March on Washington Had More Radical Roots Than Remembered

[TheDemSocialist]

Historian William P. Jones joins Gwen Ifill to offer an overview of how the March on Washington came to be, why President Kennedy feared it would cause negative aftermath and what roles women of color played on that historic day. Their discussion is one a series of conversations looking back at the legacy of August 28, 1963.

Video @: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plsZoBRAxoI

People often forget that the civil rights movement goes way beyond just civil rights. It was anti war, pro public works, pro economic justice, and pro social justice. It was a movement that has many radicals in it and demanded more than just equal rights for blacks and whites.

 

[Fisher]

how has that demand for reparations worked out?

 

[apdst]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Video @: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plsZoBRAxoI

People often forget that the civil rights movement goes way beyond just civil rights. It was anti war, pro public works, pro economic justice, and pro social justice. It was a movement that has many radicals in it and demanded more than just equal rights for blacks and whites.

IOW, it was a buncha facso-commies?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

IOW, it was a buncha facso-commies?

Yes... It was two opposing ideologies which direcly contradict each other... Im glad you took a basic political philosophy class.

 

[Fiddytree]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Video @: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plsZoBRAxoI

People often forget that the civil rights movement goes way beyond just civil rights. It was anti war, pro public works, pro economic justice, and pro social justice. It was a movement that has many radicals in it and demanded more than just equal rights for blacks and whites.

Give names. A Philip Randolph, The Messenger, etc. Yes, American radicalism shaped the march.

 

[apdst]

Yes... It was two opposing ideologies which direcly contradict each other... Im glad you took a basic political philosophy class.

You're basically saying that the civil rights movement didn't have anything to do with civil rights. Civil rights "leaders" got American troops killed, because they werr hungry for political power.

 

[Grendel]

You're basically saying that the civil rights movement didn't have anything to do with civil rights. Civil rights "leaders" got American troops killed, because they werr hungry for political power.

No, corrupt and greedy politicians and industrialists got American troops killed when they sent them into Viet Nam to generate revenue for the war industry.

Yes... It was two opposing ideologies which direcly contradict each other... Im glad you took a basic political philosophy class.

My guess, "The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies." (That's what he calls his show.)

 

[apdst]

No, corrupt and greedy politicians and industrialists got American troops killed when they sent them into Viet Nam to generate revenue for the war industry.

That idea has been and always been an insult to every man and woman that has and will ever wear the uniformed of the United States armed services. It's absolutely demeaning to our service members to say that they died to make someone rich, when it's obvious to anyone with half a brain knows that the threat of the spread of Communism was the greatest threat to the globe, in recorded history.

 

[Grendel]

That idea has been and always been an insult to every man and woman that has and will ever wear the uniformed of the United States armed services. It's absolutely demeaning to our service members to say that they died to make someone rich, when it's obvious to anyone with half a brain knows that the threat of the spread of Communism was the greatest threat to the globe, in recorded history.

What's demeaning is that it's true, not that it's said. We were defending colonialism and fighting against democratic elections in Viet Nam. Over a bunch of rice paddys and fish. The only strategic value of the fight was that it made a lot of people rich.

Identifying the reality of massively corrupt people in the government isn't demeaning to anyone. Ignoring it and letting it keep happen, however, is criminally negligent.

 

[apdst]

What's demeaning is that it's true, not that it's said. We were defending colonialism and fighting against democratic elections in Viet Nam. Over a bunch of rice paddys and fish. The only strategic value of the fight was that it made a lot of people rich.

Identifying the reality of massively corrupt people in the government isn't demeaning to anyone. Ignoring it and letting it keep happen, however, is criminally negligent.

Your proof? Thanks!

 

[Grendel]

Your proof? Thanks!

Here. Best of luck.

Google

 

[apdst]

Here. Best of luck.

Google

That's your evidence? :lamo