As a great admirer of Dr. King’s, I was shocked when I read some of this:
Dr. King plagarized his doctoral dissertation, and cheated on his wife repeatedly. He may not have even been named Martin!
I would like to hunt down and see if he used to beat white prostitutes. I HAD read that he used to fuck white prostitutes while screaming: “I’m fucking for Jay-sus!!”. That was apparently on an FBI tape.
Anyone know the real deal and a good read?
Most genius men have some serious skeletans.
Ghandi slept in the same bed with pre-teen girls.
Einstein cheated like a motherfucker.
Ben Franklin spent great sums on the best whores in France while discussing the involvement of the French in the Revolution.
Lincoln may have been gay, may have been a racisty (I doubt it, he was killed for suggesting the blacks get the vote afterall), and a whole bunch of other stuff.
It doesn’t take away from the incredible things they did, true or not. It just makes us look at history a bit differently.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lincoln may have been gay, may have been a racisty (I doubt it, he was killed for suggesting the blacks get the vote afterall), and a whole bunch of other stuff.[/quote]
White supremacist at least.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
He may not have even been named Martin!
[/quote]
WHAT!
Sound the alarm, deploy the troops. Not Martin! Holy Crap, Headhunter, who would have thought this! Thank god you told us that.
I really don’t know how I could have lived with that lie for so long.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lincoln may have been gay, may have been a racisty (I doubt it, he was killed for suggesting the blacks get the vote afterall), and a whole bunch of other stuff.[/quote]
Well, I think Booth and friends had been mulling Lincoln’s kidnapping and assassination for quite a while before the question of black suffrage came up. Booth more likely killed Lincoln in retribution for the Confederacy’s demise, and to throw the Union into chaos.
Lincoln could, however, be considered a racist or white supremacist by today’s definition. He habitually used the “N-word”, upheld the Illinois Black Laws that deprived free blacks of their civil rights, and stated (before the war) that blacks would never have social or political equality with whites, because blacks, in his estimation, were not the physical or intellectual equals of whites.
I am getting sick and tired of all this anti-Lincoln shit-talk. Mainly because it’s inaccurate. You have to view ANYTHING from history in context. Those of you - oddly, most of you are liberals (the anti-Lincoln revisionists usually are) - who know anything of history know that you must view history in context.
If you look at speeches that Lincoln made before taking office or on the campaign trail, you may find that he restricts his rhetoric with regards to his opposition of slavery.
Context being that half of the country supported it. He needed that half to get elected. View all of his comments with the knowledge that slavery was a centuries old institution in the country and around the world.
Of course this does not make it right, but it does alter the thinking of men living in these times, serving to stem the tide of serious thought and debate on the subject. There was also a very powerful pro-slavery lobby in local and national politics at that time. Alas, let’s look at what Lincoln wrote in private letters during his life:
“You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.”
–From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes."
–From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
“This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave.”
–From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce
Two more:
“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.”
–From the April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges
“I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.”
–From the June 16, 1858 House Divided Speech
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
As a great admirer of Dr. King’s, I was shocked when I read some of this:
Dr. King plagarized his doctoral dissertation, and cheated on his wife repeatedly. He may not have even been named Martin!
I would like to hunt down and see if he used to beat white prostitutes. I HAD read that he used to fuck white prostitutes while screaming: “I’m fucking for Jay-sus!!”. That was apparently on an FBI tape.
Anyone know the real deal and a good read?[/quote]
Well, I don’t understand the need that some of the people on this board have to tear down important historical figures. Of course, I wouldn’t be saying this if I felt that you were asking your question in earnest. I don’t think you would be as graphic in your depictions of King’s behavior if you were - in fact - a great admirer of the man.
Instead of focusing on King’s behavior in the bedroom, focus on what he did and what his message was. I think it was a good message. I think his message did a lot to change this country. Sadly, I also think these changes would have been longer in coming had he not been murdered. I think that woke a lot of whites up. Made them see things a little differently.
Do I think that we should have enough intellectual curiosity to learn about and understand more about historical figures and what made them tick? Yes. Of course. Do I think that your post has more do with trying to invalidate the construction of a King Memorial on the Mall in D.C. and less with intellectual curiosity? Yeah.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lincoln may have been gay.[/quote]
Show me one piece of evidence that Lincoln was gay.
What clown.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Most genius men have some serious skeletans.
Ghandi slept in the same bed with pre-teen girls.
Einstein cheated like a motherfucker.
Ben Franklin spent great sums on the best whores in France while discussing the involvement of the French in the Revolution.
