Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If this country were run by old White men we would not have had a Black President and Blacks would not be getting away with even a small percentage of the aggressive nonsense and the constant complaining they get away with today.Hello I'm nobody or I'm everyone I'm not sure. The passion behind this subject is palpable. We must find a way to have this conversation and still hear each other. Passion steps in and anger follows.....conversation over.
Fact: The country is still run by old white men!
[...]
There is systemic racism we are unable to discuss calmlyI stopped reading there.Malcolm X, one the the most prominent Black leaders of the 20th Century rose from prison inmate to spokesman for the Nation Of Islam. While Malcolm X would clash with the government and other Black leaders, it would be members of the Nation Of Islam who would be convicted of his killing.Years later, it would be revealed that the FBI used COINTLPRO agents to infiltrate the Nation Of Islam and cause tension between them and Malcolm; and created false letters between the Malcolm and the Nation.Other leaders where gunned down by black people.
Most b/c they supported peace
Uh other leaders were not mentioned. Also a white president was gunned down by a white man if you want to go to that. In fact 2 white presidents were killed by white people and a third was also shot by anther white person. So let's stick to talking about the OP and not bring up your lie of what Dr. King was. OK?
another reason we can't talk about racism is the hypocritical left accuses others of doing what they just did.
pathetic
You want to make excuses but no one black ran the FBI at that time. The reason why we can't talk about racism is exemplified by our discussion. You claimed that someone was dividing the nation and belittling the efforts of MLK. So I mentioned his efforts to united us by race were so appreciated by whites that he was murdered by a white man. Instead of accepting this truth, you then went to well blacks shot other black leaders, instead of just recognizing the truth of why King was killed and how much his work was truly hated. The reason why we cant talk about race is that whites such as you think your word or opinion is final about an experience you have not lived. You have got MLK wrong, because in as much as he was trying to bring people together, he was trying to get whites out of their racism so they could respect blacks as humans the same as whites. Today anyone of color doing this is declared by those such as you as people trying to divide something. Well, I hate to inform you but you cannot divide something that's already divided. And it is those like you who keep us divided.
why?
b/c as a leftist twat you have to change the subject, again. Every time you filth get shut down; oops, subject change.
Actually you changed the subject. I was talking about what happened to King and you changed the subject to how other black leaders got killed by blacks. That's the problem with these places idiots post and if other idiots gang up on those who oppose their stupidity, they think their stupidity turns to intelligence.
Insisting that minorities are not part of the "ruling class" is untrue and only serves to exacerbate this Nations' problems. You seek to further divide rather than unite. You belittle the efforts of great men like MLK when you deny their accomplishments. You increase the anger. You are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem.
Martin Luther King got murdered by a white man, that's how much his great efforts to "united the races" were appreciated. You are not only part pf t he problem, you represent what the problem is.
I happen to appreciate his efforts. Without them a lot of people would not be alive today. Deliberately stirring the pot and increasing tensions is the exact opposite of what he stood for. I stand by my earlier post and suggest you educate yourself.
I'm 56 years old. I don't need to educate myself on what I saw. King stirred the pot and "increased the tension." You don't think the march on Selma stirred the pot? How about he Bus Boycott? The March on Washington? His speeches? The sit ins? Hw about when they visited Birmingham and got hosed and bit by dogs. He got put in jail. But he didn't stir the pot, I guess. He just sat at home dreaming and begging whites so see his children by the content f their character, He visited my hometown about two weeks before he died. I was 7 yeas old. He met with my father and other black ministers,. I got to shake his hand. As part of his visit, he went to a white barbershop on purpose because that barbershop had a long history of discrimination. The owners in that business district bitched and moaned to such an extent, that on the Sunday after he was gone the president of the university located in our town had an op ed in the local paper chewing them out for their racism. That's how much King stirred pots buddy. Your earlier statements were incorrect and ignorant. I suggest you educate yourself because you have made up a King that never existed. You don't know shit about Martin Luther King Jr.
Insisting that minorities are not part of the "ruling class" is untrue and only serves to exacerbate this Nations' problems. You seek to further divide rather than unite. You belittle the efforts of great men like MLK when you deny their accomplishments. You increase the anger. You are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem.
Martin Luther King got murdered by a white man, that's how much his great efforts to "united the races" were appreciated. You are not only part pf t he problem, you represent what the problem is.
