|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
faster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| 1. Yes, I was wrong in my statement and should have read your statement with more nuance. I made my comments in the light of the remark being along side a reference to Debs. Don't think we should put MLK alongside Debs, both different animals. |
I didn't intend a strong connection between the two, but clearly a weak connection exists. Debs was working his entire life for class and socioconomic progress, and King, later in his life, turned his attention to that problem as well.
| ddeubel wrote: |
| 3. My main point is not to confuse the MLK of the short years 65-68 who made some angry pronouncements and leaned towards politics (vietnam, guaranteed income, agitation). By far, his life in total showed how he was above the "divisiveness" of politics and was through and through a christian in the "liberational" sense. Even his SCLC was purely nonpartisan and above the normal sectarian lines..... |
I wouldn't be so quick to discount the direction King was moving in when he was so tragically cut down. It's extremely telling that even a man who had given so much to the Civil Rights cause came to recognize that beneath it lie other, even more pernicious, social injustices. I believe that what you call "some angry pronouncements" represent a bold and confident move toward becoming an even more powerful social leader.
Also, and I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, I'd argue that his late move away from being the safely nonpartisan/apolitical social conscience was a good and necessary one. He'd established himself in that capacity, and was poised to use his status as an incorruptible moral leader as a springboard to right other social wrongs. In light of his later direction, his death is even more tragic.
But yeah, amazing orator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No surprise to see Winnie topping the Guardian list. Frankly, I think Hitler should've been given consideration: vile, deceitful as most of his speeches were, they were classics of a kind(e.g. his Reichstag reply to FDR's open letter). Ditto w/Goebbels(his "Total War" speech). I was thinking of WJ Bryan's "Crosses of Gold" speech, too, but that wasn't 20th C., was it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I was thinking of WJ Bryan's "Crosses of Gold" speech, too, but that wasn't 20th C., was it? |
NO, but I would have loved to have heard him speak. It was said, he could fire up, the most hardened of hearts......One guy I always felt wasn't given enough of the limelight, history wise, in American politics. (but they never do in America, especially for 2 time losers.) though I personally can't stomach his extreme moralizing and Christian zeal....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
