Boy, I see that in Jan. and Feb. I missed a lot around here. (Was too busy battling Bob Ryan over the Sabbath, and never paid any attention to the "History" forum). In both the ML King Day and Black History Month threads, a lot was said that was really off base, but eventually, people like Johnv, Mioque and even fromtheright gave good answers for some of it. (particularly all the trashing of King, and then being indignant that one would point out the sin of Columbus and the nation's founders. The one point that is ignored in all the dismissing of King as liberal, was that "MLK couldn't study at the sort of orthodox theological establishments that support your views, he was banned from attending those because he was a negro". Thanks to Mioque for pointing this out! . I also add to that point that his liberalism then became a handy excuse for people to trash him for theological, moral and political reasons, when they were really against him pimarily for race. So these "conservatives" were just as responsible for King's liberalism as any leftwing communist who may have influenced him. Their "gospel" of the "salvation of the chosen nation by moral cleanup and social legislation" (as Michael Horton puts it) was just as false as the liberal social gospel. So if you lash out at him like that, then lash out at your old establismnet also, and quit defending it as so pure. As I think it was also Mioque who pointed out, no racial relations would not have simply transitioned easily if King and the Civil Rights movement just let them be. There were too many hard-liners, who were not about to just give in. Could this modern retrospective rhetoric be coming from people who wanted segregation to continue? Also how people in Christian colleges cheered when he was shot and killed. You can say how he was a wicked, immoral communist heretic reprobate all you want, but is this how we are to respond regarding our enemies? Truly, the conservatives, while trying to safeguard what they thought was God's truth, had "lost their first love (Rev.2:4), and how can we vainly continue to imagine that every problem in this country is the fault of liberals, communists, blacks, non-Christians, etc? If they truly followed the Bible and cleaned up our act, then the Communists would not have been able to come in and manipulate all the social upheaval to their own schemes. We did that to ourselves. The Bible tells us "give no place to the Devil". With this said, There were two sets of statements said that were not really addressed, but rather glossed over as the discussion went on. Blacks did nothing but lay around and "whine", wile others were persecuted just as much, but "pulled themselves up" out of their predicament. Conservative Christian said: I for one am FED UP with this ignorant, misinformed Limbaughesque jargon. It's about time the card is pulled on this once and for all. So just WHEN did all of this laying around (i.e. being "lazy" and "not working hard") and "whining" occur? Slavery? Will you honestly say that in slavery, when we began our life here (as opposed to the Irish and Italians and most others), is when we began "laying around doing nothing"? I guess all that stuff about cotton fields and chain gangs and whips is also PC revisionist "Roots" fairy tale style mythology, right? We were just laying around living off of the backs of massa, right? And "whining"? If you accept that there was slavery, then how much "whining" could we have done when if we looked back at the master wrong, we were called "uppity" and slapped or whipped? Or was it after slavery, with Jim Crow and segregation? Now, blacks were able to speak out more, but it still was not "whining". They were legitimately demanding equal rights. Or was that wrong in itself? I guess the Irish and Italians didn't do the same, but only "worked" their way up? Well, what about that then? Did we begin "laying around trying to get something for nothing" then? No, most were stuck in menial labor jobs making almost nothing, and going home to horrible living conditions. It was almost slavery without the whips. Compared to those more favored in society, who did not have such bad working conditions. Who really worked "harder"? Someone in menial labor, or someone sitting behind a desk, or inheritors, traders, investors, etc.? But it's always the latter who are credited with doing all of this "work", while the former did no "work". After all, it's the living conditions that prove who does the most work, because this system was always perfectly fair, and everyone always gets exactly what they deserve, right? So after all of this, the entire fabric of society unraveled. Even the children of whites rebelled, and then guilt-ridden liberals (as Dr. Bob pointed out) then sudenly began promoting Civil Rights. Now, programs for blacks began, and many people tok advantage and either lived off of welfare, or got jobs they weren't really qualified for. But before you take this as proving our "laziness" after all; this was late in the game. You cannot compare us to European immigrants and say that they are "workers" and blacks are "whiners", because blacks had been here longer than they, and did work without whining all of those years, because most of the newcomers assimilated way before this, while blacks were just then finally getting full acceptance, but only by force, and with much resistance from the old order establishment. The Italians were allowed to