I happen to appreciate his efforts. Without them a lot of people would not be alive today. Deliberately stirring the pot and increasing tensions is the exact opposite of what he stood for. I stand by my earlier post and suggest you educate yourself.
I'm 56 years old. I don't need to educate myself on what I saw. King stirred the pot and "increased the tension." You don't think the march on Selma stirred the pot? How about he Bus Boycott? The March on Washington? His speeches? The sit ins? Hw about when they visited Birmingham and got hosed and bit by dogs. He got put in jail. But he didn't stir the pot, I guess. He just sat at home dreaming and begging whites so see his children by the content f their character, He visited my hometown about two weeks before he died. I was 7 yeas old. He met with my father and other black ministers,. I got to shake his hand. As part of his visit, he went to a white barbershop on purpose because that barbershop had a long history of discrimination. The owners in that business district bitched and moaned to such an extent, that on the Sunday after he was gone the president of the university located in our town had an op ed in the local paper chewing them out for their racism. That's how much King stirred pots buddy. Your earlier statements were incorrect and ignorant. I suggest you educate yourself because you have made up a King that never existed. You don't know shit about Martin Luther King Jr.
While you were a child of 7 I was in my 20s and actually paying attention and understanding what was going on. Yes, he demonstrated for civil rights but he was a strong voice for non-violence. It was the violent riots that stirred the pot and increased tensions. Again, educate yourself.
There is systemic racism we are unable to discuss calmlyI stopped reading there.Malcolm X, one the the most prominent Black leaders of the 20th Century rose from prison inmate to spokesman for the Nation Of Islam. While Malcolm X would clash with the government and other Black leaders, it would be members of the Nation Of Islam who would be convicted of his killing.Years later, it would be revealed that the FBI used COINTLPRO agents to infiltrate the Nation Of Islam and cause tension between them and Malcolm; and created false letters between the Malcolm and the Nation.Uh other leaders were not mentioned. Also a white president was gunned down by a white man if you want to go to that. In fact 2 white presidents were killed by white people and a third was also shot by anther white person. So let's stick to talking about the OP and not bring up your lie of what Dr. King was. OK?
another reason we can't talk about racism is the hypocritical left accuses others of doing what they just did.
pathetic
You want to make excuses but no one black ran the FBI at that time. The reason why we can't talk about racism is exemplified by our discussion. You claimed that someone was dividing the nation and belittling the efforts of MLK. So I mentioned his efforts to united us by race were so appreciated by whites that he was murdered by a white man. Instead of accepting this truth, you then went to well blacks shot other black leaders, instead of just recognizing the truth of why King was killed and how much his work was truly hated. The reason why we cant talk about race is that whites such as you think your word or opinion is final about an experience you have not lived. You have got MLK wrong, because in as much as he was trying to bring people together, he was trying to get whites out of their racism so they could respect blacks as humans the same as whites. Today anyone of color doing this is declared by those such as you as people trying to divide something. Well, I hate to inform you but you cannot divide something that's already divided. And it is those like you who keep us divided.
why?
b/c as a leftist twat you have to change the subject, again. Every time you filth get shut down; oops, subject change.
Actually you changed the subject. I was talking about what happened to King and you changed the subject to how other black leaders got killed by blacks. That's the problem with these places idiots post and if other idiots gang up on those who oppose their stupidity, they think their stupidity turns to intelligence.
you changed the subject chumlly. But you were talking about a leader and so I talked about leaders.
leftists morons don't even know how dumb they are.
To be fair, all that really proves is what ONE white man, and any possible accomplices, thought of what Dr. King was doing. That said, there were (and still are) those who believe that James Earl Ray did a great service to the nation. I disagree in the strongest terms. However, the race of the person who shoots someone is no more proof of a larger sentiment than my standing in a garage proves that I am a car. It is evidence, but no more. Evidence that requires further fact to confirm or refute a claim.So again King was murdered by a white person which shows just how much what he was doing was appreciated by whites such as yourself.
True. Being as this is a discussion, I thought it prudent to inquire as to why you make the claims you do. As of yet, you have not made a convincing argument.There I have what? I'm making claims based on the that research and other research. The source is just providing the statistics. For example, a source could say that 100% of Fords fail while being driven causing crashes, while only 1% of GMs fail this way. From that statistic I can make the claim that Fords are more dangerous than GMs. A source could say that negroes score much lower on IQ tests than any other racial group. From that I can make the claim that negroes are generally dumber than others. The source is not required to make every possible conclusion for you.From your original posts' link:The source provider was included in the original posting. The image is linked from their website.Funny, you make a claim, then when asked to back it up with facts, you get all defensive and pretentious. Interesting. All I was asking for was actual data to support your claim. Simple, yet it took offending you to get it, apparently.Or just research it. Here, let me hold your hand:I guess I'll have to take your word for it that this graph indeed shows what you claim it does....
