| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2006 08:45:43 PM |
| Object: |
Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
.
|
|
| User: "911" |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
09 Feb 2006 08:13:52 AM |
|
|
"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33blu111rgifp84vif8qea63u6djnuohc4@4ax.com...
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
Spent her life milking the dream. She has never done anything of substance
in her life except for marrying MLK. And democrats pretending she is
anything more than she actually was is just a crystal clear view into how
democrats exploit African Americans and most blacks fall for it hook line
and sinker every time.
****
Milking the Dream
How the King family trades on the MLK myth
by Jared Taylor
artin Luther King, Jr. was undoubtedly the most famous black activist of
what is known as the civil rights period. He was an adulterer, plagiarizer,
and Communist sympathizer, but even in the 1950s and '60s the white
establishment was hesitant to criticize so eloquent a spokesman for racial
integration. By the time of King's assassination in 1968, he was an advisor
to presidents, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and recipient of countless honorary
degrees.
In the days before the gravy train.
As was the case with Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy, assassination at a time
of national prominence probably ensured far greater fame than would have a
full career. King was a man of abiding flaws that would have become
impossible to ignore. Also, once the traditional "civil rights" program of
integration, voting rights, and racial preferences was achieved, he would
have had to endorse ever-more radical demands-demands that would have cost
white support-to keep from losing the limelight to Black Muslims, Black
Panthers, and other militants. Indeed, although King is still an obligatory
hero to whites, many blacks now think of him as something of a trimmer and a
Tom, certainly in comparison to someone like Malcolm X.
Assassination, therefore, came at the perfect time to establish a glowing
King legacy. It also came at the perfect time to establish for his widow and
children a well-paid profession as bereaved family members of the Great Man
and official custodians of the legacy.
The very year of the assassination, Mrs. Coretta King established the Martin
Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change. It has some exhibits
and a gift shop, but its main job appears to be to cash in on martyrdom. The
family's pursuit of money has been so single-minded it has often made it
hard for others to use King's name and words, and its constant demand for
royalties has sometimes blocked even the most favorable portrayals.
The Kings have copyrighted nearly every word the patriarch uttered, and are
ruthless about asserting their rights. In 1993, for example, the family sued
USA Today, which had celebrated the 30th anniversary of the 1,600-word "I
Have a Dream" speech by reprinting it. The family would not relent, and the
newspaper finally paid a $1,700 reprint fee, plus the King Center's
considerable legal costs. In the current era of abasement, few were rude
enough to point out that such punctilious insistence on intellectual
property rights ill becomes the family of a man who was, himself, a
life-long plagiarist.
In 1996, the King Center sued CBS because it included excerpts from the
"dream" speech in a five-part video series called The 20th Century with Mike
Wallace. CBS had filmed the speech in 1963, and not surprisingly thought it
had the right to its own archives. The King center thought otherwise, and
sued for royalties, giving up only after it lost both in trial court and on
appeal.
The Kings have copywrighted nearly every word the patriarch uttered, and are
ruthless about asserting their rights.
The saintly veil that has been cast over King and everything he touched has
no doubt kept a lot of ugly maneuvering out of the public eye, but by 1987
the pattern was clear. That year, Mrs. King and the King Center sued Boston
University to get back 83,000 King papers the university had held since the
1960s. The King Center already had more than 100,000 such papers but wanted
every single one. After six years of legal skirmishing, the case went to
trial. Boston University produced a 1964 letter from King saying his papers
were to become the university's "absolute property" upon his death. Mrs.
King claimed never to have seen the letter. The university then produced a
letter she herself had written in 1967 acknowledging the existence of the
earlier letter. Mrs. King then switched tactics and insisted King had
changed his mind about where the papers were to end up, but could show no
evidence for this. A jury-including two blacks and a Hispanic-found for the
university in 1987, but Mrs. King would not back down. She kept the appeal
process going until she lost decisively in 1995.