have their Mafia, for instance, which helped build up their communities (why they are often looked on as heroes). Only recently did the authorities seriously begin cracking down on them. But all of our leadership was tagged as subversive, and "communist", (I never heard the Mob or Klan be accused of communism. No, the latter was good ole American, looking out for our best interests, along with the JBS, citizens and vigilance councils, etc!) then infiltrated, set up in traps, and the most outspoken leaders killed. (and replaced with the weak leadership we have today that does nothing but confirm what the conservatives say about us! More on them later). Also, when you consider all of the children who saw their parents work hard and they were still poor, then wouldn't it be understandable that when the opportunity opened up that the kids would rather not bother working? What for? Their parents did, and to what avail? So just get pregnant, and live off of welfare. You may still be poor, but at least you're not cleaning up after some old white person who only spits on you anyway. You may be able to save up and then buy trinkets and live good. The same with drug selling and rostitution. Even in the '80's (during the Reagan era of conservative backlash), as I got my first jobs, it looked like I wouldn't make it above minimum wage dept. store jobs. But I plugged on, and was able to make it, eventually, and largely from knowing someone who had gottena good job (during more liberal times!) But why would more streetwise people want to go through all of that when they see instant opportunity elsewhere? The mistake conservaties make is to imagine that this is some "black" thing. This is human nature. Who wouldn't want to not work, yet still live good? Even those executives who supposedly "work so hard, with 16 hour days", etc; why are they doing that? So they can have money to kick back in ease! (Even though it is never enough, and most keep pushing themselves endlessly). It was amazing to see during the 1992 election campaign some executive interviewd by the news say that if he "loses money" (because of taxes and other liberal policies), then "why should I work?" But nobody understands why then, blacks who made almost nothing wouldn't want to work So the reason why all this "work vs. whine" rhetoric is such an offensive slap in the face is because given what blacks have gone through in this country, they handled it quite well, and many have still come through strong. Today, really, how many blacks are "whining"? You have people like Sharpton and Jackson asking for reparations, or bringing up some charge during a racial incident or other political issue. But, believe it or not, they do not speak for all blacks. Just their band of followers. Here in NYC Transit, which is a typical heavily minority workplace, just about everyone I see discussing this is against reparations, and feel blacks need to do more for themselves. So then what is all of this "whining"? Could this be voices of guilt ringing in people's own heads? Just as the liberals may have acted out in guilt one way, the defensive conservatives would react to the same guilt the opposite way. By denying all the guilt from the past and lashing out and blaming blacks for everything. You want to talk about "WHINING"? Who's really doing all of the "whining" now? Who for one, is "whining" about others' supposed "whining"? Who's doing all the complaining about taxes being taken from them and given to undeserving welfare minorities, while the taxes do not even prevent them from remaining the richest nation on earth? (And the taxes given to those programs are only about 2-4%, while other programs, taxes and waste benefit government and business, yet the leaders of those are said to "deserve" it! When welfare is finally "reformed", then a lot of the complaining stops, as if that really was what was draining the economy. Yet we still have to hear these comments from them every February or election year when this topic is brought up in discussions or in politics). "Latin" (descended from the ancient Romans) is "white", and the Italians and some other southern Europeans had simply mixed with the Moors and others, gaining some color. But they're still considered Caucasian. The "Latins" are one of the tribes that migrated down from the Caucasus mountains, behind the tribes that formed the Greek and Persian cultures. Not only that, but on Census forms and others, "Caucasian" is defined not only as from the European side of the Mediterranean, but all of the Mideast (Including Israelis and Arabs) and even North Africa. Now, THAT is going way too far. But it seems that when we want Census numbers, we want this all-inclusive definition of Caucasian, but at other times, then we eliminate a lot of groups. Truth is, there is what I call a "heirarchy of whiteness", with the Nordic and Anglo stock at the top, the southern Europeans lower down, then the Jews, then most other "colored" people, with the Blacks down on the bottom. Most of the other groups with lighter skin were able to pass as white, often by changing their last names, so that is how a lot were able to "assimilate" quickly. Even some really light skinned blacks were able to do this. But not the majority, of course. And even with the Irish and Italians, it seems they were discriminated against for being Catholic more than for not being "white" (especially the Irish who were bona-fide white).