I følge NRK er Charlie Kirk "ytre høyre", og bruker samme retorikk som Anders Behring Breivik - enig?

[Atib Azzad]

14 hours ago, Tussi said:

Jeg er litt overrasket over at Kirk var negativ til MLK. MLK sa jo at man burde dømmes etter hva man gjorde og ikke hvordan man så ut. Det var det jeg oppfatter Kirk selv å mene også. Så dette overrasker meg

I USA har det vært en lang tradisjon for å sanitisere Dr. King, og Dr. Kings budskap, denne ene setningen du refererer til har blitt trukket ut av talens kontekst og brukt for å lyve om at MLK ønsket seg et såkalt fargeblindt samfunn som definert av de reaksjonære, jeg spesifiserer typen såkalt fargeblindt samfunn, da det er så lett å forlede rundt dette, selvsagt høres et fargeblindt samfunn i seg selv godt ut, og noe å strekke seg etter, men ikke hvis det innebærer å bare la fortidens urett forbli uløst, og fremstille det som om individer med vektig bagasje bare har seg selv å skylde.
-Alle ønsker seg et fritt marked, men ikke hvis det man egentlig mente var laissez faire.

[...]Understanding that it was becoming politically unacceptable to openly advocate for segregation, conservatives took the aspirational ideal of colorblindness and purposefully interpreted it literally. Rather than acknowledging deeply entrenched systemic racism, many claimed that they no longer “saw race” at all. They insisted that laws aimed to remediate centuries of state-sanctioned racism amounted to “reverse racism.”

What started as backlash to the civil rights movement has become the jurisprudential norm. Conservative weaponization of “colorblindness” has undermined progress, often paving the way for right-wing attacks on the right to vote, affirmative action, and other policies aimed at achieving racial equity.

Så kanskje kudos til Kirk for å tenke litt nytt hvordan denne mannen skal forstås i en konservativ kontekst, jeg synes det er mye mer redelig å utrykke at man ikke liker ham, om det er for smugrøyking, eller sosialistiske inklinasjoner, synes mye mer ærlig enn å lyve om the content of the mans character så de passer sine egne behov.

[...]The speech is profoundly and willfully misunderstood, says King’s longtime friend Vincent Harding.
People take the parts that require the least inquiry, the least change, the least work. Our country has chosen what they consider to be the easier way to work with King.
They are aware that something very powerful was connected to him, and he was connected to it. But they are not ready to really take on the kind of issues he was raising even there.

Instead, the country has chosen to remember a version of I Have a Dream that not only undermines King’s legacy but also tells an inaccurate story about the speech itself.
King made explicit reference in his oration to both the limits of legal remedy and the need for economic redress to confront the consequences of centuries of second-class citizenship.

[...]By sanitizing MLK, his views are watered down, his impact weakened, and his words, used as a tool to spew racism by those MLK fought against. It must not be tolerated. 

[Tussi]

Atib Azzad skrev (1 minutt siden):

I USA har det vært en lang tradisjon for å sanitisere Dr. King, og Dr. Kings budskap, denne ene setningen du refererer til har blitt trukket ut av talens kontekst og brukt for å lyve om at MLK ønsket seg et såkalt fargeblindt samfunn som definert av de reaksjonære, jeg spesifiserer typen såkalt fargeblindt samfunn, da det er så lett å forlede rundt dette, selvsagt høres et fargeblindt samfunn i seg selv godt ut, og noe å strekke seg etter, men ikke hvis det innebærer å bare la fortidens urett forbli uløst, og fremstille det som om individer med vektig bagasje bare har seg selv å skylde.
-Alle ønsker seg et fritt marked, men ikke hvis det man egentlig mente var laissez faire.

[...]Understanding that it was becoming politically unacceptable to openly advocate for segregation, conservatives took the aspirational ideal of colorblindness and purposefully interpreted it literally. Rather than acknowledging deeply entrenched systemic racism, many claimed that they no longer “saw race” at all. They insisted that laws aimed to remediate centuries of state-sanctioned racism amounted to “reverse racism.”

What started as backlash to the civil rights movement has become the jurisprudential norm. Conservative weaponization of “colorblindness” has undermined progress, often paving the way for right-wing attacks on the right to vote, affirmative action, and other policies aimed at achieving racial equity.

Så kanskje kudos til Kirk for å tenke litt nytt hvordan denne mannen skal forstås i en konservativ kontekst, jeg synes det er mye mer redelig å utrykke at man ikke liker ham, om det er for smugrøyking, eller sosialistiske inklinasjoner, synes mye mer ærlig enn å lyve om the content of the mans character så de passer sine egne behov.

[...]The speech is profoundly and willfully misunderstood, says King’s longtime friend Vincent Harding.
People take the parts that require the least inquiry, the least change, the least work. Our country has chosen what they consider to be the easier way to work with King.
They are aware that something very powerful was connected to him, and he was connected to it. But they are not ready to really take on the kind of issues he was raising even there.

Instead, the country has chosen to remember a version of I Have a Dream that not only undermines King’s legacy but also tells an inaccurate story about the speech itself.
King made explicit reference in his oration to both the limits of legal remedy and the need for economic redress to confront the consequences of centuries of second-class citizenship.

[...]By sanitizing MLK, his views are watered down, his impact weakened, and his words, used as a tool to spew racism by those MLK fought against. It must not be tolerated. 

Takk for info! Jeg har ikke altfor mye kunnskap om MLK, så dette var interessant å lese