And I’m sorry if …

[1StrongBlackMan]

some view this post as divisive; but I consider this an essential part of any discussion of Race.

So … Is it just me, or do some liberals have some intrinsic need to use the words of Black Civil Rights leaders to support their position on a topic; but seemingly, without putting forth the least effort to understand the context and/or meaning of said leader’s words? And, is this just another example of the privilege/hubris of some white liberals?

Take any discussion of race, in general; but the effects of racism, to include white privilege, Affirmative Action or discrimination, in particular, and inevitably someone will reference Dr. King’s Dream of a Color-blind Society … Yeah, that’s what the words say, however, the person citing to the Dream, clearly, understands the Dream as a call for racelessness. That was NOT what Dr. King was advocating when he spoke of his dream; and, even a cursory reading of his preceding and/or following speeches would so inform. But a google search of “race doesn’t matter” plus “Black leader” pulls up that quote, so they go for it.

The other day, I saw someone quoting Malcolm X in support their opposition to the “NSA/Police State.” I remember, seeing the post and telling myself to loop back to it to correct the reference; but, life happened and I soon forgot about where it was and who said it, so it will be forever lost in the digital world. But suffice it to say, I was familiar with the quote, and it was, in fact, taken devoid of the framing that Malcolm had establish with his other words.

Now today, someone has cited to Civil Rights great, Rep. John Lewis’ comment regarding snowden. The OP had Lewis putting Snowden in the same tradition of Civil Rights icons as Dr. King, Ghandi, and H.D. Thoreau. I know the point of the OP was to say, “See? Even a widely regarded Civil Rights leader, says that Snowden is right in his civil disobedience of leaking the Classified information.”

Well … again, that IS what Rep. Lewis said … but, again, only a PART of what Rep. Lewis said, and I would suggest, very little of what he meant.

Here is what Rep. Lewis said:

In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price,

I have added the highlight and italics to direct attention to what Rep. Lewis said, and what the OP, at best, minimizes, but in my view (based on his/her subsequent dismissive comments following the OP), neglected to give any relevance … those 6 words that, regardless of the OP’s intent, completely gives lie to the OPs co-option of Lewis’ words.

The “and be willing to pay the price” part was not a through away line … it gives context to what makes civil disobedience is noble. If that were not the case, why would Rep. Lewis have mentioned the 44 times he was arrested?

It’s not merely acting on one’s conscious, that makes civil disobedience courageous; but doing so knowing you are acting on the courage of your conviction and because of that courage, you are willing to pay the price.

To frame snowden in the tradition of the Civil Rights greats, is to cheapen their legacy. And is highly offensive to this Black man.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I will reply in detail

Tomorrow. But this should not be divisive at all.

[Number23]

2. Malcolm, Martin and Corretta have been so co-opted, white washed and dismembered it's not even funny

Ask kwassa, Brewman_Jax (if he dared to step foot in this cesspool anymore), Karenina (same as B_J) and others how many times we have had to beat our heads against white co-opting of civil rights leaders in order to bolster their arguments, no matter how weak or just completely unrelated.

Not only is it disgusting but I honestly do believe that alot of it is an attempt to "shame" modern day blacks for not feeling a certain way about an issue as our elders do. One of the reasons I have taken to posting some of MLK's much more fiery, strongly, FIERCELY pro-black speeches is because I was sick and goddamned tired of places like DU acting as though MLK was suddenly more anti-(insert issue) than he was pro black rights.

After seeing more than one poster here say that MLK wasn't "just" a black rights activist (as if the far less powerful or numerous speeches/activities he gave being against the Vietnam War or other issues are just so much more damn important than the number of times he got his ass beat or thrown in jail trying to improve the lives of black people), I'd just had enough. I started posting clips and bits from MLK, Malcolm whoever that showed in no uncertain terms what their message truly was and what they were truly fighting for. Things have gotten so damn crazy around here with the white-washing and co-opting that when I posted a well-known quote from Malcolm talking about how underhanded and shady white liberals were, PEOPLE ACCUSED ME OF MAKING THAT SHIT UP. And what's really so funny about all of this to me is that when these brothers were alive, the majority of white people HATED THEIR GUTS. Now, they are contorting themselves into pretzels trying to tie their messages/activism whatever to anything uttered by these people, even in passing.

