I’ll put aside affirmative action because that is an inextricably racial issue. But on the other issues mentioned, which is cause and which is effect? Do you think conservative whites would be fine about “crime, drugs, welfare, teenage pregnancy, and unemployment” if these were (seen to be) engaged in by whites to the same, or a greater, extent as they are (seen to be) engaged in by Black people? If they are told by their educated betters that “You only hate and fear Willie Horton because he’s African-American, not because he’s a rapist and a murderer”, is that going to do anything to break the link in their minds between being Black and being more likely to engage in anti-social behaviour?

Yes, if we were talking about morally neutral matters that diverged on racial grounds – “Most white people claim they hate the sound of jazz, blues and rap music, and claim it’s on grounds of musical taste and artistic merit, but the real reason is that they think of these as ‘n****er music’” – then the “symbolic racism” theory would have more traction. It would be too big a coincidence if *all* White people just happened to “dislike the sound of” rap, jazz or blues.

But when people claim to dislike particular lifestyles/behaviours, *and* those lifestyles/behaviours are ones that impose burdens on the rest of society, then simply playing “gotcha” — “Aha! In fact, a higher proportion of Black women than White women are unwed teenage mothers. This means your discomfort about unwed teenage pregnancy is a cloak for your hatred and contempt for Black people” – is not going to win anyone over.

In the next paragraph he wrote: In his day, King said the church- the moderate, white church- was his greatest disappointment.

Coincidence? I think not.

>Not a liberal holiday? Yeah, in fact it is.

“Your Wikipedia reference ends that debate.”

ouch!

No doubt. Was that meant to be an insult?

It’s an American holiday about an American patriots dream of a color-blind society.

Simply because King said “where my children can be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” does not mean that he advocated a color-blind society.

King’s point was always “you refuse to acknowledge me as a whole person.” To advocate for color-blindness is to say “please don’t recognize the defining characteristic of my life”, because ontologically speaking, there is no way to get away from one’s “blackness” (I’m speaking from a James Cone/Black Theology perspective here).

They’ll agree, while they are accumulating wealth, property and influence far in excess of the poor whites here in Eastern Ky.

And there’s the logical rub – “We’ve made progress because there are now whites who are poorer than everyone else.” I’m not buying it, Michael. Racism, classism, and sexism are all bound together. You can’t pull one group out as exemplary and say “Look here – we’re doing better” when other groups are still suffering.

Dr. King’s agenda was to make sure we understood that all of our destinies were bound up in one another (different though we may be). To speak of poor whites as being illustrative of you argument is to actually disprove yourself. We have not made progress because someone is still getting the shaft.

(Remember, King died in Memphis while he was there marching with the sanitation workers – of all shades.)

When I was living in the West End of Louisville (read: “the bad part of town”) my neighbors told me that the only thing that scared them was the poor white folk.

“Why?” I asked.

“Because they have a chip on their shoulder and nothing to loose.”

“What’s the chip on their shoulder?”

“At least they ain’t black.”

I think the only progress we’ve made is that we tolerate on another better.

I’m done. I’m not trying to be argumentative (really – just straight forward), so I’ll let it drop and let you have the last word if you want it.

“Your Wikipedia reference ends that debate.”

ouch!

Yes. Let’s not.

It’s an American holiday about an American patriots dream of a color-blind society.

>Not a liberal holiday? Yeah, in fact it is.

Your Wikipedia reference ends that debate.

>However, the racism has changed. It is now subtle and symbolic.

107 years ago my school was chartered all white. Today it’s 50% black. Come over here and tell us we’ve not made progress and we’re still racists. In fact, come tell my black students that one. I’d like to hear the reaction.

I agree there is still racism. But reliving the legal racism of the past as if its present is nuts. I work with AA families and students. I know whats going on and not. Come tell my African immigrant students, or my Asian students about American racism. They’ll agree, while they are accumulating wealth, property and influence far in excess of the poor whites here in Eastern Ky.

Thanks for the comment.

1) It’s not an African-American holiday. It’s an American holiday; a day for all of us.

