Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream”

varnull.adityamukerjee.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 234 posts

Re: Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream”

#201

Post by moocowduckquack »

Steko wrote: post #199
moocowduckquack wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First one that comes to mind is its length. Unlike the Gettysburg Address, this isn't some short speech that could be easily recited from memory." You are probably not learning it for recital to prove how clever you are, you are presumably reading it for study and analysis. "Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly imagine people objecting to having the speech presented in a sec…

"On that basis you couldn't have US school textbooks with translations of the letters of Christopher Columbus in them" I don't know what your point is, most school textbooks don't include Colombus' letters either. And it's not that history textbooks can't include religious content but the more religious content there is the less likely you're going to see it in a secular textbook, grandparent is precisely right.

How on earth do you think you can you avoid including religious content in history textbooks, irrespective of the secularity of the school? You'd have to cut nearly all of it.

Besides I would have thought that a secular school would be one where you would see the widest range of religious content when studying history, as it would be less likely to be biased in favour of any religion in particular.

edit - the following is from a US lesson plan on Christopher Columbus for history teachers in public schools;

"In this unit, students will work with primary source documents written by Christopher Columbus around the time of his voyage to the New World, and with secondary source documents written at a later date. They also have a chance to write their own secondary source material in this unit. Using both primary and secondary source documents within a single unit gives students an opportunity to see the difference between these two types of documents. You may wish to have students work alone or in small groups to read and interpret these documents. Groups could be based on areas of interest (especially for analyzing the scholarly documents), or could allow students with stronger reading skills to help others work through the source documents."

and

"The desire to bring Christianity to native peoples was essential to European exploration. It is a topic that cannot be ignored in discussions of Columbus"

http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/what-was-columbus-thin...

Re: Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream”

#202

Post by teh_klev »

krschultz wrote: post #86
slg wrote: post #23

I have to disagree with part of the premise. While the speech is copyrighted, that might not be the reason most people haven't read or seen the entirety of the speech. If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. There are probably a variety of other reasons why you don't see this speech taught in schools. First one that comes to mind is its length. Unl…

I really don't think references to religion are a problem. My AP English class read parts of the Bible itself - because it has significant literary and historic importance even if you don't view it as a religious text. This is in a secular public school in a very liberal state only recently. Nobody objected, because if you start going down that road, you will have to throw out pretty much everything written before 18…

Indeed, there's a world of difference between reading religious texts or listening to material that may make reference to religious matter, for the purpose of comprehension or understanding historical context etc, and it being used for proselytism.

Re: Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream”

#203

Post by moocowduckquack »

res0nat0r wrote: post #178
betterunix wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"for every case like the King speech there are plenty more that are examples of its benefit." Easy to say, but where is the proof? Bear in mind the history of copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_anne

There are not benefits to copyright?

Not plenty more benefits for every case in deficit.

Re: Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream”

#204

Post by nkurz »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #100
slg wrote: post #23

I have to disagree with part of the premise. While the speech is copyrighted, that might not be the reason most people haven't read or seen the entirety of the speech. If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. There are probably a variety of other reasons why you don't see this speech taught in schools. First one that comes to mind is its length. Unl…

There was a PBS Documentary, "Eyes on the Prize" which we bought on DVD as part of our home school curriculum. Then it was taken off the market as a dispute arose between the King family estate[1] and PBS. The King family gave only enough copy right to show the program on PBS, once. And any other use was not sanctioned, we loaned our copy to the high school so that they could show it to their students. It was such a…

I supported Downhill Battle's copywrite civil disobedience, and hosted viewings in my home at the time. I'm glad to see that an official version has been released, and that hopefully it will not be forgotten. Out of curiousity, was your copy the $40 "Home Version" (http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=3999340) or the $260 "Educator's Version" (http://teacher.shop.pbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=2445...) that includes licensing for classroom use?

Re: Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream”

#205

Post by Zimahl »

e12e wrote: post #183
Zimahl wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none. Obviously he wasn't correct otherwise MLK would've been unsuccessful.

MLK was murdered, remember? At any rate, MLK didn't exist in a vacuum. It is quite possible that the movement, if it only consisted of people that aligned with MLK, wouldn't have been as successful?

MLK was murdered, remember?

As was Ghandi.

MLK being assassinated doesn't doesn't change the fact that his focus on non-violence was more successful than the contrary position taken by the Black Panthers.

I tend to believe that things happen because they must. It was undeniable that the CRA was going to happen but without strong support from all over the nation due to the tempered approach espoused by MLK, who knows when it would've been realized.

