Thank you for this piece. I really appreciate the nuance and the author’s willingness to say “we simply don’t know” what MLK would think of the conversation about race today.
I think his legacy has become a political football. When people say, What about MLK’s ‘content of my character’ reference in his “I have a dream” speech, today’s left answers with other MLK quotes in an attempt to show that he would have sided with them.
Then I saw an interview with a man who was a MLK’s friend and fellow activist (I think it was in The Free Press) who said that MLK would have only disdain for this “the answer to racism is more racism” tactic.
Thank you for this thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. So much of this ongoing acrimony is driven by the use of the inaccurate, anachronistic terms with which we classify people. As I — and others — have repeatedly pointed out, colloquial racial categories are virtually meaningless, and can't, therefore, lead to any real or nuanced understanding of human experiential diversity. For instance, "The ACT Isn’t Racially Biased Because “Black" and “White” Aren’t Races"
I agree with the author, and firmly believe that we should abandon these archaic 'racial' terms and focus on our commonalities and shared experiences with compassion and understanding… by everyone. Thank you again. Sincerely, Frederick
Thanks for responding! Regarding Dems being more reasonable than their media, I live in Portland. I hang out on Substack in search of sanity. If it exists where you live, you are blessed!
Thanks for this, could not agree more. King’s legacy must be rescued from any taint of the kind of nonsense that goes under the name “anti-racism”.
However, one small objection. Where you said that “King strongly supported affirmative action in 1965 as a necessary corrective to centuries of segregation”, I see no evidence of this at all. You provide a link to a speech King gave at Drew University in 1964. There is nothing in this speech that comes anywhere near endorsing what we call affirmative action.
Good piece, I would clarify, as others have written in substack far better than I will here, that affirmative action as MLK stated is not a contemporary biased hiring process, but an affirmative invitation process.
The “action” was “affirmative” elimination of selection pool bias and “judgement” absent “color of skin” by focusing on “content of character”.
I see it as a process of intentionally expanding invitations to participate in important roles.
These roles are anything which requires merit discrimination. (I can't find less abstract words this AM, sorry) - student, labor, law, management
This meant your reaching out to new communities to seek candidates, instead of selecting only a pool you may be part of, or most familiar with.
It did not mean changing critera for selection itself - he was quite clear on being judged by “content of character”.
All racial discussions seem to try and build on MLK Jr. I believe that's because MLK is as close to common ground as the anti-racism versus color-blind sides are going to get.
From my perspective, the first step is for anyone who identifies as "white" to stop doing it. Instead of asking for race on questionnaires, start asking for heritage. My heritage is Danish. My parents immigrated from Europe. I believe "Black" - note its capitalized which typical white is not - is a heritage in the divided states. People who identify as "Black" chose that heritage over African.
The brown designation is ridiculous. I do not know anyone who identifies as "brown" - note its lower case. They either identify as Hispanic or Indian (i.e. India).
I respect Mr. Adorney's patience in crafting this careful argument in opposition to the anti-white racism that has been embraced by the so-called Progressive Democrats in the U.S. Unfortunately, they are no longer capable of being influenced by rational thought. They are deeply immersed in an orgy of self-congratulations and intense hatred towards other white people, because they just found out in 2020 that there is a history of racism in the U.S. They feel a need to discredit those of us who knew that before they were born, because it is a blow to their egos. Democrats are progressive only in the sense that they are progressing rapidly towards becoming a completely exclusionary club of upper middle class white snobs. Ibram Kendi and Robin D'Angelo have caused more damage to our society than any other charlatans in recent history, but they have succeeded only because they provided such effective weapons to Democrats whose primary need in life is to feel superior to other white people.
Thank you for this piece. I really appreciate the nuance and the author’s willingness to say “we simply don’t know” what MLK would think of the conversation about race today.
I think his legacy has become a political football. When people say, What about MLK’s ‘content of my character’ reference in his “I have a dream” speech, today’s left answers with other MLK quotes in an attempt to show that he would have sided with them.
Then I saw an interview with a man who was a MLK’s friend and fellow activist (I think it was in The Free Press) who said that MLK would have only disdain for this “the answer to racism is more racism” tactic.
Thank you for this thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. So much of this ongoing acrimony is driven by the use of the inaccurate, anachronistic terms with which we classify people. As I — and others — have repeatedly pointed out, colloquial racial categories are virtually meaningless, and can't, therefore, lead to any real or nuanced understanding of human experiential diversity. For instance, "The ACT Isn’t Racially Biased Because “Black" and “White” Aren’t Races"
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/the-act-isnt-racially-biased-because
I agree with the author, and firmly believe that we should abandon these archaic 'racial' terms and focus on our commonalities and shared experiences with compassion and understanding… by everyone. Thank you again. Sincerely, Frederick
Thanks for responding! Regarding Dems being more reasonable than their media, I live in Portland. I hang out on Substack in search of sanity. If it exists where you live, you are blessed!
Thanks for this, could not agree more. King’s legacy must be rescued from any taint of the kind of nonsense that goes under the name “anti-racism”.
However, one small objection. Where you said that “King strongly supported affirmative action in 1965 as a necessary corrective to centuries of segregation”, I see no evidence of this at all. You provide a link to a speech King gave at Drew University in 1964. There is nothing in this speech that comes anywhere near endorsing what we call affirmative action.
Good piece, I would clarify, as others have written in substack far better than I will here, that affirmative action as MLK stated is not a contemporary biased hiring process, but an affirmative invitation process.
The “action” was “affirmative” elimination of selection pool bias and “judgement” absent “color of skin” by focusing on “content of character”.
I see it as a process of intentionally expanding invitations to participate in important roles.
These roles are anything which requires merit discrimination. (I can't find less abstract words this AM, sorry) - student, labor, law, management
This meant your reaching out to new communities to seek candidates, instead of selecting only a pool you may be part of, or most familiar with.
It did not mean changing critera for selection itself - he was quite clear on being judged by “content of character”.
All racial discussions seem to try and build on MLK Jr. I believe that's because MLK is as close to common ground as the anti-racism versus color-blind sides are going to get.
From my perspective, the first step is for anyone who identifies as "white" to stop doing it. Instead of asking for race on questionnaires, start asking for heritage. My heritage is Danish. My parents immigrated from Europe. I believe "Black" - note its capitalized which typical white is not - is a heritage in the divided states. People who identify as "Black" chose that heritage over African.
The brown designation is ridiculous. I do not know anyone who identifies as "brown" - note its lower case. They either identify as Hispanic or Indian (i.e. India).
The bottom line, the term "whjite" as an identity is the problem. I wrote a medium article asking people who identify with that label what they really thinking they are identifying as:https://medium.com/@rogue4gay/what-does-it-mean-to-claim-you-are-white-0d7c2b844ad0
Too many people use the term "white" as if its clearly understood. Its anything but clear what the meaning of using that label is.
Great article!
I respect Mr. Adorney's patience in crafting this careful argument in opposition to the anti-white racism that has been embraced by the so-called Progressive Democrats in the U.S. Unfortunately, they are no longer capable of being influenced by rational thought. They are deeply immersed in an orgy of self-congratulations and intense hatred towards other white people, because they just found out in 2020 that there is a history of racism in the U.S. They feel a need to discredit those of us who knew that before they were born, because it is a blow to their egos. Democrats are progressive only in the sense that they are progressing rapidly towards becoming a completely exclusionary club of upper middle class white snobs. Ibram Kendi and Robin D'Angelo have caused more damage to our society than any other charlatans in recent history, but they have succeeded only because they provided such effective weapons to Democrats whose primary need in life is to feel superior to other white people.