Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "What the History Books Got Wrong About MLK and His Radicalism | Op-Ed | NowThis" video.

  1. ​ @enerzise3161  Good try, but you are simply making stuff up out of thin air. Lincoln was a Unionist and a Founder of the Republican Party, hence a Republican as part of his definition -- but before Mark Hanna turned it into the party or business. Even as the party of business, it was the party of Carnegie, a Pacifist who refused to roll armor-plate for the Navy. Your version of Lincoln's learning German is a flat-out 180-degree lie. The Germans of Illinois were Lincoln's anti-slavery allies and supporters. It is no surprise that you post anonymously: any honest, i.e. old-time, Republican would be ashamed to know the person who wrote your dishonest post. Reparations? Lincoln's promise to the freed slaves was "Forty acres and a mule." At today's prices, call it a good suburban house and car. What'll you have, a quarter of a million? Or a half? The second half of your post, however, is correct. You have the Betsy DeVos program for the destruction of the education system quite right. Extreme Right.
    7
  2. I think that when Professor Glaude says King was "more radical than we knew," he's speaking from inside the professoriate's bubble. Out here in the real world, we think of King as Malcolm's conservative brother-in-arms.
    6
  3.  @tahaghassemi2381  By comparison with Malcolm? He was obviously more conservative than Malcolm.
    4
  4. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." Rendered taboo by WWI because so many German-Americans were Social Democrats. Lincoln taught himself German while he was in Congress so that he could read the newspapers of his German-speaking constituents back home -- and some of their ethos surely made him the great President he became.
    3
  5.  @hopedream11  Exactly.
    3
  6. Michael, Well said! In 1968 I was the office boy/administrator of "The Commons: An Institute of the Independent Sector" in Washington, D.C. This was an attempt by all the mainline churches (and a smattering, because that's all we could get, of Jesuits and Maryknolls) to create a RAND-style research operation dedicated to the obviously necessary social change then underway. Sadly, it failed. Despite or because of the overtly K Street style? Who knows. We did a bit of good and then winked out. So yes, you have the times and the atmospheres dead to rights. In part this is because the "today's church" we all see is not really a church: it is the brash, profitable excrescence of the Junior Falwells and his type. I think that tens of millions of copies of Ayn Rand have soaked into the ground (700,000 copies in Hungary, for instance, the last time I looked a few years ago). America's view of humanity has been polluted by this evil woman's writing, and the people who fell under her spell now pay their mites to things one would have called covens rather than churches in the past.
    3