Lincoln may have been gay, may have been a racisty (I doubt it, he was killed for suggesting the blacks get the vote afterall), and a whole bunch of other stuff.
It doesn’t take away from the incredible things they did, true or not. It just makes us look at history a bit differently.[/quote]
Everybody has skeletons in their closets. The fact that Ben Franklin spent so much money on french whores just shows that he’s human, and possibly likes his women hairy :-]
And BTW, who gives a shit if Lincoln was gay, I certainly don’t. Does it really matter?
Seriously though, I agree that great men get put up on such a high pedestal that sometimes we forgrt that they are human. MLK was a great man who inspired the world, I couldn’t care less about some of these alleged skeletons in his closet.
“There aren’t any great men. There are just great challenges that ordinary men like you and me are forced by circumstances to meet”
-Admiral William F. Halsey
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
As a great admirer of Dr. King’s, I was shocked when I read some of this:
Dr. King plagarized his doctoral dissertation, and cheated on his wife repeatedly. He may not have even been named Martin!
I would like to hunt down and see if he used to beat white prostitutes. I HAD read that he used to fuck white prostitutes while screaming: “I’m fucking for Jay-sus!!”. That was apparently on an FBI tape.
Anyone know the real deal and a good read?
Well, I don’t understand the need that some of the people on this board have to tear down important historical figures. Of course, I wouldn’t be saying this if I felt that you were asking your question in earnest. I don’t think you would be as graphic in your depictions of King’s behavior if you were - in fact - a great admirer of the man.
Instead of focusing on King’s behavior in the bedroom, focus on what he did and what his message was. I think it was a good message. I think his message did a lot to change this country. Sadly, I also think these changes would have been longer in coming had he not been murdered. I think that woke a lot of whites up. Made them see things a little differently.
Do I think that we should have enough intellectual curiosity to learn about and understand more about historical figures and what made them tick? Yes. Of course. Do I think that your post has more do with trying to invalidate the construction of a King Memorial on the Mall in D.C. and less with intellectual curiosity? Yeah.[/quote]
I hate hypocrisy with a passion. When I read those things, I was genuinely shocked. That’s why I asked if anyone knew of a good read.
Hell, my favorite philosopher was quite hypocritical in personal life. That doesn’t lessen my admiration for the work.
Aren’t you disgusted though, if someone does great things or produces great works, then is a scum bucket in personal affairs?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
As a great admirer of Dr. King’s, I was shocked when I read some of this:
Dr. King plagarized his doctoral dissertation, and cheated on his wife repeatedly. He may not have even been named Martin!
I would like to hunt down and see if he used to beat white prostitutes. I HAD read that he used to fuck white prostitutes while screaming: “I’m fucking for Jay-sus!!”. That was apparently on an FBI tape.
Anyone know the real deal and a good read?
Well, I don’t understand the need that some of the people on this board have to tear down important historical figures. Of course, I wouldn’t be saying this if I felt that you were asking your question in earnest. I don’t think you would be as graphic in your depictions of King’s behavior if you were - in fact - a great admirer of the man.
Instead of focusing on King’s behavior in the bedroom, focus on what he did and what his message was. I think it was a good message. I think his message did a lot to change this country. Sadly, I also think these changes would have been longer in coming had he not been murdered. I think that woke a lot of whites up. Made them see things a little differently.
Do I think that we should have enough intellectual curiosity to learn about and understand more about historical figures and what made them tick? Yes. Of course. Do I think that your post has more do with trying to invalidate the construction of a King Memorial on the Mall in D.C. and less with intellectual curiosity? Yeah.
I hate hypocrisy with a passion. When I read those things, I was genuinely shocked. That’s why I asked if anyone knew of a good read.
Hell, my favorite philosopher was quite hypocritical in personal life. That doesn’t lessen my admiration for the work.
Aren’t you disgusted though, if someone does great things or produces great works, then is a scum bucket in personal affairs?
[/quote]
Disgusted? I don’t know if that’s the word. Disappointed? Yeah. I’d be disgusted if MLK inspired folks to murder and mayhem as opposed to peaceful protest. I’d be disgusted if Linclon fought to preserve slavery forever instead of signing the Emancipation Proclaimation.
But I also take much of the stuff about these people’s personal lives with a grain of salt. It might make good reading but it’s also hard to say what’s true. Anyone can say anything about a historical figure. Claim whatever they like. I’ve read that Hitler was gay, Lincoln was gay, WASHINGTON? Gay. I’ve head Bill and Hilliary Clinton are mass-murderers and that George Bush is protecting Bin Laden. I’ve heard that MLK beat white whores and that Kennedy killed Marilyn Monroe. I doubt all that is true.
