Then why did you respond that way, as that wasn't the core theme of my message?
Majority of people supported him, but it was the vocal minority that gained the most attention and is what people tend to focus on. His legacy is the focus.
Why would people be so outraged about his murder if they weren't originally supportive?I'm confused.
Earlier when @SebastianBlue posted an poll/ article to underline his point you said 'not be believe polls', facetious or not and yet you claim "the majority" supported Dr King's position without so much as a quote posted.
Is this not a strange position to be fighting from...?
I wish you'd think before you write.
It would save us so much time...
There is heaps of reputable, scholarly evidence, which I have tried to share with you, just none that you are seemingly willing to acknowledge.Why would people be so outraged about his murder if they weren't originally supportive?
Polls always attract the usual type; those who want to have their opinion expressed and then used as an example of the national feeling. There is simply no evidence to suggest that the majority of American people were opposed to the message that MLK advocated.
And of all those racist countries, the U.S. is the least racist of all...I think to sum that up, it's fair to say that there isn't a single country in the World where racism doesn't exist. These threads tend to get mired in the anti US rhetoric as if it's a bigger problem here than anywhere else. The fact that the US had a two term Black president, voted predominantly by white people speaks volumes as to where we are in relationship to other countries, we're just transparent about it. I know wrong thread, so I'll go back to work
Yes, I happen to have on hand the opinion polls of all 300m Americans. Or I could sample an opinion poll from the heated political context from the 1960's. (sarcasm)Ok, mate, you and I (and most historians) will just have to agree to disagree.
Could you share the evidence you have for most of America supporting or being indifferent to MLK in 1968?
I would genuinely like to review it, as I have not seen it from reputable historians and scholars, but may have missed it (there is a lot of info
There is heaps of reputable, scholarly evidence, which I have tried to share with you, just none that you are seemingly willing acknowledge.
Could you share the evidence you have for most of America supporting or being indifferent to MLK in 1968?
I would genuinely like to review it, as I have not seen it from reputable historians and scholars, but may have missed it (there is a lot of info out there).
Tbh mate it's more the manner in which he was shoving his view down my throat and calling me an idiot I had issue with - happy to play that game all day. He'd do better to adopt your own approach of patient reasoning with those you disagree with which is to be admired. 'March peacefully' has health benefits as part of an exercise program but perhaps limits in its ability to effect social change! You have to cause some inconvenience and disruption to get a protest noticed, but it's a fine line between that and going so far that the sympathy you seek/need gets destroyed - see blm or environment protests. I won't pretend to be the judge of that fine line, and unfortunately those in the heat of protest are probably not in the best place to do so either.So, I have a question. I understand that to some degree we have consensus on issues.
I 'liked' @domalino because it's 99.9% treu, but his opinion of you is his own. I neither agree or disagree with his personal view as we HAVE come to consensus along the line.
So, my question is; if nothing, within the 'system' (that disproportionately affects certain demographics) has changed regarding the basic recognition that everyone is equal, what do you offer as a solution or a pathway to peace?
I do wonder if 'march peacefully' is going to be one of the answers...
I have not said they have always been against MLK’s message.Yes, I happen to have on hand the opinion polls of all 300m Americans. Or I could sample an opinion poll from the heated political context from the 1960's. (sarcasm)
Historical hindsight is what I have. If MLK was universally hated, his murder wouldn't have made such an impact on the consciousness of the enitre country. The fact it did shows that people were listening to him. What you appear to be suggesting is that white American have and always have been against MLk's message and i'd really like to see your sources for that becausde history has shown that has not been the case.
You ask "show me a poll that says white people supported MLK"; none were ever concluded on a national scale.
Because you are arguing against a point I wasn't even making.I have not said they have always been against MLK’s message.
Nor did I ask you to “show me a poll that says white people supported MLK” — you are “quoting” something I never said. I asked if you could share “the evidence you have for most of America supporting or being indifferent to MLK in 1968”, as that is what we have been debating.
And I have actually provided evidence of the majority of America not supporting MLK’s message when he died (which included a poll concluded on a national scale, so I am not sure how you can say none exists).
I also explained that the shift toward majority support happened over many years, which is again based on many historical accounts and scholarly studies (some referenced in the various articles I shared with you). That position is not my personal reading of my limited understanding of that time in America’s history (as you term it, “historical hindsight”).
Why are you misrepresenting what I have said and shifting the discussion to something I wasn’t arguing?
Wait, so I am arguing against a point you weren’t making but this is the first time you have said this in the entire debate?Because you are arguing against a point I wasn't even making.
Annoying, isn't it.