons a form of "green energy.
- heartbeats 5y agoThat's a misrepresentation of what they did. They said it was OK if it replaced certain stuff temporarily, not that you could just keep on building gas plants for ever and ever. The recent attention that "the environment" has been getting is a direct result of this, and you mustn't confuse it for a general interest in green politics. Frankly, I really do not care about "the environment". I care about people, and they obviously have a need for the environment. But the reason we have to take climate action is that it would be unpleasant for people's lives if we did not, not because it would hurt the trees. If you suggest to reduce people into poverty so that they do not suffer extreme weather, is this really an improvement? Or are some people to be reduced into poverty, so that some other people do not suffer extreme weather? If the trade-off is that I do not have a job, a place to live, heating, electricity, etc, but the weather is normal, I think I would prefer to have wildfires and flooding but otherwise a normal life. Most people would sooner live in California or Florida or Australia than Belarus or Moldova, no? (That's not to say all action on climate policy looks like this. But when you have people talking about "degrowth" or blowing up oil pipelines, that very much seems to be the ethos. Lebanon had to make an unplanned transition away from oil on short notice. Should we strive to be like them?)
- diordiderot 5y agoThats a false trade off! You can make the US carbon neutral with 4% of GDP over ten years. What percentage of GDP did we spend trying to steal oil from brown people since 2001
- afarrell 5y agoThe invasion of Iraq was in 2003 …and …erm …was more complex than that. How deep is your understanding? Citation needed on the massive claim that we can be carbon neutral in 10 years without massive riot-causing disruptions to people’s lives.