Glad you posted the quote in its entirety.

[Neoma]

3. The "I have a dream speech"...I don't consider that as a, "people should be colorblind" thing...

Just that words and actions matter a great deal more than someone's genetic makeup. No one should be rejected by skin color (or gender, or disabilities, etc.) alone... But that doesn't mean a person doesn't have that genetic makeup! (Or gender, or disability, etc.)

I haven't gone into the Snowden debates. When people are juggling around true and false facts like that, I just wait it out. I didn't go into Zimmerman arguments until truth and lies settled a bit more also. When pieces of puzzles are still streaming out in a very controversal event, it's best to keep it at arms length for a time and then muddle through it later.

So, I guess I'm saying that I'm undereducated about this point. I haven't noticed your observation but I'll know to look for it now.

[Cha]

4. I'm so glad you wrote this, 1StrongBlackMan.. I had just read this on another

site..

By the way, the Guardian (and it's emoprog readers) misquoted the good Congressman’s words. I read the article and he did not actually say or imply that Snowden did the right thing. The Guardian took his words – which were stated in abstract terms – as specifically referring to Snowden.

"Here’s the Guardian’s excerpt:

// Asked in interview with the Guardian whether Snowden was engaged in an act of civil disobedience, Lewis nodded and replied: “In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience.

You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price.”“That is what we did,” he added. “I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I’ve been in Congress I’ve been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it.” //

Apart from the part where the Guardian *claims* that Lewis “nodded,” he did not say that Snowden did any of these things. He used the word “if” to suggest that civil disobedience occurs only if these other conditions are true. But we know that in Snowden’s case, these conditions are NOT true, and therefore civil disobedience does not apply to Snowden.

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/08/07/news-of-the-day-14/

Bold words from me.

thank you so much for your OP. snowden is no where near any of the "civil rights greats" .. no matter how much they wish it or try to spin it.

[Cha]

5. Oh, and Chris Hayes got it wrong too.

Christopher Hayes ✔ @chrislhayes

So John Lewis is apparently an emoprog, too. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/john-lewis-civil-rights-edward-snowden?CMP=twt_fd …

PragmaticObotsUnite @PragObots

@chrislhayes No. An emoprog is an emotional PBO critic who uses a Civil Rights hero to justify his crush on Snowden. In other words...you.1:58 PM - 7 Aug 2013

12 Retweets 7 favorites ReplyRetweet

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/08/07/news-of-the-day-14/

[Summer Hathaway]

6. I am not an African-American

and I post in this group as (hopefully) a respectful guest.

I do not pretend to understand how black Americans feel about every issue, especially political issues. I cannot always see things through their eyes; I am unable to view the world from their unique perspective.

That being said, I am always in awe of people like yourself, 1StrongBlackMan, who can so adeptly and eloquently express things in such a way as to give me a glimpse of the world through eyes that are not my own, who can lead me to a fuller understanding of how life looks when viewed by someone of a different race, a different religion, a different background, a different well of experience to draw from. And you have done so here with incredible skill.

The fact that a certain contingent here have taken it upon themselves to manipulate the words of true American heroes like MLK, or to cherry-pick comments by Rep. Lewis in order to validate their own skewed viewpoint, is beyond despicable.

And yet they do so without hesitation, without a second thought as to the context in which certain words were spoken, certain phrases were adopted, certain statements were made.

"To frame Snowden in the tradition of the Civil Rights greats, is to cheapen their legacy. And is highly offensive to this Black man."

It is also highly offensive to this old white woman, who grew up with an undying respect for those who so courageously stood up for what was right, and faced the consequences of their actions with unflinching resolve - consequences that were much more dire than living in a Moscow airport - consequences which often meant not continuing to live at all.