When it comes to suing, the Kings judge not by the color of someone's skin
but by the content of his bank account. Henry Hampton is a black film
producer who made the now-famous civil rights television series, Eyes on the
Prize, which was broadcast in 1987 with a sequel in 1990. In 1992, the
family demanded money from Mr. Hampton's production company Blackside, Inc.
because the series used footage of Rev. King. Mr. Hampton offered $100,000.
The family sneered at this figure and launched what Mr. Hampton called "an
aggressive attempt to get an enormous amount of money," adding that "they
seemed to have the notion that millions of dollars were available." Several
broadcasters that had planned to rerun the series shelved the idea for fear
of being dragged into the suit. When the Kings refused to back down, Mr.
Hampton countersued, charging that the family's threats "had a chilling
effect on Blackside's right of free speech." The parties eventually settled
out of court for considerably less than the $100,000 Mr. Hampton had
originally offered. The Kings clearly think lining their own pockets is more
important than letting other people-no matter how admiring-spread the great
man's wisdom.
Everyone in the family seems to have an eye for swag, and some charge for
interviews. According to a German television company, the youngest of King's
children, Bernice, "wanted to have $4,000 or $5,000 for one interview, ten
minutes."
By the time the Kings got into a fight with the National Park Service, their
reputation for money-grubbing was so bad even liberals were disgusted. In
1980, the family had asked the Park Service to help administer the part of
Atlanta now known as the King Historic District. This sycophantic
designation includes King's house and the Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he
preached. The feds turned the area into the third most popular historic site
in America after the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall in
Philadelphia-and paid the King Center $535,000 a year for the privilege. In
1994, the Park Service started work on an $11.8 million visitor center
across the street from the King Center. Although they had known of the
project for years, the family waited until construction had begun before
pushing for more money. Led by Rev. King's son Dexter, the family announced
the new center would cut into its own gift shop revenues and compete with an
"interactive museum" they were thinking of building. As compensation, they
asked the Park Service to triple its annual fee to $1.5 million. The service
said no.
Dexter King has visited Graceland-twice-to study how the Elvis "legacy" is
marketed
The Kings then held a press conference to explain that the bureaucrats they
had worked with profitably for 15 years were now no better than James Earl
Ray. Coretta King said, "The same evil forces that destroyed Martin Luther
King are now trying to destroy my family. We are more determined than ever
that they who slew the dreamer will not slay the dream." Dexter King claimed
the white man was at it again, trying "to annex this area to control the
dissemination of history." "Our history has always been diluted," he
explained; "we can tell our history. We know best." Of course, the dream
would remain unslain, all accusations of diluting history would be
withdrawn, and the government could go ahead with its visitor center if the
Park Service would only ante up another $1 million a year.
This was too much even for many blacks. Congressman John Lewis, who had been
one of King's collaborators, sided with the Park Service. Even Joseph
Roberts, then minister of Ebenezer Baptist Church, called the King family's
demands "high-handed, dictatorial and undemocratic." Cynthia Tucker, a black
woman who edits the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's editorial page and who
never misses a chance to shout "racism," accused the Kings of "shortsighted
leadership" and "profit mongering." People began to point out that the King
Center is supposed to be dedicated to "research, education and training in
nonviolent philosophy and strategy," but all it does is peddle "the legacy."
The Park Service went ahead with its visitor center but left some of the
exhibits pointedly empty because the Kings refused to turn over papers and
artifacts they had promised.
For years the family took the pious view that King's image was not to be
commercialized, and sued anyone so crude as to try. In 1982 the Georgia
Supreme Court upheld its copyright on all representations of King, in a case
against American Heritage Products, which was selling statuettes for $29.95.
In 1996, however, the lure of lucre won out over piety. The center
authorized a Lladro statue and rushed a series of pins and medallions onto
the market in time for the Atlanta Olympics. A line of King-image personal
checks is now available, and there is talk of a Hollywood biography that
could be directed by Oliver Stone. In 1997, the family swung a deal with
Time Warner to bring out MLK books, CDs, and a web page. Estimated revenue
for the King Center: $10 million a year. Recently, the Kings have rented out
the patriarch's words and image for advertising. Atlanta-based Cingular, a
cellular telephone company, and the French telecommunications company
Alcatel have both run King ads. In one, King's voice is featured with
several others, including that of Kermit the Frog. There is no telling what
could come next, now that Dexter King has visited Graceland-twice-to see how
the Elvis "legacy" is marketed.
