Martin Luther King.

[iBlueBox]

Martin Luther King believed to be the figure head of Civil Rights in America.

However, do you believe Martin Luther King is credited too much for bringing change towards civil rights though there are many other factors that contributed to change, was he over-rated in a sense or simply took too much glory.

What do you believe and why?

Edited by Lee (Forum Super Moderator): From 'Discuss Anything'.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/


On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.


Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

I believe this, and ultimately although the law was good intentioned - it's unconstitutional and overrides more important principles such as the ones former Congressman Paul outlined: private property rights. Therefore I don't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself.

In terms of MLK himself - his cause was and remains noble and any thinking person will agree broadly with his thinking - that discrimination on the basis of race is abhorrant and, as Ayn Rand has said, is probably the most tribal and collectivist type of thinking one can be guilty of.

[oli]

He's the face of the movement, of course he's going to get a lot of the credit...

[karter]

rosa parks should be credited more

godamn that woman was rad

[Ardemax]

He was the figurehead for sure. Let's not forget other huge thing like James Meredith, Little Rock etc.

[Inseriousity.]

It was a very oiled political machine behind it. 8 months prior to Rosa Parks, there was another girl who did the same thing but unmarried, pregnant and underage, they didn't think she'd be a good figure to use for their campaign. Despite that, it relied heavily on the charisma of Martin Luther King. Sadly, it doesn't seem to matter how important your message is or how true your words are if you don't have that presence or charm to make sure your voice is heard.


In early 1955, Claudette Colvin, a 15 year old black girl was dragged off a bus in Montgomery and arrested for not giving up her seat to a white person. The NAACP now agreed to take up the Colvin incident as a test case. It believed that this would result in a similar outcome to the 1954 Supreme Court decision on segregation in education. However, the NAACP decided to drop the idea when they discovered that Colvin was pregnant. They knew that the authorities in Montgomery would use this against them in the propaganda war that would inevitably take place during this legal battle.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAparksR.htm

[Gibs960]

I think he's credited too much when you consider that it wasn't just him who forced the US to give rights to blacks. I'm pretty sure John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy were in favour of black rights not to mention the impact of people such as Rosa Parks. But then again I don't know much about this sort of things! :D