oyinbo rewritinn mlk histaree

**evanovitch** · 01-17-2012, 04:39 PM

Re: disappointed in u n ur heading BLU

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

if u believe in EMANCIPATE URSELF FROM MENTAL SLAVERY as u write so much about , u could neva give credence to THEIR EFFORTS....is eida u know the truth r u dont.....dem cannot rewrite HIS legacy....too many lived it recently </div></div>

evan oyinbo didd rewrite ann recast mlk legacy. mlk speech wass bout jobs ann freedom fram oyinbo appressive racism. look oww oyinbo use racist color blind argument ann de content aff character part aff de speech fe argue dat itt wrang fe tekk race inn account fe address past ann present racism. de legacy aff mlk as defined ann rewrite by oyinbo became people natt judginn peeps bye de "color aff dem skin butt bye de cantent aff dem character." dat oww oyinbo bunn fiyah pon annee race based solutions to racism.

</div></div>

dat is not rewriting..dat is biased interpretation...an given the source the bias is expected...u give credence to their existence n their take wen u phrase as u did...they cannot rewrite MLK's legacy for thinking people....

**jah_yout** · 01-17-2012, 05:34 PM

Re: disappointed in u n ur heading BLU

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">dem cannot rewrite HIS legacy....too many lived it recently</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but they have done just that...
no one has done it more in recent times than barack obama...

he used king's image to help him get elected, while politically he is very far from king's vision of what america/gov't should be about </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ammmmm
u give more credit to King that he gave himself...memba he neva embrace Marcus' ideals n not just because of the in ur face demands that Marcus espoused...black on black racism was pawt of it even if we want to be ostriches re the issue...even wid Malcolm u can see the divide among blacks supposedly working for the same result...ego n the divisions within the race saw to that.</div></div>

yes it is well known that marcus garvey, malcolm x and MLK had different methods in terms of the fight against white supremacy & racism...nothing wrong with that

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..MLK has his place in history yes, but let us not forget he did not start it ....he is just the face that has come to represent it...n King had no clear picture of wat American govt was to be.</div></div>.

are you sure about that...i think you need to do some research...MLK had very strong ideas on what gov't should be about and he spoke on it...
it's just not publicized as much as his "dream" speeches...because it does not fit into the image that babylon has put out there for MLK

.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">he was concerned wid integration on their terms, </div></div>

what does that mean? on their terms? whose terms?
certainly not white southern segregationists' terms

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the dividing poin t wid him n Malcolm n Marcus to some degree...think on that</div></div>

marcus garvey and malcolm x had 2 different visions as well...so did MLK , so dis stokley <span style="font-style: italic">kwame toure </span>carmichael...differrent people use different methods to suit their vision

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....people seem to think that a President is a power to himself..he is not...people like to think Reagan was the classice president but wat dem dont realise he was handled just as Bush..the difference is dat Bush lacked to personality that Reagan had so he Bush came across as weak wile Reagan has the rep of being the authoratative president </div></div>

you lost me there...
neither reagan nor bush used MLK to get elected...obama did;
very disengenuously too i might add...like he was the second coming of MLK

**RichD** · 01-17-2012, 05:36 PM

Re: disappointed in u n ur heading BLU

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you lost me there...
neither reagan nor bush used MLK to get elected...obama did;
<span style="font-weight: bold">very disengenuously too i might add...like he was the second coming of MLK </span></div></div>

nonsense...

**jah_yout** · 01-17-2012, 05:41 PM

Re: disappointed in u n ur heading BLU

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

if u believe in EMANCIPATE URSELF FROM MENTAL SLAVERY as u write so much about , u could neva give credence to THEIR EFFORTS....is eida u know the truth r u dont.....dem cannot rewrite HIS legacy....too many lived it recently </div></div>

evan oyinbo didd rewrite ann recast mlk legacy. mlk speech wass bout jobs ann freedom fram oyinbo appressive racism. look oww oyinbo use racist color blind argument ann de content aff character part aff de speech fe argue dat itt wrang fe tekk race inn account fe address past ann present racism. de legacy aff mlk as defined ann rewrite by oyinbo became people natt judginn peeps bye de "color aff dem skin butt bye de cantent aff dem character." dat oww oyinbo bunn fiyah pon annee race based solutions to racism.

