Martin Luther King is getting credit for things he did not do.

Martin Luther King Jr. has received credit that he does not deserve. I want to know what did MLK do for me. Thrugood Marshall said that MLK gave nice speeches while other blacks did the hard work. MLK never tried to change the law. He never fought in any legal aspects to congress nor to the Supreme Courts. He only gave public speeches. Giving a speech is great. What good is a speech without action? I do not mean violent action, I mean legal action. He did not take any legal action. Actions speak louder than words. Anyone can give a speech. However, he never took any legal actions to make change. It is impossible to change the law without taking legal action.

Did MLK help blacks get into school? Nope! Thrugood Marshall is the reason why blacks are in school. Many black lawyers of the NAACP helped blacks go to school. MLK was not involved in this process.

Is MLK the reason why blacks are in sports? NO! I will take it a step further. Jackie Robinson is not the reason why blacks are in sports. The NFL actually had black players in the 20s. However, many black players were cut because some teams were no longer active. These black players went to the AFL(today's AFC).However, a larger number blacks reappeared in NFL by 1946. Some of these blacks are in the NFL Hall of Fame.

Did MLK end bus segeration? Nope. Ed Nixon set up the boycott with Rosa Parks and many civil right leaders including King. However, this was Nixon's plan. Do you here about him in black history? MLK was not even involved in Rosa's court case.

Lyndon Johnson pushed congress to pass the civil rights act of 1964. He is not mention in black history.

You may find my opinion to be crazy. Maybe you will find my post to be self hate. Let me leave you all with this note. Thurgood Marshall also had the same opinion about Martin Lurther King as I do!

I am black by the way.

He was an inspirational leader. If you truly think he did nothing but give a speech, you should probably brush up on your research. Atop that, if we went around giving holidays to everyone, we'd have way too many holidays. MLK has come to symbolize the civil rights movement, and as a result has been given a holiday.

Without his voice, the movement would have had no voice. implying he did nothing is fucking stupid.

The Civil Rights moment had MANY voices. MLK is not the only person in this movement. MLK did give speeches. That was the only thing he did in the movement. He never went to court to fight the law. There were many black lawyers who fought the law. Many times they lost, but they stood back up. They continued to fight and eventually won their battles. They changed the law. Who got their credit? MLK did not change a single law.

OMG, you are soooooooo right!!!!

Not really.
It's like saying Obama had nothing to do with the gay rights movement. All he did was sign his name on a piece of paper. Oh, wait, that piece of paper allowed for states to chose to have gay marriage or not. It didn't exactly work out the way we might have wanted, but it was progress.

You live in a democracy; ostensibly the law gets changed when a majority of citizens think it should be changed. The role of the courts is generally limited and only rarely does it really "lead" the way in changing laws. "Giving speeches" can raise awareness and change people's minds, and hence change the law. MLK was a charismatic leader who inspired hope in a lot of people and helped change minds. I think you are underestimating his importance.

OMG, you are soooooooo right!!!!

Not really.
It's like saying Obama had nothing to do with the gay rights movement. All he did was sign his name on a piece of paper. Oh, wait, that piece of paper allowed for states to chose to have gay marriage or not. It didn't exactly work out the way we might have wanted, but it was progress.

You don't understand what my message is about.

Unlike King, Obama deserves credit. Obama was part of the legal process to help homosexuals and transsexuals. MLK was never part of any legal process. He never spoke to congress nationally. He never had any casts held at the states' and federal's Supreme Courts. He never wrote a bill.

What if MLK never existed? These legal changes in the law to stop segregation would still be in place because he was NEVER apart of the legal law changing process. He only talked and didn't walk!

You're undermining the power of speech. An idea is powerless if it isn't spread and supported by the people. King spread and fueled the message of equality.

Also, what are you talking about redyugi? When were states not permitted to decide on the legality of gay marriage? This is news to me.

You live in a democracy; ostensibly the law gets changed when a majority of citizens think it should be changed. The role of the courts is generally limited and only rarely does it really "lead" the way in changing laws. "Giving speeches" can raise awareness and change people's minds, and hence change the law. MLK was a charismatic leader who inspired hope in a lot of people and helped change minds. I think you are underestimating his importance.

