this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
-21 points (30.9% liked)

Conservative

374 readers
87 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass were both dedicated to bringing about an America that was colorblind, Andre Archie says, but their work is being undermined.

Obviously, this is the height of foolishness, in my opinion.

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yesman 13 points 10 months ago

"Colorblindness" is just reconciliation without the truth. It's a project concerned with the comfort of white people.

You can't just use cherry picked quotes to make dead men endorse stupid shit

-Jesus Christ

[–] ChonkyOwlbear 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Colorblindness only works if nobody is racist. As long as there is racism, certain people will have different experiences and difficulties as a result. Failure to recognize these differences allows you the problems caused by racism to be perpetuated.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Color blindness isn’t literal blindness. It’s a choice to focus on the aspects of a person other than their race.

If a person is experiencing racism, you’re allowed to see that if you’re “color blind”. You’re just not allowed to perpetuate it.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear 3 points 9 months ago

That is fine on a personal level, but falls apart on the socio-political level. The government is expected to step in when people are discriminated against and that can't happen if they are colorblind.

[–] Anticorp -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's not true. When race isn't a central focus, then racism stands out even more, and is appalling and shocking. When I was in the Army we were about as blended of a group as you can get. Most of us didn't think of each other as black, or white, or Mexican, or Asian. We thought of each other as our brothers in arms. When someone occasionally said something racist, every head would turn. You'd have a couple dozen guys of all ethnicities perk up and be like "WTF did you just say? No fucking cool, man". You don't need to make the central focus of every person's identity their race to overcome racism. Honestly, that approach seems quite counterproductive to me since it separates and isolates people by the color of their skin, rather than building a community bonded by their humanity.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear 5 points 9 months ago

The army is a bit different as soldiers are indoctrinated to identify themselves as military above any other self-identity. That doesn't exist in the civilian world

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non­-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.

https://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/

I always find it funny when conservatives think that Martin Luther King was on their side.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Anyone who thinks that Martin Luther King and the slave owning Founding Fathers had the same vision is pretty blind themselves.

[–] Anticorp 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Frederick Douglass was a former slave, not a slave owning founding father. You should definitely read about him, since he was an intelligent badass who spoke many truths applicable to this day. My favorite quote from him is:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I like to point out that he worked for political candidates at a time when he himself was unable to vote. Most of the people he worked for couldn't promise to end slavery, but he understood that you have to take small steps.

[–] Anticorp 5 points 10 months ago

Yes, he understood what a lot of people don't these days, which is that you work with what you have. He could have raged and cried about the unfairness of the situation, but instead he chose to use the venues available to him, and carved his place in history as a result, heavily impacting society of his time and ours.

[–] Anticorp 2 points 10 months ago

Fucking finally! Yes please.