</div></div>

dat is not rewriting..dat is biased interpretation...an given the source the bias is expected...u give credence to their existence n their take wen u phrase as u did...<span style="font-weight: bold">they cannot rewrite MLK's legacy for thinking people</span>.... </div></div>

absolutely not true...
i'll go as far as to say the majority of americans today do not know the true MLK...
but everyone knows "I have a dream"....
you will never see his speech weh him likk out gainst babylon vietnam war showed on network tv...
but i bet they will show the dream speeches...

MLK has basically been made into a character who marched and dreamed that blacks would be able to sit on the same toilet as whites one day...
instead of who he really was...

a soldier fighting white supremacy & american racism & beast-ism...who was ultimately killed by the american gov't for taking a stance against their unjust imperialistic wars around the globe and oppression of its citizens of afrikan descent at home;

**jah_yout** · 01-17-2012, 05:43 PM

Re: disappointed in u n ur heading BLU

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you lost me there...
neither reagan nor bush used MLK to get elected...obama did;
<span style="font-weight: bold">very disengenuously too i might add...like he was the second coming of MLK </span></div></div>

nonsense...
</div></div>

gweh...
i live in america...nuh canada yu live?

i stand by my statement 1000%

**blugiant** · 01-17-2012, 07:36 PM

Re: disappointed in u n ur heading BLU

jy story framm 1995 ann itt still valid

The Martin Luther King You Don't See on TV

Media Beat (1/4/95)

By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon

It's become a TV ritual: Every year in mid-January, around the time of Martin Luther King's birthday, we get perfunctory network news reports about "the slain civil rights leader."

The remarkable thing about this annual review of King's life is that several years — his last years — are totally missing, as if flushed down a memory hole.

What TV viewers see is a closed loop of familiar file footage: King battling desegregation in Birmingham (1963); reciting his dream of racial harmony at the rally in Washington (1963); marching for voting rights in Selma, Alabama (1965); and finally, lying dead on the motel balcony in Memphis (1968).

An alert viewer might notice that the chronology jumps from 1965 to 1968. Yet King didn't take a sabbatical near the end of his life. In fact, he was speaking and organizing as diligently as ever.

Almost all of those speeches were filmed or taped. But they're not shown today on TV.

Why?

It's because national news media have never come to terms with what Martin Luther King Jr. stood for during his final years.

In the early 1960s, when King focused his challenge on legalized racial discrimination in the South, most major media were his allies. Network TV and national publications graphically showed the police dogs and bullwhips and cattle prods used against Southern blacks who sought the right to vote or to eat at a public lunch counter.

But after passage of civil rights acts in 1964 and 1965, King began challenging the nation's fundamental priorities. He maintained that civil rights laws were empty without "human rights" — including economic rights. For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow.

Noting that a majority of Americans below the poverty line were white, King developed a class perspective. He decried the huge income gaps between rich and poor, and called for "radical changes in the structure of our society" to redistribute wealth and power.

"True compassion," King declared, "is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."

By 1967, King had also become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 — a year to the day before he was murdered — King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the U.S. was "on the wrong side of a world revolution." King questioned "our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America," and asked why the U.S. was suppressing revolutions "of the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World, instead of supporting them.

In foreign policy, King also offered an economic critique, complaining about "capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries."

You haven't heard the "Beyond Vietnam" speech on network news retrospectives, but national media heard it loud and clear back in 1967 — and loudly denounced it. Life magazine called it "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." The Washington Post patronized that "King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people."

In his last months, King was organizing the most militant project of his life: the Poor People's Campaign. He crisscrossed the country to assemble "a multiracial army of the poor" that would descend on Washington — engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience at the Capitol, if need be — until Congress enacted a poor people's bill of rights. Reader's Digest warned of an "insurrection."

King's economic bill of rights called for massive government jobs programs to rebuild America's cities. He saw a crying need to confront a Congress that had demonstrated its "hostility to the poor" — appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity," but providing "poverty funds with miserliness."

How familiar that sounds today, more than a quarter-century after King's efforts on behalf of the poor people's mobilization were cut short by an assassin's bullet.

As 1995 gets underway, in this nation of immense wealth, the White House and Congress continue to accept the perpetuation of poverty. And so do most mass media. Perhaps it's no surprise that they tell us little about the last years of Martin Luther King's life.