In 1995, the family once more set its priorities straight by shutting down
the King holiday commission. Mrs. King had spent ten years building up the
organization, which promoted celebration of the King national holiday. As
soon as it reached a certain prominence, it became a fund-raising competitor
to the King Center. It was best to kill the commission-which only promoted
King and "civil rights," after all-so as to clear the field for the center
that pays the King family salaries.
Another recent money-grub has once again been over papers. In 1999, the
family condescended to let the Library of Congress take custody of the
papers still in Atlanta, in a deal that would keep the copyright firmly in
family hands. The King Center would no longer have to bother with looking
after 100,000 papers, but could still charge fat reprint fees. The family
had had the papers appraised for $40 million, so it pronounced itself
generous in offering custody for a mere $20 million. The library didn't see
it that way. It expects to have full use of personal papers in its
collections, not just the joy of knowing they are there, and gets most of
its materials by donation. Its most expensive purchase ever was a $1.5
million 1930 acquisition of medieval manuscripts that included a Gutenberg
Bible. Even the U. S. Congress, which will usually do anything in the name
of racial atonement, jibbed at $20 million, and the King family is no longer
pushing the deal.
The latest example of eye-opening greed is the King family's demand for a
hefty "licensing" fee to let the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial planned
for the Washington Mall use the King name. In 1996, President Clinton signed
legislation setting aside four acres adjoining the tidal basin, and
promising full maintenance for the memorial, but no federal funds can be
used to build it. There is a deadline of November, 2003, to scrape together
$100 million for the thing, but major donors are unwilling to stump up so
long as the King family refuses to release the name. Tommy Hilfiger had
promised $5 million and General Motors was going to give $10 million, but
they will not write checks until the "licensing" problem is cleared up.
A monument on the Capitol Mall is about the highest honor the nation can
pay. Leave it to the King family to see it as a chance to screw more money
out of people. At one point, they were about to offer the King name for a
flat $600,000 but are now back to dickering over a percentage of the money
raised for the memorial.
There is some fear that Alpha Phi Alpha, which was King's fraternity and is
the group leading the project, may have to ask Congress to extend the
seven-year fund-raising period. General Motors has already provided $750,000
for "setup activities," but that is long gone. At least a third of it
disappeared in September, 2000, in connection with a lavish celebration
announcing the winner of the memorial design competition. It would be a
blessing to the country if the King family's greed were so great it kept the
Mall free of the memorial, but Congress will certainly vote an extension of
the fund-raising period if it is needed, and whites will eventually offer
enough money to satisfy the poor, grieving, bereaved family.
Which, of course, is the real problem. It is easy to scoff at the King
family's transparent greed, but who is to blame? Mrs. King and the children
can be forgiven for thinking "Dr." King was the most important
American-perhaps the most important human-who ever lived. He and Jesus
Christ alone share the distinction of federal holidays on their birthdays.
King, who stands far higher in official estimation than such slaveholding
wretches as George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, is an American saint who
brought the promise of American liberty and democracy to full fruition. It
is whites, of course, who have led or at least acquiesced in a canonization
they could have stopped any time. All the black frauds and con-men like
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and every one of their local variants would
be nobodies if whites didn't pay attention to them.
But in letting the King myth expand to preposterous size whites have sorely
burdened the King family. It is not easy being the child or widow of a
saint. We can hardly expect such people to have anything like a normal sense
of propriety and even less to dirty their hands in the unglamorous business
of "non-violent social change."
What is more, whites no longer need much help from blacks to promote
whatever is meant by "civil rights." They are past masters at confessing to
"racism," apologizing for their history and culture, and promoting
multiracialism and their own dispossession. Why should the King family
bother with that sort of thing when whites perform like trained seals
already? Far better just to get on with the pleasant business of getting
rich.