[quote]Edders wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lincoln may have been gay.
Show me one piece of evidence that Lincoln was gay.
What clown.
[/quote]
He can’t. It’s bullshit.
Country lawyers shared beds in those days when they traveled the circuit. There was no room and no heat. They all did it. Oh my God, that must mean the entire population in those days was gay!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Aren’t you disgusted though, if someone does great things or produces great works, then is a scum bucket in personal affairs?[/quote]
I’m more disgusted by scum buckets who haven’t accomplished anything remarkable in their lives, but feel no qualms at disparaging those who have, for no other reason than they need to spew senseless hate daily to make themselves feel better.
Wouldn’t you, as a fervent admirer of MLK, prefer to start a thread to discuss the man’s accomplishments and what they’ve meant to millions of people since then? Wouldn’t that interest an admirer of the man more than various urban legends of dubious origin?
“Lincoln could, however, be considered a racist or white supremacist by today’s definition.”
So could Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, LBJ, JFK, and Truman. So could abolitionists Charles Sumner and Salmon Chase.
"How to better the condition of the colored race has long been a study which has attracted my serious and careful attention; hence I think I am clear and decided as to what course I shall pursue in the premises, regarding it a religious duty, as the nation’s guardian of these people, who have so heroically vindicated their manhood on the battle-field, where, in assisting to save the life of the Republic, they have demonstrated in blood their right to the ballot, which is but the humane protection of the flag they have so fearlessly defended.
The restoration of the Rebel States to the Union must rest upon the principle of civil and political equality of both races; and it must be sealed by general amnesty." – Abraham Lincoln to General James Wadsworth, 1864.
So you (or whatever neoconfederate rag you get your info from) have a log of every time Lincoln dropped the “N-bomb”, huh? Bwahahaha. Let’s hear it.
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
I am getting sick and tired of all this anti-Lincoln shit-talk. Mainly because it’s inaccurate. You have to view ANYTHING from history in context. Those of you - oddly, most of you are liberals (the anti-Lincoln revisionists usually are) - who know anything of history know that you must view history in context.
If you look at speeches that Lincoln made before taking office or on the campaign trail, you may find that he restricts his rhetoric with regards to his opposition of slavery.
Context being that half of the country supported it. He needed that half to get elected. View all of his comments with the knowledge that slavery was a centuries old institution in the country and around the world.
Of course this does not make it right, but it does alter the thinking of men living in these times, serving to stem the tide of serious thought and debate on the subject. There was also a very powerful pro-slavery lobby in local and national politics at that time. Alas, let’s look at what Lincoln wrote in private letters during his life:
“You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.”
–From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes."
–From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
“This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave.”
–From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce
[/quote]
You know that Lincoln was as liberal as a representative from Illinois could be back then you know? He wasn’t a “republican” or a “democrat” by todays terms at all.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
I am getting sick and tired of all this anti-Lincoln shit-talk. Mainly because it’s inaccurate. You have to view ANYTHING from history in context. Those of you - oddly, most of you are liberals (the anti-Lincoln revisionists usually are) - who know anything of history know that you must view history in context.
If you look at speeches that Lincoln made before taking office or on the campaign trail, you may find that he restricts his rhetoric with regards to his opposition of slavery.
Context being that half of the country supported it. He needed that half to get elected. View all of his comments with the knowledge that slavery was a centuries old institution in the country and around the world.
Of course this does not make it right, but it does alter the thinking of men living in these times, serving to stem the tide of serious thought and debate on the subject. There was also a very powerful pro-slavery lobby in local and national politics at that time. Alas, let’s look at what Lincoln wrote in private letters during his life:
“You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.”
–From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes."
–From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
“This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave.”
–From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce
You know that Lincoln was as liberal as a representative from Illinois could be back then you know? He wasn’t a “republican” or a “democrat” by todays terms at all.
[/quote]
Oh, no. I didn’t KNOW that. I hate him now.
There is a difference between Lincoln’s brand of ‘liberalism’ and what we see out of the leftists today. For instance, read some of Lincoln’s speeches and see how often he mentions God. Today’s liberals only do that in an election year.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
As a great admirer of Dr. King’s, …[/quote]
That’s your first lie in this thread.
Lincoln was neither a liberal (modern understanding) nor a radical - this, according to Lincoln himself.
Nobody is a radical by his own standards.