**blugiant** · 01-17-2012, 08:02 PM

Re: disappointed in u n ur heading BLU

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

if u believe in EMANCIPATE URSELF FROM MENTAL SLAVERY as u write so much about , u could neva give credence to THEIR EFFORTS....is eida u know the truth r u dont.....dem cannot rewrite HIS legacy....too many lived it recently </div></div>

evan oyinbo didd rewrite ann recast mlk legacy. mlk speech wass bout jobs ann freedom fram oyinbo appressive racism. look oww oyinbo use racist color blind argument ann de content aff character part aff de speech fe argue dat itt wrang fe tekk race inn account fe address past ann present racism. de legacy aff mlk as defined ann rewrite by oyinbo became people natt judginn peeps bye de "color aff dem skin butt bye de cantent aff dem character." dat oww oyinbo bunn fiyah pon annee race based solutions to racism.

</div></div>

dat is not rewriting..dat is biased interpretation...an given the source the bias is expected...u give credence to their existence n their take wen u phrase as u did...they cannot rewrite MLK's legacy for thinking people.... </div></div>

yu kno mii used de titled aff de artikkle ann mii onlee added de oyinbo part. doan tink mii agree widd yu dat itt bout bias interpretations cah a latt aff oyinbo write books pon mlk.

inn newt renew merikka, newt wrote king was ann individualist apposed to group rights. da realitee iss dat king name iss beeinn xxploited ann oyinbo ar distartinn sum aff kings speeches fe politrixx purpose

**blugiant** · 01-17-2012, 08:06 PM

Re: disappointed in u n ur heading BLU

Honoring King While Clouding His Legacy

Media Beat (4/2/98)

By Norman Solomon

/

Whether by design or a random twist of fate, President Clinton's scheduled return to Washington from his historic Africa trip came just before the 30th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King Jr.

Another laudatory statement from the White House was predictable. Like countless other politicians, Clinton often pays tribute to King — while selectively praising his legacy.

But imagine the media uproar if Clinton had stepped off Air Force One and proceeded to quote some of King's less palatable assertions.

For instance, in a speech exactly one year before he was assassinated on April 4, 1968, King declared: "A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth." And he denounced "capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries."

The mass media and both major parties have no use for this sort of talk. They like the safe images of King as a great orator, a brave civil-rights leader, a martyr on a postage stamp.

King's denunciations of predatory investments in the Third World may seem outdated or exaggerated. After all, journalists and pundits frequently tell us, investments from abroad are key to the uplift of poor nations, especially in this era of economic globalization.

But the truth is more complex — and the continent that President Clinton just visited is a prime example. You wouldn't know it from the usual media coverage, but foreign investors have brought widespread calamities to Africa.

The popular myth is that the West has poured humanitarian aid into Africa. But in the real world, more money is flowing out of Africa than into it. The reason? "Debt service" — the loan repayments, including interest and portions of the principal, required by banks and other lenders.

"Africa actually pays out more than four times as much on debt servicing ... than it spends on education and health services," scholar Deborah L. Toler reports in the April issue of Essence magazine. Toler, who lived and worked in Africa for many years, is a senior research analyst at the Institute for Food and Development Policy based in Oakland, Calif.

"Western economic exploitation continues through unfair trade practices and enforcement of crushing debt burdens," Toler writes. That's an update on the kind of analysis that Martin Luther King offered during his final years. It wasn't welcomed by U.S. news media then, and it doesn't seem to be any more appreciated now.

Like many other scholars and activists, Toler is highly critical of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund — which, she contends, "are responsible for the economic hardships behind many conflicts in Africa today. To repay these two international lenders of last resort for loans taken out in the '70s and '80s, many countries have cut expenses on social services like schools and health clinics, and they've downsized by eliminating civil-service jobs."

What's more, Toler says, the lenders have undermined local agriculture: "Loan-repayment programs also force African governments to emphasize exporting to earn the foreign exchange to repay their loans. Trouble is, the emphasis on exports means less focus on growing food for local consumption, and small farmers are being pushed onto fragile lands where crop yields suffer."

In recent days, the news media have carried many tributes to Dr. King. Mostly, they stress his quest for racial equality — but shed little light on the challenge to economic injustice that increasingly preoccupied him.

Decrying enormous income gaps, King called for "radical changes in the structure of our society" to redistribute wealth and power. During his last months, he was organizing the Poor People's Campaign, "a multiracial army of the poor" that would converge on Washington. He accused Congress of "hostility to the poor" — appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity" but providing "poverty funds with miserliness."

"The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty," King said in early 1968. But in 1998, the big media outlets that trumpet his "dream" aren't repeating such words. Whether in Africa or America, the powerful have a very different agenda.

oyinbo rewritinn mlk histaree

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads