Bayard Rustin - Civil Rights Leader
Read the article this discussion is about
- silvan
- Eric_Longley
- imgeorg
- Eric_Longley
- Bill_Samuel
- Nichel
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» silvan - A good role model
Thank you for recommending this article. I had not heard of Bayard Rustin, and I enjoyed learning about him. This story will be a welcome addition to the GLBT Pride event.-- posted by silvan
» Eric_Longley - Re: A good role model
Leaders like Rustin, King, Gandhi, etc., who stood up for the rights of the oppressed while eschewing violence, ought to be celebrated for their courage and their persistence, and for their unwillingness to reply in kind to the violence of the enemy. All these leaders had private vices, but frankly, their courage in standing up for what's right tends to overshadow these private vices. That doesn't mean that we need to ignore or excuse their private vices; frankly, Dr. King exposed himself to *blackmail*(real, not metaphorical, Bill) by the FBI and others on account of his sexual behavior. As far as Rustin's Communism is concerned-Rustin was in a better position to *reject* Communism than most people, because Rustin had actually experienced Communism personally instead of reading lurid distortions in *Reader's Digest.* When Rustin learned that the Party's "line" took precedence over justice, he rejected the Party and took the side of justice instead.
-- posted by Eric_Longley
» Eric_Longley - Re: Re: Re: A good role model
imgeorg gives me the courtesy title of "Mr." I wish I could return the courtesy. imgeorg, are you a Mr., a Ms, a Mrs., or something else entirely? It is difficult to take a Quaker very seriously if (s)he does not go under her (or his) own name, but chooses instead to employ a pseudonym. Even during the dark days of persecution under Charles II, Quakers disdained to conceal their identities from the King's agents, even though by meeting in public they exposed themselves to arrest and other forms of persecution. I suppose that Ms. (or Reverend) imgeorg fears some kind of persecution much worse than anything Charles II could dish out in the seventeenth century, since (s)he is taking more precautions than seventeenth-century Friends did in order to conceal his (her?) identity. Ms (or Mr) imgeorg attributes to me the view that we don't "need" to "ignore" or "excuse" private vices. I am not sure if Herr (or Frau) imgeorg is by implication endorsing the opposite view, that we need to ignore or excuse the private vices of others. My position on vices is this: If someone says something on the Internet which I think is wrong, then I feel free to reply. Particularly is this so when anyone (especially a self-proclaimed minister of the gospel) uses the Internet to accuse others of crimes which they did not commit. Obviously, imgeorg feels free to use the medium of the Internet to criticize the alleged vices of others. Does (s)he claim that I have done anything more than (s)he has done? Also, where does (s)he draw the distinction between private and public vices? Martin Luther King committed adultery in private, or at least in what he thought was privacy. His wife forgave him, and he never perjured himself about his affairs, and he never tried to induce his mistresses to perjure themselves. This qualifies his vices as private. As to the public man: In public, King felt free to criticize the *public* vices of others. For example, in his well-known letter from the Birmingham jail, King responded to certain criticisms against himself and his movement which were made by self-proclaimed ministers of the gospel. The ministers who criticized King made no claim of privacy. Their vices (acceptance of racism) were public and open to public view, and King used a public forum to reply to the criticisms. Did King do something wrong by publicly rebuking professed ministers of the gospel who used their positions to promote wrong ideas?-- posted by Eric_Longley
» Bill_Samuel - Re: Re: Re: Re: A good role model
In response to message posted by Eric_Longley:I do not know the person posting, but it's not uncommon in Web-based forums for people not to put their name at the end of their messages - in fact, in most of them it is the norm. Because this is so common, I would not make negative assumptions about someone because of this.
That said, I too would prefer to have people give their names. However, it is not a requirement for posting at Suite101.
-- posted by Bill_Samuel
» Nichel - Nice Job
Hi Bill,Very nice job. I learn of him last year Black History Month celebration at the company I worked for.
Your presentation is excellent what a great job!
Thank you so much for submitting your article to my event, it will be a great addition...in the "Little known black history facts" section.
All the best!
-- posted by Nichel
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.