Look at the laws that were changed. He never once was involved in these cases. Actually if you look at the Civil Rights moment most of the laws were changed by the States' and Federal's Supreme Courts. The NAACP's lawyers fought many cases that most people have no knowledge of their importance.

Democrats supported blacks because they needed the black vote. Republicans no longer cared about the black vote because they could win without the black vote. Democrats ironically helped the the movement. lol That's why the Democrats pushed for civil right bills to be passed. Look at the politicians who helped the blacks in this movement. The majority of them were Democrats.

To be fair, I have heard a lot about Martin Luther King getting more praise than he deserved. Example, the march that would eventually lead to him giving the famous "I Have A Dream" speech was actually more organized by Bayard Rustin. The year he won the Nobel Peace Award for his efforts in the civil rights movement, many black people were angered with his support and advocation of the war in Vietnam. I'm going only by hearsay, but there was a lot I've heard against him.

However, without him, I doubt the civil rights movement would have come as far as it did. He was a strong presence whose voice did manage to send out their message. So, to say that he did nothing is untrue.

King did NOT support the Vietnam war. He was against it.

Look at the examples I gave. MLK is not the man who put blacks into white schools. MLK did not set up the bus boycotts. MLK did not write a single bill. MLK NEVER went to any court case to support the movement. MLK did not help blacks get into sports, that actually happen before he entered into the movement.

lol, I feel like you're lurking so hard in this thread. I say you just want to argue with somebody so bad right now haha

King did NOT support the Vietnam war. He was against it.

Not according to what I've heard. But then, I could be wrong; I've done no research into this, nor do I care to. Martin Luther King is gone, and I'd much rather celebrate MLK day in respect of the movement itself and all the people who fought for it rather than the man himself.

King did NOT support the Vietnam war. He was against it.

Not according to what I've heard. But then, I could be wrong; I've done no research into this, nor do I care to. Martin Luther King is gone, and I'd much rather celebrate MLK day in respect of the movement itself and all the people who fought for it rather than the man himself.

You're not being logical. You can't believe everything you hear. Most people would say that lower class people commit the most crimes. However, statistics prove that the upper class commits the most crime and the lower class commits the least amount of crime.

How can you say you refuse to research information and go by word of mouth? You're not even trying to debate. Instead you are saying things without researched knowledge. A debate requires reasonable people to do their research before opening their mouths.

It's ironic that I am now defending King on a different issue. lol

I think you're underemphasizing the importance of speech and overemphasizing the court system. Jesus also didn't write any laws or fight any court battles. Has He had no effect on the world? Not that I'm comparing Jesus to MLK - just an example to show that ideas and the conveyance of those ideas matters.

I think you're underemphasizing the importance of speech and overemphasizing the court system. Jesus also didn't write any laws or fight any court battles. Has He had no effect on the world? Not that I'm comparing Jesus to MLK - just an example to show that ideas and the conveyance of those ideas matters.

Jesus actually took action. Not only did he talk, he walked! Let me explain. Jesus had a religious mission. Jesus helped the sick. Jesus saved sinners. Jesus actually did tell the Roman Government that the world should have a universal economic system, for example every nation uses the same currency. Roman government rejected such an idea, and saw Jesus as a threat.

Jesus's mission did not involve human rights. It's hard to say he needed to go to court. God gives people the choices to worship him or not to worship him.

Jesus actually started new christian laws, but did not write them. Jesus told Christians that they are now allowed to eat scaled fish. Jesus broke many Old Testament laws, and removed them.

Also, what are you talking about redyugi? When were states not permitted to decide on the legality of gay marriage? This is news to me.

Oh, wait, that piece of paper allowed for states to chose to have gay marriage or not. It didn't exactly work out the way we might have wanted, but it was progress.

The power of reading

Yeah, and Rosa Parks liek, totally didn't matter cuz all she did was sit in a bus seat, amirite?

Martin Luther King inspired people and gave them hope. How do you know he could have even done any good in the legal system? Was he a politician? Correct me if I'm wrong, and I very well could be wrong, but I don't remember him being anything more than an activist and clergyman.

Also, what are you talking about redyugi? When were states not permitted to decide on the legality of gay marriage? This is news to me.

Oh, wait, that piece of paper allowed for states to chose to have gay marriage or not. It didn't exactly work out the way we might have wanted, but it was progress.

