Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The MLK quote you won't hear on network news

Recs

30

January 18, 2011 – Comments (17)

“I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.” - Martin Luther King Jr., Beyond Vietnam

David in Qatar  

17 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM, russiangambit (29.12) wrote:

I read that speech on the internet yesterday and I thought how well it describes the realities and madness of war. Yes,we don't hear enough about it in the mainstream media. MLK was a true patriot. He also had an acute sense of justice.

Report this comment
#2) On January 18, 2011 at 9:52 AM, kdakota630 (29.46) wrote:

Sounds like MLK has posthumous blood on his hands.

Report this comment
#3) On January 18, 2011 at 11:19 AM, blake303 (29.17) wrote:

Sounds like MLK has posthumous blood on his hands.

No it doesn't 

Report this comment
#4) On January 18, 2011 at 11:21 AM, kdakota630 (29.46) wrote:

blake303

It's called sarcasm.

Report this comment
#5) On January 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM, rfaramir (29.26) wrote:

kdakota630,

The sarcasm didn't come through properly. Knowing your writings, I'll admit you meant sarcasm, as if speaking on behalf of the LameStreamMedia.

They, for sure (if he weren't black), would pick up on any statement like this against the State as promoting the murder of a government official, e.g., in AZ.

Report this comment
#6) On January 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM, kdakota630 (29.46) wrote:

rfaramir

You picked up my inference exactly.

Granted, internet postings aren't the perfect medium for sarcasm, I still thought it was rather obvious.

Report this comment
#7) On January 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, ChrisGraley (29.65) wrote:

A man can't ride your back unless it's bent.

My favorite MLK quote

Report this comment
#8) On January 19, 2011 at 1:27 AM, ajm101 (31.84) wrote:

kdakota630's, your sarcasm wasn't funny because the intent was clear, it wasn't funny because there was no underlying irony to make it effective.

On one hand, you have one of the greatest champions of non violent resistance in history being quoted slightly out of context. 

On the other hand, you have a political movement strongly allied with gun rights that frequently uses violent rhetoric

If the Tea Party was as stridently non-violent as MLK, nobdy would be talking about blood on there hands.  If nuts were worth their weight in gold, squirrels would be rich, too.

Report this comment
#9) On January 19, 2011 at 4:07 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

ajm101,

The Tea Party is a joke. That being said....

There is no blood on their hands. There is blood on Loughner's hands, an independent atheist (that's soooo Tea Party) who was driven by socialist monetary theories, see here, here, here and here.

(Btw, no independent, atheist, or person who believes in a resource-based economy has blood on their hands either, whether they also support gun rights or use violent rhetoric.)

You really have to stretch logic and reason, then fold it over like you are practicing origami, to say that the Tea Party has blood on its hands. For all its faults (in the current form, there are many), it is remarkably docile.

Btw, can you walk us through your reasoning for saying that the Tea Party has blood on its hands, without resorting to insults?

Ah forget it, I know that pre-packaged spoon fed party lines are more your style.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." - Barack Obama, 2008.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On January 19, 2011 at 8:24 AM, mtf00l (44.77) wrote:

Sean Connery, The Untouchables, 1987

Report this comment
#11) On January 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, kdakota630 (29.46) wrote:

ajm101

Perhaps the problem is that your sense of humour is blinded by your ideology.

Report this comment
#12) On January 19, 2011 at 11:44 AM, ajm101 (31.84) wrote:

David, your rebuttal is clever and hard to refute.  However, I don't believe that the Tea Party does have blood on its hands in the Arizona case, so it's moot. 

Loughner was an unwell individual that seemed to synthesize conspiracy theories across the political spectrum (as well as hostility towards women) in an egocentric and delusional way.   From his own videos there are elements from the left, but there are elements from Tea Party rhetoric.  I didn't read much of your (comically biased) links to meta-analysis, but I'll let you decide base on Loughner's own words instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=nHoaZaLbqB4

"The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America’s Constitution.

You don’t have to accept the federalist laws.

Nonetheless, read the United States of America’s Constitution to apprehend all the current treasonous laws"

or

"No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver!"

However, it's wise to conclude he's just unwell instead of trying to blame anyone, because he also says things like:

"All purchases for an educational course in the United States as of now are unconstitutional in the United States of America because of Section 10 in the United States of America’s Constitution.

A student paying for a Pima Community College course is a purchase for an educational course in the United States as of now .

Therefore, a student paying for a Pima Community College course is unconstitutional in the United States of America because of Section 10 in the United States of America’s Constitution."

Since the Tea Party almost lives off of revolutionary rhetoric (a penny for every time some used the "Tree of Liberty.. blood of tyrants" quote), it would would be a decent use of sarcasm to say, "Well, I guess the Tea Party has blood on its hands".  Or - based on the quote your provided - to sarcastically say, "Well, I guess President Obama has blood on his hands".

However, considering MLK's whole speech (and life's legacy) is a condemnation of war and violence the line just wasn't ironic,  the sarcasm wasn't effective, and it failed to be funny.

 

 

Report this comment
#13) On January 19, 2011 at 11:48 AM, ajm101 (31.84) wrote:

kdakota - that's so deep.

Report this comment
#14) On January 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, kdakota630 (29.46) wrote:

ajm101

I didn't feel you warranted more.  I still don't.

Report this comment
#15) On January 19, 2011 at 12:16 PM, ajm101 (31.84) wrote:

kdakota, perhaps your opinion of me is blinded by your ideology.

Report this comment
#16) On January 20, 2011 at 1:14 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

ajm101,

I don't think MLK was non-violent. In order to be consistent in your stance against the initiation of violence, you must never endorse or support the state, even to do "public good." .

It's an inconsistency that is prevalant today. Violence is bad, unless the state is being violent in order to make the world better, more fair, more egalitarian, etc.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#17) On January 20, 2011 at 11:26 PM, ajm101 (31.84) wrote:

David,

Violence is the same whether it's from the state or the mob to the victim.  It isn't abstract, either.  Individuals inflict violence, and the responsibility for it rest on them alone.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement