Saturday, August 25, 2007

Blacks Get First Dibs On Creating Dr. King's Statue?

People complained about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial's sculptor, too.

King promoted peace and understanding among all people. His primary fight, however, was to win particular opportunities for blacks in the United States by juxtaposing the plight of an oppressed people against a message of freedom and democracy.

A loose-knit but growing group of critics says a black artist — or at least an American — should have been chosen to create the King memorial between the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials in the nation's capital. They have been joined by human rights advocates who say King would have abhorred the Chinese government's record on religious and civil liberty.

"They keep saying King was for everyone. I keep telling people, 'No, King wasn't for everyone. King was for fairness and justice,'" said Gilbert Young, a black painter from Atlanta who has started a Web site and a petition drive to try to change the project.

"I believe that black artists have the right to interpret ourselves first," Young said.

Do I need to point out the penny-ante nature of these statements, or can normal, decent people see them for themselves? Perhaps I need to toss in this information as well:

The memorial foundation directing the project seems surprised at the criticism. Ten of the 12 people on the committee that chose the sculptor, Lei Yixin, are black. Lei is working closely on the design with two black sculptors in the U.S., organizers said, and the overall project is being directed by a black-owned architecture firm.

Sad, and petty.

So was Dr. King black first, an American first, or does it even matter? From where comes this belief that blacks get "first right of refusal" to design a freakin' memorial for this great American? The people who are complaining, have they ever listened to Dr. King's words? From their arguments, I can only conclude that they have not.

Racism comes in many forms, and it usually involves judging people by the color of their skin. And that's what's going on in this instance.


WalterE. Wallis said...

Some day when people understand the evil King did when he sided with the communists and consigned 20 million people to slavery andd 3 million to death they will let ivi hide his statues.

Darren said...

I understand that he was against the Vietnam war, but I'd like a little more details on what specifically you mean.

Additionally, who or what is ivi?

Ellen K said...

What happened to judging someone not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?

Darren said...

That, Ellen K, is now considered racist. Any conservative who uses Dr. King's words to mean anything except what the NAACP says they mean is a racist.

Just ask them, they'll tell you.

Ellen K said...

And I have no doubt they would charge me a fee for the pleasure of using Dr. King's words. Last I heard they were resisting allowing those words to be said in a celebration of his birth unless a fee was paid. I wonder if the Kennedy family does that with his "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" speech?

Lillian said...

The NAACP? Who are they and why do they matter? They have long since been relevant - and, as Larry Elder refers to them, they are actually the NAALCP (Liberal Colored People)...and that's what you're seeing here.
As a 'race-weary' American, who has been everything from Colored (on my birth certificate) to Negro to Black to African-American (a label I abhor, since my South African accountant is blond-blue eyed), I would like to say that Dr. King was an American first... As was my dad, who marched with him on every major march.
They were also tired of the labels, which is why the speech Dr. King made in regards to content of character, was so important.
It is unfortunate that his message was beginning to fall on deaf ears at the time of his death (1968) - a time when the 'racial' divide was widening (Black Power, etc.). The Civil Rights movement was activism shared by all ethnic groups (some who even died while fighting for the rights of 'colored folks'). Look at some of the photos (you'll see my dad walking alongside, or behind Dr. King)with nuns, priests, Jewish rabbis, and every kind of ethnicity.
The NAALCP and so-called Black leaders have kept the flames of racial separation burning, and it seems that everything Dr. King did and said, is now in vain. But it is primarily black folks who keep this going, and it's really sad. We have had every type of reparation, and still we are disproprotionately struggling with crime, education, family, culture, and incurable diseases. However, playing the victim is the main strategy of the leadership, and groups like the NAALCP do not address the real issues within the 'community'...the issues that require personal responsibility.
My dad bought me a lifetime membership, but I threw the membership card away a lifetime ago.
American is a self-correcting country. We've come a long way. It's time to drop the ethnic identification and just be Americans. We are in the trenches of a global economy, and it would seem a non-issue to have a great artist (even if he's Chinese) do this great work. After all, you hear people say that Lady Liberty was originally a woman of color, and she was designed by a Frenchman.
I marched with Dr. King when I was 16. I truly believe that he and my dad, and all of the deceased Brothers In The Struggle (that includes all ethnicities who dared defy the status quo, a al Freedom Riders, etc.)- would be shocked to see how backward some 'colored folks' and organizations, have become in their thinking.
I can only describe it as Liberal -a strange kind of liberalism, though. The Victim Mentality. Victicrats.

And as for the 'person' who would suggest that Dr. King was a Communist, this just further goes to show the failure of our educational system.
Thank God for No Child Left Behind, although Mr. Wallis seems to have missed the Freedom Train (and a couple of English classes, too).

Darren said...

As John said on his blog Discriminations today:

Treating people without regard to race or ethnicity? BAD. Treating people without regard to sex, gender, or sexual or gender persuasion? GOOD.

Lillian said...

Correction on my post, Darren -
the NAALCP has long since been IRRELEVANT - not relevant.