Wise words that many have forgotten. I'm sure that the anti-Zionist left will just think he's an uppity negro, though.

[Update a few minutes later]

To commemorate the holiday, Alan Boyle has some useful links on the scientific bases (or not) of race. I agree that it's much more a social construct than a scientific one.

[Mid-morning update]

An apt thought, that applies to fans of Mike Huckabee as well:

Identity politics is bad news. Today seems like a perfect day to reflect on that.

What I don't understand is how Dr King managed to generate sympathy, long term change, and pretty much all of his goals without giant pink puppets and shouting Nazi, nazi, nazi all the time. Just simple passive, civil, resistance to demonstrate how his enemies really were vile. He was a great man and knew how to create change in a democracy when change was long overdue.

Simple: a) his enemies really WERE vile, and b) the whole thing took place in a fairly decent country, which was capable of being revolted by said vileness, once it saw it. IOW, Dr. King was in much ther same position as Ghandi.

Waving giant pink puppets and shouting Nazi, nazi, nazi is necessary when your supposed enemies are actually not in any way vile, and when your goals are to gain power for yourself rather than to correct any real injustice.

Waving giant pink puppets and shouting Nazi, nazi, nazi is necessary when your supposed enemies are actually not in any way vile, and when your goals are to gain power for yourself rather than to correct any real injustice.

Yes. And the corollary is that neither Ghandian civil disobedience nor shouting "nazi, nazi" will work against real enemies, like the Islamists, who don't share your fundamental values. Only force will work against such enemies.

Not real sure how true it is but I once read that Ghandi said that he counted on the essential decency of the British when he crafted is strategy of passive resistance

like the Islamists, who don't share your fundamental values. Only force will work against such enemies.

True, but King and his followers had real enemies too, violent enemies who would only respond to force, and the civil disobedience wasn't really directed at them - it was directed at the US population as a whole.

Similarly, while the Islamists are real enemies, non-violent means of persuasion can be directed toward the world's Muslim population as a whole, who, fortunately, do share fundamental values with the vast majority of the world's non-Muslims.

King succeeded because he was a man of very deep and great faith, asking a mainly Christian nation to act as Christians should.

Anonymous said:

Similarly, while the Islamists are real enemies, non-violent means of persuasion can be directed toward the world's Muslim population as a whole, who, fortunately, do share fundamental values with the vast majority of the world's non-Muslims.

One could begin by asking ordinary muslims, "why are the islamo-fascists bombing mosques?"

Another question would be, "how come the leaders don't send their own kids or themselves to Allah's paradise through suicide attack?" Why do they send others (chumps) to do the dirty work?

The Ghandi bit is correct - he aimed at the British self-image of decency, fair play etc. There is nothing as powerful as playing up to what people believe about themselves.

If the Palestinians had stayed with non-violent protest (the start of the Intefada), they would have a state encompassing the whole West Bank by now.

If the nationalists in Northern Ireland had stayed non-violent in the 60s, they would have got what they have today in 1969.

I think I should also point out that Lech Walensa in Poland and Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia both led classic nonviolent action campaigns against Soviet imperialism -- and the Soviets were hardly as decent as the British.

Yes, there were other factors as well in the demise of Soviet imperialism. Still, though, I wonder if we could have brought down the Soviet Union more quickly with a healthier outcome than Putin if the pacifists (who are usually committed to democracy) and more mainstream types had listened better to each other and were better able to work together.