Now Michael, I know you’ve got to be more sensitive and aware than this. Truly, saying this is like saying “I know that our race has oppressed yours for a while now, but 20, 30, 40 years after his death, we’ve decided we could really like this guy. Nevermind that our white politicians blocked this holiday time and again – he’s ours too.”

Of course the A-A community is claiming this holiday as their own – they were celebrating this when Jesse Helms was all up in arms about his opposition to the Vietnam War and his supposed links to Communism.

Is it intended to be a holiday for everyone? Absolutely. But let’s not be ignorant of social dynamics. It wasn’t until 2000 that all 50 states recognized the holiday, so let’s not do the “he’s our guy, too” song and dance.

2) It’s not a liberal holiday to celebrate liberal solutions.

Wikipedia says it the most succinctly I’ve ever heard: “After King’s death in 1968, Rep. John Conyers introduced a bill in Congress to make King’s birthday a national holiday, highlighting King’s activism on behalf of trade unionists.” (emphasis mine)

Not a liberal holiday? Yeah, in fact it is.

3. It’s not a replaying of the problems of the past as if they are the present. In other words, we’ve made enormous progress.

Sure – no one is being hanged in a state sanctioned lynchings, and crosses aren’t regularly seen burning in the Kentucky night (your state and mine till three months ago). However, the racism has changed. It is now subtle and symbolic.

In 1997, David Sears coined what he termed “subtle racism.” The APA summarizes it thusly:

Sears’ version of the new racism describes a more elusive, political, almost abstract language of race which avoids blatantly negative racist statements in favor of political codewords and symbols. This new racism is partly based on a view of racial discrimination as being outdated and puts the onus of achievement and equality on African Americans and other ethnic minority people. If African Americans would, for example, stop clamoring for special treatment and simply work harder, they could achieve the American Dream. The idea is that it is African Americans’ own deficienciesÑwhether they be greed, laziness, violence, and so onÑthat are the cause of their problems, not the history of slavery, segregation, discrimination, prejudice, and racism which is assumed to have come to an end.

The new racism is thought to be most visible in White persons’ views on affirmative action, crime, drugs, welfare, teenage pregnancy, and unemployment. Conversations on these topics often are dominated by an unspoken subtext of racial attitudes. Consistent with the theory of illusory correlation, it is often assumed (despite statistics to the contrary) that the majority of persons involved in such activities are ethnic minorities. Consequently, unspoken racial attitudes shape our definition of such problems and their resolutions. The Willie Horton commercials from George Bush’s presidential campaign are an example of the symbolic racist code used to advance political positions. This new racism also integrates racial prejudice and core traditional American values. For example, the values of hard work and moral behavior are thought to be violated by stereotypes of African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians as lazy and violent.

We may have come long way, but we’ve still got too long of a long way to go to start feeling good about ourselves.

4. Most Americans, especially young Americans, are ignorant of the history of the civil rights movement.

5. I don’t like the ambiguity of evangelicals toward Dr. King.

I’ll totally give you these.

On a side note – make a special trip to Cincy and visit that National Underground Railroad Freedom Center…no matter where you live.

As regards ambiguity towards Dr King, I’m sure that in some cases this is a reaction to the exaggerated view of his personal sanctity that otherwise prevails. Having grown up with a generalised sense of Dr King as being a Good Thing, I was genuinely surprised when I first heard about some of the more negative issues (both theological and moral). This did unsettle me and make it harder to profess a straightforward admiration for Dr King as a Christian figure. Thank you for the reminder that there was far more to him than this.

“Here’s one time we can tell the culture to look at a flawed person and see the grace and power of God, and we won’t.” – spot on.

I recall a few years back our local newspaper published the “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” I hadn’t read it before then, and I was sooo inspired and sooo ashamed that I hadn’t read it sooner. Solid: all of those complainers notwithstanding.

Including being pretty much one of the very, very few evangelicals who broke the mold of “let God take care of it.”

Evangelicals have some people who are concerned for justice, but they are rare. Very very rare. In the civil rights era, they were mostly on the side of the water hoses and dogs. (Not all, but mostly.) And the SBC was founded by slave owners defending slavery to the death if necessary.

I mean, we have colonies of Calvinists right now who want to make sure we all know that slavery would have gone away on its own.

“Why we can’t wait” should be required reading.