Thank you for this incredibly well-written piece, and for sharing your insight with all of us.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. You are welcome in this group ...

as you are willing to acknowledge that "I do not pretend to understand how black Americans feel about every issue, especially political issues. I cannot always see things through their eyes; I am unable to view the world from their unique perspective." Moreover, you are welcome in this group because you are willing to hear/attempt to understand when someone attempts to give you a glimpse of the world through eyes that are not your own, who can lead you to a fuller understanding of how life looks when viewed by someone of a different race, a different religion, a different background, a different well of experience to draw from.

One of the greatness frustrations I experience in dealing with some white liberals is that they presume to know my world, my experiences, better than I do because (as another group member stated) they once got followed around a store because of the tattoo on their neck.

A while back, I posted something the Melissa Harris-Perry said she learned from her GLBT friends ... That when they are talking (about their experience being GLBT), her job is to shut up and listen (opening her mouth, only to gain clarity, not to offer opinion); then her job becomes, to translate what she heard for her non-GLBT friends.

Several argued their right to offer their most valuable opinion; those are they that are not welcome here.

[OneGrassRoot]

11. +1. Thank you. And K&R to the OP, with thanks. n/t

[sheshe2]

7. They grasp at straws to defend Snowden.

Quotes used to fortify their hero are taken out of context.

They grasp and twist it to make it so. You have to ask yourself why are they twisting the spoken word. I would say that it is because they know that they are supporting a lost cause.

To frame snowden in the tradition of the Civil Rights greats, is to cheapen their legacy. And is highly offensive to this Black man.

As a white woman, 1StrongBlackMan, I find it highly offensive too. That was not how I was raised.

KICK!

[giftedgirl77]

8. No matter what someone will always

find something to argue or complain about when you try to correct their misguided or failed attempts at linking their current hero (I use this term lightly) to ppl who are actually considered civil/human rights icons.

The current flavor of the month of hero worshipping may be annoying but to be honest I can shake my head & consider them special as hell & looking for any excuse to bitch. The ones making those claims don't know what in the hell they are talking about. The ones that truly piss me off & make my blood boil are the RWNJs who have the audacity to try and claim they are currently fighting for their civil rights.

I honestly don't have the patience to deal with most of the Snowden crap on here bc it is just childish and stupid.

[JI7]

10. the whole thing has become a joke, it's almost like dealing with birthers

and the stupid threads are mostly full of ridicule against other DUers like prosense.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. I have been arguing ...

for a while now that there, now, is very little space between some DUers and the tea party, in method or effect.

There are certain threads that expose that many here accept facts as facts based on how closely it relates to what they believe and accept their messagers based on how closely they say something that supports what they believe.

In those same threads, we see all kind of "speaking truth to power/hold their feet to the fire" claims. Really? posting on an anonymous message board is now "speaking truth to power" or "hold their feet to the fire"? Really?

That is what the tea party, the climate-deniers ... and in short, the modern gop, does; not what liberals do.

I will be sooooo glad when the DU power pronouce election season so that DU can settle back to some semblance of normalcy

[JustAnotherGen]

13. In a nutshell - yes they do

So … Is it just me, or do some liberals have some intrinsic need to use the words of Black Civil Rights leaders to support their position on a topic; but seemingly, without putting forth the least effort to understand the context and/or meaning of said leader’s words? And, is this just another example of the privilege/hubris of some white liberals?

The co-opting of the black American experience and struggle to be treated with basic dignity and respect is continuously co-opted for things that have nothing to do with the experience. Why non-black Liberals do it? I don't know.

Sometimes they forget that as the dominant culture - they live in a fishbowl. They get glimpses of us - but we see everything they do, think, believe, etc etc.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. I love this ...

Sometimes they forget that as the dominant culture - they live in a fishbowl. They get glimpses of us - but we see everything they do, think, believe, etc etc.

"I see you, because I have to in order to survive; though, you can't or don't want to see me, because ...?."

That nails every power relationship imbalance.