This almost sounds like a regurgitated racist Rush Limbaugh quote... just a hunch.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
So a quick read of an article said this:
"Jackson said when presented with photographs of four different versions of the statue, which were created by Yixin, Martin Luther King III and sister Bernice King chose the current likeness of their father standing with his arms crossed."
and
"Jackson said he informed the siblings that the particular image they chose had been generating controversy because some say it appears too confrontational. He said King III replied, "Well if my father was not confrontational, given what he was facing at the time, what else could he be?"
http://www.qcitymetro.com/news/articles/controversy_continues_over_mlk_memorial085712598.cfm
I think this sums it up
At least communism doesn't exploit third world countries, at least communism doesn't have inheritance wealth, at least communism doesn't bail out the super rich, at least communism doesn't borrow from the future generations, at least communism negates the existence of the rampant greedy corporations, I can go on forever, but that's another subject.
btw, there are plenty more other things that have disgraced America in the past as well as the present.
The only thing I thought when I heard of the Martin Luther King's statue is "why did it take so long to erect it"?
I must say good sir, Joseph Stalin is looking up at us after reading that post.At least communism doesn't exploit third world countries, at least communism doesn't have inheritance wealth, at least communism doesn't bail out the super rich, at least communism doesn't borrow from the future generations, at least communism negates the existence of the rampant greedy corporations, I can go on forever, but that's another subject.
btw, there are plenty more other things that have disgraced America in the past as well as the present.
The only thing I thought when I heard of the Martin Luther King's statue is "why did it take so long to erect it"?
PeterDuck
Looks like the guy quit halfway through unless he was going for the Michaelangelo prisoners of stone look.They only unveiled it about 30 mins ago I think so they're scarce it seems. Here's one tho. MissLibrarian
Also I can't quote your image.:(LJS9502_basicWell what do you want me to do about it? Point and laugh? :P
At least communism doesn't exploit third world countries, at least communism doesn't have inheritance wealth, at least communism doesn't bail out the super rich, at least communism doesn't borrow from the future generations, at least communism negates the existence of the rampant greedy corporations, I can go on forever, but that's another subject.
btw, there are plenty more other things that have disgraced America in the past as well as the present.
The only thing I thought when I heard of the Martin Luther King's statue is "why did it take so long to erect it"?
PeterDuck
Erect...teehee... :D
At least communism doesn't exploit third world countries
PeterDuck
Have you ever heard of every communistic country in history?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Also I can't quote your image.:(MissLibrarianWell what do you want me to do about it? Point and laugh? :P Weep seems appropriate.:P
Weep seems appropriate.:PLJS9502_basicI think you're overestimating my level of emotional involvement in this matter I'm sorry to say.
How does it look communistic? Is he holding a hammer and sickle? Also, most modern-day conservatives would be calling King a communist if he were alive.
Anyways, it does look a little too authoritarian, and it would have been nice to see an African-American artist do it, and it would have been nice to buy American stone.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Weep seems appropriate.:PMissLibrarianI think you're overestimating my level of emotional involvement in this matter I'm sorry to say. :lol: Well it would have been nice....
[QUOTE="PeterDuck"]
At least communism doesn't exploit third world countries
metroidfood
Have you ever heard of every communistic country in history?
Cuba, USSR. North Korea. There, three separate instances of countries that do not and did not rely on foreign labor to propel and SUSTAIN their economies. Cuba and North Korea have been embargoed for decades which greatly contributes to starvation and economic stagnation. The argument is that the principles of communism are not based on exploitation of those who would be willing to work for less than others. If you find those that will work for 5 cents an hour or whatever (like the Chinese mass producing products for the USA for instance) then why would you pay 15 bucks an hour to an American? that is one of the evils of rampant capitalism and that was the implied principle I was referring to.There are some aspects of idealised communism that would definitely be beneficial. I'm not sure why so many people are still stuck in blaming communism for all the problems in the world.foxhound_fox
Because communists TOOK UR JIBS!!!
Or maybe it's because of all the misinformation and propaganda that's been spread over the years to smear communism in any form.
[QUOTE="metroidfood"][QUOTE="PeterDuck"]
At least communism doesn't exploit third world countries
PeterDuck
Have you ever heard of every communistic country in history?
