I think Jackie sometimes gets the MLK Jr. treatment where conservatives try and soften the stances Robinson really had. Jackie Robinson supported Republican candidates because he believed they preached self reliance. However, Jackie Robinson dropped out of the NAACP because They weren't militant enough. Jackie Robinson said that he couldn't salute the flag of the United States of America in his autobiography. Jackie Robinson refused to take part in Major League old timer's events because of the lack of a black manager for any of the teams. Jackie Robinson testified and spoke out for Curt Flood in his challenge against the MLB in favor of free agents and against the reserve system. After his agreement to not fight back against the abuse he suffered for three years, he did fight back and played rough from then on. When the press got on him because of this change, Jackie spoke out. This is a quote from Robinson http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aaworld/history/spotlight_august3.html I think he was a little more radical and militant than some white conservatives would like to believe.
The new conservative tact, re-writing history by claiming people that would be virulently opposed to their current iterations.
Thank goodness his talent was transcendent enough for them to see past that; by sheer numbers and societal function white conservatives are more important to blacks' well being than black militants ever were.
You post indifferent nonsense like this with regularity lately, it's annoying. A tremendous amount of irony in your statement.
I don't think invalidating half of whites' support for an historical black figure is worth punching some dated ideological scorecard. That's two relevant posts in response to the thread topic against your whiny, invective, partisan cheap-shot.
No my post was a very real evaluation of recent conservative tactics which frankly disgust me on every level. The irony of your post in that white conservative men have been at the forefront in creating a racist, sexist power structure and framework rife with centuries of abuse and criminality but yes minorities have collectively been brought along for the ride at the bottom of the totem pole. Yay.
I guess it depends on what you mean by well being. If you mean equality and not having to live under a double standard, then I think black militants have done more to combat that than white conservatives ever have. The fear white establishment has of a black radical with a gun, that they don't when it's white guys with guns exposes a double standard, and that exposure comes in large part from black militants. It's just one example, but it definitely happened and can be argued that it still happens. I guess by sheer numbers, since there are more white conservatives, they hold more power, and more say in the future, then perhaps they are more important, but only if their minds are changed. Rewriting the stances of a hero like Robinson isn't really going to change any minds. I'm not sure I disagree with your post, just that I guess it depends on what it definitely means.
Same with other cultural icons. The one that ticks me off the most is Cash. Yes, he was a flag loving patriot Baptist Country Veteran who loved America and her traditions. Yet his politics weren't anywhere close to the TP self-proclaimed patriots shouting about today. He was sympathetic, empathetic, and aware of the struggles of all Americans. You can't listen to his songs and think he would agree with the current Republican Party on much, but he would tolerate them and allow them their say. A few good Cash quotes: Today's "patriots" could learn a lot from a real patriot like Johny Cash. It's not about tri-corner hats.
Exactly. It's strange that people can't be accepted for their actual beliefs, but have to be co-opted and molded into something different perhaps to make the people that those heroes would oppose feel better about themselves.
You do have a point that winning over those with power, white conservatives, is necessary to helping to advance the cause of an oppressed people but so is also articulating why an oppressed people are angry and deserving of better treatment in the first place. You can say that Louis Armstrong was much more successful than Paul Robeson and other black entertainers who were much more outspoken on race but even he expressed anger over the segregation in the 1950's. Further who would you characterize as "black militants"? People like Frederick Douglas and WEB Dubois were militant in their beliefs.
Discrimination came from whites of both political stripes. And white conservatives are half the white population, not some cabal. Civil rights is about gaining and fulfilling an equitable role and function in their society, through building trust and demonstrating common values, abilities and aligned interests. That's a misdirect. This thread was about "militants" during the time-frame of Robinson's public life. And it was the OP's preferred term to paint him as more liberal.
It is a little more than that. It is also a recognition of the value of all people. All that you listed is important but if there also isn't a respect and a value of the other as being on par with your own group then that won't lead to a civil society. There are plenty of examples of groups of people sharing common values, having an aligned interests but one group still treating the other as inferior. I don't see anything in the OP or your original post limiting a discussion to militant blacks as being only limited to Jacke Robinson's public life. Anyway even taking Jackie Robinson's public life who do you consider a militant? Are you just talking about Eldridge Cleavers and Malcolm X's who preached and did take up arms against the white dominated society? What about Thurgood Marshall? He certainly didn't endear himself to white conservatives and took on their power head on. If we are talking sports do you think Muhammed Ali did more for black America or Joe Frazier who took a far less confrontational and controversial stance on race?
But it was Jackie Robinson who decided the NAACP wasn't militant enough. And it was Jackie Robinson himself who decided he couldn't salute the American flag. I'm not trying to paint him as anything but what he actually was. One of the reasons why I started this thread was that I'd been hoodwinked a bit by the rewriting and remolding of Jackie Robinson by people who wouldn't agree with Jackie's own stance on civil rights. I knew the guy was a hero, but like plenty of others, I bought into the idea that his animosity towards the status quo and white establishment wasn't as hard core as it actually was. It was only after looking into it more, that I discovered Jackie's own feelings and statements on the matter. I was kind of upset that for so long people have been selling a less revolutionary version of what Robinson believed. I felt kind of like I'd been lied to, and found it interesting the way whites had marketed Robinson.
Republicans freed the slaves(Lincolns party)...and were instrumental in passing the 1964 civil rights act...but this doesn't fit Jessica Jacksons or allly shartpons narrative.
And now they're instrumental in destroying the voting rights act. I guess the present day doesn't fit your narrative.
Yes, in the past Republicans did good things for civil rights. Currently they've placed racists in govt. cabinets and done little about it, cut funds to education, destroyed the voting rights legislation, and acted on other policies that hurt minorities. So what's your point? How does your point address the fact that people have tried to soften Jackie Robinson's stance and belief on civil rights?
I guess I have never seen (for the most part) Robinson elevated beyond what he was - an incredibly important, courageous and talented individual. I have never noticed either conservatives or liberals elevate or denigrate him due to his political leanings. Obviously there are some outliers, but overall, I have not seen it.
I've never heard a peep about Jackie's civil rights beliefs. I don't think there has really been much effort at all by "whites" to coopt him on those issues. All he's ever been portrayed as, at least as far as I'm concerned, is the player that helped integrate baseball and kill off the Negro leagues.
That's cool. You're the second person to mention something about that. I don't know why I've heard about it fairly frequently in the past. I just thought more people would have.