A good source of information on how the King family profits from "the
legacy" is Michael Eric Dyson, "Legacy for Sale," Emerge, Feb., 2000, pp.
49ff.
King of the Web
he Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change has a glossy web
site (www. thekingcenter.org) that is true to form, complete with "terms of
agreement," to which visitors are deemed to have consented when they visit
the page. The agreement goes on for 3,600 words of lawyer-talk, and makes it
very clear that anyone who wants to use "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s
intellectual property, which includes right of publicity to his name,
likeness and image; his copyrighted words; and his recorded voice," will
have to deal with something called Intellectual Properties Management (IPM)
in Atlanta, Georgia. Not that there is much in the way of intellectual
property on the web page. There is not one sentence of King quotations in
HTML or electronic text; that would presumably be too easy to copy and
distribute.
Every year, the King Center designs a new set of banners and posters to use
in celebrating the great man's birthday, and the 2002 materials went on sale
well in time for the Jan. 21 holiday. Here, too, the center is ever
vigilant. The on-line illustrations of the publicity materials have digital
"watermarks" with the world "sample" stamped on them to discourage copying
from the web. It wouldn't do to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. without paying
the King center a fee.
There is an on-line gift shop that sells gimcracks. We find a King Center
tote bag ("great for kids!"), as well as a special promotion described as
follows: "This unique travel mug has a copper finish and features The King
Center logo. The mug is contained in a beautiful drawstring pouch, making it
a great gift idea." The price is $19.99, and the illustration for the
"unique travel mug" does not have a digital watermark.
Needless to say, it is not hard to find the donations page, where we learn
that "The King Center graciously accepts your donations . . . ." Yes,
"graciously." It wouldn't be like the King center to accept them gratefully.
http://www.amren.com/0202issue/0202issue.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
08 Feb 2006 08:54:49 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 02:45:43 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
<xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
Didn't you hear that behind every great man is a woman...unless you're Rush
Limbaugh.
Figaro
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Olin" |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
09 Feb 2006 01:48:30 AM |
|
|
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
Didn't you hear that behind every great man is a woman...unless you're
Rush
Limbaugh.
In Bush's case? Gannon was behind him.
Figaro
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Truth Will Set You Free" |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
09 Feb 2006 12:09:05 AM |
|
|
Behind Limbaugh there is a man with a large erect penis, and limbaugh loves
it
<figaro72x@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kkblu1d58j4kvcv6saopcmr25qskuqnscg@4ax.com...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 02:45:43 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
<xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
Didn't you hear that behind every great man is a woman...unless you're
Rush
Limbaugh.
Figaro
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Alder" |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
10 Feb 2006 08:55:50 PM |
|
|
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
....sounds like a description of Hillary.
--
* * * *
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven L." |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
08 Feb 2006 10:27:09 PM |
|
|
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
Couldn't you search the Internet, via Google or your favorite search
engine, to find out?
Here's one google hit for you:
http://tinyurl.com/aduvf
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
09 Feb 2006 02:07:47 AM |
|
|
Steven L. wrote:
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
Couldn't you search the Internet, via Google or your favorite search
engine, to find out?
Here's one google hit for you:
http://tinyurl.com/aduvf
She hasn't done anything sufficient to make her an icon. You make like
she was the greatest american of the past 50 years and that's BS.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Alder" |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
12 Feb 2006 06:58:00 PM |
|
|
Steven L. wrote:
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
All I got was a list of scandals.
Couldn't you search the Internet, via Google or your favorite search
engine, to find out?
Here's one google hit for you:
http://tinyurl.com/aduvf
--
* * * *
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
08 Feb 2006 08:49:36 PM |
|
|
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
Ignoramous, GOOGLE coretta king biography
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Who made Coretta Scott King a national icon??? |
09 Feb 2006 08:38:56 AM |
|
|
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
So she married a man some consider great. But what did SHE ever do?
SHE made herself a national icon. She was the black version of
Hillary. Indeed, Hillary probably took notes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