Cuba, USSR. North Korea. There, three separate instances of countries that do not and did not rely on foreign labor to propel and SUSTAIN their economies. Cuba and North Korea have been embargoed for decades which greatly contributes to starvation and economic stagnation. The argument is that the principles of communism are not based on exploitation of those who would be willing to work for less than others. If you find those that will work for 5 cents an hour or whatever (like the Chinese mass producing products for the USA for instance) then why would you pay 15 bucks an hour to an American? that is one of the evils of rampant capitalism and that was the implied principle I was referring to.However they haven't been so good to their citizens.There are some aspects of idealised communism that would definitely be beneficial. I'm not sure why so many people are still stuck in blaming communism for all the problems in the world.foxhound_foxbecause every other person in capitalist societies thinks that they will somehow be rich one day, which is why they defend the rich, which is why they bail out the rich - they defend an idea, a hope that one day they might be like them. The truth is, only a small percentage ever succeed. And I'm not even talking about those who inherited their wealth.
I knew this one was coming. It's always inevitable. But how would an idealistic philosophy of communism otherwise survive and persist in the world where the whole of capitalistic-owned world is turned against them? I'm not justifying the actions of communist leaders setting up internment camps and such per se, nor do I think they do it because they are in love with communistic principles necessarily, they do it because they are allowed to. Take away that ability, make them responsible and accountable and take away the restraints of western embargoes and threats of aggression and then you can run the communist experiment and see how it plays out. If it fails in a fair fight then we might just as well conclude that communism is a failed idea OR that humanity isn't mature enough for communism yet.
[QUOTE="PeterDuck"][QUOTE="metroidfood"]Cuba, USSR. North Korea. There, three separate instances of countries that do not and did not rely on foreign labor to propel and SUSTAIN their economies. Cuba and North Korea have been embargoed for decades which greatly contributes to starvation and economic stagnation. The argument is that the principles of communism are not based on exploitation of those who would be willing to work for less than others. If you find those that will work for 5 cents an hour or whatever (like the Chinese mass producing products for the USA for instance) then why would you pay 15 bucks an hour to an American? that is one of the evils of rampant capitalism and that was the implied principle I was referring to.However they haven't been so good to their citizens.Have you ever heard of every communistic country in history?
LJS9502_basic
That's debatable. North Korea I won't defend, but they're barely communist anyways, more of a dictatorship that came to power using communist rhetoric. The USSR, many citizens had fairly decent standards of living until their economy started going downhill (and really that wasn't due to anything endemic to communism), though that is excepting the people that had their property reposessed or were jailed or killed by the regime. On that note, though, Stalin was a major departure from traditional communism and killed as many Trotskyists as he did anti-communists.
Cuba, they simply don't have many marketable resources. The citizens are poor because they live in a poor country, not because they live in a communist country. However, there are many Cubans who don't mind the standard of living, especially in comparison to the U.S., which they see as extravagant and exploitative.
However they haven't been so good to their citizens.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="PeterDuck"] Cuba, USSR. North Korea. There, three separate instances of countries that do not and did not rely on foreign labor to propel and SUSTAIN their economies. Cuba and North Korea have been embargoed for decades which greatly contributes to starvation and economic stagnation. The argument is that the principles of communism are not based on exploitation of those who would be willing to work for less than others. If you find those that will work for 5 cents an hour or whatever (like the Chinese mass producing products for the USA for instance) then why would you pay 15 bucks an hour to an American? that is one of the evils of rampant capitalism and that was the implied principle I was referring to.theone86
That's debatable. North Korea I won't defend, but they're barely communist anyways, more of a dictatorship that came to power using communist rhetoric. The USSR, many citizens had fairly decent standards of living until their economy started going downhill (and really that wasn't due to anything endemic to communism), though that is excepting the people that had their property reposessed or were jailed or killed by the regime. On that note, though, Stalin was a major departure from traditional communism and killed as many Trotskyists as he did anti-communists.
Cuba, they simply don't have many marketable resources. The citizens are poor because they live in a poor country, not because they live in a communist country. However, there are many Cubans who don't mind the standard of living, especially in comparison to the U.S., which they see as extravagant and exploitative.