The Condition of Education - Elementary and Secondary Education - Student Effort, Persistence and Progress - Status Dropout Rates - Indicator April (2017)
"Implication #1: In order to truly understand the causes and consequences of massive racial disparities in student debt, we need to be able to track debt and repayment patterns by race."
"Implication #2: Research and policy focusing on undergraduate borrowing alone will address only a fraction of overall racial disparities in student debt."
"Implication #3: New repayment options such as the Revised Pay-As-You-Earn (REPAYE) plan may alleviate the worst consequences of racial debt disparities, while failing to address underlying causes."
So, there you have it. The authors of the study you cited aren't even making the clams you are.
Insisting that minorities are not part of the "ruling class" is untrue and only serves to exacerbate this Nations' problems. You seek to further divide rather than unite. You belittle the efforts of great men like MLK when you deny their accomplishments. You increase the anger. You are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem.
Martin Luther King got murdered by a white man, that's how much his great efforts to "united the races" were appreciated. You are not only part pf t he problem, you represent what the problem is.
I happen to appreciate his efforts. Without them a lot of people would not be alive today. Deliberately stirring the pot and increasing tensions is the exact opposite of what he stood for. I stand by my earlier post and suggest you educate yourself.
I'm 56 years old. I don't need to educate myself on what I saw. King stirred the pot and "increased the tension." You don't think the march on Selma stirred the pot? How about he Bus Boycott? The March on Washington? His speeches? The sit ins? Hw about when they visited Birmingham and got hosed and bit by dogs. He got put in jail. But he didn't stir the pot, I guess. He just sat at home dreaming and begging whites so see his children by the content f their character, He visited my hometown about two weeks before he died. I was 7 yeas old. He met with my father and other black ministers,. I got to shake his hand. As part of his visit, he went to a white barbershop on purpose because that barbershop had a long history of discrimination. The owners in that business district bitched and moaned to such an extent, that on the Sunday after he was gone the president of the university located in our town had an op ed in the local paper chewing them out for their racism. That's how much King stirred pots buddy. Your earlier statements were incorrect and ignorant. I suggest you educate yourself because you have made up a King that never existed. You don't know shit about Martin Luther King Jr.
While you were a child of 7 I was in my 20s and actually paying attention and understanding what was going on. Yes, he demonstrated for civil rights but he was a strong voice for non-violence. It was the violent riots that stirred the pot and increased tensions. Again, educate yourself.
Well since I was a black child, I was part of what was going on and like I said you know nothing about King. He was about non violence but not non confrontation. Understand the difference and educate yourself. King was stabbed, in his marches people got beaten and killed. You apparently did not pay attention to this which are the types of things that created the riots and that is what increased the tensions. But in usual ignorant white fashion you ignore what whites did and try blaming blacks for how they retaliated basically in self defense.. So again King was murdered by a white person which shows just how much what he was doing was appreciated by whites such as yourself.
For what it's worth, my opinion:Martin Luther King got murdered by a white man, that's how much his great efforts to "united the races" were appreciated. You are not only part pf t he problem, you represent what the problem is.
I happen to appreciate his efforts. Without them a lot of people would not be alive today. Deliberately stirring the pot and increasing tensions is the exact opposite of what he stood for. I stand by my earlier post and suggest you educate yourself.
I'm 56 years old. I don't need to educate myself on what I saw. King stirred the pot and "increased the tension." You don't think the march on Selma stirred the pot? How about he Bus Boycott? The March on Washington? His speeches? The sit ins? Hw about when they visited Birmingham and got hosed and bit by dogs. He got put in jail. But he didn't stir the pot, I guess. He just sat at home dreaming and begging whites so see his children by the content f their character, He visited my hometown about two weeks before he died. I was 7 yeas old. He met with my father and other black ministers,. I got to shake his hand. As part of his visit, he went to a white barbershop on purpose because that barbershop had a long history of discrimination. The owners in that business district bitched and moaned to such an extent, that on the Sunday after he was gone the president of the university located in our town had an op ed in the local paper chewing them out for their racism. That's how much King stirred pots buddy. Your earlier statements were incorrect and ignorant. I suggest you educate yourself because you have made up a King that never existed. You don't know shit about Martin Luther King Jr.
While you were a child of 7 I was in my 20s and actually paying attention and understanding what was going on. Yes, he demonstrated for civil rights but he was a strong voice for non-violence. It was the violent riots that stirred the pot and increased tensions. Again, educate yourself.
Well since I was a black child, I was part of what was going on and like I said you know nothing about King. He was about non violence but not non confrontation. Understand the difference and educate yourself. King was stabbed, in his marches people got beaten and killed. You apparently did not pay attention to this which are the types of things that created the riots and that is what increased the tensions. But in usual ignorant white fashion you ignore what whites did and try blaming blacks for how they retaliated basically in self defense.. So again King was murdered by a white person which shows just how much what he was doing was appreciated by whites such as yourself.
Your racist bullshit gets old really quick.
And if you want a discussion you really need to address what I actually write instead of what you imagine or wish I wrote. I did not say that he was non-confrontational. Or that there was never any violence surrounding his demonstrations. Nor did I attempt to assign blame for violence and riots.
And, no, our respective races neither earns any points or proves anything about either of us.
The fact that MLK was murdered by a white guy proves absolutely nothing about anything.
Before you go making wild assumptions based on race you apparently need to be reminded that whites also marched with blacks-and some died- for civil rights and that their support was critical in getting civil rights legislation passed. You slander their accomplishments along with MLK's. Educate yourself.
Martin Luther King got murdered by a white man, that's how much his great efforts to "united the races" were appreciated. You are not only part pf t he problem, you represent what the problem is.
I happen to appreciate his efforts. Without them a lot of people would not be alive today. Deliberately stirring the pot and increasing tensions is the exact opposite of what he stood for. I stand by my earlier post and suggest you educate yourself.
I'm 56 years old. I don't need to educate myself on what I saw. King stirred the pot and "increased the tension." You don't think the march on Selma stirred the pot? How about he Bus Boycott? The March on Washington? His speeches? The sit ins? Hw about when they visited Birmingham and got hosed and bit by dogs. He got put in jail. But he didn't stir the pot, I guess. He just sat at home dreaming and begging whites so see his children by the content f their character, He visited my hometown about two weeks before he died. I was 7 yeas old. He met with my father and other black ministers,. I got to shake his hand. As part of his visit, he went to a white barbershop on purpose because that barbershop had a long history of discrimination. The owners in that business district bitched and moaned to such an extent, that on the Sunday after he was gone the president of the university located in our town had an op ed in the local paper chewing them out for their racism. That's how much King stirred pots buddy. Your earlier statements were incorrect and ignorant. I suggest you educate yourself because you have made up a King that never existed. You don't know shit about Martin Luther King Jr.
While you were a child of 7 I was in my 20s and actually paying attention and understanding what was going on. Yes, he demonstrated for civil rights but he was a strong voice for non-violence. It was the violent riots that stirred the pot and increased tensions. Again, educate yourself.
Well since I was a black child, I was part of what was going on and like I said you know nothing about King. He was about non violence but not non confrontation. Understand the difference and educate yourself. King was stabbed, in his marches people got beaten and killed. You apparently did not pay attention to this which are the types of things that created the riots and that is what increased the tensions. But in usual ignorant white fashion you ignore what whites did and try blaming blacks for how they retaliated basically in self defense.. So again King was murdered by a white person which shows just how much what he was doing was appreciated by whites such as yourself.
Your racist bullshit gets old really quick.
And if you want a discussion you really need to address what I actually write instead of what you imagine or wish I wrote. I did not say that he was non-confrontational. Or that there was never any violence surrounding his demonstrations. Nor did I attempt to assign blame for violence and riots.
And, no, our respective races neither earns any points or proves anything about either of us.
The fact that MLK was murdered by a white guy proves absolutely nothing about anything.
Before you go making wild assumptions based on race you apparently need to be reminded that whites also marched with blacks-and some died- for civil rights and that their support was critical in getting civil rights legislation passed. You slander their accomplishments along with MLK's. Educate yourself.
Name me a peaceful revolution ?While you were a child of 7 I was in my 20s and actually paying attention and understanding what was going on. Yes, he demonstrated for civil rights but he was a strong voice for non-violence. It was the violent riots that stirred the pot and increased tensions. Again, educate yourself.
For what it's worth, my opinion:I happen to appreciate his efforts. Without them a lot of people would not be alive today. Deliberately stirring the pot and increasing tensions is the exact opposite of what he stood for. I stand by my earlier post and suggest you educate yourself.
I'm 56 years old. I don't need to educate myself on what I saw. King stirred the pot and "increased the tension." You don't think the march on Selma stirred the pot? How about he Bus Boycott? The March on Washington? His speeches? The sit ins? Hw about when they visited Birmingham and got hosed and bit by dogs. He got put in jail. But he didn't stir the pot, I guess. He just sat at home dreaming and begging whites so see his children by the content f their character, He visited my hometown about two weeks before he died. I was 7 yeas old. He met with my father and other black ministers,. I got to shake his hand. As part of his visit, he went to a white barbershop on purpose because that barbershop had a long history of discrimination. The owners in that business district bitched and moaned to such an extent, that on the Sunday after he was gone the president of the university located in our town had an op ed in the local paper chewing them out for their racism. That's how much King stirred pots buddy. Your earlier statements were incorrect and ignorant. I suggest you educate yourself because you have made up a King that never existed. You don't know shit about Martin Luther King Jr.
While you were a child of 7 I was in my 20s and actually paying attention and understanding what was going on. Yes, he demonstrated for civil rights but he was a strong voice for non-violence. It was the violent riots that stirred the pot and increased tensions. Again, educate yourself.
Well since I was a black child, I was part of what was going on and like I said you know nothing about King. He was about non violence but not non confrontation. Understand the difference and educate yourself. King was stabbed, in his marches people got beaten and killed. You apparently did not pay attention to this which are the types of things that created the riots and that is what increased the tensions. But in usual ignorant white fashion you ignore what whites did and try blaming blacks for how they retaliated basically in self defense.. So again King was murdered by a white person which shows just how much what he was doing was appreciated by whites such as yourself.
Your racist bullshit gets old really quick.
And if you want a discussion you really need to address what I actually write instead of what you imagine or wish I wrote. I did not say that he was non-confrontational. Or that there was never any violence surrounding his demonstrations. Nor did I attempt to assign blame for violence and riots.
And, no, our respective races neither earns any points or proves anything about either of us.
The fact that MLK was murdered by a white guy proves absolutely nothing about anything.
Before you go making wild assumptions based on race you apparently need to be reminded that whites also marched with blacks-and some died- for civil rights and that their support was critical in getting civil rights legislation passed. You slander their accomplishments along with MLK's. Educate yourself.
Both of you are correct in certain aspects, and both wrong. This is a great example of why we cannot have a reasonable discussion on most topics that are emotionally charged, as this one is. My point is, it seems to me, both of you are attempting to "prove the other wrong", instead of stating your case and let the facts, and arguments speak for themselves. In other words, state your case, explain it, and answer any questions posed. All the while, trying to understand the position of those who have a differing opinion. Ask questions, seek clarification, and consider the possibility that you may be incorrect, not have the best solution, or you both may have excellent points worth considering. Above all, a discussion such as this, should never be about who is "right" but about SOLUTIONS. Unless I have missed it, neither of you have put forth any solutions. Therefore, I see this as a pointless exercise in trying to break a brick wall with your head.
Name me a peaceful revolution ?While you were a child of 7 I was in my 20s and actually paying attention and understanding what was going on. Yes, he demonstrated for civil rights but he was a strong voice for non-violence. It was the violent riots that stirred the pot and increased tensions. Again, educate yourself.
That's how the white supremacist thinks.This fool is talking about the black riots and blaming blacks for stirring some pot while ignoring the white riots at Little Rock, Oxford Mississippi, Selma, Montgomery, Birmingham and many other places. That was the violence that stirred any pots and that violence was not instigated by blacks. Yet this is a guy who wants to tell me how I was a child of 7 ad he was in his 20's but he was a white person in his 20's who apparently paid less attention to what was going on than the 7 year old black kid who was watching it all happen.
To be fair, all that really proves is what ONE white man, and any possible accomplices, thought of what Dr. King was doing. That said, there were (and still are) those who believe that James Earl Ray did a great service to the nation. I disagree in the strongest terms. However, the race of the person who shoots someone is no more proof of a larger sentiment than my standing in a garage proves that I am a car. It is evidence, but no more. Evidence that requires further fact to confirm or refute a claim.So again King was murdered by a white person which shows just how much what he was doing was appreciated by whites such as yourself.
Blacks don't want to talk about how racist they are towards White people.
See? I told you that blacks don't want to talk about their own racism.Blacks don't want to talk about how racist they are towards White people.
And whites don't want to talk about this:
There has never, ever, ever been a national set of laws or system put in place to systematically oppress white people or push them to a status that is 'less than,'" "Not once. Ever. So 'reverse racism' can truly never exist."
Alexia LaFata
Agreed. Is this a "white" problem though? Or is this an "American" problem? That is not to say it is not a problem elsewhere, but to say that it IS a problem here. That it is not a problem that is exclusive to one race or another, but that it is a problem we ALL must work to solve. The moment anyone says, "well they...." the discussion ends, and the emotional disagreement starts. Why don't we look at this another way? Why don't we say, as Morgan Freeman put it, " I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man." Are we not all men and women? What does my race or yours have to do with it? Does being a "black person" lend some credence to what you say about how racism manifests itself? Sure. Does your race have anything to do with solving the problem? No.For what it's worth, my opinion:I'm 56 years old. I don't need to educate myself on what I saw. King stirred the pot and "increased the tension." You don't think the march on Selma stirred the pot? How about he Bus Boycott? The March on Washington? His speeches? The sit ins? Hw about when they visited Birmingham and got hosed and bit by dogs. He got put in jail. But he didn't stir the pot, I guess. He just sat at home dreaming and begging whites so see his children by the content f their character, He visited my hometown about two weeks before he died. I was 7 yeas old. He met with my father and other black ministers,. I got to shake his hand. As part of his visit, he went to a white barbershop on purpose because that barbershop had a long history of discrimination. The owners in that business district bitched and moaned to such an extent, that on the Sunday after he was gone the president of the university located in our town had an op ed in the local paper chewing them out for their racism. That's how much King stirred pots buddy. Your earlier statements were incorrect and ignorant. I suggest you educate yourself because you have made up a King that never existed. You don't know shit about Martin Luther King Jr.
While you were a child of 7 I was in my 20s and actually paying attention and understanding what was going on. Yes, he demonstrated for civil rights but he was a strong voice for non-violence. It was the violent riots that stirred the pot and increased tensions. Again, educate yourself.
Well since I was a black child, I was part of what was going on and like I said you know nothing about King. He was about non violence but not non confrontation. Understand the difference and educate yourself. King was stabbed, in his marches people got beaten and killed. You apparently did not pay attention to this which are the types of things that created the riots and that is what increased the tensions. But in usual ignorant white fashion you ignore what whites did and try blaming blacks for how they retaliated basically in self defense.. So again King was murdered by a white person which shows just how much what he was doing was appreciated by whites such as yourself.
Your racist bullshit gets old really quick.
And if you want a discussion you really need to address what I actually write instead of what you imagine or wish I wrote. I did not say that he was non-confrontational. Or that there was never any violence surrounding his demonstrations. Nor did I attempt to assign blame for violence and riots.
And, no, our respective races neither earns any points or proves anything about either of us.
The fact that MLK was murdered by a white guy proves absolutely nothing about anything.
Before you go making wild assumptions based on race you apparently need to be reminded that whites also marched with blacks-and some died- for civil rights and that their support was critical in getting civil rights legislation passed. You slander their accomplishments along with MLK's. Educate yourself.
Both of you are correct in certain aspects, and both wrong. This is a great example of why we cannot have a reasonable discussion on most topics that are emotionally charged, as this one is. My point is, it seems to me, both of you are attempting to "prove the other wrong", instead of stating your case and let the facts, and arguments speak for themselves. In other words, state your case, explain it, and answer any questions posed. All the while, trying to understand the position of those who have a differing opinion. Ask questions, seek clarification, and consider the possibility that you may be incorrect, not have the best solution, or you both may have excellent points worth considering. Above all, a discussion such as this, should never be about who is "right" but about SOLUTIONS. Unless I have missed it, neither of you have put forth any solutions. Therefore, I see this as a pointless exercise in trying to break a brick wall with your head.
I do not really appreciate when a white person decides to tell someone about how they are dissing King according to their belief of what King stood for which misses what he stood for. The solution is that whites need to get together and work to end the racism in their communities. Now I know that is going to be opposed but blacks have been working and working to do things for 200 years and things don't change they get rebranded and done differently. Until that stops, until whites can listen then we don't get change.