Re: Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream”

#206

Post by Zimahl »

philwelch wrote: post #136
Zimahl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MLK decided to use peaceful civil disobedience following the lead of Ghandi. Peaceful protest doesn't lead to a majority backlash, whereas aggressive, militant tactics do. MLK and his movement are remembered for boycotts and protest leading to the Civil Rights Act. The Black Panthers are remembered as being violent and divisive. For all the good you do can be wiped out in one instant by a single bad.

MLK would never have been listened to had there not been black men willing to fight for their freedom. The idea that freedom must be won peacefully, by the consent of one's oppressors, would have been alien to George Washington, to the French revolutionaries, to the slaves held in bondage in Southern plantations freed only through a bloody war. It takes a very biased viewpoint to blame the Black Panthers for being vi…

It takes a very biased viewpoint to blame the Black Panthers for being violent when they only arose after decades of police brutality and lynchings and KKK terrorism.

Based in California. I'm not saying that there wasn't oppression in California but if you are going to fight the war wouldn't you got to the front lines? MLK sure did.

So Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are marginalized and demonized to this day while King is venerated.

There are many ways to accomplish the same goal. How the history is remembered is decided by those who were the most successful in their pursuit. It's hard to deny that white folks - the ones who's support was needed to get the CRA passed - were not more interested in MLK's message than the Black Panthers and Malcom X.

Re: Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream”

#209

Post by philwelch »

Zimahl wrote: post #206
philwelch wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MLK would never have been listened to had there not been black men willing to fight for their freedom. The idea that freedom must be won peacefully, by the consent of one's oppressors, would have been alien to George Washington, to the French revolutionaries, to the slaves held in bondage in Southern plantations freed only through a bloody war. It takes a very biased viewpoint to blame the Black Panthers for being vi…

It takes a very biased viewpoint to blame the Black Panthers for being violent when they only arose after decades of police brutality and lynchings and KKK terrorism. Based in California. I'm not saying that there wasn't oppression in California but if you are going to fight the war wouldn't you got to the front lines? MLK sure did. So Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are marginalized and demonized to this day while…

> I'm not saying that there wasn't oppression in California but if you are going to fight the war wouldn't you got to the front lines?

The Black Panthers drove around with guns shouting legal advice to blacks who were pulled over by the notoriously racist Oakland PD. Is that not "on the front lines" enough for you?[1] Can't people fight racism in their own communities without having to move to the South--which, incidentally, King never did, he was born there?

> There are many ways to accomplish the same goal. How the history is remembered is decided by those who were the most successful in their pursuit.

Not true. History is remembered by what the majority of people choose to believe, not by what actually happened. This is especially true when it comes to assigning credit or blame.

> It's hard to deny that white folks - the ones who's support was needed to get the CRA passed - were not more interested in MLK's message than the Black Panthers and Malcom X.

Of course white folks were more interested in the nonviolent civil rights movement than in black nationalism. But if they weren't scared as hell of the black nationalists, they wouldn't have given enough of a shit to care about anyone seeking to end the oppression of black people. Up until then, white folks were most of all interested in continuing to oppress black folks! That's what I mean when I say MLK gave white folks an out. He made it look respectable and noble for them to fold in the face of a black population that was increasingly refusing to accept being oppressed any longer, because he helped them uphold the illusion that nonviolent, democratic change was still possible. And this illusion is the history that we teach our children.

[1]"...groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secr...

Re: Why You’ve Never Read “I Have A Dream”

#210

Post by some_guy_there »

Zimahl wrote: post #205
e12e wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MLK was murdered, remember? At any rate, MLK didn't exist in a vacuum. It is quite possible that the movement, if it only consisted of people that aligned with MLK, wouldn't have been as successful?

MLK was murdered, remember? As was Ghandi. MLK being assassinated doesn't doesn't change the fact that his focus on non-violence was more successful than the contrary position taken by the Black Panthers. I tend to believe that things happen because they must. It was undeniable that the CRA was going to happen but without strong support from all over the nation due to the tempered approach espoused by MLK, who knows…

This is incredibly revisionist. There was no strong support for CRA in US at the time. Entire south switched its party affiliation after the vote, and many northern congressmen only voted after incredible arm-twisting by LBJ and executive branch. The senate faced 83 days of filibuster from opposing senators, and few of them stood and talked for 10+ hours to stop its passage. Only by forgetting the entire history of how the act came to be can one claim that their was strong support in entire country.
Post reply on HN