The power of reading

I'm asking what disallowed states to decide whether or not gay marriage is legal within their state. It would already have to be prohibited in order for allowing it to make any sense. Unless the power is prohibited to the states, it's authorized by the 10th amendment of the US constitution. What prohibited it, and what legislation did the current president sign to allowed it?

You're forgetting that most major societal changes need either a scapegoat or a poster-child. Regardless of whether or not he was the only one who did anything, the things he did, coupled with his assassination, make him the perfect poster-child for equality. Most everything that happens in life are eventualities. If it wasn't King, it would've been someone else. That much I agree with. The thing is, it doesn't really matter. King is no longer just a person, he is a symbol.

You're forgetting that most major societal changes need either a scapegoat or a poster-child. Regardless of whether or not he was the only one who did anything, the things he did, coupled with his assassination, make him the perfect poster-child for equality. Most everything that happens in life are eventualities. If it wasn't King, it would've been someone else. That much I agree with. The thing is, it doesn't really matter. King is no longer just a person, he is a symbol.

I see King as the scapegoat and poster-child.

Also, what are you talking about redyugi? When were states not permitted to decide on the legality of gay marriage? This is news to me.

Oh, wait, that piece of paper allowed for states to chose to have gay marriage or not. It didn't exactly work out the way we might have wanted, but it was progress.

The power of reading

I'm asking what disallowed states to decide whether or not gay marriage is legal within their state. It would already have to be prohibited in order for allowing it to make any sense. Unless the power is prohibited to the states, it's authorized by the 10th amendment of the US constitution. What prohibited it, and what legislation did the current president sign to allowed it?

Ah.. I see.. That does make sense, therefore, I am going to research after my raid today.

Jesus actually started new christian laws, but did not write them. Jesus told Christians that they are now allowed to eat scaled fish. Jesus broke many Old Testament laws, and removed them.

Wait, what the hell? MLK never actually wrote laws either. MLK told people to break laws, too (civil disobedience). What makes them so different in the context of this debate?

All the boycotters and all the sit-ins and stuff. They're all worthless because they made no legal changes? Like MA said, speeches raise awareness. Really, who gives a crap about what the black people were doing back then? Who really paid attention? What change is a few hundred black people going to do? Raise awareness, get more participation, make a bigger impact. Those court decisions never would have happened unless people cared enough about black rights.

It's like saying an SAT prep class is worthless. I mean, they're not actually providing answers real-time during the middle of the SATs. They just give possible things that could come up on your SAT. The preparation for something is just as important as the thing it leads up to.

Jesus actually started new christian laws, but did not write them. Jesus told Christians that they are now allowed to eat scaled fish. Jesus broke many Old Testament laws, and removed them.

Wait, what the hell? MLK never actually wrote laws either. MLK told people to break laws, too (civil disobedience). What makes them so different in the context of this debate?

Uh. He said that.

It's like saying an SAT prep class is worthless. I mean, they're not actually providing answers real-time during the middle of the SATs. They just give possible things that could come up on your SAT. The preparation for something is just as important as the thing it leads up to.

SATs are actually useless. lol. The higher your score the more likely you'll be to accomplish more time in higher education. If you do really well it's like telling colleges that you're likely to accomplish all 4, or more, years of college. If you suck dick it's like telling colleges that you'll likely drop out of college after a year. It doesn't really mean much else. A way for colleges to check their possible investments. Even so, it's total here-say.

Jesus actually started new christian laws, but did not write them. Jesus told Christians that they are now allowed to eat scaled fish. Jesus broke many Old Testament laws, and removed them.

All the boycotters and all the sit-ins and stuff. They're all worthless because they made no legal changes? Like MA said, speeches raise awareness. Really, who gives a crap about what the black people were doing back then? Who really paid attention? What change is a few hundred black people going to do? Raise awareness, get more participation, make a bigger impact. Those court decisions never would have happened unless people cared enough about black rights.

It's like saying an SAT prep class is worthless. I mean, they're not actually providing answers real-time during the middle of the SATs. They just give possible things that could come up on your SAT. The preparation for something is just as important as the thing it leads up to.

You suggest you reread my posts. I never said any of those things.

By the way while you're rereading I never said the boycott was unimportant. I said the wrong person got the credit. Damn