ya shouldn't just dismiss people out of hand..
i dunno about a darker side to MLK tbh.. but there is a lot of cases where this is true; like ghandi, mother teresa, nelson mandella, etc.
i doubt MLK was one tbh tho cos he was a reverend and stuff.. but mother teresa used to tell dying people they couldn't go to hospital because it was gods will if they died.. ghandi was involved in a lot of the massacres that went on between the hindu and musims. mandella bombed people i think?
there are good people as well.. but they're often only recognized posthumously. tesla for example.
modern left doesn't agree with MLK at all though you know? they agree with malcolm x in his early days.
- it's the difference between "we're all the same", and; "we're all different but equally equivalent"
this is what cultual relativism is, and by extension post-modernism.
the question is: are these other cultures simply a few 100 years behind the west? or have they just developed along different but equally equivalent lines.
think of it in terms of food: "our roast dinner, is superior to your chicken madras."
but not because it is made by superior people, but because it is cooked with more modern appliances etc, or from a more developed culture.
this is not necessarily correct see. that's where the cultural relativism comes from.
then by the same logic - modernism - the belief that we just need to like for example: bring refrigeration to china, so they dont have to use wet markets to keep their food fresh. which is also imperialism - lets bring everyone into the modern world.
see how it works?
the problem with cultural relativism and post-modernism, is you cant say anything is better than anything else. so you cant actually build *anything*. cos like, having stuff built is not necessarily better than not having stuff built - it's just relative. see? fucked innit
lol
having the plague is not necessarily better than not having the plague! \o/
one of my fav techniques of argument is one called "reducto ad absurdem" - "reduction to the absurd".
so basically you extend the same logic out to it's extremes and see if it gets ridiculous.
i dont see how that would happen with MLK's stuff tho.
i suppose you could say that everyone would mix, then the system would break down because everyone'd just be a sorta tanned colour?
is that absurd? hmm
see im looking at this, and im like.. ultimately, one side wants the tanned future, other side wants segregation and the races more clearly defined... so like... who's racist??
then i dunno why the fk BLM and like the KKK are fighting, cos they want the same thing?
it doesn't matter which side you are on in that, they are both arguing for the same reality.
the sides are completely arbitrary.
the way i look at it, is im not saying do mix, im not saying dont. im just saying, race should not be a factor in deciding if you mix.
if you like them, then you like them, if you dont, then you dont. but dont like OR dislike them BECAUSE of their race.
you judge people on the content of their character. MLK never said "like everybody"..
you're still allowed to have an opinion, and your own personality.
honestly, this side of the argument, has a very, very strong, and deep base in liberalism, and individualism. one might call it, based ;P