I know it's debatable. I'm just making arguments and pointing to some misconceptions about communism. People assume that communism fails or failed because on its own accord without realizing that there were competing and much stronger countries with opposing ideologies. It was not a fair fight. I agree about Korea, however, it is obvious that so many countries do not like Korea because of it's forcefull collective system and militarism which is why they won't trade with it. There are plenty of other dictatorships in Africa for instance that get the US foreign aid in exchange for spheres of influence, however this "foreign aid" only ends up keeping the particular dictator in power. Korea does not get any of that, it is being starved to death, so go figure whether more North Koreans die of state-created starvation as opposed to foreign-created starvation. Yes, Stalin put plenty of taint on communism that isn't going away any time soon."The citizens are poor because they live in a poor country, not because they live in a communist country."
precisely. You nailed it
As for Cuba, well, they could be making a fortune with Tourism and Tobacco sales for instance, but they are being embargoed and travel is restricted. And the Central and South American countries are being influenced by the US through foreign aid and other means to NOT trade with Cuba, hence, no fair fight
[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]
I guess taste is different for all people, but I think it looks like crap.
Reminds me of Han Solo after Jaba the Hut froze his arse.
GreySeal9
I don't know if I'd go as far as to call it crap, but it does rub me the wrong way for some reason.
Same for me. I don't care who made it, but this statue doesn't really do it for me. He should look more friendly I think. Stop crossing those arms and open them up in a big hug.If he were alive? Dude, they called him a communist when he was alive.How does it look communistic? Is he holding a hammer and sickle? Also, most modern-day conservatives would be calling King a communist if he were alive.
Anyways, it does look a little too authoritarian, and it would have been nice to see an African-American artist do it, and it would have been nice to buy American stone.
theone86
I knew this one was coming. It's always inevitable. But how would an idealistic philosophy of communism otherwise survive and persist in the world where the whole of capitalistic-owned world is turned against them? I'm not justifying the actions of communist leaders setting up internment camps and such per se, nor do I think they do it because they are in love with communistic principles necessarily, they do it because they are allowed to. Take away that ability, make them responsible and accountable and take away the restraints of western embargoes and threats of aggression and then you can run the communist experiment and see how it plays out. If it fails in a fair fight then we might just as well conclude that communism is a failed idea OR that humanity isn't mature enough for communism yet.
PeterDuck
Communism sounds all nice and fair, but it is not and never will be practical. As long as such as thing as human greed exists, communism will always fail and be worse to the people it claims to defend than capitalism ever was.
It is a good point though, that Cuba is poor becase of embargoes (imposed by capitalists), not because of the fact that they are communist.
[QUOTE="PeterDuck"]
I knew this one was coming. It's always inevitable. But how would an idealistic philosophy of communism otherwise survive and persist in the world where the whole of capitalistic-owned world is turned against them? I'm not justifying the actions of communist leaders setting up internment camps and such per se, nor do I think they do it because they are in love with communistic principles necessarily, they do it because they are allowed to. Take away that ability, make them responsible and accountable and take away the restraints of western embargoes and threats of aggression and then you can run the communist experiment and see how it plays out. If it fails in a fair fight then we might just as well conclude that communism is a failed idea OR that humanity isn't mature enough for communism yet.
Tokugawa77
Communism sounds all nice and fair, but it is not and never will be practical. As long as such as thing as human greed exists, communism will always fail and be worse to the people it claims to defend than capitalism ever was.
It is a good point though, that Cuba is poor becase of embargoes (imposed by capitalists), not because of the fact that they are communist.
there is such a thing as learning from mistakes. I know human nature sucks, nor do I think that communism is necessarily the way to go. Im simply not going to nay say without know most of the facts. Communism did not have a fair fight, at least yet. So it doesn't warrant to say that it failed because of human greed, There were other factors, such as the fact that America practically ruled the world in the 20th century and still does to a degree today.It's definitely not communistic but it has an aura of authority to it. It also looks like it was made to revere. But again, it's MLK with a stoic and proud look, not The Greatest Most Respected and Glorious and Did I Mention Awesome Leader Martin Il-Sung Jr...
At this site will be erected the Dr Martin Luther King Jr Memorial The memorial will embody the man, the movement, and the message. It will honor the 20th century visionary who brought about change through the principles of nonviolence and equality for all. It will be a memorial symbolizing promise and hope for a brighter future for humanity....jeez, just seething with communist sentiment. :roll:
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment